When will the party let the people choose their own future?

[notyou2]

Regardless of whether or not the OP is a Troll...

I for one would be fine with allowing the State of Hawaii to vote for Secession.

I would expect the following...
1) Fair election, no tampering.
(Obviously)

2) All current US Citizens who are Residents of Hawaii being allowed to vote in said referendum.
(All people who live there NOW have a stake in the results... not just those whose ancestors lived there prior to 1898. In the US we give equal voting rights to all citizens... regardless of how or when they because citizens. This principal must still apply.)

3) Requirement of super-majority... maybe 2/3rds.
(I think it is incumbent on those who seek change from the CURRENT STATUS QUO to demonstrate the vast majority want change, not just a simple majority.)

4) Implementation to be phased over time; with US Federal Gov't retaining land use for at least another 25years, and as much as another 100years. Obviously the Federal Gov't would have to pay some lease.
(You can't expect the US Gov't to immediately lose all use of land, army bases, scientific stations, etc immediately. It's not realistic, nor should we [the US people] take loss on investments we made to build infrastructure. In addition to military bases, there are also some significant scientific installations that were expensive.)

If these criteria are met... go for it.

BTW... I won't further debate my criteria. I've stated my reasoning. The US is in the position of power; allowing a referendum and agreeing to honor the outcome is positive... and making these demands as part of this is reasonable.

These comments agree with all previous statements I've made.

Why 2/3rds? The only fair way is 50% +1

[patches70]

This is just an aside, and not pertinent to discussion of orderly secession of a State today.

Oh it is pertinent, I'm talking about today, not in the 1800's. I was just musing about the Lincoln thing. You said it would be ok in your book if Hawaii voted to secede and that if Hawaii did indeed vote to secede then they should be allowed to go by the Federal government.


It is my contention that even though the Founders allowed for secession, in practice it is absolutely not allowed. Period. Lip service is all that is given. States on occasion talk about secession (Texas coming to mind most often), it is pretty much just laughed about. No one takes it seriously, which is a shame IMO. The States are supposed to be sovereign but in practice today they aren't really sovereign except when an individual tries to sue a state. But that's another discussion.

Why is it that you think Hawaii should be allowed to leave the union, peacefully?

If these are indeed your opinions, what would happen in your opinion, if Hawaii or another state did indeed actually secede? Would the Federal government really let them?

I'm just curious, most people are always "secede? That's stupid!" when talk like this comes up every now and again. And the people who say the loudest that secession isn't an option happen to also be in the federal government.

[jimboston]

Why 2/3rds? The only fair way is 50% +1

Many major issues require a "Super Majority" 2/3's... and not a "Simple Majority" 50%+1.
This is commonplace for lots of issues.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermajority

Even on local level, some votes require a "Super Majority"... for example, in my Town we have Town Meeting.
Many items only require a majority... however for issues involving borrowing, Town bylaws require a Super Majority of 2/3rd's.

It's very common.

[jimboston]

This is just an aside, and not pertinent to discussion of orderly secession of a State today.

Oh it is pertinent, I'm talking about today, not in the 1800's. I was just musing about the Lincoln thing. You said it would be ok in your book if Hawaii voted to secede and that if Hawaii did indeed vote to secede then they should be allowed to go by the Federal government.

If you believe that, that it is ok today for Hawaii to secede, then it stands to reason that it is ok for any state to secede. And be allowed to go their separate way by the Federal government.

It is my contention that even though the Founders allowed for secession, in practice it is absolutely not allowed. Period. Lip service is all that is given. States on occasion talk about secession (Texas coming to mind most often), it is pretty much just laughed about. No one takes it seriously, which is a shame IMO. The States are supposed to be sovereign but in practice today they aren't really sovereign except when an individual tries to sue a state. But that's another discussion.

Why is it that you think Hawaii should be allowed to leave the union, peacefully?
And if Hawaii should be allowed to leave peacefully, does that right not extend to each and every state in the Union?
and
If these are indeed your opinions, what would happen in your opinion, if Hawaii or another state did indeed actually secede? Would the Federal government really let them?

I'm just curious, most people are always "secede? That's stupid!" when talk like this comes up every now and again. And the people who say the loudest that secession isn't an option happen to also be in the federal government.

I already answered all these.

I'm 100% cool if they wanted to secede under the guidelines I stated.

Would the Fed. Gov't let them go? I think so... but we won't know for sure till some state has a referendum and tries.

Do I think that it's a smart idea to secede for Hawaii? or Texas?
No. I think it's a dumb idea.
However, I support their right to do so as I stated in my first post.

[patches70]

I already answered all these.

I'm 100% cool if they wanted to secede under the guidelines I stated.

Would the Fed. Gov't let them go? I think so... but we won't know for sure till some state has a referendum and tries.

Do I think that it's a smart idea to secede for Hawaii? or Texas?
No. I think it's a dumb idea.
However, I support their right to do so as I stated in my first post.

Well, you might want to take your argument to the Supreme Court then, who has already ruled that secession is illegal. Once admitted, it is illegal for any state to secede from the Union. According to the Supreme Court, the Union is "an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible states".

In more recent the Alaskan Supreme court in 2006 held that secession was illegal.

A state's residents can vote to secede but if the federal government says "nope, you can't secede" then that's that, according to the Supreme court states can only secede if allowed to by the federal government.

I support their right to do so as I stated in my first post.

Something can't be considered a "right" if government gets to decide if you can exercise that right or not as is the case in secession. Citizens can vote to secede, and if is truly a right, then the federal government would have zero say at that point, which isn't the case as far as the SCOTUS goes.

The SCOTUS says that if, say, Hawaii wanted to secede, they'd have to vote of course. Then if Hawaii actually voted to secede then Hawaii would have to get approval from all the other states and then also get permission from the federal government. Now if Hawaiians had a "right" to secede, then why would it be needed to get the other state's permission and the federal government's permission?

The very act of secession is an application of force, political at first, but after that then it becomes applying force to maintain the secession. Force of a more...kinetic nature as well as the application of Will.
Which would be very hard, few people view themselves in identity to a state but rather to a nation. I.E. no one looks at themselves as a Virginian first and an American second. We look at our selves as Americans first. In general.

I don't know why you'd think the federal government would let them go either. You can't base that opinion on past experience because the last time such a thing came up we fought one hell of a war over it.
The only territory that has ever successfully gained their independence from the US was the Philippines and they'd never have gotten that independence if they hadn't fought a war with the US in which the Philippines had tens of thousands killed. A necessary sacrifice in the end to gain independence it seems.

So it would be that much worse for an actual US state to secede. Such a state would only gain their independence after fighting a war. One they wouldn't have to necessarily win at the time.
It's like dealing with a bully in a way. You tell a bully to stop but he won't. You punch the bully in the mouth, he kicks the shit out of you, but after that he'll leave you alone because you'll be too much trouble to mess with.
So it is with a state that wants to secede, it had best be prepared to fight for the right you talk about, because violence is how rights are first founded, on the battlefield.


I'm just musing a bit here is all, the OP is a troll post and I don't take the OP seriously, ever. I was just intrigued by this supposed "right" of secession when everything in history and the courts says otherwise.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

It's time!

[jimboston]

I don't know the details of any US Supreme Court decision... what year? what title?

Let alone what the Alaskan Supreme Court said.

I'm talking about what I think is "right". I have to believe if popular support was truly in favor or secession that the court would have no choice. I can't imagine the US Gov't using force to retain Hawaii or Alaska or even Texas. I can imagine the Gov't insisting on retaining bases or getting some compensation for Federal lands... especially if the US Gov't paid for those lands.

So for example... if Alaska seceded, I think it would be fair and reasonable for the US Gov't to expect the new Gov't of Alaska to pay us back for what we paid to Russia, plus interest.

In any case... It's all hypothetical, because I don't think any State truly wants to secede. Yeah, there are some fringe groups... but I don't think they represent the majority.

I also think that if the US Gov't were to say "OK... let's vote"... that the referendum should be a one-and-done thing; at least for a period of time like 50+ years. I don't think it's healthy to have a referendum like that on the ballot that loses year-in-year out.

[jgordon1111]

Damn patches, you actually took the time, to find out the facts before posting, something the op seems to disregard every time it opens its mouth to spew out pure bs

[jimboston]

BTW... a lot of people in the US never wanted us to claim the Philippines as a territory in the first place.

I don't know whether or not the Federal Gov't would support secession of a State.

I think older Americans would generally be opposed to the idea... but I think a majority of younger Americans; while they wouldn't vote for secession themselves, might support the rights of some State to secede.

[jimboston]

The only time the legality of secession was brought before the Supreme Court occurred in December 1868, when the reconstruction government in Texas claimed that bonds owned by Texas since 1850 had been illegally sold by the Confederate State Legislature during the war—a matter in which the legality of Texas’ secession became a factor. On April 15, 1869, Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase announced a ruling in favor of Texas on the grounds that the Confederate government had no legal existence, and that Texas, since its admission in 1845, was part of “an indestructible union, composed of indestructible states. Although the ruling conceded that divisibility was possible “through revolution or through consent of the states,” it declared the ordinances of secession, as applied to Texas in 1861, “absolutely null.”

So the last time SCOTUS looked at the issue was 1869. It's quite possible they will have a different view now.

[jimboston]

Interesting article..

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/ ... ion-legal/

[patches70]

The SCOTUS hasn't overturned itself yet, it could happen of course, but until then secession is illegal as far as US law goes. "Popular support" and claims of "rights" are meaningless. As it stands today, secession is illegal. Do cops turn the other way when people break the law just because a bunch of people think the lawbreaker should be allowed to break the law? That's just how it stands today, right now. Things could change, but given past history such changes will likely be violent.


The article you posted says as much, doesn't it? A state secedes even though they can't do it legally, the government forces them to remain through fighting a war and the article is correct when it says that war doesn't really resolve the issue (hence my earlier comment-
"Such a state would only gain their independence after fighting a war. One they wouldn't have to necessarily win at the time."

It truly does come down to a battle of Will does it not? Let us consider this battle of Will, Jim, if you would.

Consider your opinion earlier about the "right" of people in a State to secede. You assume that the federal government would allow it peacefully. Now let us say that Hawaii votes to secede. You say "Good on you Hawaii! After all it's your right!" The federal government comes in and says "Nope, Hawaii is not allowed to secede" and US troops parachute and amphibiously land on the Hawaiian islands and through force keep Hawaii in the Union.

Does this not now put you, JimBoston, in a particular difficult pickle? You believe that Hawaii has the right, the federal government then tramples on the rights of the Hawaiian people.
What do you do? Do you support Hawaii or do you support the United States?
And what kind of support are you willing to offer?
Would you fight on behalf of Hawaii or the US? Fight as in enlist, get uniformed, pick up a rifle.
Would you accept being conscripted into the US armed forces to hold Hawaii in the union? Would you allow your son to be conscripted into the army to bring Hawaii back into the fold even though you believe Hawaii had the right to secede?
Or if you sided with Hawaii, would you be willing to be labeled as a traitor to the US? That is what you would be technically, especially if you took up arms on behalf of Hawaii against the US.
Or would you stand by and say nothing, do nothing except offer token lip service to Hawaii's "right" to secede and do your best to not get involved or be affected by the violence?
If you were to chose the latter, what does that say about your belief in "rights" to so easily stand by and watch those rights (as you view them) be trampled upon? At that point how could you say you have any rights at all?

Then of those who side with the US and are willing to fight to hold Hawaii in the Union, what would you say of those of your fellow citizens? Your fellow citizens that were so willing to trample upon the rights of other fellow citizens in Hawaii? Are they traitors themselves or are they patriots? They would be considered patriots by the US government of course, because they'd be fighting to "preserve the Union" even though you believe that people have a right to leave the Union, peacefully.
Those fighting to preserve the "rights" of the Hawaiian people of course would be viewed as traitors that are trying to destroy the Union.

Then there is the whole can of worms if Hawaii is allowed to leave peacefully, isn't there? I look at the EU who gathered together sovereign nations into an economic union, and now look at them? It was just supposed to be a simple economic union and now all these individual nations find themselves losing their sovereignty in bits and pieces to the point where the hard right, violent minded political parties are rising. When (if) the EU breaks up, do you have hope that it would be peacefully at this point? Even though that union was only supposed to be economic they have now found themselves in a political union with no easy way out.

Hell, if Hawaii is allowed to leave peacefully you might be on the verge of watching the entire nation shatter apart like the old Soviet Union shattered. Would that anarchy, that chaos, would you view that as a "right" and be happy with it?

I'm just looking at the problems in your view that secession is a "right". Man, that is one hell of a can of worms in this day and age and if your view was ever put to the test you'd find yourself in a very compromising position. Hold fast to your principles or submit to a government that doesn't give two shits about your rights. Any way you go you are screwed and you find yourself re-evaluating everything you believed in short order.
I'm not trying to bash on your position at all, I'm just trying to process it if it were ever actually tested and what position that would put you in and how difficult that position would be.

[mrswdk]

Why wait decades though? If China grabs the Sea now and can't be contested, then it is already the fact on the ground that the Sea belongs to China. The situation would still be the same whether we wait 4 weeks or 50 years.

It is being contested.

Nice dodge.

1) Do you think it is fair for me to challenge the US's annexation of and claim to Hawai'i?
2) Do you think it is fair for anyone to challenge any Chinese annexation of the South China Sea?

[jimboston]

The SCOTUS hasn't overturned itself yet,

This article disagrees with that statement.

http://money.howstuffworks.com/10-overt ... -cases.htm

I'm not a Supreme Court Scholar... I think you could argue some of these were clarifications, and not "really" the court overturning itself. Some however are clearly cases of SCOTUS overturning itself.

SCOTUS hasn't overturned itself on States seceding... and won't until a case comes before that court.
That's is how SCOTUS works... it doesn't make decisions unless it's actually ruling on a case in front of it.
So a State would have to vote for secession prior to contesting the previous court case.

[jimboston]

The article you posted says as much, doesn't it?

Kinda... I just posted it because I found it interesting.

As I stated...
1) I personally support a State's "right" to secede from the Union; given the criteria I mention in my first post.
2) I don't know if the Fed. Gov't would allow it or not. I think it might, especially if there was significant popular support.
3) I think that (as of this writing) it would be a bad idea for any State to secede. Though, even though I think it's
a bad idea, I support people's "right" to make decisions.

[jimboston]

Why wait decades though? If China grabs the Sea now and can't be contested, then it is already the fact on the ground that the Sea belongs to China. The situation would still be the same whether we wait 4 weeks or 50 years.

It is being contested.

Nice dodge.

1) Do you think it is fair for me to challenge the US's annexation of and claim to Hawai'i?
2) Do you think it is fair for anyone to challenge any Chinese annexation of the South China Sea?

1) No. It happened over 100years ago. It's "grandfathered in". I know some people want Hawaii to secede, but I don't think it's a majority of Hawaiian citizens... not by a longshot.

2) Yes. Because it's happening NOW, not 100 years ago. Yes, because it is in violation of CURRENT International Laws and Standards... and vast majority of countries oppose it. If the International Community can't challenge China's annexation of the South China Sea... what could they challenge? Nothing.

USA's annexation of Hawaii was NOT ABNORMAL for it's time, and was not opposed by the vast majority of other countries.

You are trying to compare two things that are not comparable. The world has changed in 100 years. There was no UN. There was no standard for defining what is/isn't International waters. We are (supposedly) more civilized. Etc.

[mrswdk]

The continuing occupation of Hawai'i is also in violation of current laws and standards. Just because time has passed does not mean that the illegality of the annexation has lessened.

So the question is, why is it okay for one country to occupy somewhere illegally just because it has done so for a long time, but not okay for another country to occupy somewhere illegally* just because the occupation is still underway? Are you not then sending out the message that the law doesn't matter if you can hold on to your prize for long enough?

*allegedly

[jimboston]

My answers in bold...

Does this not now put you, JimBoston, in a particular difficult pickle? NO

You believe that Hawaii has the right, the federal government then tramples on the rights of the Hawaiian people.
What do you do? Do you support Hawaii or do you support the United States?

I support both, by exercising my right to free speech... and telling my Congressman and Senators that I think we should let Hawaii go. I probably don't go so far as to actually protest... because (though I support Hawaii) I really don't care that much.

And what kind of support are you willing to offer? Emotional?

Would you fight on behalf of Hawaii or the US? Fight as in enlist, get uniformed, pick up a rifle.
No. I would not fight for either side.

Would you accept being conscripted into the US armed forces to hold Hawaii in the union?
No... but I'm over 40, so it's moot.

Would you allow your son to be conscripted into the army to bring Hawaii back into the fold even though you believe Hawaii had the right to secede?
I don't have a son, and there is no draft. So again it's moot. You are proposing questions as if it were the 1860's.. it ain't. The questions are moot... because if it was 1860 my attitude about the whole situation would be different. I'm a product of the late 20th / early 21st century... so the questions must be pertinent to this time as well.

Or if you sided with Hawaii, would you be willing to be labeled as a traitor to the US? That is what you would be technically, especially if you took up arms on behalf of Hawaii against the US.
Again... not 1860's.

Or would you stand by and say nothing, do nothing except offer token lip service to Hawaii's "right" to secede and do your best to not get involved or be affected by the violence? Yep. Well I'd say something... but do nothing.

If you were to chose the latter, what does that say about your belief in "rights" to so easily stand by and watch those rights (as you view them) be trampled upon? At that point how could you say you have any rights at all?

You are taking the world view of a man who is the product of THIS time... and putting him into a world of 150 years ago. It's not a valid proposition. I can't answer the questions because they are not even close to realistic... and because there are way to many variables that you haven't mentioned. What started the fighting? Is the US now somehow a Totalitarian Regime? What are the ramifications for me if I voice an opposing position? What are the ramifications for my family? My support of the "right" for Hawaii to secede is based on the world as I understand it today... not on some world where the US Army invades Hawaii.

In Star Trek "Mirror Mirror" episode, Evil Universe Spock knows that the Federation is evil... but works within the bounds of that system. Does that make Spock evil? No. He's a product of his universe. I'm a product of mine.

Then of those who side with the US and are willing to fight to hold Hawaii in the Union, what would you say of those of your fellow citizens? Your fellow citizens that were so willing to trample upon the rights of other fellow citizens in Hawaii? Are they traitors themselves or are they patriots? They would be considered patriots by the US government of course, because they'd be fighting to "preserve the Union" even though you believe that people have a right to leave the Union, peacefully. Those fighting to preserve the "rights" of the Hawaiian people of course would be viewed as traitors that are trying to destroy the Union.

Maybe in 1860. In 2015, a bunch of people would shout at eachother across a barricade... and then they'd go to Starbucks after for a Cappuccino.

Then there is the whole can of worms if Hawaii is allowed to leave peacefully, isn't there? I look at the EU who gathered together sovereign nations into an economic union, and now look at them? It was just supposed to be a simple economic union and now all these individual nations find themselves losing their sovereignty in bits and pieces to the point where the hard right, violent minded political parties are rising. When (if) the EU breaks up, do you have hope that it would be peacefully at this point? Even though that union was only supposed to be economic they have now found themselves in a political union with no easy way out.

It was never supposed to be just Economic. The whole goal of the EU was to setup a system where no more European Wars would take place. This was after several centuries of constant fighting on the Continent. Since the EU there have been some fight outside its' borders... but nothing major within.

That said... I suppose it's possible that a disintegration of the EU could happen. I don't think it's likely... but it is possible. The situation in Europe is nothing like the hypothetical we are talking about with Hawaii. It's worthy of a new thread. That said... in short, I think the EU is just another step toward World Gov't. The world isn't ready for it now... and might not be for awhile yet... but it's ultimately necessary. Either that of we just keep fighting wars forever.

Hell, if Hawaii is allowed to leave peacefully you might be on the verge of watching the entire nation shatter apart like the old Soviet Union shattered. Would that anarchy, that chaos, would you view that as a "right" and be happy with it?

I'd say yes, it would be the people's right to secede... and no, I wouldn't be happy with it.
I'd also say it's not likely to happen. Even if Hawaii left... which is unlikely... I don't think that's gonna cause a domino effect of disintegration. The only thing (I think) that could possibly cause a disintegration of the US is some sort of global catastrophe; like a zombie apocalypse, giant asteroid, or (most likely) extreme resource deprivation due to Global Warming.

I'm not trying to bash on your position at all,
seems like you are...

I'm just trying to process it if it were ever actually tested and what position that would put you in and how difficult that position would be.
I don't think Hawaiian secession would really impact me at all.

[AndyDufresne]

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

--Andy

[rishaed]

So... When will the CCP let the Chinese People choose their own future?
(If they could have their way they wouldn't.)

[Bernie Sanders]

I can not allow these women to secede from the United States of America!

[Lord Arioch]

Didnt china like build a couple of islands so they could claim fishing and mineral rights?
I hear rocks hitting the glasshouse.... (swedish proverb)
and since the US lost cuba they of course needed a new party island...

[mrswdk]

In summary, the denizens of Troll Forest are perfectly happy for America to occupy Hawai'i in violation of international law but not for China to occupy various parts of the South China Sea in violation of international law.

[riskllama]

Nice 180, mrs...
you should stick to pokemon, hun