Secession:possible?

[DrDeth]

@benbo1

With all the …obvious election fraud, …Assuming the White House will not grant the peaceful request to secede,..

Cite?

And why would the White House (even if it could) grant one citizen in a thousand the right to make the other 999 leave the Union?

Now, sure, if they could show that even 51% of a State wanted to secede, we’d have to treat the idea with some concern and seriousness. But we’re talking about 1 in 1000. Hell, you can get one person in a thousand to do or ask for anything, including making Obama President and Pope for Life. :rolleyes:

[jasg]

Why not solve two issues at the same time? Allow everyone in Puerto Rico to move to the mainland and let all the secessionists move to PR. We could set up some sort of property exchange or lottery. Let them take their savings and IRA’s as gold - we won’t miss the taxes since they are no longer part of Social Security or Medicare.

Then set them adrift in the Atlantic as their own sovereign nation. Should be fun to watch them write a constitution and set up a government.

[Lumpy]

Probably secession could be done if the state governments convened a Constitutional Convention. It’s the never-used option that allows the (theoretically) sovereign states to bypass the will of the Federal government.

[whitetho]

@Lumpy

Probably secession could be done if the state governments convened a Constitutional Convention. It’s the never-used option that allows the (theoretically) sovereign states to bypass the will of the Federal government.

More precisely, 2/3rds (67%) of the states can hold a Constitutional Convention to propose amendments, but these still have to be ratified through the normal procedures by 3/4ths (75%) of the states.

[colonial]

@Lumpy

Probably secession could be done if the state governments convened a Constitutional Convention. It’s the never-used option that allows the (theoretically) sovereign states to bypass the will of the Federal government.

Anything coming out of a constitutional convention would have to be ratified
by 3/4 of the states, and so would have no better chance of enactment than
an amendment proposed by Congress.

[suranyi]

@Peremensoe

“Louisianan,” typically.

Have you traveled much in the United States?

You’re right that language is a big factor–it’s part of the complex of dynamics that distinguish American states from each other, and parts of states and subcultures within them from each other. (Surely you’ve heard of French and Creole speakers in Louisiana? Spanish in New Mexico and Texas?)

But even excluding everybody who doesn’t speak English first, there is great variation. It’s a big country, and while migration is certainly easier than in years gone by, most people don’t relocate to entirely different parts. (More than one-third of Americans have spent their entire lives in and around the same town. More than half have always lived in the same state.) And if they do move, they tend to be pretty aware of the differences.

While there is of course a certain level of mass culture that is transmitted across the whole country (elements of which are shared across national borders, too), there’s still quite a lot of American culture that is far more regionalized. (Aren’t persistent geographic voting trends themselves substantial evidence of this?)

In my experience, quite a lot of people identify with their state or region, not necessarily “before” the nation, but at least in parallel.

The situation in Canada is far more extreme. To take just one example: Typically, the biggest pop stars in Quebec are completely unknown in the rest of Canada.

[fiddlesticks]

I’ll never forget the pickup truck here Texas that I saw with two bumper stickers. One was colored like the Texas flag and said simply SECEDE and the other was “Country First / McCain-Palin 2008”. And our wonderful governor used to bring up the urban legend about the language in the act that annexed Texas: The Country into the United States leaving open the possibility for Texas to leave the Union at its pleasure.

Texas Exceptionalism is absolutely a thing.

[etv78]

@colonial

In Texas v White (1869) the Supreme Court ruled secession unconstutional and the Union indissoluble. Period.

I asked the OP’s question awhile back, and the above cite was my answer.

[Monty]

@jasg

Why not solve two issues at the same time? Allow everyone in Puerto Rico to move to the mainland and let all the secessionists move to PR. We could set up some sort of property exchange or lottery. Let them take their savings and IRA’s as gold - we won’t miss the taxes since they are no longer part of Social Security or Medicare.

Then set them adrift in the Atlantic as their own sovereign nation. Should be fun to watch them write a constitution and set up a government.

You know the very first article for that constitution would be “only Christians will be citizens.” Then the fur will fly when they have to decide who is and isn’t Christian.

[robert_columbia]

@jasg

Why not solve two issues at the same time? Allow everyone in Puerto Rico to move to the mainland and let all the secessionists move to PR. We could set up some sort of property exchange or lottery. Let them take their savings and IRA’s as gold - we won’t miss the taxes since they are no longer part of Social Security or Medicare.

Then set them adrift in the Atlantic as their own sovereign nation. Should be fun to watch them write a constitution and set up a government.

There is already free migration between the US mainland and PR and such a transfer could be done with only free market influences.

That raises an interesting thought. If PR were to become an Anglophone settler’s paradise, what would happen re: their political future?

[Lumpy]

@colonial

Anything coming out of a constitutional convention would have to be ratified
by 3/4 of the states, and so would have no better chance of enactment than
an amendment proposed by Congress.

True, except that a convention could be called directly by the states’ governments, rather than by their representatives in the federal congress.

[Iggy]

@DrDeth

Cite?

And why would the White House (even if it could) grant one citizen in a thousand the right to make the other 999 leave the Union?

Now, sure, if they could show that even 51% of a State wanted to secede, we’d have to treat the idea with some concern and seriousness. But we’re talking about 1 in 1000. Hell, you can get one person in a thousand to do or ask for anything, including making Obama President and Pope for Life. :rolleyes:

What is the benchmark? Some of these petitions call for a free and fair vote on the issue.

If less than 29% of the electorate can elect a president then what margin of the electorate in a state should be required for a vote to secede to pass?

What proportion of the electorate needs to sign a petition to force such a vote?

[RandMcnally]

@colonial

In Texas v White (1869) the Supreme Court ruled secession unconstutional and the Union indissoluble. Period.

Before that was the case Grant v Lee that helped device this issue.

[Polycarp]

@colonial

In Texas v White (1869) the Supreme Court ruled secession unconstutional and the Union indissoluble. Period.

I think the one point that could be nitpicked here is the word “unilateral”-- the Philippines stand as the example of independence frin the US of a former possession done by the common consent of Congress, the President, and the re;evant possession. Not quite on all fours with this, because of having been trust territory, are Belau, the Marshall Islands, and the FSM.

But the basic point remains: just because a few Yahoos wish to mouth off about secession doesn’t mean the law is in any way changed. In fact, this would become one of the points where invocation of the Posse Comitatus Act would be unconstitutional – because the President has a constitutional mandate to suppress rebellion..

[colonial]

@Polycarp

I think the one point that could be nitpicked here is the word “unilateral”-- the Philippines stand as the example of independence frin the US of a former possession done by the common consent of Congress, the President, and the re;evant possession. Not quite on all fours with this, because of having been trust territory, are Belau, the Marshall Islands, and the FSM.

But the basic point remains: just because a few Yahoos wish to mouth off about secession doesn’t mean the law is in any way changed. In fact, this would become one of the points where invocation of the Posse Comitatus Act would be unconstitutional – because the President has a constitutional mandate to suppress rebellion..

White v Texas applies only to full fledged states of the Union. I believe the decision enjoins any basis for secession by a state.

[friedo]

@Polycarp

I think the one point that could be nitpicked here is the word “unilateral”-- the Philippines stand as the example of independence frin the US of a former possession done by the common consent of Congress, the President, and the re;evant possession. Not quite on all fours with this, because of having been trust territory, are Belau, the Marshall Islands, and the FSM.

The Phillipines were never a state. Texas v. White isn’t concerned with the status of federal territories and the text is clearly about the nature of the Union.

[Scumpup]

Why don’t the secessionists, especially the ones from Texas, just move to Mexico and then declare whatever Mexican state they settled in to be an independent republic? A somewhat similar plan worked once before. Of course, this time around the Mexican army is a little better trained and equipped. And the drug cartels, which are arguably at least as well armed, might have a thing or two to say about the matter. It’d all be worth it though, just for the decapitated secessionist photos that would start flooding the internet about 15 minutes after they declared their new republic.

[Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor]

The total number would make a disappointing Rose Bowl turnout.
Meh.

[Colibri]

@Iggy

What is the benchmark? Some of these petitions call for a free and fair vote on the issue.

If less than 29% of the electorate can elect a president then what margin of the electorate in a state should be required for a vote to secede to pass?

What proportion of the electorate needs to sign a petition to force such a vote?

Even if 100% of the electorate of a state voted to secede it wouldn’t be valid. As has been said, the matter has been constitutionally decided since 1869 (and as a practical matter since 1865).

Per the link:

The five to three decision, read on April 15, 1869, by Chief Justice S. P. Chase, held the Union to be indestructable and, thus, not dissoluble by any act of a state, the government, or the people.

In order for a vote for secession to be valid, either the Supreme Court would have to overturn that decision, or a constitutional amendment would have to be passed. Neither is going to happen.

[Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus]

@njtt

I suppose it is possible that some Americans lost land when the river originally shifted, or when teh outlaws moved in, but that was not due to any government action.

There must be some body of law concerning property rights and shifting rivers.