Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Secession petitions filed in 20 states

Page 10 of 11 [ 162 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Should states be allowed to withdraw from the union if a majority of the state's population agrees?
Yes! 45%  45%  [ 24 ]
No! 21%  21%  [ 11 ]
Oh look, SHEEP! 34%  34%  [ 18 ]
Total votes : 53

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,795
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

25 Nov 2012, 2:40 am

Seabass wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
If a state wanted to succeed then why shouldn't they? We encourage self determination overseas, why not at home? If a state cannot freely leave the union then it is slavery.


You know what? You're the person I've noticed I always agree with, out of everybody. High five! It seems we're on a roll right now.


You might have made that argument under the Articles of Confederation, but we now live under the Constitution, which in fact centralizes much more power at the federal level. States can not just leave the Union if they feel like it.
And as for the charge that having to stay against your will in the Union is akin to slavery is outrageous, as the preservation of slavery had been the reason for the last attempt at secession.
Lastly, there are no conditions so bad that are leveled at any state today that would justify seceding from the country. And having lost a presidential election certainly doesn't count.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



CSBurks
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 29 Apr 2012
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 766

25 Nov 2012, 3:01 am

Since it was the states that formed the Union in the first place, then yes, states have it on good authority to leave the Union whenever they see fit.

However, that is not really economically feasible, since many of these states, like my home state of Tennessee, receive more money from the federal government than they pay to the federal government. Plus there are retired people on Social Security, which would obviously go if Tennessee left the Union.



AspieOtaku
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,051
Location: San Jose

25 Nov 2012, 3:37 am

If all the states secede it would probably be renamed the Independant States of America.


_________________
Your Aspie score is 193 of 200
Your neurotypical score is 40 of 200
You are very likely an aspie
No matter where I go I will always be a Gaijin even at home. Like Anime? https://kissanime.to/AnimeList


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,795
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

25 Nov 2012, 11:23 am

CSBurks wrote:
Since it was the states that formed the Union in the first place, then yes, states have it on good authority to leave the Union whenever they see fit.

However, that is not really economically feasible, since many of these states, like my home state of Tennessee, receive more money from the federal government than they pay to the federal government. Plus there are retired people on Social Security, which would obviously go if Tennessee left the Union.


But not every state formed the union - just the first thirteen. All the rest essentially were allowed to join by the federal government.
And you don't have to have a degree in history to know what happened the last time when a bunch of jackasses started waving the flag of states rights, and insisted they had the right to leave.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 120
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

25 Nov 2012, 1:22 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
Obama is not pro-civil rights well let me re-phrase he's only for it when it is conveinent. If he was pro-civil rights there would be some individuals from the New-black panthers whom would be sitting in prison right now for voter-intimidation, and they got away with it twice now.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neGbKHyGuHU[/youtube]

So the idea that Obama is pro-civil rights is rather laughable.

Btw, the Bush DoJ actually got a conviction but in 2009 Obama's DoJ dismissed the charges.

@ Cornflake

You are giving a false equivalency, Lincoln would never have approved of something like what is seen in the video above.


Oddly, someone posted the exact video footage several years ago.

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postxf153864-0-15.html

And, a lot of the nonsense that you may have heard from Fox News is debunked here:

http://mediamatters.org/research/2010/0 ... ony/167340

Regarding the assertion that "the Bush DoJ actually got a conviction but in 2009 Obama's DoJ dismissed the charges":

Quote:
■The Bush administration's Justice Department -- not the Obama administration -- made the decision not to pursue criminal charges against members of the New Black Panther Party for alleged voter intimidation at a polling center in Philadelphia in 2008;

■The Obama administration successfully obtained default judgment against Samir Shabazz, a member of the New Black Panther Party carrying a nightstick outside the Philadelphia polling center on Election Day 2008;

■The Bush administration DOJ chose not to pursue similar charges against members of the Minutemen, one of whom allegedly carried a weapon while harassing Hispanic voters in Arizona in 2006;

■No voters have come forward to claim that they were intimidated from voting on account of the New Black Panthers standing outside the polling center in 2008;


And, Cornflake: please stop giving false equivalencies. :roll:



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

25 Nov 2012, 4:47 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
Seabass wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
If a state wanted to succeed then why shouldn't they? We encourage self determination overseas, why not at home? If a state cannot freely leave the union then it is slavery.


You know what? You're the person I've noticed I always agree with, out of everybody. High five! It seems we're on a roll right now.


You might have made that argument under the Articles of Confederation, but we now live under the Constitution, which in fact centralizes much more power at the federal level. States can not just leave the Union if they feel like it.
And as for the charge that having to stay against your will in the Union is akin to slavery is outrageous, as the preservation of slavery had been the reason for the last attempt at secession.
Lastly, there are no conditions so bad that are leveled at any state today that would justify seceding from the country. And having lost a presidential election certainly doesn't count.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


But why? Do you think it's right that these states are not allowed to leave? If a clear majority of people of one state wanted to leave the union then how could you morally deny them that right?

Even the Soviet constitution allowed for the republics to leave the unions, which we gleefully supported of course. How can we support self-determination abroad but not at home?

And yes, we're well aware of what happened the last time a group of states tried to secede from the union. 600,000 Americans died. How many of those young do you think were slave owners, how many of them do you think were committed abolitionists? I would imagine not many of them.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,795
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

25 Nov 2012, 5:29 pm

Jacoby wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Seabass wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
If a state wanted to succeed then why shouldn't they? We encourage self determination overseas, why not at home? If a state cannot freely leave the union then it is slavery.


You know what? You're the person I've noticed I always agree with, out of everybody. High five! It seems we're on a roll right now.


You might have made that argument under the Articles of Confederation, but we now live under the Constitution, which in fact centralizes much more power at the federal level. States can not just leave the Union if they feel like it.
And as for the charge that having to stay against your will in the Union is akin to slavery is outrageous, as the preservation of slavery had been the reason for the last attempt at secession.
Lastly, there are no conditions so bad that are leveled at any state today that would justify seceding from the country. And having lost a presidential election certainly doesn't count.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


But why? Do you think it's right that these states are not allowed to leave? If a clear majority of people of one state wanted to leave the union then how could you morally deny them that right?

Even the Soviet constitution allowed for the republics to leave the unions, which we gleefully supported of course. How can we support self-determination abroad but not at home?

And yes, we're well aware of what happened the last time a group of states tried to secede from the union. 600,000 Americans died. How many of those young do you think were slave owners, how many of them do you think were committed abolitionists? I would imagine not many of them.


Letting states leave would, as already stated by others, be the end of the United States of America. Unlike the old Soviet Union, we're not a collection of countries and tribes that existed prior to the founding of the USSR; rather, we all share a common identity as Americans (even if some don't accept that fact).
And the persons responsible for the deaths of those 60,000 were the secessionists, not the federal government doing it's duty fighting enemies both foreign and domestic.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



SpiritBlooms
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Nov 2009
Age: 67
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,024

25 Nov 2012, 5:53 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Seabass wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
If a state wanted to succeed then why shouldn't they? We encourage self determination overseas, why not at home? If a state cannot freely leave the union then it is slavery.


You know what? You're the person I've noticed I always agree with, out of everybody. High five! It seems we're on a roll right now.


You might have made that argument under the Articles of Confederation, but we now live under the Constitution, which in fact centralizes much more power at the federal level. States can not just leave the Union if they feel like it.
And as for the charge that having to stay against your will in the Union is akin to slavery is outrageous, as the preservation of slavery had been the reason for the last attempt at secession.
Lastly, there are no conditions so bad that are leveled at any state today that would justify seceding from the country. And having lost a presidential election certainly doesn't count.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


But why? Do you think it's right that these states are not allowed to leave? If a clear majority of people of one state wanted to leave the union then how could you morally deny them that right?

Even the Soviet constitution allowed for the republics to leave the unions, which we gleefully supported of course. How can we support self-determination abroad but not at home?

And yes, we're well aware of what happened the last time a group of states tried to secede from the union. 600,000 Americans died. How many of those young do you think were slave owners, how many of them do you think were committed abolitionists? I would imagine not many of them.


Letting states leave would, as already stated by others, be the end of the United States of America. Unlike the old Soviet Union, we're not a collection of countries and tribes that existed prior to the founding of the USSR; rather, we all share a common identity as Americans (even if some don't accept that fact).
And the persons responsible for the deaths of those 60,000 were the secessionists, not the federal government doing it's duty fighting enemies both foreign and domestic.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Not to mention, if any of the more populous states left, that would represent a loss to the US as well, in revenues and resources, and it could, in the case of Texas, completely change our border with (and consequently our relationship with) Mexico. There are a lot of ramifications to consider. Texas was a separate country at one point. A twelfth of the US population lives there now.



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

25 Nov 2012, 7:26 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Seabass wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
If a state wanted to succeed then why shouldn't they? We encourage self determination overseas, why not at home? If a state cannot freely leave the union then it is slavery.


You know what? You're the person I've noticed I always agree with, out of everybody. High five! It seems we're on a roll right now.


You might have made that argument under the Articles of Confederation, but we now live under the Constitution, which in fact centralizes much more power at the federal level. States can not just leave the Union if they feel like it.
And as for the charge that having to stay against your will in the Union is akin to slavery is outrageous, as the preservation of slavery had been the reason for the last attempt at secession.
Lastly, there are no conditions so bad that are leveled at any state today that would justify seceding from the country. And having lost a presidential election certainly doesn't count.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


But why? Do you think it's right that these states are not allowed to leave? If a clear majority of people of one state wanted to leave the union then how could you morally deny them that right?

Even the Soviet constitution allowed for the republics to leave the unions, which we gleefully supported of course. How can we support self-determination abroad but not at home?

And yes, we're well aware of what happened the last time a group of states tried to secede from the union. 600,000 Americans died. How many of those young do you think were slave owners, how many of them do you think were committed abolitionists? I would imagine not many of them.


Letting states leave would, as already stated by others, be the end of the United States of America. Unlike the old Soviet Union, we're not a collection of countries and tribes that existed prior to the founding of the USSR; rather, we all share a common identity as Americans (even if some don't accept that fact).
And the persons responsible for the deaths of those 60,000 were the secessionists, not the federal government doing it's duty fighting enemies both foreign and domestic.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


The end as a centralized entity that can trample the rights of the states and individuals maybe. We do share a cultural bond just as we do with with Canadians, Brits, or Australians. That does not doom us to forever being bonded together as a single state. The US has only existed for 230 or so years, the Soviet Union existed for about 70. When does this identity become binging? The country wasn't much older than the Soviet Union when the South seceded from the union.



ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 120
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

25 Nov 2012, 8:37 pm

Jacoby wrote:
the Soviet Union existed for about 70. When does this identity become binging? .


The USSR was built upon the old Russian Empire, which goes back a few centuries.



thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

25 Nov 2012, 8:41 pm

Although I'm not even American I think that Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland should be allowed to withdraw from the British Union through democratic consent, so i'd be a hypocrite to vote no.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,795
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

25 Nov 2012, 9:57 pm

Jacoby wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Seabass wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
If a state wanted to succeed then why shouldn't they? We encourage self determination overseas, why not at home? If a state cannot freely leave the union then it is slavery.


You know what? You're the person I've noticed I always agree with, out of everybody. High five! It seems we're on a roll right now.


You might have made that argument under the Articles of Confederation, but we now live under the Constitution, which in fact centralizes much more power at the federal level. States can not just leave the Union if they feel like it.
And as for the charge that having to stay against your will in the Union is akin to slavery is outrageous, as the preservation of slavery had been the reason for the last attempt at secession.
Lastly, there are no conditions so bad that are leveled at any state today that would justify seceding from the country. And having lost a presidential election certainly doesn't count.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


But why? Do you think it's right that these states are not allowed to leave? If a clear majority of people of one state wanted to leave the union then how could you morally deny them that right?

Even the Soviet constitution allowed for the republics to leave the unions, which we gleefully supported of course. How can we support self-determination abroad but not at home?

And yes, we're well aware of what happened the last time a group of states tried to secede from the union. 600,000 Americans died. How many of those young do you think were slave owners, how many of them do you think were committed abolitionists? I would imagine not many of them.


Letting states leave would, as already stated by others, be the end of the United States of America. Unlike the old Soviet Union, we're not a collection of countries and tribes that existed prior to the founding of the USSR; rather, we all share a common identity as Americans (even if some don't accept that fact).
And the persons responsible for the deaths of those 60,000 were the secessionists, not the federal government doing it's duty fighting enemies both foreign and domestic.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


The end as a centralized entity that can trample the rights of the states and individuals maybe. We do share a cultural bond just as we do with with Canadians, Brits, or Australians. That does not doom us to forever being bonded together as a single state. The US has only existed for 230 or so years, the Soviet Union existed for about 70. When does this identity become binging? The country wasn't much older than the Soviet Union when the South seceded from the union.


That "centralized authority that can trample the rights of states and individuals" in fact had established nationwide equal rights for women, blacks, and gays (well, getting there), when the states for the most part had preferred to keep them second class citizens. Time and time again, it's been the federal government that's defended the rights of the stepped on, while it's the states that succumb to the popular demand to do the stepping. Sometimes, the states - such as in the case of my home of Washington state - does the right thing, and legalizes a civil right, such as gay marriage.
Just out of interest, why are you so eager to kill of the united in the United States?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer