Can a state break away from the Union and declare independence?

[AaronB]

Originally posted by: snoopdoug1

Originally posted by: SSSnail
There are a lot of good arguments, but the break from the Union doesn't necessarily has to be violent. As Yllus pointed out, it could be due to a situation where the government was unable to resolve, and the state decide that it would be better off on its own.

Speaking of California, I don't see why it can't be an independent nation. It is arguably one of the largest economy in the world, can stay alive on its own power, and it may has possibly the second highest military concentration in the nation. If everything was to break away as it is, I think California can and will be well on her own.

Aren't most of the troops in Cali part of the Navy/Marines? If so - those aren't california troops, they're the federal govt's troops.

Bingo. California has squat for a military when you take away the bases and troops that belong to the federal government.

For that very reason California couldn't break away using force since it would get wtfpwned from the inside.

 

[Alkaline5]

Originally posted by: chambersc

Originally posted by: SSSnail
In which scenario can a state such as California or Texas break away from the Union? These states are large enough and are economically independent, and could potentially become nations. Hypothetically, under what circumstances will this happen?

Since we could gain new territories and add to the Union, can the reverse be true?

No, can't secede.
Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869).

But if a state declared itself independent, then it would no longer recognize the validity of that decision.

 

[Whisper]

Originally posted by: Alkaline5

Originally posted by: chambersc

Originally posted by: SSSnail
In which scenario can a state such as California or Texas break away from the Union? These states are large enough and are economically independent, and could potentially become nations. Hypothetically, under what circumstances will this happen?

Since we could gain new territories and add to the Union, can the reverse be true?

No, can't secede.
Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869).

But if a state declared itself independent, then it would no longer recognize the validity of that decision.

True, but as has been stated, at that point it'd likely have to defend itself from an invading force of federal troops.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: SSSnail
There are a lot of good arguments, but the break from the Union doesn't necessarily has to be violent. As Yllus pointed out, it could be due to a situation where the government was unable to resolve, and the state decide that it would be better off on its own.

Speaking of California, I don't see why it can't be an independent nation. It is arguably one of the largest economy in the world, can stay alive on its own power, and it may has possibly the second highest military concentration in the nation. If everything was to break away as it is, I think California can and will be well on her own.

Californians like to talk about the size of their state's economy like it exists in a vacuum. It doesn't. California wouldn't be what it is without the rest of the United States. If we didn't have California, Oregon would be our California. California is what it is because of the role it plays in the US. But hey, go ahead and break off. Hope you enjoy socialism. :thumbsup:

And don't bother thanking the US for annexing CA from Mexico, ungrateful bastards.

 

[yowolabi]

Originally posted by: Alkaline5

Originally posted by: chambersc

Originally posted by: SSSnail
In which scenario can a state such as California or Texas break away from the Union? These states are large enough and are economically independent, and could potentially become nations. Hypothetically, under what circumstances will this happen?

Since we could gain new territories and add to the Union, can the reverse be true?

No, can't secede.
Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869).

But if a state declared itself independent, then it would no longer recognize the validity of that decision.

Absolutely true. But it also means the US government would feel fully justified in stopping what they consider an illegal action using force.

The victor will decide if it was a valid withdrawal or not.

 

[joecool]

Originally posted by: Amused
It was tried once. Lots of people died.

yeah, i think they have a name for it ... let me think ... oh, yeah, that's it:

THE CIVIL WAR, STUPID!!!!!

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: SSSnail
There are a lot of good arguments, but the break from the Union doesn't necessarily has to be violent. As Yllus pointed out, it could be due to a situation where the government was unable to resolve, and the state decide that it would be better off on its own.

Speaking of California, I don't see why it can't be an independent nation. It is arguably one of the largest economy in the world, can stay alive on its own power, and it may has possibly the second highest military concentration in the nation. If everything was to break away as it is, I think California can and will be well on her own.

Californians like to talk about the size of their state's economy like it exists in a vacuum. It doesn't. California wouldn't be what it is without the rest of the United States. If we didn't have California, Oregon would be our California. California is what it is because of the role it plays in the US. But hey, go ahead and break off. Hope you enjoy socialism. :thumbsup:

And don't bother thanking the US for annexing CA from Mexico, ungrateful bastards.

If only the British had used that logic maybe the Americans would've just given up before the Revolutionary War. You wouldn't be in the Americas if it wasn't for England, you ungrateful bastards.

 

[chambersc]

Originally posted by: Alkaline5

Originally posted by: chambersc

Originally posted by: SSSnail
In which scenario can a state such as California or Texas break away from the Union? These states are large enough and are economically independent, and could potentially become nations. Hypothetically, under what circumstances will this happen?

Since we could gain new territories and add to the Union, can the reverse be true?

No, can't secede.
Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869).

But if a state declared itself independent, then it would no longer recognize the validity of that decision.

Originally posted by: Whisper
True, but as has been stated, at that point it'd likely have to defend itself from an invading force of federal troops.

Check...

Originally posted by: yowolabi
Absolutely true. But it also means the US government would feel fully justified in stopping what they consider an illegal action using force.

The victor will decide if it was a valid withdrawal or not.

Mate...

 

[geecee]

Originally posted by: mugs
Californians like to talk about the size of their state's economy like it exists in a vacuum. It doesn't. California wouldn't be what it is without the rest of the United States. If we didn't have California, Oregon would be our California. California is what it is because of the role it plays in the US. But hey, go ahead and break off. Hope you enjoy socialism. :thumbsup:

And don't bother thanking the US for annexing CA from Mexico, ungrateful bastards.

Otherwise, all our movies would be DUBBED into English! :shocked:

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: geecee

Originally posted by: mugs
Californians like to talk about the size of their state's economy like it exists in a vacuum. It doesn't. California wouldn't be what it is without the rest of the United States. If we didn't have California, Oregon would be our California. California is what it is because of the role it plays in the US. But hey, go ahead and break off. Hope you enjoy socialism. :thumbsup:

And don't bother thanking the US for annexing CA from Mexico, ungrateful bastards.

Otherwise, all our movies would be DUBBED into English! :shocked:

No, they'd be made in New York.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Nope.

 

[Gooberlx2]

Originally posted by: SSSnail
There are a lot of good arguments, but the break from the Union doesn't necessarily has to be violent. As Yllus pointed out, it could be due to a situation where the government was unable to resolve, and the state decide that it would be better off on its own.

Speaking of California, I don't see why it can't be an independent nation. It is arguably one of the largest economy in the world, can stay alive on its own power, and it may has possibly the second highest military concentration in the nation. If everything was to break away as it is, I think California can and will be well on her own.

Economic power perhaps. But the problem of aquiring enough actual electricity would be problematic. Most of the wind farms you see in states like Wyoming are sending that power to Cali.

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: Maleficus
Texas can!

Yep, they've talked about it for years, why haven't they done it yet?
Part of their argument was :
"Texas is NOT a state, it's a Republic."

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Originally posted by: Maleficus
Texas can!

Yep, they've talked about it for years, why haven't they done it yet?
Part of their argument was :
"Texas is NOT a state, it's a Republic."

Texas secession rights.

 

[SSSnail]

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: SSSnail
There are a lot of good arguments, but the break from the Union doesn't necessarily has to be violent. As Yllus pointed out, it could be due to a situation where the government was unable to resolve, and the state decide that it would be better off on its own.

Speaking of California, I don't see why it can't be an independent nation. It is arguably one of the largest economy in the world, can stay alive on its own power, and it may has possibly the second highest military concentration in the nation. If everything was to break away as it is, I think California can and will be well on her own.

Californians like to talk about the size of their state's economy like it exists in a vacuum. It doesn't. California wouldn't be what it is without the rest of the United States. If we didn't have California, Oregon would be our California. California is what it is because of the role it plays in the US. But hey, go ahead and break off. Hope you enjoy socialism. :thumbsup:

And don't bother thanking the US for annexing CA from Mexico, ungrateful bastards.

If only the British had used that logic maybe the Americans would've just given up before the Revolutionary War. You wouldn't be in the Americas if it wasn't for England, you ungrateful bastards.

Let me throw in the "Only if the French has used this logic, we'd be saying 'God Save the Queen' right now..." for kicks, so quit bashing the French you ungrateful bastards. I love how people brings up arguments like these, as if people owe them something and are eternally indebted. I'm sure California has pay back to the Union more than enough of its shares.

Regarding the import of power, waters, etc... Those problems are being worked on and are straightening themselves out. Just as with any country, there will be imports and exports, as long as the economy supports and balance that flow. Heck, look at Singapore, they import EVERYTHING and they're not too shabby.

As for the Texas vs. White, I read up on it a bit and there were a passage and I quote the court, shedding a slight possibility of seceding without violence:

The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States.

Basically, it can be agreed among the states if an accord is reached thus makes such separation possible, but not necessarily violent.

 

[Soybomb]

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: zeruty
Basically... this is one of the reasons for the 2nd Amendment. If a statewide militia were able to fend off the US military, that is one way for it to happen.

That doesn't make any sense. The 2nd Amendment is part of the United States Constitution, it's purpose is the defense of the Union, not insurrection against itself.

Boy that is so far off its a little frightening. The bill of rights is to protect the rights of the citizens of the US from the powers of the central government. The purpose of the 2nd amendment is enable the citizens to defend themselves from threats on their liberties be it a foreign threat or an opressive central government. The bill of rights protects you from the government, not the government from you.

 

[Ronstang]

Originally posted by: Gooberlx2

Originally posted by: SSSnail
There are a lot of good arguments, but the break from the Union doesn't necessarily has to be violent. As Yllus pointed out, it could be due to a situation where the government was unable to resolve, and the state decide that it would be better off on its own.

Speaking of California, I don't see why it can't be an independent nation. It is arguably one of the largest economy in the world, can stay alive on its own power, and it may has possibly the second highest military concentration in the nation. If everything was to break away as it is, I think California can and will be well on her own.

Economic power perhaps. But the problem of aquiring enough actual electricity would be problematic. Most of the wind farms you see in states like Wyoming are sending that power to Cali.

That and water. Colorado would simply cut them off and they would all dehydrate. Texas would cut off part of their electricity....boom...CA collapses.

BTW Texas is the ONLY state in the union capable of being on it's own. We have, produce, or are capable of producing all that the population of the state would need. We are energy independent and export a large portion of that energy. I know all the Texas haters out there but the US would be in serious trouble without us just because of our energy.

 

[judasmachine]

Never studied American History I see...

 

[blakeatwork]

Originally posted by: Linflas

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Originally posted by: Maleficus
Texas can!

Yep, they've talked about it for years, why haven't they done it yet?
Part of their argument was :
"Texas is NOT a state, it's a Republic."

Texas secession rights.

LOL!

So texas is the Quebec of the US?

LOL!

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: blakeatwork

Originally posted by: Linflas

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Originally posted by: Maleficus
Texas can!

Yep, they've talked about it for years, why haven't they done it yet?
Part of their argument was :
"Texas is NOT a state, it's a Republic."

Texas secession rights.

LOL!



Yep, and they talk just about as funny as them thar Frenchies do...
So texas is the Quebec of the US?

LOL!

 

[soydios]

South Carolina tried this about a hundred and fifty years ago. Then-President Abraham Lincoln said no. The Civil War decided that Lincoln was right.

 

[IAteYourMother]

Originally posted by: BigDH01

Originally posted by: SSSnail
There are a lot of good arguments, but the break from the Union doesn't necessarily has to be violent. As Yllus pointed out, it could be due to a situation where the government was unable to resolve, and the state decide that it would be better off on its own.

Speaking of California, I don't see why it can't be an independent nation. It is arguably one of the largest economy in the world, can stay alive on its own power, and it may has possibly the second highest military concentration in the nation. If everything was to break away as it is, I think California can and will be well on her own.

I've seen this argument a lot, but I've never had anyone give me the stats on food. Is California a net importer or exporter of food? I really don't know the answer, just wondering if anyone does.

CA makes a sh!tload of food

 

[f4phantom2500]

http://www.snopes.com/history/american/texas.asp
http://tafkac.org/politics/texas_secession_rights.html

Yeah, I know the second one's been listed already, but basically they say that Texas can't secede (although I had always been told that we could), but we have the right to split up into 5 different states. I'm assuming that means 5 new states of the United States of America, not 5 different United States of Texas; it doesn't say explicitly but I assume the former because the latter contradicts the whole not being allowed to secede thing. On a side note, our state is bigger and better than yours .

 

[bersl2]

When in the course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature?s God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is in the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.

Yes.

Now, whether they get away with it is a different story entirely. I don't think governments nowdays are very cool with Locke---especially not ours.

 

[archcommus]

Interesting thread.

How come Californians and Texans think they're the sh!t but no one from other states says the same about theirs? Are those two states just extra stuck up?

Original 13 colonies FTW.