Louisiana petitions Obama for secession.

[Finn]

Oh man, no. The state government has been crap at governing. Jindal and his henchmen have been acting like bullies to get things done the way they want. I'm amazed at lack of common services I've seen in other cities I lived in, even Cincinnati. They have been cutting down things so much. A lot of people have been screwed over.

No recycling. Very sparse bus service outside of LSU area and downtown. It's definitely not pedestrian friendly. Horrible traffic (I think it's worse than DC in some ways)

I asked some people at work about Katrina and Gustav. They weren't even pointing fingers at FEMA and Bush. They had beef with Jindal and the state government.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

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.

What gives Louisiana the right to those? Natural resources in the Gulf are currently owned by the federal government. The federal government would have to consent to giving them to Louisiana. Even if Louisiana is democratically entitled to secede, they aren't entitled to deprive something that currently belongs to the US as a whole.

 

[Roger Wilco]

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.

I agree.

 

[SmoothieX]

Can't they just move to Canada like normal people 'threaten' to do when their guy doesn't get elected?

Though them seceding and the rest of us sitting back and watching them on TV the next time a Katrina hits would make for great entertainment.

 

[Shilliam Watner]

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.

What gives Louisiana the right to those? Natural resources in the Gulf are currently owned by the federal government. The federal government would have to consent to giving them to Louisiana. Even if Louisiana is democratically entitled to secede, they aren't entitled to deprive something that currently belongs to the US as a whole.

Louisiana has thousands upon thousands of producing oil and gas wells in their state waters and marshes as well as on land that are not owned by the federal government. They also have massive salt domes where oil and gas reserves are stored. They have the massive Haynesville Oil Shale in Northwest Louisiana that is a huge money maker. Don't forget they have a huge seafood industry. Louisiana could sustain itself if it seceded.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

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.

I agree.

Oh, joy, then we can bring the direct democracy of the initiative system that has been sooooo good for California to matters that decide the fate of the entire nation based on the current whims of the largely uninformed and easily swayed electorate and which special interests can spend the most money. That sounds like a recipe for quickly tearing apart the country because some people are upset that President Kenyan Muslim Socialist got reelected and is going to take their guns and ban Jesus. Good call.

 

[Admiral2]

So much for democracy,

The United States is not a Democracy and never has been. It's a Republic. Each state has a republican form of government, and that means elected representatives make decisions on behalf of the people.

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?

A referendum is only valid if the constitution provides for it (as in California). Neither the US Constitution nor that of the state of Louisiana provides for a public referendum, so even if the entire civilian population of the state signed the petition to support secession it wouldn't mean diddly if the state government didn't vote to act on it and the Federal Government said "Hell no."

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.

The difference is there's a mechanism in place for making it happen. 238 years ago you could only use violence to break from the king. Here, if the idiots who created this petition were serious they'd be petitioning their Legislators to vote to unratify the US Constitution and ask Congress to let them out of the contract, which is the only legal way this can happen. If they can't be troubled to do the research necessary to do that much, then no. I don't care if everybody signs it, they should be forced to stay and suffer through the next four years like the rest of us who don't like Obama.

 

[QCzar]

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.

I agree.

I don't.

Look, this isn't a Scotland/UK situation we're talking about here. There just aren't any prima facie cases to be made for this being anything other than naked insurrection. Which is fine, but the way I see it you've got to call it like it is (a rebellion, IOW). If they want to rebel, I'm all for it. Bring it on.

It's like saying if a majority of a state's populace wanted to ban free press, set up a Church of Louisiana or reinstate slavery we should just let them, because of "democracy". It's unconstitutional and it's insane. It is not and (as the Civil War proved) never has been a state's right.

And let's add to that the very real amount of disenfranchised people who may not make up enough of the populace to deny a "significant" majority (and who would likely become even more disenfranchised) who already live in the state of Louisiana even while it lay within the US. What becomes of them?

And last but not least, what problems can we imagine are so severe where Louisiana being an independent country becomes the only viable solution? Despite all the cynicism, the United States remains strongly democratic, with enfranchisement given to all of its citizens and to its states via the national legislature. The "dire" circumstances would therefore have to be truly extreme to make secession seem necessary or plausible.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

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.

I'm pretty sure it doesn't work that way.

 

[Gaith]

Let's also pause to note that, assuming this site has its numbers right, Louisiana receives $1.78 in federal funds for every dollar contributed to the nation as a whole.

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..

If an independent Louisiana tried that, I'm pretty sure the Union would find some creative ways to make them cut it out, like charging $1,000 for every border crossing. (To say nothing of flat-out invasion and incorporation as a territory without Congressional voting power, like Guam.)

 

[Ian Keldon]

Wasn't this question answered about 150 years ago?

No, the question of whether or not the US would allow states to exercise their entirely Constitutional right of secession was settled, which is a different thing entirely.

As someone noted above, and declaration of secession would be made by the state, not by a citizens' petition.

And the SCOUTS ruling is wrong on the facts. If a state wants to leave, under the Constitution as it was plainly understood prior to the 1860s, it was their decision, and the Federal Congress had no say in it.

 

[Ian Keldon]

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?

The Founding Fathers did, as did the original states, several of which explicitly reserved the right of secession in their ratification of the Constitution.

The current state of affairs (which is what you describe above) is NOT the US that was formed in 1776. It is the "indissoluble", unitary nation that Lincoln turned it into by force of arms.

 

[T'Girl]

I'm pretty sure it doesn't work that way.

It might be in America's best interest if Louisiana had the ability to protect it's coast line and waterways, and patrol it's skies, right from day one. Certainly the assets in the Louisiana air national guard should be released if Louisiana goes independent. Also some small naval and coast guard vessels.

The future relationship between the US and the Louisiana State wouldn't have to be a adversarial one. Maintaining a friendly political/diplomatic relationship would be in the interest of both parties.

In terms of disenfranchised people, the people of Louisiana would change from being 1.5 % of their country's population, to being 100 % of their country's population. Their power to select their nation's leaders would be increased.

Let's see, Louisiana has ridiculous amount of oil and natural gas.

What gives Louisiana the right to those? Natural resources in the Gulf are currently owned by the federal government.

Not exactly, the US controls the Gulf Waters off the US coast line. The federal government doesn't control Mexican waters. And they wouldn't control the waters off of Louisiana.

 

[Squiggy]

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.

I'm pretty sure it doesn't work that way.

Oh sure it does. Of course you have to fight a war over it and win it (which Confederate sympathizers seem to forget), but anything is possible.

I'd love for Louisiana to deal with another Katrina on their on. That would be epic.

 

[Drago-Kazov]

I am not sure if a civil war is still possible in the US.

 

[T'Girl]

I am not sure if a civil war is still possible in the US.

Getting the American people behind an attack on Louisiana? What are the odds?

President Obama getting Congressional approval (both houses) for military action

... against Louisiana?

I'm still waiting for Obama to get Congressional approval for the attack on Libya.

 

[E-DUB]

Well, if Louisiana left and Puerto Rico came in, at least we wouldn't need new flags.

 

[T'Girl]

I'd love for Louisiana to deal with another Katrina on their [own].

It would be similar to after the earthquake in Haiti, the aid would pour in. It actually might be better for Louisiana than after Katrina.

Many Americans would have extended family in Louisiana (I do). The relationship might be very much like with Israel, with large numbers of American supporters.

If you think about it, foreign aid from the US would be basically a given.

 

[Gaith]

The Founding Fathers did, as did the original states, several of which explicitly reserved the right of secession in their ratification of the Constitution.

The current state of affairs (which is what you describe above) is NOT the US that was formed in 1776. It is the "indissoluble", unitary nation that Lincoln turned it into by force of arms.

Uh, no. Whatever language states may have written in their ratification documents became null and void as soon as they entered into the Constitutional Union, and the Constitution said nothing about secession.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

And the SCOUTS ruling is wrong on the facts. If a state wants to leave, under the Constitution as it was plainly understood prior to the 1860s, it was their decision, and the Federal Congress had no say in it.

It wasn't plainly understood. For starters, the idea of the states as actors who joined the constitution was alien to the founders. They deliberately bypassed the states and used ratifying conventions. They said proposing the constitution to the state legislatures would be illegitimate because it's the people of the United States who had to decide. The Constitution of the United States would be between the people and the government, not the states and the government.

In addition, the states didn't get new powers under the constitution. They only retained some of the powers they had previously and ceded others. The original 13 states clearly abolished their right to secede when they signed the Articles of Confederation, which created a "perpetual union." That's why the 10th Amendment doesn't apply.

Not exactly, the US controls the Gulf Waters off the US coast line. The federal government doesn't control Mexican waters. And they wouldn't control the waters off of Louisiana.

Why does Louisiana get to unilaterally decide its coastal waters? Those waters currently belong to the United States, not the state of Louisiana. I'm not talking about the waters inside Mexico, but that was obvious from the context of my post.

Getting the American people behind an attack on Louisiana? What are the odds?

President Obama getting Congressional approval (both houses) for military action

... against Louisiana?

I'm still waiting for Obama to get Congressional approval for the attack on Libya.

The President is explicitly authorized by statute and by the constitution to use the army to defend the US from invasions and insurrections, so Congressional authorization is unneeded. As for Libya, I'll refer you to the War Powers Act.