Louisiana petitions Obama for secession.

[T'Girl]

********************

We petition the Obama administration to:

Peacefully grant the State of Louisiana to withdraw from the United States of America and create its own new government.

*********************
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pe...ca-and-create-its-own-new-government/1wrvtngl

I came across this on the White House website, and frankly don't know what to make of it. We of course have the right to petition our government, but to the best of my knowledge there is no established legal means for a state to withdrawal from the union.

Nothing will likely come of this. Still, do you think a American State, with the support of it's populace, should have the constitutional means of separating from the Untied States?

Or should the federal government have the power to prevent them, if they really want to go? Once you're in, you can never leave.

What say you?

 

[ALF]

I say the moment one state leaves, the United States of America would no longer exist.
It's in the name itself. United. So what would it change to?

The Republic of Louisiana?
New Louisiana?
The United Crybabies of Lousiana?

 

[Gaith]

Considering this is just some online poll, I find the thread title wildly misleading, and in fact totally erroneous.


... As for secession, the Supreme Court was fairly clear in its 1869 Texas v. White ruling:

When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States. (emphasis mine)
​

So there's a broad hint that the Supreme Court would regard a secession as lawful if Congress (representing the remainder of "the States") accepted it, but otherwise, it's independence achieved through war or nothing.

Regardless, a secession request would have to start with a state's legislature, not an online poll, and the executive branch would in theory have next to nothing to do with such a matter (apart from putting down an armed insurrection, that is).

 

[Peacemaker]

I say the moment one state leaves, the United States of America would no longer exist.
It's in the name itself. United. So what would it change to?

The Republic of Louisiana?
New Louisiana?
The United Crybabies of Lousiana?

Forget it. If they can find their way to Oklahoma, they can just go to Canada .

 

[sojourner]

Wasn't this question answered about 150 years ago?

 

[Alidar Jarok]

do you think a American State, with the support of it's populace, should have the constitutional means of separating from the Untied States?

Or should the federal government have the power to prevent them, if they really want to go? Once you're in, you can never leave.

What say you?

Halfway in between. They can withdraw with consent of everyone else. No state lives in a vacuum, so their actions affect others. Because of this, any secession has to take into account these realities.

Obviously, our country was founded by breaking away from another country, so I never want to categorically say they can never unilaterally secede. But it has to be the gravest of circumstances that can't be remedied through some other means.

 

[YellowSubmarine]

So whoever started the poll is unhappy with the federal government spending a negative amount of their money on socialism?

 

[Admiral2]

Amendment 10 of the Constitution states that any right or privilege not exclusive to the Federal Government belongs to the states. One of the Confederacy's arguments was that secession was one of those rights. Of course, as noted above, the rest of the country has to agree. Since it didn't back then, that put the Confederacy itself in violation of Article Four, Section Three:

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

Of course, nobody really has to be asked. The Louisiana legislature could just vote to secede and see if they have better luck enforcing it today than the entire Confederacy had way back when.

It's...doubtful...

 

[MacLeod]

So much for democracy, surely if a referredum was held in a state and a signifigant majority (say 70%) voted to secede. Haven't the people spoken and made their wishes known?

So yes they should be allowed to leave if they have the support of the populance. Otherwise if you force them to stay against their will, why not change from the United States of America to the British States of America. Because in essence forcing them to stay would be little different than the British trying to force America to stay a British colony like they did 236 or so years ago.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Prudence indeed will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes.

 

[Trekker4747]

You know, whenever we hear this stuff about letting a state secede I say, "Let 'em." Because think about what now has to go one with that state now.

Presumably that state is now seen as its own little country independent of the rest of the United States and, thus, that country would need to be treated as we do any other country.

So, first of all, it would mean "tightening the borders" around this independent state, making life very difficult for those who live along state-lines and work across it and having to step-up a Visa system with the United States.

This independent state will now have very limited resources as it now no longer has the rest of the country to help support it, so now a mutual beneficial system of exports and imports would need to be established which of course would be subject to tariffs when it comes to international commerce.

Presumably any military personnel and equipment would need to withdrawn leaving the Country of Louisiana without any means of national defense.

So, really, when I hear these types of things I just wonder if we shouldn't treat them like a little kid wanting to run away from home and say, "Let 'em!" Then either simply re-conquer them as they no longer have a means of defending themselves or just let them see what it is like to "be on their own" and wait for them to come crawling back.

 

[Gaith]

So much for democracy, surely if a referredum was held in a state and a signifigant majority (say 70%) voted to secede. Haven't the people spoken and made their wishes known?

So yes they should be allowed to leave if they have the support of the populance. Otherwise if you force them to stay against their will, why not change from the United States of America to the British States of America. Because in essence forcing them to stay would be little different than the British trying to force America to stay a British colony like they did 236 or so years ago.

When the South seceded, Lincoln's (as well as most of the Union's) primary motivation in forcing them to stay in was the fear that allowing them to leave would mean not only the preservation and expansion of slavery, but also the near-certainty of war at some future point. Remember that this was the age of empires, and that history up to that point had been one long progression of warfare. Suppressing the insurrection straightaway would be far less violent than fighting a full-on war later. Obviously, this took longer in practice than the North had hoped.

Today, if, as you say, seventy percent of Louisianans wanted to secede, we could be fairly confident that even if they did, there'd never be a war between LA and the rest of the Union, for obvious reasons. Conversely, as Circus Peanut notes, the practical and bureaucratic costs of establishing an independent nation would be prohibitive, to the point where it's virtually inconceivable that even a simple majority of any state would want to secede.

So, the proper answer to your question is really: there's no sense in making plans for crossing that fantasyland bridge unless and until we come to it.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

This would be very exciting for stamp collectors.

 

[JiNX-01]

********************

We petition the Obama administration to:

Peacefully grant the State of Louisiana to withdraw from the United States of America and create its own new government.

*********************
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pe...ca-and-create-its-own-new-government/1wrvtngl

I came across this on the White House website, and frankly don't know what to make of it. We of course have the right to petition our government, but to the best of my knowledge there is no established legal means for a state to withdrawal from the union.

Nothing will likely come of this. Still, do you think a American State, with the support of it's populace, should have the constitutional means of separating from the Untied States?

Or should the federal government have the power to prevent them, if they really want to go? Once you're in, you can never leave.

What say you?

I say let them go. Most red states -- i.e. those in the south -- are poor states. They get more money back from the federal government than they send to Washington. They'll be begging for reinstatement in less than a year.

 

[QCzar]

Admitted states are, truly, little more than administrative districts. States' rights fanatics hate this fact. In other words, the United States of America is a state. It's not a body or an association or a federation or a conglomerate. It's a state, a nation, a single indissoluble entity that is made up of many parts (like almost every other nation on the planet).

So when people start talking about seceding this or seceding that, it's less like a fully functioning nation wanting its "freedom back", and more like your bratty kid wanting to "secede" his room from your house. And it deserves the same response.



Do people, outside of that fail circus that is the far-right, ever take this stuff seriously?

 

[Unicron]

Halfway in between. They can withdraw with consent of everyone else. No state lives in a vacuum, so their actions affect others. Because of this, any secession has to take into account these realities.

Obviously, our country was founded by breaking away from another country, so I never want to categorically say they can never unilaterally secede. But it has to be the gravest of circumstances that can't be remedied through some other means.

Agreed. I think there might be circumstances where secession might be justifiable, but they'd have to be pretty dire.

 

[T'Girl]

Let's see, Louisiana has ridiculous amount of oil and natural gas. And a large number of refineries, refineries that can't be replace without considerable political will (which is missing) so would continue to refine oil for the US.

Tourism.

Louisiana has some fine schools. Source of lovely international tuition money.

The Panama Canal charges up to $140,000 dollars for a ship to pass through. There's lot's of traffic on the Mississippi River that has to pass through Louisiana.

The people of Louisiana paid their share for the creation of the US military, in all fairness they should get their fair share of it when they leave. No Nukes.

Unless the US federal government wanted to be snotty about it, crossing the border would be like entering/exiting Canada. Basically nothing but a long line and a display of your drivers license.

And for our liberal friends. The House of Representative will change from Republicans controlling 55.4% of the seats, to Republicans controlling 55.1% of the seats.

Hurrah.

 

[Peacemaker]

And then, within a really good hurricane up the Gulf and into NOLA, we'll all get the pleasure of watching them ask the rest of us for help when they can't handle it on their own - again.

 

[BillJ]

Let. Them. Go.

 

[gturner]

I say let them go. Most red states -- i.e. those in the south -- are poor states. They get more money back from the federal government than they send to Washington. They'll be begging for reinstatement in less than a year.

New Orleans controls the outlet of the Mississippi river, and thus much of the production that flows out the US heartland, and they would be able to charge the US exorbitant transit rates or shut down traffic altogether.
The last battle of the War of 1812 was fought there for good reason, and holding the mouth of the Missisissippi was and is a strategic and economic necessity.