Would you support a state's right to secede?

[Chris OConnor]

Would you support a state's right to secede? Explain your answer.Results (total votes = 15):Yes&nbsp4 / 26.7%&nbsp No&nbsp7 / 46.7%&nbsp Maybe&nbsp4 / 26.7%&nbsp 

[Mr. P]

I would love to see a few states secede.Mr. P. The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.Once you perceive the irrevocable truth, you can no longer justify the irrational denial. - Mr. P.The pain in hell has two sides. The kind you can touch with your hand; the kind you can feel in your heart...Scorsese's "Mean Streets"I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper

[Classical Celt]

No.......Each state is a member of the community as a whole but can not break away or secede/they can try but that can lead to serious problem that I would not support.

[Chris OConnor]

I voted "no" too. Gotta go, but maybe I'll elaborate later.

[Sudsy Bubblebath]

I voted yes.

[MadArchitect]

That depends, I suppose, on their reason for wanting to do so. There's nothing sacred about the Union, and I don't think it should be upheld on principle alone. If a state can better provide for its citizens apart from the Union, then I say, good bye and good luck.

[Dissident Heart]

This is a complex issue, no doubt.I support the right to secede, but don't recommend it. I suppose the State would have to engage secession in partnership with other States: taking leverage and power from the US when doing so, and protecting themselves from ooutisde threats along the way.I think a secession of California-Oregon-Washington is viable. I don't know how the US Federal Govt. would relinquish it's control of the resources it claims in those regions. It doesn't seem possible without some sort of terrible catastrophe to Washington DC, severley disabling the Federal Government.

[MadArchitect]

I imagine that the intended seccessionists would have to rely on help from other nations, and in doing so they would probably have to demonstrate the necessity and right to do so. The only other way I can think of that it might really be possible is if the climate were such that a great many states were considering seccession, such that it would be difficult for the federal government to draw support. That might divide the military along regional lines, and prevent the effective use of force in maintaining the union -- even if the other potential seccessionists ultimately decided to remain in the Union.

[riverc0il]

the right to rise up and change our form of self organization is firmly implanted into the constitution. the framers knew that power could easily corrupt governance and put in the charge, right, and duty for citizens to over throw those in power if needed. though i doubt they foresaw the united states rising into what it has become, for the right reasons, the legitimacy is right in our founding articles.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.would i support a state's "right" to secede? i think that is a poorly worded question. a state HAS the right to secede but i would not support such action unless the most unimaginable circumstances occurred. even though such circumstances are highly unimaginable, saying absolutely no way in any case seems to take a rather unimaginative view of potential future situations.

[herbroselle]

it's a provisional yes vote - there must be conditions and trade agreements in place, and there should be a mechanism for an advantage to seceding that disadvantages the remainder of the country. for example, Scotland wanted to secede from GB as soon as they had found the North Sea oil. Secession should axcount for that in such a way that it maintains a mechanism for continuing pre-exisiting economies.