Louisiana petitions Obama for secession.
- Thread starter T'Girl
- Start date
Yes. Look how well Haiti is doing now.
Hmmm, because those waters would be immediately ajacent to Louisiana's physical coast line?
A 12 mile territorial limit and a 200 mile exclusive economic zone.
There is no "violent uprising against an authority or government" here. It's all rather polite and civilized.
Thank you, now can you please refer President Obama to the War Powers Act?
When it came to the "aid would come pouring in" part, Haiti in that regard did quite well.
Their mindset is that they believe their state/s are the real America as formed by the Founding Fathers while the governments of other states and the feds are impostors and unconstitutional.
Bazinga.
Louisiana was only the first of 15 states currently, to have filed petitions to secede.
Unless I misunderstand though, it's a big disingenuous to say it's the states petitioning. Anyone can create a petition and I don't get the sense any of the Legislatures of the states are behind this.
As of the time the article was written, Louisiana is 17,642 signatures from the President even considering their petition.
Unless I misunderstand though, it's a big disingenuous to say it's the states petitioning. Anyone can create a petition and I don't get the sense any of the Legislatures of the states are behind this.
As of the time the article was written, Louisiana is 17,642 signatures from the President even considering their petition.
Urgh. No. The US is both a republic (a form of state in which the country is considered a "common good" and not the legal propriety of the sovereign) and a democracy (a system of governing in which all citizens have an equal say in the choices of government). I don't know why this is so difficult for some people.
To answer QCzar's question: no, not really.The Founding Fathers did, as did the original states, several of which explicitly reserved the right of secession in their ratification of the Constitution.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 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.
(...)
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.
The President did comply with the act - restricting the US's role to logistical support consistent with our obligations to NATO beyond the point that the act authorized the President to act unilaterally.
While this may often be what happens, it's certainly not a mandatory rule under international law and is subject to other rules and restrictions.
Um, maybe it's because those people grew up saying the Pledge of Allegiance in school and know they didn't pledge allegiance to a "democratic republic" of the United States? Maybe it's because nowhere in the Constitution is the United States or any state government referred to as a democracy? Maybe it's because states and territories call themselves many things (republics, commonwealths, protectorates) but not one is referred to as a democratic republic?
The United States of America is a REPUBLIC. It was designed as a republic based on the First Republic (Rome), which had some democratic processes but was not a DIRECT DEMOCRACY like Athens or Sparta, something most people who are actually educated in history more rigid than Social Studies actually get. Perhaps you ought to pay more attention to people who find your idea of a democratic republic "difficult."
Sparta wasn't a direct democracy.
Or maybe you should realize there are more countries in the world than the US? Forms of government do not depend by the words printed in their own constitution, but by the actual workings of their state (otherwise, North Korea would be a lovely Democratic Republic, while it's actually a dictatorial quasi-monarchy). Personally, I think it's adorable that you base your understanding of political science on the "pledge" you recited mindlessly in grade school, but probably it's just me.
Oh, look. You capitalized the important word, "direct". Athens was a direct democracy. It was not called a "republic" simply because the word was not invented yet. Rome was the "first" republic simply because res publica is a Latin word. Athenian democracy, Roman republic, and the US federation can all be considered republics, because the state was not established as a propriety of the ruler, but it was collectively "owned" by their own citizens. They were also all democracies, because the final power rested in the people (by direct voting, special assemblies, or elected representatives, and often by all three). Shocking, I know!
Lulz. If that's the history they taught you in university, I'm very sorry for you. But you are right about one thing: your vision is very rigid, beheld by school-book definitions and dogmatic formulas, without much understanding of the meaning of it.
I rarely pay attention to people who don't know what they are talking about. (And especially if they present themselves "people who are actually educated" in the topic and get crazily defensive when they are challenged in their narrow vision.)
... Because they've heard of the Senate?
Heard without paying too much attention, I guess.
I've listened to people harp on these particular and parochially US-centered definitions for more than 25 years but it seems like they will be around as long as there is AM talk radio. L'Iguana already gave it in a nutshell: a republic is a government where the supreme power resides with the people, IOW not a monarchy, and a democracy is where the people exercise that power directly or indirectly through elected representatives. Madison made a distinction between the two in Federalist 10, using republic to mean representative democracy. Some people hold to that, fine, but that does not corner the market on what the words mean to most of the world, as reflected even in US-published dictionaries.
Something most people who are actually educated in history more rigid than Social Studies actually get.
Justin
Seriously, people should really read the other thread titles before starting repeat topics.
I seem to recall Gaith advocating that the US Senate be abolished. (Here's one recent occasion - there have been others.) He thinks it unfair that half a million people in Wyoming are represented by two senators while the thirty-seven million in California are also represented by... two senators. It's been his little bongo to beat for quite some time now, and I suspect he's doing the same here.
Well, iguana_tonante wrote thatThat bolded part just isn't true - consider DC citizens, who have no Senatorial or House of Representatives representation at all. (No, nonvoting delegates don't count.)
The US is a republic of democratic states and territories. Not a democracy by iguana_tonante's own definition. I don't see why this simple observation merits condescension.
The US is both a republic (a form of state in which the country is considered a "common good" and not the legal propriety of the sovereign) and a democracy (a system of governing in which all citizens have an equal say in the choices of government). (emphasis added)
The US is a republic of democratic states and territories. Not a democracy by iguana_tonante's own definition. I don't see why this simple observation merits condescension.
Drago-Kazov
Fleet Captain
Do you guys think Texas would reelected Bush as pres if it had secceded like Rick Perry said at the time?
That's exactly what I was thinking of actually.
It's one of my fundamental convictions, that peoples that want to be independent and form their own nation should be allowed to do so. That goes for the Scottish, and the Basques, the Palestinians the South Sudanese, the East Timoreans, and the Quebecois, the Tibetans, the Chechens and for all I care also the Louisianians and Texans, I support them all.
Of course you have a stronger argument for wanting independence if there's actually some oppression going on, instead of just sour grapes about losing an election, but I also seriously doubt Louisiana would vote for independence once the initial disappointment subsides.
Similar threads
