Louisiana petitions Obama for secession.

[Thestral]

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.

Other ways iguana's statement is pedantically incorrect:
- Currently incarcerated prisoners, and some former prisoners
- Minors

 

[Roger Wilco]

Well, iguana_tonante wrote that

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)
​

That 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.

Democracy is not necessarily a yes/no binary question, it's a matter of degrees. Maybe there's a certain threshold to calling a country democratic or not (I would argue, the USA was not one prior to 1920), but not all citizens having precisely the same voting power doesn't necessarily make it non-democratic - only slightly less democratic than it could be.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Well, iguana_tonante wrote that

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)
​

That 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.

All Iguana is doing is rejecting this definition of Republic as linguistically inaccurate. A Republic isn't merely a representative (or disproportionately representative) democracy. The Senate's bizarre role doesn't change this.

 

[Avon]

well they're clearly not going to leave are they. its just a new flavour of right-wing nutjob posturing.

 

[iguana_tonante]

Well, iguana_tonante wrote that

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)
​

That 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.

I see your point, and I think it's a good observation. But all it shows is that the US is not a perfect representative democracy, not that it isn't a democracy at all. In fact, it can be argued (right or wrong, that's beside the point) that a upper house less beheld to fleeting popular sentiment (as the British House of Lords) or representing constituent entities of the countries instead of citizens (as the US Senate) might be a favourable feature of a democracy, to improve political stability or long-term planning.

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.

I'm not sure I agree (or at least, not completely). Self-determination is sovereign, but there is also an issue of size. Say, for example, Louisiana secedes from the US: what would happen if New Orleans wants to secede from the newly independent Louisiana (as an exclave of the US or its own city-state)? Should it be able to? The Greater New Orleans Area has more than 1 million people, about 1/4 of all inhabitants of Louisiana, so hardly a small community in comparison. I dislike making slippery-slope arguments, but this is something you have to consider.

 

[Roger Wilco]

I don't see the problem. The "slippery slope" would solve itself via economic practicality.

 

[shivkala]

Louisiana was only the first of 15 states currently, to have filed petitions to secede.

As of Saturday November 10, 2012, 15 States have petitioned the Obama Administration for withdrawal from the United States of America in order to create its own government.

States following this action include:... North Carolina,...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.

North Carolina, where I live, has NOT officially petitioned the US to secede. These petitions are NOT official documents presented by the states in question.

Yeah, that's my point. The article and people here seem to be interpreting this as the states officially petitioning. It's not. It's individuals creating a petition on a website. It's the modern day equivalent of Joshua Abraham Norton pronouncing himself "Emperor of America."

 

[Peacemaker]

That's just silly too, because everybody knows that I am Emperor of America - No Takebacks, Triple Dog Dare.

 

[Shaytan]

(otherwise, North Korea would be a lovely Democratic Republic, while it's actually a dictatorial quasi-monarchy).

Actually, when the ofiicial name of a country contain both Democratic and Republic, it's suspicious.

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.

Now Corsicans are sad and violently angry.

 

[iguana_tonante]

I don't see the problem. The "slippery slope" would solve itself via economic practicality.

Heh. I can't disagree, but I'm not sure how much "economic practicality" would be taken into consideration by a disgruntled and emotionally-charged electorate. That's food for populism and demagoguery.

I also feel that "secession" is kinda an sore point for me, as Italy has its own "secessionist" movement (Lega Nord, albeit it swings wildly between full secession, federalism and fiscal self-administration, as in the end its only interest is money-grabbing). It irks me especially because it evokes a "culturally homogeneous" Northern Italy (Padania) that does not exist end never existed in the first place (unlike, for example, Scotland, that is definitively its own nation). It would be like the City of London, Northern England and Western Ireland seceding from the UK and Eire and forming a single country based on finance, industry, and cattle.

 

[SmoothieX]

I'm not sure I agree (or at least, not completely). Self-determination is sovereign, but there is also an issue of size. Say, for example, Louisiana secedes from the US: what would happen if New Orleans wants to secede from the newly independent Louisiana (as an exclave of the US or its own city-state)? Should it be able to? The Greater New Orleans Area has more than 1 million people, about 1/4 of all inhabitants of Louisiana, so hardly a small community in comparison. I dislike making slippery-slope arguments, but this is something you have to consider.

You get stories like this down and again. Staten Island has threatened to secede from NYC, and the town of Killington, VT threatening to join New Hampshire despite being 40 miles away and landlocked by Vermont towns. It's largely posturing on behalf of someone who wants to make a bold statement and get re-elected.

 

[MacLeod]

Well, iguana_tonante wrote that

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)
​

That 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.

I see your point, and I think it's a good observation. But all it shows is that the US is not a perfect representative democracy, not that it isn't a democracy at all. In fact, it can be argued (right or wrong, that's beside the point) that a upper house less beheld to fleeting popular sentiment (as the British House of Lords) or representing constituent entities of the countries instead of citizens (as the US Senate) might be a favourable feature of a democracy, to improve political stability or long-term planning.

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.

I'm not sure I agree (or at least, not completely). Self-determination is sovereign, but there is also an issue of size. Say, for example, Louisiana secedes from the US: what would happen if New Orleans wants to secede from the newly independent Louisiana (as an exclave of the US or its own city-state)? Should it be able to? The Greater New Orleans Area has more than 1 million people, about 1/4 of all inhabitants of Louisiana, so hardly a small community in comparison. I dislike making slippery-slope arguments, but this is something you have to consider.

The British House of Lords can be overruled by the House of Commons by use of the Parlimanet Act of 1911. At it would be fairer to say that the House of Commons is more prone to popular sentiment.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Now Corsicans are sad and violently angry.

How's that different from any other day?

 

[Shaytan]

Usually they are not sad.

 

[Roger Wilco]

My list wasn't meant to be exclusive, that was just all the examples I could think of spontaneously, so no need for Corsicans to be sad.

 

[iguana_tonante]

The British House of Lords can be overruled by the House of Commons by use of the Parlimanet Act of 1911. At it would be fairer to say that the House of Commons is more prone to popular sentiment.

Yes, but the very fact that the Commons need to invoke such a strong prerogative, it should give them time to think about what they are doing, and maybe think again about it. I think we saw an instance of that in recent years, with a law about privacy (I think). One of our resident Brits might remember it better than me.

 

[EKeelerWasRight]

Interesting discussion here: http://www.deathlist.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=6663&st=140

 

[Amaris]

Interesting discussion here: http://www.deathlist.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=6663&st=140

Here's an idea, have an interesting discussion here instead. Then we can discuss our own ideas, rather than read ideas from a site that has nothing to do with what we're discussing, save that it's in the same country as you!

 

[EKeelerWasRight]

Another moron added to my ignore list.

 

[MacLeod]

The British House of Lords can be overruled by the House of Commons by use of the Parlimanet Act of 1911. At it would be fairer to say that the House of Commons is more prone to popular sentiment.

Yes, but the very fact that the Commons need to invoke such a strong prerogative, it should give them time to think about what they are doing, and maybe think again about it. I think we saw an instance of that in recent years, with a law about privacy (I think). One of our resident Brits might remember it better than me.

The House of Lords usually acts to review potential acts that might not be in the best interest of the country/people. If they do add any ammendments it gets passed back to the Commons. To be voted on again.

I don't think the PArliament Act is used that often.