Printable View
Particularly in the United States - What are your opinions regarding secession? (from either the Federal or State system). If you'd like, you can also talk about your feelings about annexation (of either agreeable foreign states or those in rebellion from a foreign state)
I'm just interested.
Let's just say that I am very happy that North won the war. Uncly Billy Sherman might be dead, but there will be plenty of others to take his place, if there is ever a need to pummel another rebellion.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
On a more serious note, secession from a tyrannical government is understandable. Also, the motives of the secessionists are an important consideration.
In a true democracy secession should be allowed if the majority want it. However, as it's been stated before, the USA is not a democracy.
The UK is staring into the abyss, with self rule for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland but not England. Quite how this might pan out is still unclear. However if the majority in these countries/principalities/provinces want independence then that's a done deal.
I'm not sure you'd want to keep a country together at the point of a gun.
I am curious as to by whose definition we are not a democracy, and then a follow-up question: which country is/was a democracy?Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
Failed ones. We aren't a democracy. We are a Constitutional Republic with a representative legislature. This is the reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
The USA is a republic.
Beat me to it Tuff.
I reckon the Swiss have the nearest thing to a democracy. It wouldn't work in larger countries IMO, I like the idea of regular plebiscites. It keeps the political elite on a short leash, which can only be a good thing. :yes:
Republic is a form of Democracy. If by Democracy you mean specifically a Direct Democracy, then no, we aren't one, and aside from a couple of cantons in Switzerland I cannot think of any other contemporary examples of a direct democracy.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Not so.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Is so....Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
Main Entry: de·moc·ra·cy
Pronunciation: \di-ˈmä-krə-sē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural de·moc·ra·cies
Etymology: Middle French democratie, from Late Latin democratia, from Greek dēmokratia, from dēmos + -kratia -cracy
Date: 1576
1 a: government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
2: a political unit that has a democratic government
3capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the United States <from emancipation Republicanism to New Deal Democracy— C. M. Roberts>
4: the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority
5: the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges
The American Republic clearly fits the definition.
You said a republic is a form of democracy. May I present the Republic of Sudan. Perhaps, Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
Now if you'd said that a republic may be a form of democracy........
Those two do not make the American Democracy any less legitimate. Any social structure can be perverted to the point of tyranny, and practically any social structure can be made democratic (such as the United Kingdom, which despite being a monarchy is a parliamentary democracy).Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
i don't believe at this point in time a civil war or attempted secession would succeed in america, we're just too damn interwoven. If the south decided to rise again many northerners would have to fight there own families. many of us have grandparents in florida, relatives in california or new york. and the masses probably are not willing to divide families and pick up a gun to fight ones brother on behalf of so fleeting a cause as any can be rendered in the U.S.
what if republicans turn on the democrats, no one will fight for that. Taxes too high, one good riot will get our chosen representative off his arse and cause change. Maybe bush will try to cross the rubicon (so to speak) and attempt to become dictator... he would have no following, the army would not stand by him to subgegate there own families.
we are too prosperous for any hope of a rebellion or secession.
....and we were a republic before we were a 'constitutional monarchy'. We've witnessed the problems of having a politician as the head of state. It's not big, it's not funny and it's not clever.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
:smash:
I do not understand what you are trying to convey here... republic didn't work for you, but it worked just fine for us. What is the issue?Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
I have no issue. I was just having a conversation on a message board. Why? What were you doing? :inquisitive:
While this sounds nice and fair, where do you draw the line? Should I be able to secede my house from the UK if the majority of people living there want it? That way lies anarchy.Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
Big King Santafax! what are you doing back here?Quote:
Originally Posted by Big King Sanctaphrax
Back here? I never left, baby. :eyebrows:
The USA was, and at least technically still is, a Republic formed by the joint action of the several SOVEREIGN states.
I believe that Lincoln was wrong when he asserted that secession was unconstitutional. I believe that voluntarily joining a political union does not obviate your ability to dissolve that union (short of war).
However, a reasonable reading of the Constitution suggests that, as with admission, secession would require the concurrence of 2/3 of the states. If you can make a convincing enough case, you should be allowed to depart and set up shop on your own.
Currently, however, secession has been labeled unconstitutional. Once part of the USA, you will not be permitted to depart unless you are able to win your independence through stregth of arms. Well over half a million permanent "votes" were registered to support the perspective adopted by Lincoln, the cause for which they gave the "last full measure of devotion."
~:flirt:Quote:
Originally Posted by Big King Sanctaphrax
How ironic.Quote:
Currently, however, secession has been labeled unconstitutional. Once part of theUKUSA, you will not be permitted to depart unless you are able to win your independence through stregth of arms. Well over half a million permanent "votes" were registered to support the perspective adopted by Lincoln, the cause for which they gave the "last full measure of devotion."
My view "no backsies" is summed up pretty much in your third paragraph. Once a state agreed to the Constitution, they can't back out of it on their own accord. In practice, it's up to the federal government and other states to decide. They can choose to enforce the agreement on seceding states (see Civil War), or they could do nothing and allow them to secede.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
I also think that the 2/3 notion would also work. 2/3 are needed to amend the Constitution, so I can't see why 2/3 could write a state out of the union if they chose to.
Oh, we'll rally round the flag, boys, we'll rally once again,
Shouting the battle cry of freedom,
We will rally from the hillside, we'll gather from the plain,
Shouting the battle cry of freedom!
The Union forever! Hurrah, boys, hurrah!
Down with the traitors, up with the stars;
While we rally round the flag, boys, rally once again,
Shouting the battle cry of freedom!
We are springing to the call of a million free men more,
Shouting the battle cry of freedom!
And we'll fill our vacant ranks of our brothers gone before,
Shouting the battle cry of freedom!
But wouldn't a ban on succesion deny the very ideals this country was founded on? I mean look at Locke and the decleration of independence. When ever a governemnt fails to perserve natural rights the agreement is null and void.
Quote:
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Disclaimer: I'm not supporting the south or think the Union should be torn apart except for the most heavy of causes.
Lol what are you talking about
When last time some states tried secession, there were war.
1)These states became ruined and on 10 years lost their rights
2)Big part of population was murdered/raped/robbed
3)Inner rights into states became changed.
Now would be worse IMO
If Vermont and Alaska want to secede and join Canada, that's cool. Y'all can keep the rest. ~:smoking:
Did you know that there is a clause in the Articles of Confederation that allows for quick annexation of Canada in the event that it would like to join the Union? They could really change voting habits in the House and Senate if they were to ever want that. Which they probably wouldn't.
I think I've seen copies of this dangerous Canadian plan ...Quote:
Originally Posted by Beirut
Classics never get old. :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Still, I'm right on the border, so... does that mean I'll be like, in the middle of the warzone and stuff?
That's where the majority of traitor lynchings will occur. So it is written.Quote:
Originally Posted by AntiochusIII
...Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
:help:
:clown:
The features of the American state Americans tend to point out as features of a republic are actually features of various kinds of democracy. Eg. the point that Americans do not directly decide government issues, but elect representatives to govern on their behalf, is not directly indicative of a republic, but of a representative democracy (democracy because they vote, representative because that's what they vote for). The system of separating the electoral mechanics of voting in the upper and lower house is also not directly indicative of a republic, as it is of a desire to mix political systems so it's harder to fix the electoral process.Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
The single salient feature of a republic is that the head of state does not claim to be a monarch.
Thus republics can include democracies such as the US, tyrannies like Saddam's Iraq, oligarchies such as China, etc. Even places like North Korea where the head of state is effectively a monarch can call themselves republics, as long as he doesn't actually proclaim himself a monarch.
The USA was NEVER meant to be a democracy as was stated. It is a warped and corrupt version of what the founding fathers had in mind.
First of all, we have the House of Reps. The true Reps of the people. They were directly elected by the people. They were their representation in government. HOWEVER, the the writers knew that mob rule was a horrible idea and giving people complete control over the government wasn't a good plan.
So... they made a few checks and balance.
For example, before the god awful 17th amendment, the Senate was comprised of people who were appointed by the state legislature of each state. It was the same # as it is today, two from each state. This acted as a good counter balance to the whim of mob rule.
The House proposed the laws and the Senate had to make sure they were rational and approve them. Any law could not get passed, in theory, without the approval of the people because the unelected legislatures could not start them.
What the Senate could do was approve treaties by a 2/3 margin (they still do today) and other things of that short that the average joe would have no clue about.
Now the president. This was more of a mixed system between the two and the federal government left it vague on purpose how exactly states would elect a president.
Each state government is in charge of a certain number of electors. These electors can be appointed however the state sees fit. THEY DO NOT HAVE TO BE APPROVED BY THE PEOPLE. It's just most states have it that way these days.
In my opinion, the electoral college is broken. People think they are voting directly for the president when in theory, they are only voting for a slate of electors who claim they will vote for the president. The whole slate of electors is nonsense in my opinion, but I will respect the states' rights about how they elect a president.
Anyway, a little history listen there :2thumbsup:
What do I think of succession?
I believe in what has already been said. If 2/3 of the states approve the succession, AND two houses both vote with a majority, I would say, yes it's fine.
Amen. Electoral college was implemented upon the presumption by the Founding Fathers that the average Joe Voter is an idiot and cannot be trusted. Now, they might have been right, but that does not make the electoral college look any better. If it had a use before, it certainly has no use now. We should ditch the Electoral College and nudge our constitution one more step towards perfection.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice
I disagree. This has been covered extensively before. The Senate and electoral college is not just a "check" of the ignorant voters. The reason that smaller states entered the Union at all is because of these things. If they hadn't, massive northern coastal populations would have constantly won elections and kept the south and Midwest as servants. The 2 Senator rule counters the influence of the more populous states in the House.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Yes, but it was a check and balance.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
The smaller states still had influence, but the Senators weren't directly elected.