My view of secession is that it should be avoided if possible. As mentioned previously, the talk of secession is a reflection of peoples growing concern and fear of a growing federal government beyond the powers enumerated within the Constitution. As an advocate of the Tenth Amendment, I believe the optimal remedy is for the states to exert their ability to nullify unconstitutional laws (laws made outside the scope of the enumerated powers). As each state voluntarily joined the union, the same attitude holds for the reverse. It is no different than if individuals voluntarily join a group, then when they become disallusioned by the direction of the group, peacefully be permitted to withdraw without repercussion.
They'd prolly elect you preznit.
The states are. However, since they joined voluntarily, they ought to be permitted to leave voluntarily. As I mentioned above, this subject is a result of a federal government exceeding it's constitutional authority as enumerated within the Constitution.
I agree that any state should have the right to secede, and I'd even argue that the states do have the right to secede, since it wasn't prohibited otherwise.
But what are the practical implications of secession? How realistic is it for landlocked states (OK, NE, etc) to do it? Think about what a country requires: Currency. Unobstructed trade routes. The ability to pay debts. Don't count on keeping what is now Federal property without properly compensating the former owner of that property. That's just the first things off the top of my head.
But what are the practical implications of secession? How realistic is it for landlocked states (OK, NE, etc) to do it? Think about what a country requires: Currency. Unobstructed trade routes. The ability to pay debts. Don't count on keeping what is now Federal property without properly compensating the former owner of that property. That's just the first things off the top of my head.
who's gonna pay their welfare??
For Texas those issues are less of an obstacle than for landlocked states with limited natural resources and population. Aside from the western most states (feds own 85% of Nevada, 69% of Alaska, etc.) the feds have minor title to most real estate holdings thus compensation would be minimal.
Agreed. Say Oklahoma went out on its own. With no trade routes, no guarantee of cross-border access, little revenue, etc. What would stop the US government from levying a large tariff on goods produced in OK so that no one would want/afford them? it's not as easy as just saying 'we are done' and everything goes along as normal minus the feds.
How much would OK state income tax have to increase to compensate for federal taxes? Just to pay for defense, road infrastructure, a postal service, and the other government services that we do indisputably need?
It'd get real ugly real fast. OK ain't exactly the most efficient of governments out there.
Not to mention how much the Indian nations could potentially get bent in this.
It'd get real ugly real fast. OK ain't exactly the most efficient of governments out there.
Not to mention how much the Indian nations could potentially get bent in this.
Similar threads
- Sale Price: 123$
