It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Will Vermont Secede?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 28 2005 @ 08:11 PM
link   
On October 28, 2005, history was made for the first time since May 20, 1861. More than 400 people gathered at the Vermont statehouse, beginning a daylong secession convention. Keynote speaker, James Howard Kunstler (author of 'The Long Emergency') put forward the argument that a resolution should be passed in accordance with the US Declaration of Independance that "Whenever any form of government becomes destructive, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it and to institute new government."

Critics of the move give very little credence that secession may actually happen, but the organisers believe that in this current climate of tyrannical control, secession will succeed and prosper.

The day ended with the resolution passed. Popularity for the move has been steadily growing over the years since beginning as the fantasy of Thomas Naylor. Naylor states that;"Secession really combines a radical act of rebellion grounded in fear and anger with a positive vision of the future.
"Secession first involves denunciation that the United States has lost it's moral authority and is unsustainable, ungovernable and unfixable.
"Second, there is disengagement or admitting 'I don't want to go down with the Titanic.' Third is the demystification that secession really is a viable option constitutionally, politically and economically. And finally, there is defiance, saying 'I personally want to help take Vermont back from Big Business, Big Markets and Big Government, and I want to do so peacefully'."


Vermont joins Alaska and Hawaii in the secession movement.

The resolution states that Vermont free itself from the United States of America and return to it's natural status as an independant republic as it was between Jan. 15, 1777 and March 4, 1791.

Second Vermont Republic

Is this possible?




posted on Dec, 28 2005 @ 08:41 PM
link   
Ungovernable and unfixable? This is an extreme. Exceedingly unlikely and a publicity event put on by those who oppose a President. What a silly little hissy fit!

It would be easier to set up a Constitutional Convention and fix the problem, and even that is so unlikely that the probability reaches an incredible level.

[edit on 28-12-2005 by No1tovote4]



posted on Dec, 28 2005 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Beelzebubba
Is this possible?


Anything is possible, but secession is not legally provided for by the Constitution. In other words, one can not simply opt in and then seek to opt out at a later date. Furthermore, I do not believe that Vermont reserved the right to secede. Let the Civil War of 1861 be Vermont's guide, as it seems to be, but be assured that if secession were indeed constitutional, then no bloodshed would be necessary, hence no Civil War of 1861. Simply put, if secession were constitutional, a state, or states, simply could and would be able to peacefully resolve to secede, and then go about its business without further debate or worry of bloodshed.






seekerof

[edit on 28-12-2005 by Seekerof]


Nip

posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 12:54 AM
link   
ya there is no way they can seced constitutionaly

unless they are like "we seced" and the government is like "ok but you can't stay here"..... and boot them from the country?

does that in anyway make sense?



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 02:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Anything is possible, but secession is not legally provided for by the Constitution. In other words, one can not simply opt in and then seek to opt out at a later date.


Seeker, you always say such smart things...what happened?

It was legally provided for by the constitution when Vermont opted in. This was changed after the war with the CSA, however it was done in a very shady way, as the congress that changed it was not elected in the way provided by the constitution that they changed. They changed the rules in the middle of the game, the contract is void.



Let the Civil War of 1861 be Vermont's guide, as it seems to be, but be assured that if secession were indeed constitutional, then no bloodshed would be necessary, hence no Civil War of 1861. Simply put, if secession were constitutional, a state, or states, simply could and would be able to peacefully resolve to secede, and then go about its business without further debate or worry of bloodshed.


Dude, that is pretty much what happened, then the CSA started a war after it legally seceded (although this is arguable, what is not is that the CSA fired the first shot.)
During that "civil war," the USA took land back by conquest and the CSA ceased to be. The former CSA states are lucky they were given back state status, as it was not necessary to do so and the south, as land won by conquest, could have been made a territory.



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 05:03 AM
link   

Ungovernable and unfixable? This is an extreme. Exceedingly unlikely and a publicity event put on by those who oppose a President.


"First and foremost, we want out of the United States. It's not just an anti-Bush statement. If Kerry was elected, we still would have wanted out.

"The reality is that we have a one-party system in this country, called the Republican Party, that is owned and operated and controlled by corporate America. So it's not just a Bush protest, but a protest against the Empire." - Thomas Naylor


It would seem this is more about corporate control than anything else.

Another activist with the same goal is Peter Lamborn Wilson.
New New Holland?



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 05:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by cavscout
It was legally provided for by the constitution when Vermont opted in. This was changed after the war with the CSA, however it was done in a very shady way, as the congress that changed it was not elected in the way provided by the constitution that they changed. They changed the rules in the middle of the game, the contract is void.

I will stick to originally what I asserted, cavscout, the Constitution grants no right of secession, for nothing you have said changes the Supreme Court fact [Texas vs. White] that secession is unconstitutional.


As I will explain below, it is settled law that the Constitution does not permit unilateral secession: A state or group of states cannot simply leave the Union over the objections of the national government.

Does the Constitution Permit the Blue States to Secede? With Permission, Perhaps; Unilaterally, No
The Case Against Secession





seekerof

[edit on 29-12-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 05:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
I will stick to originally what I asserted, cavscout, the Constitution grants no right of secession, for nothing you have said changes the Supreme Court fact [Texas vs. White] that secession is unconstitutional.


Well, you are absolutely correct; the Constitution does not currently provide for secession. The Constitution that Vermont opted into did, however. The two Constitutions are not the same document as the Constitution allows for a means to change itself and these requirements were not met.

However, you did say this: "one can not simply opt in and then seek to opt out at a later date".

Just what did they opt into? A Constitution that allowed for secession, among other things. That Constitution was a contract; the federal government broke the contract. Should the federal government be allowed to break the contract? If you and I were playing a game of cards and I changed the rules mid-game, would you continue to play, or would you try to argue that I cant do that and then walk away when I refuse to agree?

The contract was changed and disregarded. Vermont has every right to demand the federal government play by the rules set forth in the beginning of the game and to walk away if it does not.

Now, of course, the one with the bigger gun makes the rules, right? Well, Vermont would not be Vermont and the US would not be the US if this was true. Americans re-invented insurgency and guerilla warfare over 200 years ago and Vietnam and Iraq have proven that large armies cannot fight against these tactics.


[edit on 29-12-2005 by cavscout]



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 05:55 AM
link   
Despite your continued mentioning of a contract being null-in-void, the Constitutional compact is still in effect: the only Constitutional way for a state, such as Vermont, to secede is to pass an amendment authorizing secession.





seekerof



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 06:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Despite your continued mentioning of a contract being null-in-void, the Constitutional compact is still in effect: the only Constitutional way for a state, such as Vermont, to secede is to pass an amendment authorizing secession.


And despite your continued mentioning that it is not constitutional for Vermont to secede from the federal government, you have not stated how other than to say that the federal government says they cant.

You can’t effectively argue your point by just stating what you believe over and over again. I have stated that Vermont can not be held to something it did not agree to. Any State, or the people, hold any powers not specifically granted to the federal government by the Constitution. Now, if the Constitution is changed but not in the manor originally agreed on, then it is null-in-void.

Please don’t argue that the Constitution is not null-in-void by just stating that "it's un-Constitutional" over and over again.



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 06:17 AM
link   
Talking about being repetitive?
Pot calling the kettle black.

You have not adeqautely provided for Vermont's notion of secession if I have not adequately provided that Vermont cannot secede.

I guess this issue simply becomes one of circle logic, huh?
Personally, Vermont is going no where. It will remain apart of the union, and if they do attempt secession, my personal opinion is let them go, no big lose. I am actually looking forward to placing high tariffs on Ben & Jerry, as well as watching some those towns and cities in Vermont attempt secession from Vermont.






seekerof



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 07:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
You have not adeqautely provided for Vermont's notion of secession if I have not adequately provided that Vermont cannot secede.

I guess this issue simply becomes one of circle logic, huh?

No, it isn’t.

Maybe I am not being clear enough.


I have stated that the constitution in its original form provided for a states right to secede, and this point is clear.

You imply that doesn’t matter because it is unconstitutional now.

I just want to hear why you think that it is OK for the federal government to change the rules illegally (illegal as in they didn’t do so as per the Constitution) and why Vermont is held to something it did not agree to. If don’t want to answer, or cant answer, then don’t reply; just stop calling me repetitive when you have failed to reply to the statement directly.

You can’t use the Constitution as an argument if Vermont did not agree to it.



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 07:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by cavscout
I have stated that the constitution in its original form provided for a states right to secede, and this point is clear.

You imply that doesn’t matter because it is unconstitutional now.

Umm, no. Maybe I was not clear enough?
I originally asserted that secession was unconstitutional, period.
Proof that secession is unconstitutional was exemplified by the Civil War and the Texas v. White Supreme Court case.
Secession is a extra-constitutional act--a forced change--not a constitutional act, cavscout.

You keep asserting that the Constitution provides for the state right to secession when it plainly does not. There is to be found no Founding Father that has written or claimed that the Constitution provides for secession of any ratifying state. Secession simply does not lie within the purview of the Constitution. Your continued assertion that secession is and ever was constitutional is derailed simply by the plain text of the Constitution, by the Federalist themselves, and by the statements, actions and constitutional initiatives of the southern secessionists during the 1860-61 time preiod. The links I provided indicate as much.

You have previously asserted that the government has violated the constitutional contract/compact, thus the breach or violation of said contract/compact allows Vermont to secede. Bear in mind that a or any violation committed by one party of the terms of a contract/compact does not necessarily render or equate to the entire contract/compact becoming null and void, scrapped, non-valid, or non-binding, unless of course, the language of the contract/compact explicitly states such nullification as a/the sole remedy, which the Constitution does not. Legally speaking, there is no such secessionary language in the Constitution. Again, the links I provided indicate as much.

You have previously asserted that the prominent and prevailing view prior to the Civil War of secession in 1861 was that secession was a state right. Indeed, the notion of secession being a state right was a prominent opinion or notion prior to 1860-61, but the belief in secession rights does not mean that the rights are or is guaranteed by the Constitution.





You can’t use the Constitution as an argument if Vermont did not agree to it.

Redundant and repetitive.
Then again, wha?! How can you insinuate or even assert that Vermont did not agree to the Constitution, when they indeed ratified it January 10, 1791?




seekerof

[edit on 29-12-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 09:27 AM
link   
Will Vermont Secede?

In this day I don't think it would be possible for one state to Secede successfully.



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 12:08 PM
link   
Well, I've got a few things to add...

First: Whether or not Vermont can seceede depends in large part on the nature of the constitution and its ratification. The United States Constitution is not explicit on the matter of secession. Some believe that the ability to seceede was implicit, others believe that it was simply not intended to exist, but could not be stated if the constitution was to be ratified.

Here are the questions I consider crucial:
1. Were the states sovereign under the Articles of Confederation, or were they already constituents of a single nation?
2. If they were constituents of a single nation, would the constitution have actually survived if Rhode Island had never ratified?
3. If both of the following are answered yes, is any claim to the illigitmacy of the US Constitution voided by the fact that the state which entered under duress, namely Rhode Island, has been a member of the Union without attempt, or even serious consideration of secession for over 200 years?

Article II of the Articles of Confederation explicitly states that the states retain their sovereignty. Unfortunately the answer is not that easy.

Article VI states that no two or more states may form a separate alliance, confederation, etc without the consent of the Congress.

Article XIII states that the Union is perpetual and the duties of the states under the Articles of Confederation are inviolable.

Ultimately, it is clear that the states did not have the legal right to seceede from the Confederation and enter into the Federal Republic, except by the amendment of the Articles of Confederation to that affect, ratified by all 13 states.


The Constitution claimed to only need the ratification of 9 states. This, in light of the fact that secession was illegal and that the Constitution could only be an amendment of the Articles of Confederation, was clearly illegal as an academic matter.
As a practical matter, the success of this coup was ensured once Virginia and New York ratified. In fact, the Capital was selected, Congress held its first session, and George Washington was elected, all before Rhode Island ratified the Constitution. It is clear that that the Constitution would have been followed illegally even without Rhode Island's ratification.


At this point, it is clear that the United States were never intended to be divisible. Not only could a state not seceede from the Articles of Confederation government, but when a coup took place, Rhode Island was essentially strong-armed into remaining a part of the union. There is no leaving.

Question 3 remains. Is the Constitution a legitimate government? If it is not, by virtue of the fact that it was officially instituted with 4 fewer ratifications than were required, and was actually put into action with 1 ratification fewer than it needed (essentially blackmailing Rhode Island into ratification) then legally the 13 original states absolutely have the right to insist that they retain all of the rights allowed by the Articles of Confederation. They cannot seceede then, but they can assert an incredible amount of autonomy compared to what the Constitution allows.

Edit to add: One more problem. Vermont wasn't one of the original 13 states, but they were a part of NH at the time. So there's a little wiggle room for debate over whether or not they are entitled to recognition of any rights under the Articles of Confederation, if the Constitution is deemed invalid. (end edit)

Second: Practically speaking, Vermont can't secede unless New York and Everything East goes too, and at the very least joins with Quebec, if not all of Canada. Even then they wouldn't be as well off. The US needs them, and they need the US. They can't seriously expect to leave and retain the benefits of doing business with us. If they screw the rest of America, the rest of America will want to screw them back. Connecticut's insurance industry- gone. The all-mighty dollar- tanked. Access to American oil reserves- gone. The military which insures their interests abroad (New York might not like it- but they need it)- no longer at their disposal. Duty-free access to the road and rail infrastructure which bring them goods from the rest of the US- they wish (I don't see New England anywhere in NAFTA- do you?)
Long story short, if they seceede, their taxes go up, not down, and they find themselves on the wrong side of some very very bitter neighbors who have a lot of tanks. They seceede at their own risk, and they seceede by the leave of the US as a whole.


Third: Not all states are equal. If Hawaii seceedes, America will let them go and soon forget that they're gone. 1. The Red States will be glad they're gone. 2. We won't miss them too much economically or strategically. 3. They have a perfectly legitimate claim- they still have a large indigenous population which was annexed against their will by force. 4. They're not part of the CONUS- they're out of sight and out of mind. They aren't even part of the textbook image of the United States. They're usually shown way in the lower left corner of the map in an easy-to-miss inset box. The shape of America wouldn't change- that's very psychologically reassuring the shallow masses. If you asked the average American to draw a picture of the United States, they wouldn't even draw Hawaii.
On the same note, I think Alaska -might- get away with it if they joined Canada and signed a treaty relating to the oil.

Last but not least, let's use the Civil War as our guide. Anybody ever heard of the Crittenden Compromise? The North was ready to cave in and settle for containment of slavery- it dang near happened. If state legislatures started voting on secession, the remaining state legislatures would call for an amending convention, invite the separatists in, and basically bend over backwards to keep the country together. They'd probably abandon all federal law before they let someone go. Abandon full faith and credit, leave gay marriage etc up to popular sovreignity, require 2/3s or 3/4 vote for declarations of war. I think that once the reality really set in, a secession wouldn't last for more than a few months.


After last and definitely least, I call First Titor by reminding everyone that if Vermont seceedes they're going to get nuked and all that's gonna be left is a bunch of religious country folk. Explanation



[edit on 29-12-2005 by The Vagabond]



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 08:02 PM
link   
Wow, thanks for the excellent post Vagabond. Very informative. As an outsider I don't know much about the political machinations of your country, you have supplied a great insight.



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 08:17 PM
link   
It was a pleasure. I love politics. It fits well with my personal strengths and it intrigues me. If you ever need info for a thread, drop me a U2U and if nothing else I can probably give you some relevant links to US laws or articles of the constitution.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join