Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 AustonT wrote:
Texas will recieve an offical response. I'm guessing Arizona will too.

Here, let me help with that.

From the United States of America, sovereign, to the petitioners herein:


Thank you, yours truly

Barack Obama, President

It's weird that there's no right to secede. It seems to take away some credibility from the notion that the United States are an actual Union of States... ?

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
It's weird that there's no right to secede. It seems to take away some credibility from the notion that the United States are an actual Union of States... ?

What confidence can there be in a system that will collapse the moment one of its members decides it doesn't like the other 49? Seccession defeats the purpose of forming a union at all. For better or worse its all in.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
It's weird that there's no right to secede. It seems to take away some credibility from the notion that the United States are an actual Union of States... ?

Do Scotland and Whales have the right of secession?

 AustonT wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
It's weird that there's no right to secede. It seems to take away some credibility from the notion that the United States are an actual Union of States... ?

Do Scotland and Whales have the right of secession?

Dang... I knew someone would bring this up.

And for those across the pond. This will never, ever happen.

And if it does how many of those states can form a credible economy? except texans of course.

If states have a right to secede, then the rest of the states should have the right to kick individual states out as well.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
And if it does how many of those states can form a credible economy? except texans of course.

Hypothecally speaking?

Most of these states are countries outright based on their GDP/local industries. In fact, all of them technically are separate countries... in the form of statehood.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
If states have a right to secede, then the rest of the states should have the right to kick individual states out as well.

Who'd you wanna kick out?

I love CA, NY and Illinios (well... I have love-hate with Illinois that I despise the Chicago teams besides the Bears).

 LordofHats wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
It's weird that there's no right to secede. It seems to take away some credibility from the notion that the United States are an actual Union of States... ?

What confidence can there be in a system that will collapse the moment one of its members decides it doesn't like the other 49? Seccession defeats the purpose of forming a union at all. For better or worse its all in.

A State should, to remain a State, have the minimum power to recall the power it has deleguated.

 d-usa wrote:
If states have a right to secede, then the rest of the states should have the right to kick individual states out as well.

We should forcibly secede Los Angeles county.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
If states have a right to secede, then the rest of the states should have the right to kick individual states out as well.

We should forcibly secede Los Angeles county.

Nooooooooooooooo... the babes... THE BABES ARE THERE!

 AustonT wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
It's weird that there's no right to secede. It seems to take away some credibility from the notion that the United States are an actual Union of States... ?

Do Scotland and Whales have the right of secession?

I don't know for Scotland, but Quebec does, and Canadian and British Constitutional Law are very close. It's just that the whole process is tedious... you can argue 15 years wether or not the question asked on the ballot is clear enough to validate the independance...

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
It's weird that there's no right to secede. It seems to take away some credibility from the notion that the United States are an actual Union of States... ?

Article X: "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."

However, the Supreme Court rarely enforces this Amendment:

"The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers." - US V Darby

Several states, including Texas, has introduced laws in their Legislature against any further 'expansive' rulings on the issue, as Congress frequently uses the Commerce Clause to write pretty much whatever laws they like, as everything effects interstate commerce at some point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
And if it does how many of those states can form a credible economy? except texans of course.

New York can.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
It's weird that there's no right to secede. It seems to take away some credibility from the notion that the United States are an actual Union of States... ?

Article X: "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."

However, the Supreme Court rarely enforces this Amendment:

"The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers." - US V Darby

Several states, including Texas, has introduced laws in their Legislature against any further 'expansive' rulings on the issue, as Congress frequently uses the Commerce Clause to write pretty much whatever laws they like, as everything effects interstate commerce at some point.

Speaking of the Commerce Clause...

No one really brings this up.

But, Justice Roberts ruled that the ACA bill can be imposed due to Congress' ability to levy tax.... NOT by virtue to the Commerce Clause. That's a really ground shaking revelation among constitutional scholars. We now have a limit on the Commerce Clause.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
It's weird that there's no right to secede. It seems to take away some credibility from the notion that the United States are an actual Union of States... ?

Article X: "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."

Up here it's the contrary, the Fed acquires automatically all competencies that did not previously exists. Major source of Provincial vs. Federal drama.

 whembly wrote:

Speaking of the Commerce Clause...

No one really brings this up.

But, Justice Roberts ruled that the ACA bill can be imposed due to Congress' ability to levy tax.... NOT by virtue to the Commerce Clause. That's a really ground shaking revelation among constitutional scholars. We now have a limit on the Commerce Clause.

I didn't really find that too revelatory: States have been using the dodge of calling them 'fees' for years in order to claim they did not raise taxes, but every time it goes before the court, they call it a tax.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Speaking of the Commerce Clause...

No one really brings this up.

But, Justice Roberts ruled that the ACA bill can be imposed due to Congress' ability to levy tax.... NOT by virtue to the Commerce Clause. That's a really ground shaking revelation among constitutional scholars. We now have a limit on the Commerce Clause.

I didn't really find that too revelatory: States have been using the dodge of calling them 'fees' for years in order to claim they did not raise taxes, but every time it goes before the court, they call it a tax.

That's different... that's the state doing that. I'm talking about the US Congress... it was the first time the SC in recent memory that changed a bill's statutory permission, which was empowered by the Commerce Clause. Roberts ripped that out and called it a tax.

Still... A State is a sovereign entity, it must retain a certain semblance of freedom. Otherwise you are just a creature of the higher ladders, like our municipalities that only exists according to the whim of the Provinces.

(there used to be a big fuss in Quebec city when we attempted to merge all the towns, people didn't realize that towns and cities do not have any right regarding their existence)

 AustonT wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
It's weird that there's no right to secede. It seems to take away some credibility from the notion that the United States are an actual Union of States... ?

Do Scotland and Whales have the right of secession?

Yes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_independence_referendum,_2014

 Testify wrote:

 AustonT wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
It's weird that there's no right to secede. It seems to take away some credibility from the notion that the United States are an actual Union of States... ?

Do Scotland and Whales have the right of secession?

Yes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_independence_referendum,_2014

I think you meant "no"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_independence_referendum,_2014 wrote: the Scottish Parliament does not have the power to unilaterally secede from the United Kingdom, because the constitution is a reserved matter for the UK parliament.

 Mannahnin wrote:
I have a lot of respect for people who move to another country. People with the gumption and follow-through to actually do it and leave the fields that they know usually have a kind of courage and will that most people lack. People who've lived in a different country and society, especially with another primary language, IME usually gain a better perspective on society and humanity than those of us who just stay in one.

Absolutely. It's a hell of thing to leave behind the comfort and safety of home, and the support network you had in case things went wrong, to try and strive for a better life somewhere else.

I was having a laugh the other day because my folks were saying how hard working Chinese folk are. I'd told them I'd been to China, and they're as lazy as we are, on the whole, more so because there's a billion of them and over-employment is just how things are. The people who are actually hard working are immigrants, Chinese or otherwise, because they're the people who've chosen to move to another country to build something better for themselves and their family.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ma55ter_fett wrote:
I have a special brand of contempt reserved for expat's, American ones in particular.

If you think there is a problem with America then get out there and do something about it, don't say you're going to run away.

I think you've gotten confused as to exactly why people become ex-pats.

Most of them are just following their careers or better economic opportunities, or simply like the weather and lifestyle somewhere else. A lot of people fall in love with someone who lives in another country and either they or their spouse has to become an expat.

People leaving because there's a problem or they don't like the way the political winds are blowing are extremely rare, despite how much noise people make on the internet about it.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I think Mississippi should secede, just because its so &)(^ing hard to type "Mississippi" correctly. I'd like New Mexico to secede, and then we can dare Old Mexico to take it back.

I think New York and New Jersey should declare war on each other and go at it in the streets with giant boxing gloves, whippy sticks, and the occasional shoe.

I'm told that the Western half of New York will gladly embrace anything that gets the US to either make them their own state or give them to PA. Taxes are a bitch.

not just western new york, but most of upstate new york.

The needs and culture of NYC and upstate new York are vastly different.

The way NYC votes does not reflect how upstate new york votes, yet we in upstate New York are anchored down by them "city folk"

And then they send all the pedophiles, criminals, etc. to my area. Amazing how many people committed crimes in the NYC area live in my area. :(

A counter-petition arises.

 Coolyo294 wrote:
A counter-petition arises.

That's bitter.

A simple 'Feth you very much' would be more polite.

 Piston Honda wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I think Mississippi should secede, just because its so &)(^ing hard to type "Mississippi" correctly. I'd like New Mexico to secede, and then we can dare Old Mexico to take it back.

I think New York and New Jersey should declare war on each other and go at it in the streets with giant boxing gloves, whippy sticks, and the occasional shoe.

I'm told that the Western half of New York will gladly embrace anything that gets the US to either make them their own state or give them to PA. Taxes are a bitch.

not just western new york, but most of upstate new york.

The needs and culture of NYC and upstate new York are vastly different.

The way NYC votes does not reflect how upstate new york votes, yet we in upstate New York are anchored down by them "city folk"

And then they send all the pedophiles, criminals, etc. to my area. Amazing how many people committed crimes in the NYC area live in my area. :(

So pretty similar to Chicago and the rest of the state?

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Coolyo294 wrote:
A counter-petition arises.

That's bitter.

A simple 'Feth you very much' would be more polite.

Theres another one that says strip their citizenship, deport, and exile them.

Browsing the first 60 or so petitions a few jumped out at me as not having enough signatures.
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/grant-full-pardon-chris-williams-man-facing-80-years-prison-legally-growing-medical-marijuana/PgtWfvFg
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/reform-our-electoral-college/m8l9JTDp
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/repeal-defense-marriage-act-doma/SyQNZXNM

 Ratbarf wrote:
Which from what I understand would put the North at a severe disadvantage, as iirc, the majority of the military is made up of southerners.

The Southern states, if we define that by the states that seceded in the Civil War, have about 95 million people living in them. That sounds like a lot, until you realise they're up against 215 million people in the rest of the country. Even if those states had a tendency to enrol in the military more, it can't make up for the 2:1 population shortfall.

Not that another Civil War will play out the same as the last one. Afterall, Florida and Virginia voted for Obama, so it's pretty ludicrous to pretend they'd suddenly switch over and fight against the current Federal government. And at the same time there's a whole load of states in the mid-west that are strongly conservative now that didn't side with the South in the 1860s, if for no other reason than they weren't states at the time. So if we divide population by Obama and Romney states we get a different picture, but one where the final figures don't move all that much - the red states have 112 million people, to 198 million in the blue states (losing Florida and Virginia really hurts that count).

Point is, that's still assuming a best case scenario for the secessionists, as it assumes that states that only just voted against Obama would somehow hold that belief so strongly that they'd take up arms and secede. And even then the secessionists are down 2:1.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Its a false argument. All the states get back more than they pay. Thats the issue. We're running a $1.1 TRILLION annual deficit. Anything else is just a pack of nonsensical statements.

It is not a false argument.

They look at state payments vs state receipts on a twenty year average, over which time many time states have paid in a lot more than they have gotten back. The big losers California and new england, particularly New York. The big winners are the midwest and Southern states.

That is a basic, undeniable fact. The states that make the most noise about how big and horribly the federal government is take in way more from that big, horrible organisation than they pay out.

 d-usa wrote:

 Piston Honda wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I think Mississippi should secede, just because its so &)(^ing hard to type "Mississippi" correctly. I'd like New Mexico to secede, and then we can dare Old Mexico to take it back.

I think New York and New Jersey should declare war on each other and go at it in the streets with giant boxing gloves, whippy sticks, and the occasional shoe.

I'm told that the Western half of New York will gladly embrace anything that gets the US to either make them their own state or give them to PA. Taxes are a bitch.

not just western new york, but most of upstate new york.

The needs and culture of NYC and upstate new York are vastly different.

The way NYC votes does not reflect how upstate new york votes, yet we in upstate New York are anchored down by them "city folk"

And then they send all the pedophiles, criminals, etc. to my area. Amazing how many people committed crimes in the NYC area live in my area. :(

So pretty similar to Chicago and the rest of the state?

Maybe, I don't know much about Chicago or Illinois other than the one day I spent walking around Chicago because the plane I was suppose to board broke down.

Chicago has the best Chili Dogs ever. And first tried a deep fried snickers too.

 AustonT wrote:
Do Scotland and Whales have the right of secession?

I'd think if there was an actual right to secede then you wouldn't really have a country, you'd have an economic co-operative or an alliance.

I think the 'we are a single political entity and that's just how it is and people can't really think of it being any other way' is a really important part of making a country what it is. I think that's a large reason the US shifted from being an a collection of states to a single nation in 1864 - not just because it was clear the Fed wasn't letting any state secede, but also because the people started thinking of themselves primarily as Americans.

 sebster wrote:
Afterall, Florida and Virginia voted for Obama, so it's pretty ludicrous to pretend they'd suddenly switch over and fight against the current Federal government.

Assuming that Obama is the issue, which isn't true in several of the states that have petitions for secession, which do include 'blue' states.

I'm going to utter words that I feel have not been uttered seriously for a long time now, but are probably going to start being said again:

state's rights.


Most of these states have different reasons for spewing this idiocy. NY: taxes, Texas: a wish to return to being their own country, and so on.