Is Secession Inevitable?

The Supreme Court is hearing argument on the Affordability Care Act now. If upheld, it will place the burden of this act upon the states, not just the individual. Whether or not the statistics on savings or costs to the states are up for debate, the states (and its people) will be financially affected. Many of the working class will be unhappy. The states will not wish to have the Federal Government applying its will over the authority of the states. In reading the Federalist Papers, it appears the Framers, were adamant that specific powers were granted to the Federal Government and enumerated in the Constitution. Those that were not specifically mentioned were reserved to the states.

The ACA was premised on the Commerce Clause Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, of the Constitution which “empowers Congress "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among several States…." Over the history of this clause, the Supreme Court has expanded Federal Regulation of almost every aspect to the states (and individuals) in one way or the other. The history can be found here: law2.umkc.edu...

The 10th Amendment states powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. With the expansion of the 14th Amendment centralizing government authority in Washington, would the passage of this bill give complete and absolute control of the Federal Government over the states? Whether or not this is good or bad depends on whether one is a Federalist (powers distributed among the states) or Anti-Federalist (power is centralized in one authority.) The issue then, is who controls the Federal Government? The danger is that the Federal Government can become uncontrollable. Whether it has reached that stage yet depends upon one’s point of view.

26 states are now arguing against the Constitutionality of the ACA. If the Supreme Court decides the ACA is constitutional what remedy do the states have? According to my count, that is more than half of the United States (depending on who is counting the states.) If all were to threaten to secede, what would happen to this country? Would these states be willing to secede? Could it be stopped?

There are only two ways the Federal Government could counter secession.
One would be financial sanctions against the states but then the Federal Government would not have the normal income if the states refused to pay. That may not work.
The other would be with military troops. However, our military could not be stretched through 26 states so that would mean invasion of only the Capital of those 26 states and a takeover by the Federal Government. Could they achieve any sort of success by replacing the governments of those states and do they even have the Constitutional power to do so? Who would they replace them with? As with any military coupe, the military would then run the government of that particular jurisdiction.

I am not proposing secession but I do see the possibility of it happening. We believe in a democratic form of government but then there is always the danger of tyranny of the majority. That is why we were established as a Constitutional Republic. (Sometimes they don’t teach that in schools.)

I am not proposing or even sanctioning secession but I do see the dangers of it happening. Does anyone else see the dangers?

If things were to devolve to the point that certain states decided to secede, I'd definitely consider relocating to one that better represented my social and political ideologies.

reply to post by Nite_wing


On a personal note I don't support the individual mandate in Obama's new healthcare law so I am hoping this would get short down by the supreme court. That being said, secession has always been a core topic in this country, it became a big thing after Obama was elected. The last time there was a secession attempt was in 1860 when the United States was still a fragile republic and as of yet not a solid Union. Even at that that time Southern States were not able to become fully independent, despite their political and military attempts to do so. It's far more unlikely nowadays. It's not impossible, but more so unlikely of success than it was more than a 150 years ago.

If inidividual States want to seceed, they will have to try and do so by force and this isn't happening either as the populations are more integrated between the States than they are individually. Texas may want to try and seceed but they'll get resistence among their population as they would from Union forces. There's also the matter of maintining those state(s) as independent nations after secession. The major powers of the 19th century were not prepared to readily recognize the confederate States as a legitimate nation, they is even less reason now to do so today. They are a number of factors that we need to take into account, secession isn't a straightforward choice.

I've heard the whispers in the wind.

The more corruption and ineptitude our government reveals, the louder the whispers grow.

It's a nebulous beginning at best. At this moment, there's no driving force to coalesce into something more. But I wouldn't be surprised if secession becomes a more prominent part of conversation.

Personally, before we secede, I think we should unilaterally fire Congressional members and have a go at fixing what was once a wonderful country.

Secession will not happen at least not in the current climate. There is no political will to secede it is mostly just a small faction of liberty lovers that call for it. Having said that if something drastic happens and the current politically corrupt leadership on several states was thrown out it could be a possibility. Still I doubt the majority of people in a state would have the will to see it through and risk the federal government using the traitor Lincolns actions to justify taking military action and enough stupid sheeple supporting such action.

There is really no need to secede just assert states and the peoples rights via the 10th Amendment. if they county sheriffs kicked the alphabet agencies out of the state without seceding and simply started keeping their money instead of shipping it off to the feds then there would be no perceived valid excuse for military action in a state. Still i doubt a majority of the people in any state have the will to support something like this unless something drastic happens to change their minds.

if a state decided to leave the union then it becomes its own soverign entity which would mean that all the states around it would have to view it as a foreign entity so going from one state to the other would mean checkpoints etc and in theory they would need stuff like a seperate currency/passports etc

reply to post by Maxatoria


I'm not sure this is absolute. Other countries use American currency and up until the aftermath of 9/11 passports weren't necessary to travel to and from certain countries.

I notice that the people who want Obamacare are diehard democrats who want to turn this into a partisan issue. They say that republicans are selfish and don't want to help their fellow man. There are a bunch of crybabies on this site who are whining over people who do not agree with this legislation, passing judgment on them because they don't want to go along with something that is obviously flawed and will not be the quick fix they are hoping for. I hate to be so harsh, but I calls 'em as I sees 'em.

I personally am an independent, I don't like either ruling party. I also do not like the current health care situation, but Obamacare as written is not the answer. People who have studied it have stated that it will cost a great deal more than what we all can afford. I have a feeling it will be a big mess and in the end, nobody will be happy except the health insurance companies.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg stated that the people who don't buy into the insurance system are raising the rates for the ones who do. Like that is our problem? Take it up with the health insurance companies who are making massive profits and are greedy as the day is long. They are the real problem in this tangled mess, but the entire country is supposed to fix it by all of us parting with our money.

We as a nation preach free market capitalism, but the government supports private corporations to our detriment every day. We are technically a fascist state, or a corporatocracy, if you will.

I feel that it will be passed by the Supreme Court, and then the people that refuse to participate will get hit hard at tax time with a penalty. That's one way to boost federal revenue.

Secession? I have to say that, as time goes on, I rather like the idea. Texas wasn't too willing to join the Union after the civil war, and most people here still consider it a republic that is only loosely tied to the US. Texas flags fly here more than US flags. We have our own power grid, and a strong economic and agricultural base.

I agree with the other posters, however. Most people lack the will to make things better, so however they want to rape us, we just have to bend over and take it.

In case you're wondering, neither my husband or myself have health insurance. We are self-employed and were both rejected (me for a pre-existing condition, him for being a lifelong smoker). Naturally it would benefit people to remove the pre-existing condition clause, but I have a feeling this is a solution that we will live to regret.

The SCOTUS and most legal scholars argue that there is no "legal right" to secession. However they do admit that there is a legal right to revolution based on the principles of our founders.

Basically the legal system will not recognize a peaceful secession. That means it is far from inevitable.

reply to post by Nite_wing


Once upon a time people had state allegiances. That's not so true anymore, at least on a large scale. Most states are 50/50 politically, the only real noticeable divide is rural vs urban centers. Any kind of "civil war" or secession would be a very chaotic thing.. likely not states seceding but rather groups of individuals seceding not only form the Union but from the State as well.

The Obamacare Medicaid portion could push a few states over the edge.. by 2016 it could quite literally bankrupt several states.. especially states that are not financially sound like California. Or some states, like say Oregon, where the state cannot borrow money, the increase in medicaid will result in massive budget cuts. It'd be one thing for the Feds to pick up the tab ... what the hell they were thinking when they drafted it so States pick up the tab is beyond me. Surely they must have known the real impossibility of States being able to manage such large liabilities?

But ultimately as I say, it'd be individual groups, not states, that take real issue with it. For instance if states cannot afford the rising costs of Medicaid, they may raise taxes on the middle class significantly, or jack property taxes up making a lot of people very, very mad.

Under no circumstances however would any portion of the United States be permitted to leave. Regardless of who's in power, we are stuck in this Union forever until the entire thing comes crashing down.

reply to post by FissionSurplus


According to several polls about the SCOTUS hearings, the majority of far left Progressive Democrats are against Obamacare because it's not Socialist enough (which it isn't, it's Fascist)

The main supporters of Obamacare are actually independents and moderate left leaning Democrats.

Originally posted by MikeNice81
The SCOTUS and most legal scholars argue that there is no "legal right" to secession. However they do admit that there is a legal right to revolution based on the principles of our founders.

Basically the legal system will not recognize a peaceful secession. That means it is far from inevitable.

Smoke and mirrors. First it is not a legal question but a question of law there is a difference that most have no clue about. Second the Federal government has no lawful authority on the issue for it is not mentioned in their governing document the Constitution and all things NOT SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED in the constitution are left up to the states and the people via the 10th amendment.

Hence the Supreme court has no jurisdiction to decide the matter period. Most so called legal scholars rely in Lincolns illegal actions on forcing the south into the new union via violence as their basis for it not being legal to secede which amounts to nothing more then might makes right as there is no basis in American law to prevent secession for it is a matter left up to the state and people.

Further no state would have ever signed on to the constitution if there was any hint at such a thing at that time.

What if groups of States decide to form their own country ?

Or, perhaps some groups of States will "join" existing nations ?


Example:

States in the Northwest could be "annexed" by Canada.


Oh wait....

What if this is all a plan to bring on the "North American Union" ?


and btw, what kind of "healthcare" system does Mexico have ?

reply to post by hawkiye


I completely agree with you. I just had to keep it short.

The reason it makes secession highly doubtful is, people are scared of being labeled a terrorist. There is nothing like calling someone an extremist, communist, racist, terrorist, or whatever to end their career and destroy their life. If that doesn't work there is always indefinite detention, secret hearings with "Secret" evidence, and legalized assassination to keep people in fear.

By saying it is illegal then creating "laws" that instill fear and despotism they limit the chance of anyone being brave enough to try.

Plus the system will never recognize the secession. The federal government would use force to bring the "terrorists" to "justice." They would occupy the state house and county seats of government while arresting every politician that signed any articles of secession.

Also check out Southern Guardian's post. He makes some good points that a lot of people don't think about.

This controversy all centers around decisions concerning affordable and available healthcare. Resolve that and the motive to seceed is gone. One might suggest we seceed from the AMA and FDA instead.

Skilled surgeons are truly necessary but most of our medical needs are done by private practitioners who basically look the patient over and prescribe the latest drugs, er... medicines. We can train many more of these glorified drug pushers who can take your temperature, check your blood pressure, and look down your throat - things their nurses mostly do anyway. There is no reason why a medical consultation should cost more than $7-10. There is no reason all doctors need a yacht and have two Mercedes at their mansion, skilled surgical specialists perhaps are entitled. There are few pharmacological break-through drugs that warrant their use over long-proven generic ones, in fact many newer and very dangerous drugs are pushed in order to keep the profits AND COSTS high quite unnecessarily.

American healthcare is a scam and attentive personalized care in the US is sorely lagging behind the care given in developing countries, at a tenth the cost! Don't think your power elite and most politicians aren't heavily invested in the pharma industry, you know better than that or at least you should. Since the early 20th century huge grants have been given to the top medical universities that would teach pharma-based medical practices. Time devoted to nutritional studies are almost nil in those schools. Practices and professional associations that that weigh more to nutrition and general personal upkeep have been derided as quackery by the AMA. We are living very backwards in this modern age. Basic medicine should be taught to all us throughout our school years. We are kept ignorant of all this so we will be depend on our doctors' programmed and parroted advice.

We most likely do need to seceed from some parts of government and professional associations. Maximized profits have been their goal and our good health is not even a secondary consideration - because it competes against profit-making! We need a total make-over and reform of our medical institutions and practice and not just a program to have our states subsidize insurance middle-men who want to deny us necessary treatment in favor of prolonging afflictions with expensive drugs from whose manufacturers they receive a kickback.

We do not need to seceed from the American union, we can seceed from those unions whose profit is primary and divorce ourselves from those practices that maintain us as drug-addicted zombies continually needing a fix to keep away pain. Seceed from governmental agencies that keep us fixed to that kind of life. There are better ways to live.

reply to post by Erongaricuaro

This controversy all centers around decisions concerning affordable and available healthcare. Resolve that and the motive to seceed is gone. One might suggest we seceed from the AMA and FDA instead.

No, this does not all center around health care. The idea started before Reagan was out of office. It has grown over the years as more and more people see the blatant corruption of government and the disregard for constitutional governance.


People are growing tired of "free speech zones," roving wire taps, legalized suspension of habeas corpus, constant attacks on property rights, and a million other issues. The dissatisfaction in America has almost nothing to do with health care. That is just the latest issue.

It seems to me secession didn't work too well last time, and that was with a geographically united set of states with an organized standing army and navy that was philosophically united and did extremely well during the first part of the war. The Union was out fought in battle after battle until the might of the industrialized north overwhelmed the south. I'm not taking sides here. That's basically what happened.

Although there still are some geographical differences in our politics, what with the fly over states being predominantly red and both coasts being blue, our differences are very intermingled. You could probably make a case for the cities versus the country. A good example is the very liberal Western Washington (Puget Sound) which is basically one city from Bellingham to Centralia versus the much more conservative Eastern Washington which, except for Spokane, is very agrarian. Oregon is in a similar situation. In fact, with a little fudging you could say it's the same city from Bellingham to Salem, Oregon down the Interstate 5 corridor. They call the trip "The Slog" because it is always busy and I-5 is The Grinder.

It's even been suggested that Washington and Oregon have the wrong borders. Rather than be split horizontally, they ought to be split vertically by the Cascade Range. So you have some serious differences, all right, but you'd have to tear the states themselves apart to create any common interests. Secession of states would be much more difficult this time than it was last time.

The only way I see this happening is if the Federal government grew very weak itself so that it was unable to hold the states together. If the Feds fell from within they simply could not keep the states in line because they wouldn't have the funds to do it, so states would be forced to take over responsibilities from the Feds.

I've been giving a lot of thought to secession lately and I don't think force is the way to go. Instead, try to bring the matter before the World Court as a contract dispute between nations. There, it could be argued that the Federal Government is in breech of contract in every instance where they've gone against the Constitution. There would certainly be enough evidence and testimony for that.

Problem is, I think that the best case scenario there would be that the seceeding states would wind up occupied nations like Tibet or Palestine. But maybe it would open the eyes of other Americans that the Federal government would rather see its subjects dead than free.

There is no way that secession could happen in today's climate. First of all, secession is illegal, and secondly the population just isn't behind it. The South fell so hard because the lower classes saw no reason to give their lives for the rich slaveowners.

reply to post by SG-17


Secession is certainly not illegal. It's a "Natural Right" .. a right that no law may restrict, the natural right to freedom and self determination. If at any point a people decide a government no longer represents them they may collectively assemble a new government or transform a current government. It's the philosophical foundation of our own independence.