Secession Petition(s)

Post Reply New Topic

The talk of secession is pointless. The union of the 50 states cannot be dissolved. Simply because some people didn't like the outcome of the recent election is no reason to secede from the United States.

Long have we encouraged secession in places like the now former Soviet Union and the middle east, consider it the chickens coming home to roost. Are we to deny our own citizens the same right?

If hypothetically the states that wanted the secede were tax recipients as opposed to tax givers then wouldn't it make sense to cut them loose?

People are silly to think the reason people are dissatisfied with government is that 'their guy' lost. Has nothing to do with the global recession, has nothing to do with the assault of civil liberties, 10 million less people didn't show up to the polls this election. The banker's choice was Mitt Romney AND Barack Obama, it didn't matter who won there was no real choice. A battle of personalities and little else.

It's good that people are discussing this, maybe we'll find a way to avoid but the road we're going down now it is inevitable. The phrase 'the constitution is not a suicide pact' has been used to justify unconstitutional actions, well this union of ours isn't one either. Some people see what's coming around the bend and it aint pretty.

Would states be trying to get their citizens to sign secession petitions had Romney won the election?

Yes, these are opinions. But there are legitimate opinions, and then there are illegitimate opinions. Legitimate opinions have some basis in reality - they are supported by facts. Granted, we can all look at the same facts, interpret them differently for a variety of reasons, and reach different conclusions, but at least we can establish that the opinion arrived at has some basis in fact and in reality. Then there are opinions that are not based in fact, but instead derive from likes / dislikes / biases and that sort of thing. If I saw a black man looking sheepish next to an empty cookie jar with crumbs on his hands and face, its perfectly reasonable to end up with the opinion that he stole the cookies based on the facts that I see before me. On the other hand, if I see a black man and conclude that because he's black he must be a thief, well, that's an opinion derived from bias, not from facts.

So, please understand, I am not saying that no one has a legitimate reason to be against Obama or to disagree with him. There are all sorts of reasons someone might not like his politics or his policies. The same would be true of how many people might feel about any sitting President.

For instance, I've not liked certain previous presidents positions on taxes, trade, wars & defense, welfare, education, religion in government, and a whole host of other issues. I disagreed rather strongly with them at times on many of these things. Never once did I consider that my state would be better off outside of the Union simply because that person happened to be President. People have had these same type of disagreements with the current president throughout our history. Since the civil war, few if any ever thought the solution was for their state to succeed from the Union. To want to succeed, you must reach the conclusion that somehow you'll be better off outside of the Union than you will be inside of it. To want to do this specifically because of the sitting president, I suggest that no only must you feel that you'll be better off outside the Union, but that you can also not endure whatever it is about the sitting president that displeases you until that President leaves office and your affiliation with the Union will become more pleasant for you.

History shows us that almost all of the time, people's typical disagreements with a sitting president do not rise to such extremes.

So the question is, if people's current desire to succeed from the Union are legitimate, then they must have disagreements with Obama that go far above and beyond what people usually disagree with a sitting president about.

Of course it is only a matter of opinion, but, again, the types of disagreements people claim to have can be broken into two categories, it seems to me:

a) things that Obama has taken a position on, or said that he wants to do, that people might disagree with, such as:

raise or lowering taxes
the amount he will or won't cut / expand government
his position on defense spending
his position on birth control
etc. etc. etc.

These are typical conservative / Republican vs. liberal / Democrat arguments that have existed as long as our country has. Its nothing new. Obama's positions are demonstrably less radical than other Presidents - if he just wants to raise taxes on the wealthy, that's not nearly as radical as raising taxes for everyone, which other Presidents have advocated and implemented, for instance. So historically these are not the type of disagreements that lead people to want to succeed from the Union - they can be, no doubt, very legitimate disagreements, but they normally do not reach a level of severity such that people feel that they cannot remain in the Union while this person is president.

b) then there's things that Obama has never said he wants to do, that he's never taken a position on, and for which there exists no supporting evidence, but some people believe anyway:

"Obama wants to take our guns away!"
"Obama is a socialist!"
"Obama isn't a christian and wants to establish Shaira law in the U.S.!"
etc etc etc.

There's no arguing against this, because if someone believes something without seeing any evidence that it is true, no amount of evidence to the contrary will ever persuade them. And, lets be honest, there's extreme conspiracy theories about every President, but rarely has their been such a widespread seeming belief of them as there has been with Obama.

Now, to be honest, some of these conspiracy theories, were they true, might - just might - be enough to go beyond normal political disagreements and in fact justify succession. But again, only if they are true. But as I said, there's lots of people who, without any supporting evidence, seem to believe that they are true. Why they believe these sorts of things, who knows, but again, there are far more people believing them about this President than almost any other. And, since a lot of the conspiracy theories seem to be deriving from people's dislike of Obama's race, I don't think its a big stretch to conclude that this newfangled successionist movement is mostly racially motivated.