Secession Movement in the United States

[Samuraikoku]

Why are you against self-determination?

Nobody forced the States to enter the indissoluble Union. They exercised self-determination then, and they are able to do now. Just take up with Congress as it's how it should be done.

[Ostroeuropa]

Why are you against self-determination?

Nobody forced the States to enter the indissoluble Union. They exercised self-determination then, and they are able to do now. Just take up with Congress as it's how it should be done.

Excellent. So you are 100% against scottish independence along the same grounds?

[Delanshar]

Federal Gov > Texas.

Anyway the point is moot since 65,000 people online (many of whom are from other states) doesn't come close to representing the people of Texas.

Not if Texas decides to tell the Federal government that they will no longer be subject to the Federal government.

If you really want to go down there and start shooting those who are advocating and supporting secession down there, feel free. Murder is apparently acceptable if you deem it so.

Not as a private citizen I can't. But that isn't what I've been advocating. The government is the only entity capable of legitimate violence. If people try to secede, they will be the ones fighting the insurrection, not me.

[Greed and Death]

Texas vs. White. Gotta take it up with Congress. Good luck.

Since the UN resolution on self-determination, that may no longer be the case.
I remind you, USA's constitution says international law trumps domestic.

Treaties, ratified by the Senate trump domestic law.
And the treaty can't violate the Constitution.

[Ceannairceach]

This pertains to FEDERAL not International law. The Federal government and it's laws trump those of the states. This is what we've been saying all along.

You'll notice it also specifically says treaties.
Treaties trump federal law and state law.
Whether or not they trump the constitution is open for debate.

Has the United States ratified any treaty regarding self determination?

[Ostroeuropa]

Since the UN resolution on self-determination, that may no longer be the case.
I remind you, USA's constitution says international law trumps domestic.

Treaties, ratified by the Senate trump domestic law.
And the treaty can't violate the Constitution.

That is open to interperatation.
The US may not SIGN treaties which trump the constitution (Which heavily implies that if signed, they absolutely would trump it.)
But if those treaties are in EFFECT it is conspicuously silent.

[Samuraikoku]

Nobody forced the States to enter the indissoluble Union. They exercised self-determination then, and they are able to do now. Just take up with Congress as it's how it should be done.

Excellent. So you are 100% against scottish independence along the same grounds?

No idea about Scottish independence.

[Ostroeuropa]

You'll notice it also specifically says treaties.
Treaties trump federal law and state law.
Whether or not they trump the constitution is open for debate.

Has the United States ratified any treaty regarding self determination?

UN charter.

[Socialdemokraterne]

I'm going to give you mad props for continuing the metaphor.

But not for anything else?

Anyway, secession isn't even on the table for a state with very, very vocal secessionists (Texas). Gov. Perry has already issued a statement indicating that he wouldn't go along with a secession, and then he used the whole issue to try to shift the argument toward a rejection of the President's policies. Texas won't be seceding from the Union any time soon.

[Ceannairceach]

Not if Texas decides to tell the Federal government that they will no longer be subject to the Federal government.

If you really want to go down there and start shooting those who are advocating and supporting secession down there, feel free. Murder is apparently acceptable if you deem it so.

Not as a private citizen I can't. But that isn't what I've been advocating. The government is the only entity capable of legitimate violence. If people try to secede, they will be the ones fighting the insurrection, not me.

That isn't true, as in many places you are allowed to use violent force to remove people from or to defend your property or person.

[Torcularis Septentrionalis]

It won't happen, but my first thought was, "Shit, more reason to get the fuck out of this state."

[Ceannairceach]

Has the United States ratified any treaty regarding self determination?

UN charter.

Article One, Section Two: "To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace..."

The United States must respect self determination of peoples. That in no way says that they must surrender their territory to people who seek to determine themselves free.

Loopholes. Yeah.

[Delanshar]

Not as a private citizen I can't. But that isn't what I've been advocating. The government is the only entity capable of legitimate violence. If people try to secede, they will be the ones fighting the insurrection, not me.

That isn't true, as in many places you are allowed to use violent force to remove people from or to defend your property or person.

Only in strictly defined circumstances. And these circumstances are decided by the government. The government has a final say on what actions constitutes legitimate violence. And secession is definatly not one of them.

[The Emerald Dawn]

I'm going to give you mad props for continuing the metaphor.

But not for anything else?

Anyway, secession isn't even on the table for a state with very, very vocal secessionists (Texas). Gov. Perry has already issued a statement indicating that he wouldn't go along with a secession, and then he used the whole issue to try to shift the argument toward a rejection of the President's policies. Texas won't be seceding from the Union any time soon.

Well, I can argue that perhaps the people who can be arsed to go on the Whisky House website and petition is actually lower than the actual number of people who feel that way. Your summation is good, but not necessarily convincing.

Thar do be whales.

[Ostroeuropa]

UN charter.

Article One, Section Two: "To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace..."

The United States must respect self determination of peoples. That in no way says that they must surrender their territory to people who seek to determine themselves free.

Loopholes. Yeah.

In legal terms it absolutely does.
To respect a legal principle means to agree it is in effect. If the texans were to vote for to secede with a majority, the US would be legally obligated to allow them, OR to bring it to an international court and argue texas isn't a nation.
(A fight they would lose.)

[Delanshar]

I'm going to give you mad props for continuing the metaphor.

But not for anything else?

Anyway, secession isn't even on the table for a state with very, very vocal secessionists (Texas). Gov. Perry has already issued a statement indicating that he wouldn't go along with a secession, and then he used the whole issue to try to shift the argument toward a rejection of the President's policies. Texas won't be seceding from the Union any time soon.

You know if Rick Perry thinks it's nuts. Then it must be NUTS.

[Socialdemokraterne]

Well, I can argue that perhaps the people who can be arsed to go on the Whisky House website and petition is actually lower than the actual number of people who feel that way. Your summation is good, but not necessarily convincing.

Thar do be whales.

Well, I'll be more worried about the whales once I see some governors and state legislatures behind them.

[Grinning Dragon]

Treaties, ratified by the Senate trump domestic law.
And the treaty can't violate the Constitution.

That is open to interperatation.
The US may not SIGN treaties which trump the constitution (Which heavily implies that if signed, they absolutely would trump it.)
But if those treaties are in EFFECT it is conspicuously silent.

The U.S. Supreme Court has made it very clear that

1) Treaties do not override the U.S. Constitution.

2) Treaties cannot amend the Constitution. And last,

3) A treaty can be nullified by a statute passed by the U.S. Congress (or by a sovereign State or States if Congress refuses to do so), when the State deems a treaty the performance of a treaty is self-destructive. The law of self-preservation overrules the law of obligation in others.

"This [Supreme] Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty." - Reid v. Covert, October 1956, 354 U.S. 1, at pg 17.

The Reid Court (U.S. Supreme Court) held in their Opinion that,

"... No agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or any other branch of government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution. Article VI, the Supremacy clause of the Constitution declares, "This Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all the Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land...’

"There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification which even suggest such a result...

"It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights – let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition – to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power UNDER an international agreement, without observing constitutional prohibitions. (See: Elliot’s Debates 1836 ed. – pgs 500-519).

"In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and Senate combined."

Here's what Thomas Jefferson said on the right to renounce treaties:

"Compacts then, between a nation and a nation, are obligatory on them as by the same moral law which obliges individuals to observe their compacts. There are circumstances, however, which sometimes excuse the non-performance of contracts between man and man; so are there also between nation and nation. When performance, for instance, becomes impossible, non-performance is not immoral; so if performance becomes self-destructive to the party, the law of self-preservation overrules the law of obligation in others".

[Ceannairceach]

Article One, Section Two: "To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace..."

The United States must respect self determination of peoples. That in no way says that they must surrender their territory to people who seek to determine themselves free.

Loopholes. Yeah.

In legal terms it absolutely does.
To respect a legal principle means to agree it is in effect. If the texans were to vote for to secede with a majority, the US would be legally obligated to allow them.

It does not in any way say that they must surrender their territory to the secessionists; The land on which they reside is Federal, and thus owned by the government of the United States, not by the states in question. They are exempt for that reason. The legal idea here is that the wording says they must respect the self-determination of peoples, but that does not equate to the self-determination of the states themselves. The people are free to determine themselves free from the government of the United States, so long as they then take their business elsewhere.

[The Emerald Dawn]

Well, I can argue that perhaps the people who can be arsed to go on the Whisky House website and petition is actually lower than the actual number of people who feel that way. Your summation is good, but not necessarily convincing.

Thar do be whales.

Well, I'll be more worried about the whales once I see some governors and state legislatures behind them.

Your honours, the distinguished Orcinus orca from New North Whales wishes to address the assembled on a matter of some stern circumstance. It appears that someone or someones have been pilfering their, and I quote, "Noms". This is unacceptable.

[Forsakia]

Why are you against self-determination?

Nobody forced the States to enter the indissoluble Union. They exercised self-determination then, and they are able to do now. Just take up with Congress as it's how it should be done.

And you'd apply this elsewhere?

Should England vote on whether Scotland becomes independent? (Or any given example you like).

Not to mention the states did so when the majority of their population wasn't allowed to vote.

[Neo Art]

We tend to do that when people break the law. Make them stop what they're doing. By force, if necessary. Why should we treat secession as different from any other crime? "I don't want to be in this country anymore" is no more a valid reason to break the law than "I want your TV" is.

So you are willing to use force/kill people, if they refuse to be in the Union? Are you willing to pull the trigger, or just to push the button for the drone strike? Are you sure you are willing to kill people to enforce your morality/law upon them?

Am I willing to kill people to enforce my law? No, I'm neither an officer of the law nor in the military. I have not chosen to enter into those profession. Now, to rephrase your question in a way I think you meant, do I support law enforcement officers using deadly force in order to enforce the law? What a silly quesiton. Of course I do. An individual who violates the law should be prevented from violating the law, by force if necessary. If the use of non lethal force fails, and the individual escallates his resistance to the point where he poses a legitmate risk to the lives of those around him, then the officer of the law should take his life. I absolutely support the right to use lethal force when necessary to uphold the law.

[Socialdemokraterne]

Your honours, the distinguished Orcinus orca from New North Whales wishes to address the assembled on a matter of some stern circumstance. It appears that someone or someones have been pilfering their, and I quote, "Noms". This is unacceptable.

All those in favor of the proposed measure to make nom pilfering a capital offence, say "BWA---------G------H".

[Delanshar]

Article One, Section Two: "To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace..."

The United States must respect self determination of peoples. That in no way says that they must surrender their territory to people who seek to determine themselves free.

Loopholes. Yeah.

In legal terms it absolutely does.
To respect a legal principle means to agree it is in effect. If the texans were to vote for to secede with a majority, the US would be legally obligated to allow them, OR to bring it to an international court and argue texas isn't a nation.
(A fight they would lose.)

All this means is that people who don't want to be ruled by the United States should be allowed to leave. Which they are. It does NOT mean that anybody anywhere in the country can secede and form their own nation. Whether it be the state of Texas or my mom's country house, you can't just break off from Federal authority whenever you damn well please.

[Samuraikoku]

And you'd apply this elsewhere?

Should England vote on whether Scotland becomes independent? (Or any given example you like).

Not to mention the states did so when the majority of their population wasn't allowed to vote.

I've got no idea. I don't have an universal solution to these issues, not knowing their respective contexts.