Zogby Poll - 22% of Americans Believe Secession is a Right

It is a right, although so is being in the Klan. Doesn't make it "right" though.

It's not a right. It can't be, because it would allow for the rights of the minority to be trampled in the name of the majority.

If everyone in Florida wants to secede and I don't, I can be screwed out of my property and my citizenship?

This boat has sailed. Property is owned, nationwide.

I haven't been paying attention. Who is Todd Palin? And why is he talking about secession?

I believe the matter of seccession was settled definitively at the end the War for Southern Independence.

I haven't been paying attention. Who is Todd Palin?

Click to expand...

A professional snowmobile racer.

robeiae said:

It's not a right. It can't be, because it would allow for the rights of the minority to be trampled in the name of the majority.

If everyone in Florida wants to secede and I don't, I can be screwed out of my property and my citizenship?

This boat has sailed. Property is owned, nationwide.

Click to expand...

Ever hear of the Conch Republic?

They seceded where others failed. Or, at least, that's the slogan. What's funny about it is how seriously some old-timers on Key West took it--and still take it to this day.

robeiae said:

It's not a right. It can't be, because it would allow for the rights of the minority to be trampled in the name of the majority.

If everyone in Florida wants to secede and I don't, I can be screwed out of my property and my citizenship?

This boat has sailed. Property is owned, nationwide.

Click to expand...

While I understand your pov, but wouldn't supporting independance of Cosovo then be a hypocricy?

dmytryp said:

While I understand your pov, but wouldn't supporting independance of Cosovo then be a hypocricy?

Click to expand...

It's not a question of it being a "right" in such cases. It's a question of being able to make it happen.

Groups of people have no special rights because they all speak the same language, have the same bone structure, or worship the same God.

robeiae said:

Groups of people have no special rights because they all speak the same language, have the same bone structure, or worship the same God.

Click to expand...

Many would disagree. Many consider right for self determination, well, a "right".

Don said:

Since when has FedGov not been hypocritical?

Click to expand...

Countries are always hypocritical because they seek their goals at the expense of the other countries. I actually don't find it strange. As donroc likes to point out -- international relations are not about "fair".

Don said:

What dmytryp said. The democratic process doesn't apply to secession?

Click to expand...

No. It doesn't apply to much of anything. A valid social contract cannot be legitmately opposed. Period. there is no "right" to be had, here.

Who said you'd lose your property? The only thing you'd lose for sure is the $70,000 per household share of the national debt, and empty promises from FedGov. The question would center around the government that would replace FedGov.

Click to expand...

It's my property and it's located in the U.S.A. If my fellow citizens can change that fundamental designation against my will, it is no longer my property.

Now, address why it's okay to trample the rights of the minority in service to the idea of succession, to say nothing of future generations.

The Constitution guarantees me that it is Supreme. Barring a clause in it to allow for secession, the U.S. Government is constitutionally required to maintain that my property remains under the umbrella of its protection.

Don said:

...or the same belief that they're being unjustly controlled? Where were you when King George needed you?

Click to expand...

The Revolutionary War was started and carried out by a minority of the population in the Colonies. They won. But they had no mandated right. Just a set of ideals. Not the same thing.

"Been south of the Mason-Dixon line lately?"

Yes, suh, I live deep in the heart of Polk County, Florida. We carpetbaggers have been flooding the state for decades.

Regarding secession, a 7 Days in May attempted military coup by those who see themselves as patriots vs. a "dangerous" President may be more likely if one wishes to be anti-military and paranoid.

It may have been a right when we were "These United States." But now we're "The United States," so I'd have to say no.

Haven't we already fought a war over this? And didn't the Federalists win?

donroc said:

I believe the matter of seccession was settled definitively at the end the War for Southern Independence.

Click to expand...

That's the 'War of Northern Agression", but still, you're right. State's Rights took a nearly fatal blow back in '60-'65.

I disagree with the first (I don't believe secession is a right) and agree with the second (two-party system needs to go).

Secession is not a right both for the reasons Robvowel stated:

robeiae said:

It's not a right. It can't be, because it would allow for the rights of the minority to be trampled in the name of the majority.

If everyone in Florida wants to secede and I don't, I can be screwed out of my property and my citizenship?

This boat has sailed. Property is owned, nationwide.

Click to expand...

and because once you become a state, you become a part of a whole--and that whole is the United States of America. The "People" is no longer the people of your state, but of the whole nation. I'm a believer in Federalism, and I think the interests of any particular state are secondary to the interests of the Union.

Let's look at the Constitution:

Article IV said:

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

Click to expand...

There is no explicit allowance for secession. Other interpretations may differ, but it makes sense to me that the process for a state to separate itself from the Union ought to be the same as to join it--it must be desired by the state, and affirmed by Congress.

I believe states desiring to do so may peaceably secede with the consent of Congress.

kuwisdelu said:

[In the Constitution] ... There is no explicit allowance for secession. Other interpretations may differ, but it makes sense to me that the process for a state to separate itself from the Union ought to be the same as to join it--it must be desired by the state, and affirmed by Congress.

I believe states desiring to do so may peaceably secede with the consent of Congress.

Click to expand...

Except that the Constitution is written as a list of things that the Federal Government can do -- anything not specifically mentioned, is reserved to the States and to the People. Since the Consitiution is silent on secession, then secession is reserved to the States and the People.

It was tried once, and didn't work. That doesn't mean that it won't be tried again. Next time, it might work.

And yes, I am a stong proponent of States rights, and minimal Federal government. For example, looking at their schedules, I see no reason why Congress should be in session more than five to six months per year.

I think I addressed this awhile back, in another thread.

Here in Southern Illinois there are a small number of folks who keep saying they want to secede from the state, and form their own (Springfield south. Some folks in Chicago would prefer that they took everything outside the collar counties with them.)

My thought is that Southern Illinois secede from the United States, not just one of them. Then we can apply for foreign aid.

Duncan J Macdonald said:

Except that the Constitution is written as a list of things that the Federal Government can do -- anything not specifically mentioned, is reserved to the States and to the People. Since the Consitiution is silent on secession, then secession is reserved to the States and the People.

It was tried once, and didn't work. That doesn't mean that it won't be tried again. Next time, it might work.

And yes, I am a stong proponent of States rights, and minimal Federal government. For example, looking at their schedules, I see no reason why Congress should be in session more than five to six months per year.

Click to expand...

But would it, then, be reserved to the state? Or to the People? I would say the People, which does not include only the people of the state.

robeiae said:

It's not a right.

Click to expand...

Exactly correct. Plain and simple. Settled for good via the War Between the States. We are not Canada.

caw

Duncan J Macdonald said:

That's the 'War of Northern Agression",

Click to expand...

My favorite euphemism is "The Late Unpleasantness Between the States".

caw

In the federally ratified state constitution of Texas, Texas has the right to break up into 4 states, without federal approval.

As far as the state's rights to secede, it's interpretive. There's no mention of it in the constitution, but the precedent set is that if you try to secede, you're labeled a “rebel” and a “threat” to the federal government. You're also subject to forced re-entry.