More a thought experiment of sorts, mental masturbation, than anything current or about to occur.
The question is, how would you feel and what would you think today if one or multiple states, via the Democratoc Process (i.e. voting) choose to willfully leave the Union of the United States?
1. Do you feel the people of the States have the right to leave the Union if they vote democraticly to do so?
2. We, as in the U.S., almost universally have supported independence movements around the world in other countries, with some select (and usually US-geopolitical interest-based) exceptions. How would a State or States leaving the Union by democratic choice differ from our support for the will of the people in other Nations that we have supported?
3. Do you think there will ever come a day where the United States willingly divides itself up?
It would not shock me if an uprising occurred in this country with the sole interest of bringing down the federal government or facilitating a change within our government...
I'm not on board with it whatsoever but people can only bend so far, until they break...
No. By ratifying the Constitution, and accepting the benefits of union with the other states, the states gave up the right to do so.Originally Posted by Warfish
I don't think we have ever supported a separatist movement operating within a democracy, let alone one founded by compact among its disparate units, and particularly including the unit now seeking to secede2. We, as in the U.S., almost universally have supported independence movements around the world in other countries, with some select (and usually US-geopolitical interest-based) exceptions. How would a State or States leaving the Union by democratic choice differ from our support for the will of the people in other Nations that we have supported?
No. I think California may partition itself, but the US? No.3. Do you think there will ever come a day where the United States willingly divides itself up?
For whatever reason what jumps to mind is the military and what a cluster-**** that would create. Its the one thing we do pretty good on a Federal level.
It's one thing to have differences over money and ideology but everyone I know loves the protection of the military.
What do we do when the new "country" gets attacked?
Texas legally can. And there are a large number of people down here who are all for it. I don't think it can happen, but at this rate, I wouldn't be opposed to it the way things are going.
So the State has no sovreignty after they've signed the Constitution, meaning no matter what happens, the free people of a State can NEVER choose something different via Democracy?
One in, in forever? Even if (hypothetically of course) 99.998% of voters voted to leave the Union?
That is a VERY interesting position.
Depends on how you define Democracy, and how much you trust certain nations who claimed some form of Democratic representation.I don't think we have ever supported a separatist movement operating within a democracy, let alone one founded by compact among its disparate units, and particularly including the unit now seeking to secede
But it brings it back to your first reply. Once in, in forever, regardless of the will of the people?
I'm curious, as an added question, if the States truly have no sovreignty, and are merely administrative dept.s of an All-powerful Federal State, why have States at all? Why have local Govt., why not simply have local representaives of a larger Federal Govt.? Or assigned adminsitrators by the Executive branch?
What purpose does a State Govt. serve if that State Govt. has no sovreignty and hence no real authority vs. the Federal Govt, a Govt. they can never leave and never overrule?
Depends on what the state signed when they joined. Kind of funny how this conversation goes, and what happened the last time some of the states wanted to leave the union, as they were unhappy with what was going on in the country.
No, no it can't. See the Supreme Court's decision in Texas v. White as a good example of why not.
The bottom line is, admission to the Union carried with it an irrevocable commitment to the Union. Otherwise, states would be free to join the union when it benefited them to do so, take advantage of those benefits, and then leave as soon as the balance shifted in the other direction. There would be no reason for any state to enter into such a union.
Think about it. I come to you and offer you this deal: Let's go into a partnership. You support me, build me up, and then when the partnership will benefit you more than it benefits me, I'll leave.
Deal?
Of course not. The Constitution has no exit clause, because with an exit clause there would be no Union ex ante.
Take care Texas, Mexico would take Texas in a few weeks.
So you see the Constitution as an Eternal Binding Contract, that binds all future generations of people for eternity to it, without any form of exit clause or sovreignty other than that which is provided for within the Constitution itself, i.e. a few Senators, Congressmen and the like.
Tell me, what is the legal basis, as you see it, for a Contract that binds all people, of all future generations for eternity to a contract signed 250, 1,000 or 10,000 years previous. Can a contract even be binding, should they democraticly choose to leave it, to people say a thousand years after the fact, who clearly had no part and no role in crafting the agreement, and themselves did not sign the contract?
Are there any other contracts that work in a similar fashion, signed one time, and binding all of humanity in that geographical location to it's terms for eternity with no redress to abandon the contract in total?
And how does this type of eternal contractual binding, of a contract that had no part in creating, no free will in accepting, and have no method of getting out from under relate to concepts such as Democracy, freedom, liberty and the rights of peoples to choose their own destiny? How does this differ from say, being born into illegal immigrant status, or ndentured servitude in the era when such a thing was legal? Once born, you are forced through no free will of your own (kinda like illegal immigrant children) into doing something you had no role in agreeing to, against your will, with no method for escape.
More importantly, would you say that no course of events should ever legitimize the democratic desire of a future generation to choose a different path to that deigned by there ancestors hundreds or thousands of years prior, other than via the mechanics laid down in the contract originally signed?
In a similar vein, could I craft a legal contract today, that would be then be enforced upon my progeny and decendants, make them beholden to it, for all the rest of human time even against their will?
Last edited by Warfish; 06-25-2012 at 04:21 PM.
...to form a more perfect union...
These guys gotta get their opinions together. Either we are a lazy free loading and rude society or we are a gun loving kick azz country?
Everyone comes here for our guns and country music.
And cousins.
Pretty much. At least, binding the States themselves.
Yes. Because each and every one of those people partook of the benefits of that contract in some way, at the very least in the form of military protection.Tell me, what is the legal basis, as you see it, for a Contract that binds all people, of all future generations for eternity to a contract signed 250, 1,000 or 10,000 years previous. Can a contract even be binding, should they democraticly choose to leave it, to people say a thousand years after the fact, who clearly had no part and no role in crafting the agreement, and themselves did not sign the contract?
More to the point, that contract only binds the states, not the people. If people want to go live somewhere else, they can. But the states? They are locked in, with no legal right to secede.
Of course, force answers for legal rights, and if the Federal government or other states breached the contract, that would be a different matter as well (for instance, if the government started quartering soldiers in people's homes and the Supreme Court refused to enjoin it). But simply opting to secede because they no longer liked the deal isn't an option.
Sure. There are plenty of non-terminable contracts, which theoretically, assuming both corporate entities that are parties to them survive eternally, will continue to run eternally.Are there any other contracts that work in a similar fashion, signed one time, and binding all of humanity in that geographical location to it's terms for eternity with no redress to abandon the contract in total?
People are free to leave the geographic location if they want to, with every ounce of their movable property and the full value of their real property. But in choosing to live in one of the United States, you choose to be bound by the guarantees of mutual protection and benefit embodied in the Constitution. The people of, say, Maryland already chose their own destiny, 224 years ago. The people who choose to live in Maryland today have, by that choice, adopted that destiny for themselves. So long as the basics of the compact - liberty, freedom, inalienable rights - are respected by its other parties (that is, as long as the contract remains unbreached) it is unbreakable.And how does this type of eternal contractual binding, of a contract that had no part in creating, no free will in accepting, and have no method of getting out from under relate to concepts such as Democracy, freedom, liberty and the rights of peoples to choose their own destiny?
Except you can escape, by going somewhere else. If the binding nature of the Constitution was imposed as a "punishment", I'd agree with you, the lack of choice for, say, someone "born into a constitutional state" would be relevant. It's not, though. It's simply the contractual state of affairs that exists, with no legal, moral or philosophical grounds for challenging it.How does this differ from say, being born into illegal immigrant status, or ndentured servitude in the era when such a thing was legal? Once born, you are forced through no free will of your own (kinda like illegal immigrant children) into doing something you had no role in agreeing to, against your will, with no method for escape.
Think of how someone else might make your argument, 'Fish: "Sure, America is a democracy, and we don't have the votes to impose communism. But we didn't agree that it should be - we were born into it after that state of affairs was set. So why should we be bound to democracy? We have every moral right to engage in a communist revolt against American democracy."
Do you have much sympathy? Or is your response "these are the rules of the game, fairly chosen and established. That you did not have a personal say in that choice does not make them any less fairly chosen or binding. If you don't like it, get the votes to change it or go somewhere else where you can set up your own rules"
On this compact, yes.More importantly, would you say that no course of events should ever legitimize the democratic desire of a future generation to choose a different path to that deigned by there ancestors hundreds or thousands of years prior, other than via the mechanics laid down in the contract originally signed?
It depends on the nature of the compact. But yes - you can create a corporation (which is in theory eternal), make its bylaws amendable only by unanimous vote of the shareholders (akin to allowing secession only if the other contracting states agree), and those rules would bind every future generation of shareholders no matter how many generational hands those shares passed through. The current shareholders' great great great great etc. grandchildren would have to live with those bylaws unless and until they were amended as provided for in their original conception.In a similar vein, could I craft a legal contract today, that would be then be enforced upon my progeny and decendants, make them beholden to it, for all the rest of human time even against their will?
By the same token, the Constitution can be amended to include the right for states to secede; if that's done, then states will have that right. Without that, however, they have no such right.
You're about 20 years too late on that one.
Didn't you move down there?
As long as I'm not in the PRA (ISA, QSA, UASR, etc.)
and in the USA when it happens great
I appreciate the extensive reply Doggin, although I lack time to address each in turn (busy day today).
Suffice to say, I disagree completely and utterly with your viewpoint. I reject that the willing Union can never be unjoined, reject that the free will of the people can never freely choose to leave, including the lands they own and govern, the contract their forbearers entered, and reject the idea that the Constitution somehow trumps the greater concepts of human self-determination and liberty that allows peopel to freely choose their Government.
I also reject the idea that the Constitution was designed to be an eternal document holding the States in against their will in the future, as many a founding fathers writing would support. It is my view they fully expected it not to last forever, or all the States to stay within it forever.
Although I do fully agree, the Union would never allow it, and would (IMO) kill every single person in the State trying to leave before they'd let that state go. Of that I have no doubt.
Under your system, I continue to wonder why, other than "original intent" and a phantasm of State Sovreignty we bother with having States at all, or State Governments. Clearly teh Federal, in your view, reigns utterly supreme, so why bother if in truth, the State, and the people within, are truly powerless vs. the Federal Govt. outside their Constitutionally mandated few reps as their only real recourse. /shrug.
Last edited by Warfish; 06-25-2012 at 05:21 PM.
Nope. Wife is from the hell hole Houston and Austin is the only Texas town I'm open to considering. I'm just outside DC. I'm agitating for Finland or Canada.
Sorry I forgot who said thwy moved down to Texas. Alexandria is a pretty good town, just expensive.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks