SonicFlyer

So you're admitting that the US federal government is like the mafia?


Finally we are getting some truth in this discussion!

SonicFlyer

You have yet to cite where in the Constitution that secession is prohibited.

hint: it isn't prohibited.

SonicFlyer

Did you know that the 14th Amendment wasn't actually ratified?

SonicFlyer

The document doesn't need to be "interpreted" It means what it meant at the time it was written down. The interpretation idea is a fallacy.

METO Guido

So you know the Mandarin godfather? Made them an offer they couldn't understand.

firefighterplt

How did we go from GenZ whining to the Civil War...? I’m not even angry, I’m impressed.

AirBear

Secession is pretty much a moot point anymore for one reason.....money. States get too much $$$ from the Feds. And many large companies would pull out of those states causing even more economic issues. If we see a "Blue Tsunami" in November and it becomes apparent that because of demographic changes in the US Population the Red States will keep decreasing I think you'll see people calling for secession. But it'll never happen.

rickair7777

Probably not. Although a gross, systematic violation of the 2nd amend. might do the trick (recall a recent pres. candidate stating "yes we are coming to get your guns").

What's different this time is that most of the military might be sympathetic to the rebels, especially if the constitution was in play. If the federal military deferred to the courts and sat out an insurrection, it would be state guard vs. federal law enforcement...

2StgTurbine

The South seceded because they didn't like the result of the election. They didn't like Lincoln because they feared he would prevent new states from becoming slave states. They felt that over time they would be outnumbered in Congress.

This is the equivalent of taking you ball and going home. If the Union allowed that to happen, it would set a precedent. Imagine if states or counties could simply leave the Union whenever a bill they don't like is passed or they don't like the results of an election. It would be anarchy.

Allowing parts of the country to break off also isn't really fair. They benefited from being part of the union the same way airline pilots benefit from a labor union. Imagine if after decades of negotiating a great contract, a group of pilots say, "Thanks for setting this up, but we don't want to pay dues anymore so we're out."

rickair7777

It's not a matter of "fair", that's in the eye of the beholder and ultimately may need to be settled conclusively by force of arms.

The big question is are we a mutual association of individual states, or a single indivisible union? The answer can actually change over time.... in 1780 it was clearly the former, today it is more the latter. But even today those state borders still exist, and will always be a potential fault line if national politics get divisive enough. As long as she remembers her maiden name, a divorce is a possibility.

IMO a big red flag of dangerous (to the union) political drift would be changes to the status and funding of state guards, away from federal ties. Those are almost all integrated into the federal system because of money and past necessity during previous big wars. But there's no reason a state can't establish an internal militia with no ties to the federal military, and in fact a few of these actually exist today (low funding and low key).