Would you support a state's right to secede?

[MadArchitect]

riverc0il: that said, i think it would take an amazing reason to divide the country and would be highly doubtful that such a rebelion would muster enough popular support nor would it have even a slight chance of success without the united states already having its infrastructure and military severly cripled.I wonder about the issue of popular support. Personally, I didn't think it was possible for Bush to muster enough popular support to win a second term. I was bewildered on election night. I suspect that there are a lot of people who would support seccession, but who remain off the radar so long as the issue isn't in the foreground of public consciousness. And whether or not it becomes a military issue depends, I would say, on the ecnomic and political importance of the region in question.

[irishrosem]

Never was the Constitution thought to be an eternally lasting document of governance. In fact, "and the union shall be perpetual" was one of the conscious, necessary changes between the Articles of Confederation and the U.S. Constitution. As you have said, Jefferson and others who formed the Constitution recognized that it would likely be a temporary document that could fall to the ravages of war and internal conflict (as it almost did during the Civil War). However, the choice to enter the Union was thought to be permanent, for as long as the Union lasted. And choosing to enter, likewise, would certainly erode state sovereignty. It was specified in the Articles of Confederation that this was a league joined by sovereign states, that any change to the Articles would require unanimous approval by each state and that the citizens of individual states would not be bound by laws not approved by their own state. In contrast, the Constitution was a compact engaged in by the people, the preamble heralding "We the people" in attempt to form their "more perfect union" as their term of art defined it. It was understood and strongly argued against that such a Constitution would eliminate the sovereignty of the state and eliminate the state's ability to withdraw from the Union at will.Consider Patrick Henry's (of "give me liberty, or give me death" fame) arguments against the Constitution: "'Have they made a proposal of a compact between the states? If they had, this would be a confederation. It is otherwise most clearly a consolidated government. The question turns, sir, on that poor little thing--the expression, We, the people, instead of the states, of America.'" Henry, like other Anti-Federalists were wary of giving up their state sovereignty, specifically guaranteed in the Articles of Confederation, to a new national government, in the moments after winning their independence from Britain. He goes on to say that if "'the states be not the agents of this compact, it must be one great, consolidated, national government of the people of all the states.'" Another Anti-Federalist Luther Martin also opposed the loss of state sovereignty when he argued the treason clause in the Constitution made "allegiance to the United States paramount over allegiance to a single state in the event of armed conflict between the two." (Amar, 35).Federalists tried many times to ameliorate their position in order to win Anti-Federalist approval of the Constitution (it had been decided they needed nine states in order to form a Union with a Constitution). However, they never budged on state sovereignty, and never gave the option of temporary unionization. In other words, Federalists never offered Anti-Federalists: just give it a whirl, and if you don't like it you can leave. Madison also stressed the difference between the "league" formed in the Articles of Confederation and a "Constitution" is that the "latter would prevent subunits from unilaterally bolting whenever they became dissatisfied" (36-37). States did not easily, and without hesitation, join the Union, because they understood to do so would lead to a permanent subscription that would override state sovereignty. The U.S. Constitution and the Union itself, however, unlike the flawed Articles of Confederation, never feigned to be permanent.Regardless of whether state secession is constitutional or legal it's a weak position. When I hear the call, until now, it's always come from some leftist northeasterner, thinking she's witty, when she really knows fuck-all about U.S. Government or politics.Gerrymandering, hard and soft money, etc. are all concerns that need to be addressed within the current political process. However, they are not "more important" than the popular vote. The electoral vote can be more important than the popular vote as was demonstrated again in 2000. However, this again is an issue to be addressed, not a piss-poor excuse to, as the current administration loves to preach against, "cut and run." As I said before, state secession is a red herring. People really interested in addressing political and voting problems will either address the problems themselves are rally for a permanent dissolution of the entire Union. And if California decides to secede, who do you think they will look to for help when North Korea starts launching its nukes? As Chris noted, we are only weaker if we divide.(These quotes come from America's Constitution by Akhil Reed Amar, except those directly from the Articles of Confederation which can be found really anywhere.)

[minority mandate]

Good argument. You had me until your closing comments. And, it is nice to hear leftist Northeasterners given so much respect as to even notice that they exist. The South has risen again, and hence we may see this discussion in the adverse of its 1859 position. That is to say that, I personally don't want to even visit the old Confederacy that currently has such heavy sway over the US government, and the individual states. Furthermore, I wouldn't be shocked to find Southerners have a similar view of the Godless Northeast and left coast. And, yes, I've had the dubious pleasure of living and working there a lot. (full disclosure - I'm a white guy).While your assessment of the Articles of Confederation and the Federalist position probably holds enough weight to impress the Court (providing Mr. Dershowitz doesn't show up to contest you) they are legal arguments, and I would say beside the point.It took me a long time to make sense of Jefferson's position that government was generational and that one generation had no business dictating to the following. It is now quite clear to me that he had in mind exactly what we are discussing: your grandfather cannot (morally) sell you into slavery even if it was a legal contract in his day, or even if it continues to be legal in yours. So too it is against accepted morality to expect following generations to abide by a system of government that represents an antithesis to their values.Governments are defined by 'a people'. This is the basic problem we see in Iraq. Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites do not see their allegance to Iraq as stronger than to their denomination and culture. It was also the basic problem with the Austrian-Hungarian Empire. It was, and still is to some extent the problem of the Confederacy. And, it might be so again in the US of the not distant future.Whether or not California can defend itself against N Korea is beside the point (although I hold that they probably could once N Korea gets through kicking Japan, China, S Korea, and Taiwan to the curb, they may be weakened enough for a country that would be only slightly smaller than Japan to get a lick in). The point is, are they willing to take on that responsibility as part of their self-determination. After another eight or sixteen years of Southern, evangelical, conservative, mililtaristic rule, Californians, or even leftist Northeasterners may like to try. We may be militarily weaker if we divide, but the ability to dominate by force is not everyone's ideal of the best possible form of government.

[irishrosem]

Just to clarify, I am one of those female leftist Northeasterners I referred to (with the exception that I like to delude myself into thinking I know a little something about U.S. government). As you said, the legal, I was actually discussing constitutional, issues surrounding secession are pointless. If a people care enough to no longer participate in the Union, it won't matter whether it is legal or constitutional for them to secede (e.g. the southern states). However, the final point, I think, still holds. Secession is a red herring. No state is going to successfully secede from the Union, so either the Union dissolves or the state puts up with it--or ideally the state (people) organize and rally for change.As for Dershowitz, I've never read anything by him that supported a constitutional right for state secession. I'd be interested to read it, if you have a reference.

[minority mandate]

I don't know if Dershowitz ever argued secession, but I thew him in because I do believe he could successfully argue that he was the result of a virgin birth.I agree with you that secession is not in the cards in the near future, however, I like to dream.