It’s strange to me that the reddest states are the ones that have biggest imbalance in their federal payments/receipts... in their favor. In other words, there is more federal spending in those states than they pay in taxes. But this talk of secession is dangerous. Thinking that this would happen on a state by state basis is wildly optimistic. States like New York or Oregon or Maine could be torn apart by schisms between urban “blue” areas and “red” rural counties. Both sides would claim allegiance to the Constitution - you see that out of Texas already.
The path forward is to focus on our common values and what brings us together. Trump can’t do this, he only knows how to divide. I can’t wait for the outrages to stop. Or at least lose the limelight of the presidency.
Talk of secession
is dangerous and foolish as well.
The Constitution is devoid of any provision that allows for a process whereby a State may secede from the United States of America.
And though federalism treats each State as a sovereign entity that has broad latitude to manage its affairs it does not not include any power to secede for the reason that "the preservation of the States, and the maintenance of their governments, are as much within the design and care of the Constitution as the preservation of the Union and the maintenance of the National government."
Thus, secession is unconstitutional: "The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States."
Texas v. White Et Al. (1869)
The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations.
It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form, and character, and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these the Union was solemnly declared to 'be perpetual.'
And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained 'to form a more perfect Union.'
It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?
But the perpetuity and indissolubility of the Union, by no means implies the loss of distinct and individual existence, or of the right of self-government by the States.
Under the Articles of Confederation each State retained its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right not expressly delegated to the United States.
Under the Constitution, though the powers of the States were much restricted, still, all powers not delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
And we have already had occasion to remark at this term, that the people of each State compose a State, having its own government, and endowed with all the functions essential to separate and independent existence, and that 'without the States in union, there could be no such political body as the United States.'
Not only, therefore, can there be no loss of separate and independent autonomy to the States, through their union under the Constitution, but it may be not unreasonably said that the preservation of the States, and the maintenance of their governments, are as much within the design and care of the Constitution as the preservation of the Union and the maintenance of the National government.
The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States.
Topic: Trump outrage of the day (Read 841523 times)