Scotland Independence?

[Darth]

Hmmm... Crimea votes to leave and becomes annexed by Russia....Maybe Texas should ask Mexico for help to leave the Union.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation

Now back to our regularly scheduled BS (I mean debate.)

What was this threat about?? Oh, yeah. Scottish independance. Wonder how it is turning out.

"FREEDOM!!"

Be careful what you ask for.

[HeloDude]

No the "War of Northern Aggression" is a sore loosers stance on it. It was a civil war, one side said "we are out of here" and the other side said "not so fast".

I wouldn't call it either. It is true that citizens of the original country (the US) were fighting each other, however, the Confederacy wasn't trying to take over the northern States. If we call the war between the Union and the Confederacy a civil war, then you would have to call the Reviolutionary War also a 'civil war'. Perhaps I'm missing something.

I'm still waiting for Lawman's response to my original question...

The 'United' States doesn't sound like much of a 'union' if one State wishes to leave and the federal government/other States forces them to stay...or am I mistaken? So what's your definition of a union?

Maybe we should stop calling it a 'Union' or the 'United' States? If mafia/gang rules style apply (you can join you just can't leave) then the federal government can essentially do whatever they want to the States and the Constitution is just something nice to have, but doesn't need to be followed...or can be 'interpreted' to mean something completely different than it means today, or meant over 200 years ago.

Here's what Thomas Jefferson said about secession in his First Inaugural Address. I love Walter Williams--he's good shit.

Lets look at a few quotations. Thomas Jefferson in his First Inaugural Address said, If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it. Fifteen years later, after the New England Federalists attempted to secede, Jefferson said, If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation to a continuance in the union . I have no hesitation in saying, Let us separate.'

And what's James Madison had to say...

In Federalist Paper 39, James Madison, the father of the Constitution, cleared up what the people meant, saying the proposed Constitution would be subject to ratification by the people, not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong. In a word, states were sovereign; the federal government was a creation, an agent, a servant of the states.

http://capitalismmagazine.com/2002/04/do-states-have-a-right-of-secession/

[slackline]

This is a ridiculous conversation. The states that might be watching this aren't watching to secede from the country. It's more likely states like Colorado, Washington,and California are watching because they'll split into two states because they are so heavily divided. Liberal population centers are driving everyone else in those states crazy because they aren't represented at all. Just my 2 cents.

Posted from the NEW Baseops.net App!

[Lawman]

This is a ridiculous conversation. The states that might be watching this aren't watching to secede from the country. It's more likely states like Colorado, Washington,and California are watching because they'll split into two states because they are so heavily divided. Liberal population centers are driving everyone else in those states crazy because they aren't represented at all. Just my 2 cents.

Posted from the NEW Baseops.net App!

Good point. And Article 4 of the Constitution provides for that process though like creating an amendment or ratifying a state it is incredibly difficult. That is probably the reason it hasnt happened since 1863 and only happend three times before that.

Overtorque, I used Texas as an example because everybody who has ever met "that Texan" can recall some level of conversation about "We can leave, they taught me that in Texas History." Honestly as vocal as Texans are though after dealing with Native Hawaiian on how they view their states ownership you guys have a long way to go to hit that level.

Helodude, here is an excerpt from the opinion of Texas v White (apology for the Bolding, I copy pasted it)

The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and [74 U.S. 700, 725] arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form, and character, and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these the Union was solemnly declared to ‘be perpetual.‘ And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained ‘to form a more perfect Union.’ It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?

While Madison and Jefferson did in fact say those things they were also under the initial formation of a country that had never existed in such a likeness before. It was also under the Articles of Confederation and the idea that Slavery was not in contention for the right of all men to be equal, so yes things change. Also Jefferson finishes that quote with "I would rather the States should withdraw, which are for unlimited commerce and war, and confederate with those alone which are for peace and agriculture." Meaning its not a statement as to the legality of secession its a statement of him not believing in taking up arms to preserve the greater Union.

Also its important to note the language used in the creation of states from Ohio afterward. These were the first states to literally be carved out of Territory by their enabling acts passed by the US Congress. That act was the Federal governments endorsement for the State to form a constitution and State legislature allowing adoption of them into the Union and their allegeince to the US Constitution granting them the same rights as previously formed states. Enabled... as in the Power to become a state is a grant by the Federal Government. Hawaii and Texas were slightly different the same way 14-16 were because they had some form of existing government at the time of their admittance but if you read the enabling acts passed for those states, it comes the same way the power to become a state was granted by the Federal Government.

Its really simple from the point of view of allegiance. The State, through its formation and ratification as one was adopted in its whole to elevate the greater whole of the United States. No different than a City or County deciding to leave one state for another is illegal (we fought a war for Toledo in Ohio and I dont know why seeing it now) it is an unacceptable loss to the whole and damaging to the citizens of the US for a state to leave without a demonstrated failure by those members to equally support that State under the requirements of the Constitution (hence my military example a post back). They are free states on the grounds that the powers not expressly given to the Federal Government are maintained by the states. They are not Free states in the idea they can come and go as they please without the grant of the Federal Government.

[Lawman]

Update to the original point of this thread:

Scot's Vote No on referendum. By 400K more people (about a 10% split).


I dont think the independence voices will go silent on this, I just wonder if they will channel more energy into the idea of an amiacable solution to the issues they have grievances with rather than go for the big gun of Independence.

[Vertigo]

Congrats to Scotland on their Declaration of Dependence.