02 May 08
Originally posted by pawnhandlerI can appreciate your sentiment because I feel just as strongly about California, Michigan, Illinois, and the entire Northeast (including the District) seceding. However, the point is no state can secede because the precedent was set and paid for with the blood of Americans over 100 years ago.
Actually, at this point it wouldn't bother me if the Confederate States decided to secede today.
02 May 08
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterI've less knowledge of US politics, but I wasn't aware that was the case.
I can appreciate your sentiment because I feel just as strongly about California, Michigan, Illinois, and the entire Northeast (including the District) seceding. However, the point is no state can secede because the precedent was set and paid for with the blood of Americans over 100 years ago.
Even if a majority of people in a state express a which to get out of the US, then they can't do so?
I'm not disputing what you're saying, just expressing my surprise.
02 May 08
Originally posted by RedmikeWell, it would probably require the consent of the rest of the union. You could argue that the rest of the union should consent if it happened, but that's not quite the same!
I've less knowledge of US politics, but I wasn't aware that was the case.
Even if a majority of people in a state express a which to get out of the US, then they can't do so?
I'm not disputing what you're saying, just expressing my surprise.
In a similar way, while if the majority of Scotland wanted to go independent it would probably happen, legally it would require the consent of the rest of the UK (in the form of the UK government).
02 May 08
Originally posted by mtthwCan anyone from the US clarify this point, just for European curiosity, if nothing else....
Well, it would probably require the consent of the rest of the union. You could argue that the rest of the union should consent if it happened, but that's not quite the same!
In a similar way, while if the majority of Scotland wanted to go independent it would probably happen, legally it would require the consent of the rest of the UK (in the form of the UK government).
If a state wishes to secede, and the rest of the states are happy to see them go, can they leave the US?
I understand the point re Scotland and the UK - technically, the UK parliament would have to vote to allow us to go.
02 May 08
Originally posted by RedmikeThey can leave, but they'd have to shoot their way out.
Can anyone from the US clarify this point, just for European curiosity, if nothing else....
If a state wishes to secede, and the rest of the states are happy to see them go, can they leave the US?
I understand the point re Scotland and the UK - technically, the UK parliament would have to vote to allow us to go.
GRANNY.
02 May 08
Originally posted by RedmikeU.S. Civil War, 1861-1865, 618K dead.
Can anyone from the US clarify this point, just for European curiosity, if nothing else....
If a state wishes to secede, and the rest of the states are happy to see them go, can they leave the US?
I understand the point re Scotland and the UK - technically, the UK parliament would have to vote to allow us to go.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War
02 May 08
Originally posted by RedmikeThere is no provision in the US Constitution allowing a state to leave; the Union was meant to be perpetual. I suppose a Constitutional amendment could allow a specific state to leave; it would require passage by 2/3 of each branch of the legislature and 3/4 of the States (and the seceding State's consent).
Can anyone from the US clarify this point, just for European curiosity, if nothing else....
If a state wishes to secede, and the rest of the states are happy to see them go, can they leave the US?
I understand the point re Scotland and the UK - technically, the UK parliament would have to vote to allow us to go.
02 May 08
Originally posted by no1marauderIsn't that a contradiction then? If the Union is meant to be perpetual, then how can people whose favorite pastime is watching American Idol or Survivor be allowed to vote to alter something thats perpetual?
There is no provision in the US Constitution allowing a state to leave; the Union was meant to be perpetual. I suppose a Constitutional amendment could allow a specific state to leave; it would require passage by 2/3 of each branch of the legislature and 3/4 of the States (and the seceding State's consent).
Just wondering ....
02 May 08
Originally posted by SMSBear716It was meant to be perpetual by the Framers, but they left room for later generations to decide otherwise by legal means (i.e. Constitutional amendment, not illegal secession).
Isn't that a contradiction then? If the Union is meant to be perpetual, then how can people whose favorite pastime is watching American Idol or Survivor be allowed to vote to alter something thats perpetual?
Just wondering ....
02 May 08
Originally posted by whodeyAll citizens of the State of Hawaii.
I think another good quesiton to consider is, who should we consider to be Hawaiin if it all came down to a vote? Is it the native people of the island only or the residents who have come from the mainland who have made it their home? Should only the native people be allowed to vote for independance?
02 May 08
8 edits
Originally posted by whodeyI'm working on the wealth right now...and making progress.
You still are missing my point. You may have a certain degree of power by having the ability to sway people to your way of thinking. In fact, the richer you become and more famous you become the greater your sway. Just think, if you were a Hollywood star you could go to Congress and give Congressional testimony on the affair. LOL. The sad part is that th ...[text shortened]... their power over us and once such power is achieved it will not be surrendered without a fight.
"The powers that be" are too strong? Then I could court the people who will replace them. There are ways. However I'm not really that invested in politics at this time. I'm putting my own life on track right now.
One weakness of the powers that be is that they have something to lose. I don't have much to lose.
My friend's Dad - a tough brawler sort of guy, drugs, guns, hooked up with a 13 year old while in his 30's or 40's - trash of some sort, though it's hard to decide whether he was ghetto or trailer or some other kind of trash - used to drive at top speed in his beat up pickup down the narrow hill roads of Mount Washington, where I grew up. I once asked him whether he was afraifd of hitting someone, and whether he'd be able to get out of the way if he turned a corner and some car was there. His response - "My truck's bigger, more beat up and less valuable than anything out there. They need to get out of my way."
Likewise, people with power and wealth are vulnerable simply because they want to hold on to what they have, and they have lots of demands on their time. There are ways to take them on if you are willing to take the heat. Unless you leave yourself open, they have to back down first.
Another bit of wisdom from this fellow -
"Don't be afraid to fight. A [butt]-woopin' don't hurt that bad."
He didn't have any of his top front teeth (maxillary incisors). I have heard two stories about that; one that he had a motorcycle accident, and the other that he simply had them punched out.
Another strategy is to work on influence within one's immediate community, and work out from there. I live in Los Angeles. There's a lot of power and wealth here, and it's all split up among any number of political leanings.
Something else to consider is that there are powerful people in state government as well. They might resent having the Feds horning in on their territory.
03 May 08
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI never implied that one cannot fight back or should not fight back even if "outgunned". I am merely stating that statistically on average the one with power will win because they have an advantage and the more powerful they are the bigger advantage they have.
I'm working on the wealth right now...and making progress.
"The powers that be" are too strong? Then I could court the people who will replace them. There are ways. However I'm not really that invested in politics at this time. I'm putting my own life on track right now.
One weakness of the powers that be is that they have something to lose. s well. They might resent having the Feds horning in on their territory.
Is it possible for Hawaii to gain its independence? Yes. Is it likely? No, especially if such opposition is direct in nature. I think you will find that opposing a greater more powerful force directly is akin to suicide. That is why you see gorilla warefare being waged by lesser powers against greater powers throughout the world. However, when I think of Hawaiins I have to laugh. All I can think about are layed back mild mannered natives who enjoying the nicest weather in the world with the highest standard of living in the world to boot. How much discontent can you really have in that environment that is enough for them to wage any meaningful battle against the good ole US of A?