Sigh. If you’d really like me to, I can start making ten page posts at a time, defining every single thing I say in as many terms as possible. Alaska can’t support itself as a nation. Oil alone does not a country make (no jokes about the Middle East please). You need food, you need a government. You need a school system and public services. Alaska could certainly earn a lot of money, but that alone isn’t enough.
-Psi Cop
One page would be sufficient if you had a point and it was relevant. Other countries survive on a lot less population than Alaska. They have their own governments, they have school systems, nor do they have their vast oil reserves either. Need some examples? As for food, there are places to grow it in Alaska, but if they needed more, there also is hydroponics in greenhouses. But hey, no need for even that, they can trade for it with other countries with their oil or forest products, if they wanted to.
JZ
Now, now. You’re starting to turn a bit hostile towards me. My point/question was this:
You had a two sentance sarcastic retort about why they could become a country. My rhetorical question was why it would be better off like that. Not if it could survive like that. You still haven’t answered that. The point of my second post is to say that Alaska has all of that with support from the Federal government. It would be harder without them.
I’m really still waiting for a direct response with reasons why Alaska would be better off outside of the union. Or any other state.
-Psi Cop
Are you going to ever elaborate why it would be so hard for them? After all, you made the original assertion that they couldn’t support themselves as a independent country, so let’s not talk about who hasn’t answered what. Their oil, fishing industry, forest products, and other minerals, wouldn’t have them just getting by either. Iceland has a hell of a lot less in resources, but has one of the highest standard of livings in the world and theirs is only basically a fishing industry. They have a per capita income of over $30,000 US with an unemployment rate of 1.9%. Their small population, is less than half of Alaska’s, but it hasn’t kept them from having social programs or schools. Their literacy rate is virtually 100%. Their crime rate is so low, the cops don’t even carry guns.
I guess the question of whether Alaska would be better off depends on whether or not the US would voluntarily let them succeed without war, and how all of that would sort itself out.
JZ
Oh, yes. Without a doubt it could happen. As recently as 1998 it was put to a plebiscite (non-binding on Congress). I’m pretty certain that had the citizens in Puerto Rico voted to become a state the process would have begun. I’m also pretty certain that had they elected to become an independent country that process would have begun as well.
Doesn’t the Federal government have a duty to protect the rights of its citizens?
If a state voted to leave the union there would doubtless be a minority of people within that state who would vote to stay. Their rights as US citizens would be compltely obliterated.
The state can not deny people of their constitutional rights. The majority of people in a state can not deny the minority of the people within that state their rights.
Dr. Lizardo, if you’re looking for a text-based restriction on unilateral state secession, I would suggest you start with Article VI, which establishes the supremacy of the U.S. Constitution:
Thus, when a state joined the Union, it voluntarily surrendered part of its sovereignty and accepted that the U.S. Constitution would take priority over the state constitution and state laws. That includes the application of federal laws in the state, by the combined effect of Article VI and Article I, s. 8, which sets out the legislative power of the federal Congress.
Further, the state will have accepted that the only way amendments can be made to the U.S. Constitution is by way of the amending formula in Article V.
An attempt by a state to unilaterally secede by an act of its legislature would infringe the supremacy clause, by placing state law above the U.S. Constitution. It would also amount to a unilateral amendment to the U.S. Constitution, something which Article V forbids to the states, acting individually.
Nor would the Tenth Amendment assist your argument, since Article V delegates to the federal Congress the power to initiate constitutional amendments, either on its own decision, or when petitioned to do so by two-thirds of the states. A single state does not have the power to initiate constitutional amendments, and certainly does not have the power to pass a unilateral constitutional amendment.
Similarly, while the Ninth Amendment preserves unenumerated, individual rights, those too must be read in light of the supremacy clause. If the Ninth Amendment preserves an individual right to secede, it would also include an individual right not to obey federal law, which also obtains its authority from Article VI. That broad an interpretation of the Ninth Amendment would completely undercut the purpose of the federal Constitution, which suggests that the purpose of the Ninth Amendment is more limited, to foreclose any argument that the passage of the Bill of Rights extinguished rights based on common law or other statutes that were not included in the Bill of Rights. The Ninth Amendment ensures that the first eight articles of the Bill of Rights are not taken for an exhaustive list of individual rights. However, the Ninth Amendment must be read along with the rest of the U.S. Constitution, including the supremacy clause and the amending formula. Where the U.S. Constitution expressly deals with an issue, as it does in these provisions, the Ninth Amendment would not have any role to play.
No. The Court held that secession was such a serious matter that if a province indicated substantial support by the provincial population for secession (e.g. - by an unambiguous result in a referendum), then the federal government and the other provinces would have to sit down and negotiate the issues with that province. By implication, if changes were agreed upon, they would have to be implemented by means of constitutional amendments, under the amending formula set out in Part V of the Constitution Act, 1982, which mandates provincial involvement, not just the federal Parliament.
For full details, see: Reference re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217.