This reeks of redundancy. When George Bush won in 2004, everyone was screaming and crying like little brats and "moving to canada" and everyone who voted for him said "grow up." now that Obama won everyone is screaming and crying like little brats and "seceding" and everyone that voted for him is saying "grow up." Well, hey, those of you moving to canada 8 years ago never grew up, the only thing you ever hear is "bush did this" and "bush did that." Though I am no supporter of that man, it seems pretty hypocritical of you to me.
Hypocritical... this accusation seems to be considered worse than condemnation to Hell on this website. Most people are hypocritical about things in life, we sort of have to be in order to function. That aside, I think you are assuming that "everyone" said they would move to Canada when Bush won, or "all" Democrats. I don't think that was the case. I might also remind you that sending a petition to Washington DC with 20,000 signatures demanding secession of a state is a tad more serious (and insane) than whining "I hate uh-murrika im movign to Canada now!" You seem reasonable enough so I'm sure you agree. And that seems to be the main point here. I believe that many conservatives have proven how anti-American they are and that they are traitors to the country with this behavior. I'm glad they're not running the country. I'd love to see them move to Canada- but I'm also pretty sure Canada would refuse them.
Guess what, no one is seceding, and no one is moving to canada.
Wanna know something else, there are far fewer complainers than its made out to be. There are only a handful of people who actually want to secede, just like only a handful said they'd move to Canada, and even less that are serious about it.
Again, just to repeat what I, and other more rational members of the board have been saying for the last couple of weeks. There are no serious plans to secede form the union, not by anyone, and the opinion is not even a large minority in any of these states.
Just like the amount of people that were going to move to canada after bush won, but didn't were very very very small insignificant minority.
The Last guys who tried to Secede didn't do to well... Plus I doubt any state has the infrastructure and economy to be a successful, self sustaining country. And the rest of the US would just Haze the shit out of em till they came back heheh.
California was the talk when they wanted to make it into 2 states, North California and South California. And you see where that went. And I certainly could not see a landlocked state survive as a separate country without ports. Nor would the US stand for having a foreign country within it's borders. There would be an invasion and the US would get it back that way.
I had a nightmare where I had to kill my California friends in a civil war or be executed. I was also forced to read the Bible and dismiss all of my scientific knowledge. I tried fleeing to Canada, but a couple of my company mates found me and shot me eight dozen times until I was nothing but a bloody mess.
It is almost literally impossible for secession to occur now. The design of the nation is set in stone, and it will not break apart. Back in 1860, when the nation was still relatively new and undefined, it was possible. Nowadays, any state that tries to make a legitimate break will be committing suicide in the world stage. As mad and idiotic as politicians are, one of them are going to go that far. They know what will await.
Actually, it's literally impossible. The Supreme Court of 1868 came to a decision in Texas vs White that no state can secede unilateraly. It requires the consent of the all the states. Honestly, I find it irresponsible of the reporters on this story to completely ignore the Law on the matter. Plus one to the media for creating hysteria where there is none...
Q: Did the terms of Texas's admission to the Union include permission to withdraw if it found statehood not to its liking?
It is said of Texas (and, occasionally, Vermont) that it received a letter or document of permission to withdraw from the Federal Union if it so chose. In the case of Texas, this permission is sometimes said to have been granted at the time of Texas's admission as a state. Other times it is said to have been included in the terms readmitting Texas to the Union after the Civil War.
In fact, Texas received no special terms in its admission to the Union. Once Texas had agreed to join the Union, she never had the legal option of leaving, either before or after the Civil War.
The early years of the United States had seen a great deal of debate over whether states could, in fact, legally withdraw from the Union. During the War of 1812 it was New England that wanted to secede from the rest of the country. Later, it was the Southern states. Secessionists argued that states were sovereign and had the right to withdraw from the Union. Opponents countered that the Constitution created a sovereign union that, once entered into, could never be broken. Eventually, the question was put to the test and settled permanently on the battlefields of the Civil War.
The Presidential Proclamation declaring peace between the United States and Texas after the Civil War, dated August 20, 1866, states very clearly in the following passage that no state had the right to leave the Union (emphasis added in all capitals):
the President of the United States, by further proclamation issued on the second day of April, one thousand eight hundred and sixty-six, did promulgate and declare, that there no longer existed any armed resistance of misguided citizens, or others, to the authority of the United States in any, or in all the States before mentioned, excepting only the State of Texas, and did further promulgate and declare that the laws could be sustained and enforced in the several States before mentioned, except Texas, by the proper civil authorities, State, or Federal, and that the people of the said States, except Texas, are well and loyally disposed, and have conformed or will conform in their legislation to the condition of affairs growing out of the amendment to the Constitution of the United States, prohibiting slavery within the limits and jurisdiction of the United States;
And did further declare in the same proclamation THAT IT IS THE MANIFEST DETERMINATION OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THAT NO STATE, OF ITS OWN WILL, HAS A RIGHT OR POWER TO GO OUT OF OR SEPARATE ITSELF FROM, OR BE SEPARATED FROM THE AMERICAN UNION; and that, therefore, each State ought to remain and constitute an integral part of the United States;
On March 30, 1870, Congress passed the Act to admit the State of Texas to Representation in the Congress of the United States. Likewise, this act contains no language that would allow Texas to unilaterally withdraw from the United States.
Those Presidential Proclamations sound more like terms of conquest and domination. Under current international law involuntary conquest of territory is illegal. Union by it is very nature must be consensual otherwise we are talking about occupied territory.
Post Civil War reconstruction was like a shot gun wedding. Being completely abhorrent to modern sensibilities it might be time to have an abortion and annulment of reconstruction. Re-vote if states still want to be part of the Union then let that ride. If a majority of people actually want to be independent than by what moral authority does the US government justify obstruction of their free will. It is a violation of human rights to deny a people self determination.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The states and/or people are within their rights to secede, and I say more power to them for exploring ways to leave a sinking ship. However, I doubt dear leader will have much tolerance for people not "helping" make his plans work.
If Texas secedes from the Union I am moving to Texas.
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
"...Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and institute new Government..."
Brilliant but unlikely to happen. The petition would need millions of signatures to be taken seriously.
This government has the consent of the governed. That's what the election was for: to obtain that consent. In every election there are winners and losers. Your side lost? Too bad.
Only a total ignoramus about American history would cite those lines to justify secession after an election didn't go your way. They were written against a background of an overseas government exacting taxes and obstructing laws, over a people who had NO REPRESENTATION in the government.
If you think you're being inadequately represented, contact your Congressman and Senators. You know. YOUR REPRESENTATIVES.
Now stop whining. If you really feel that bad, there are 195 other countries to choose from. Emigration is the only "secession" option available to individuals.
Actually, the election means Obama just has the consent of more than fifty percent of the people who actually voted, not fifty percent of the total US population. That's an important fact about elections that tends to get ignored.
That's true of anyone in any election. It's what it meant when I said, "In every election there are winners and losers." If you want a government that's exactly what every single voter exactly wanted, in any country in the world, you're going to wait a very, very long time.
It doesn't get ignored. It goes unstated because it's so obvious, and to complain like this about it is childish.
I'm not talking about a government that's exactly what every single vote wanted. I'm pointing out the error in your declaration that Obama getting a majority vote means he has the consent of the majority of the country and thus has the consent of the governed, which is false.
No, it's true. If a majority really didn't want him, they had their opportunity to say so. Consenting to the results of valid elections is part of the social contract we live under as citizens of the US.
I'm not sure what your point is or what alternative you would suggest other than anarchy -- which would be a state of affairs to which *I* certainly wouldn't consent.
Anyone who wanted to vote "none of the above" had a plethora of third-party candidates to choose from. None of them garnered enough votes to sway the election one way or another.
Sorry, but not everyone is going to get what they want, and when we try to determine a consensus across a large number of people, an election is how we do it. Don't like it? Then work to change it. It's hard to pass a constitutional amendment, but far from impossible.
Honestly. You and all the other sore losers sound like spoiled brats who aren't being allowed a second helping of ice cream.
"If Texas secedes from the Union I am moving to Texas."
have you ever thought that Texas might not want you to live there after they secede? They might put really restrictive immigration laws in place that exclude you for some reason or other. Maybe you won't be able to get a visa.
Secession of any kind would require an astronomical amount of work and sacrifice and I have serious doubts the mouth-breathing keyboard warriors signing these petitions would be willing to provide that.
Holy shit my state is up there Then again, everyone always joked that California was going to break away from the US anyways I don't think it's going to be very successful though, the US fights rather hard for its states :c As for me, I don't think I'd actually mind too much...