Seriously. . . not succeed.
In the wake of last week's presidential election, thousands of Americans have signed petitions seeking permission for their states to peacefully secede from the United States. The petitions were filed on We the People, a government website.Who:
The petitions are short and to the point. For example, a petition from the Volunteer State reads: "Peacefully grant the State of Tennessee to withdraw from the United States of America and create its own NEW government."Of all the petitions, Texas has the most signatures so far, with more than 23,000.
At first I was speechless. Then I wondered how this isn't treason. Now mixed bag of, why is this news worthy (It is a large #, but we know plenty of crazies), what exactly would you get the President to do? We counted your votes, you lost?
Michael E from Slidell, LA created the petition on Nov. 7, the day after President Barack Obama was re-elected to office. Now, just four days later, he has 3,029 signatures of support from fellow Louisianans and other supporters from surrounding states.
Residents of Texas joined suit on Friday and created their own petition which currently has more than 5,000 signatures.
“The US continues to suffer economic difficulties stemming from the federal government’s neglect to reform domestic and foreign spending,” the petition reads. “Given that the state of Texas maintains a balanced budget and is the 15th largest economy in the world, it is practically feasible for Texas to withdraw from the union, and to do so would protect it’s citizens’ standard of living and re-secure their rights and liberties in accordance with the original ideas and beliefs of our founding fathers which are no longer being reflected by the federal government.”http://redalertpolitics.com/...
Apparently 1/5 people might think it's not so crazy: 2008 Zogby International poll revealed that 22% of Americans believed that "any state or region has the right to peaceably secede and become an independent republic. http://middleburyinstitute.org/...
Some more below Squiggly
Texas Republican Not as nice:
"We must contest every single inch of ground and delay the baby-murdering, tax-raising socialists at every opportunity. But in due time, the maggots will have eaten every morsel of flesh off of the rotting corpse of the Republic, and therein lies our opportunity... Why should Vermont and Texas live under the same government? Let each go her own way in peace, sign a free trade agreement among the states and we can avoid this gut-wrenching spectacle every four years."From his newsletter. http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/...
I don't know if blogged on, it's a bit too sick for me to look up. I just hope someone has a spin, like all this money created this anti-democratic anti technocrat (ironicallly using technology). And we should ignore? Or should we not? I thought it was a mistake to ignore the growing rhetoric in 08. I wrote John Conyers (I think him) as I respected he said something. This is it an offshoot? Just hate? Youre life is better than 4 years ago, you can't wait 4 more? We sat through 8 years of Bush, we probably joked about moving to Canada, but I still recognized he was unfortunately my president (legitmately in 04 I hope).
I just can't believe we are fighting the same battle, under the shroud of democracy, on the heels of a democratic dirverse turnout.
Might look into more to see who behind, but I almost dropped my mug. Don't know how much thought it should be given (I assume some, that is enough ppl to disturb).
Guess they lose the "Patriotic" brand.
Ok, it ultimately made me curious. As it's not a big Con Law issue "succession?"
To expand on below. Apparently the pentultimate case is Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869) was a significant case argued before the United States Supreme Court in 1869.
The case involved a claim by the Reconstruction government of Texas that United States bonds owned by Texas since 1850 had been illegally sold by the Confederate state legislature during the American Civil War. The state filed suit directly with the United States Supreme Court, which, under the United States Constitution, retains original jurisdiction on cases in which a state is a party.
In accepting original jurisdiction, the court ruled that Texas had remained a state ever since it first joined the Union, despite its joining the Confederate States of America and its being under military rule at the time of the decision in the case. In deciding the merits of the bond issue, the court further held that the Constitution did not permit states to unilaterally secede from the United States, and that the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the legislatures within seceding states intended to give effect to such ordinances, were "absolutely null"
The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and 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?Obligations were created by the Constitution in its grant of the power to suppress insurrections and the responsibility to insure for every state a republican form of government
From the decision:
The authority for the performance of the first had been found in the power to suppress insurrection and carry on war; for the performance of the second, authority was derived from the obligation of the United States to guarantee to every State in the Union a republican form of government. The latter, indeed, in the case of a rebellion which involves the government of a State and for the time excludes the National authority from its limits, seems to be a necessary complement to the former.
Considered therefore as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union, and of every citizen of the State, as a citizen of the United States, remained perfect and unimpaired. It certainly follows that the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union. If this were otherwise, the State must have become foreign, and her citizens foreigners. The war must have ceased to be a war for the suppression of rebellion, and must have become a war for conquest and subjugationREVOLUTION:
The Declaration of Independence states:Historian Pauline Maier argues that this sentence
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 the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute 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
"asserted one right, the right of revolution, which was, after all, the right Americans were exercising in 1776." The chosen language was Thomas Jefferson’s way of incorporating ideas “explained at greater length by a long list of seventeenth-century writers that included such prominent figures as John Milton, Algernon Sidney, and John Locke, as well as a host of others, English and Scottish, familiar and obscure, who continued and, in some measure, developed that ‘Whig’ tradition in the eighteenth centuryMaier, Pauline (1997). American Scripture: Making the Declaration of Independence. Knopf. ISBN 0-679-45492-6
CIVIL WAR: (Some interesting comparisons, Presidential timing, idea of class, brief would love to get more into how I imagine many see White Men losing control, as "not American"
Initially, secessionists hoped for a peaceful departure, including all slave-holding states in the Union. Moderates in the Confederate Constitutional Convention included a provision against importation of slaves from Africa to appeal to the Upper South. Non-slave states might join, but the radicals secured a two-thirds hurdle for themThomas, Emory T., "The Confederate Nation: 1861–1865" 1979. ISBN 0-06-090703-7 Chapter 3. "Foundations of the Southern Nation".
The Southern States "Declaration Causes"
The Southern nation was by turns a guileless people attacked by a voracious neighbor, an 'established' nation in some temporary difficulty, a collection of bucolic aristocrats making a romantic stand against the banalities of industrial democracy, a cabal of commercial farmers seeking to make a pawn of King Cotton, an apotheosis of nineteenth-century nationalism and revolutionary liberalism, or the ultimate statement of social and economic reaction.Historian Drew Gilpin Faust observed that
"leaders of the secession movement across the South cited slavery as the most compelling reason for southern independence.Murrin, John (2001). Liberty, Equality, Power. p. 1000. ISBN 0-495-09176-6.
Although this may seem strange, given that the majority of white Southerners did not own slaves, virtually every white Southerner supported slavery because he did not want to be at the bottom of the social ladderr
The immediate spark for secession came from the victory of the Republican Party and the election of Abraham Lincoln in the 1860 elections. Civil War historian James M. McPherson wrote:
To southerners the election’s most ominous feature was the magnitude of Republican victory north of the 41st parallel. Lincoln won more than 60 percent of the vote in that region, losing scarcely two dozen counties. Three-quarters of the Republican congressmen and senators in the next Congress would represent this "Yankee" and antislavery portion of the free states. The New Orleans Crescent saw these facts as "full of portentous significance". "The idle canvas prattle about Northern conservatism may now be dismissed," agreed the Richmond Examiner. "A party founded on the single sentiment... of hatred of African slavery, is now the controlling power." No one could any longer "be deluded... that the Black Republican party is a moderate" party, pronounced the New Orleans Delta. "It is in fact, essentially, a revolutionary party."McPherson, James M. (2007). This mighty scourge: perspectives on the Civil War. Oxford University Press US. p. 65. ISBN 978-0-19-531366-6.
Sound familiar, not wanting to be at bottom of social ladder, on heals of election?
HISTORY OF SECESSION OTHERWISE:
Allen Buchanan (Philosopher) on utilizing threat to gain other goals:http://plato.stanford.edu/...
Until quite recently secession has been a neglected topic among philosophers. Two factors may explain why philosophers have now begun to turn their attention to secession. First, in the past decade there has been a great increase not only in the number of attempted secessions, but also in successful secessions, and philosophers may simply be reacting to this new reality, attempting to make normative sense of it. Second, in the same decade the idea that there is a strong case for some form of self-government for groups presently contained within states has gained ground. Once one begins to take seriously the case for special group rights for minorities — especially if these include rights of self-government — it is difficult to avoid the question of whether some such groups may be entitled to full independence.