Support or oppose military response to American secession?

Suppose a US State actually secedes from the Union. Maybe its Texas as a response to a gun ban. Maybe its California as a response to Trump winning POTUS. Whatever the reason and whatever the state, assume the secession followed a democratic popular vote in that state. In this scenario- would you support a US military intervention forcing the state to re-join?

 

though i voted "oppose", there are a number of caveats inherent in that decision. right now the federal government is so involved in the workings of the individual states that secession is about more than just "leaving". any state or group of states seceding from the union must reimburse the remaining states for the investment they have made within that (those) state(s)' boundaries. then there is the basic rule of law (the constitution) which is a promise made to each individual citizen, a promise that cannot be reneged upon simply by majority rule.

 

I don't support it, but it's inevitable if the state tries to keep federal assets like the military.

 

Suppose 51% of the people of a state voted to simply leave, taking any federal property with it and absorbing it into the state, and refusing to repay any claims other states might make on it. Would that make you support a military response?

 

Huh?

 

Federal assets can be moved. The land however would be an issue. But since the authority to designate state land as federal rests with congress, I imagine a seceding state would argue that congress no longer has the authority to enforce such designations. If a seceding state gave fedgov a 'reasonable' amount of time to peaceably remove any material federal property that can be moved, would that suffice in your view?

 

'Huh?' what?

 

I hope and believe that the United States will remain united. Nevertheless, I cannot think of an overriding issue like ending slavery that would justify using violence to prevent secession.

In 1860 nothing in the United States Constitution forbade secession. The Declaration of Independence implied the right to secession.

 

I am old enough to remember the political polarization that existed in the United States from the late 1960's to the early 1970's. I think the polarization back then was more severe. Back then the issues were civil rights, the War in Vietnam, and how to respond to the rise in crime. I do not see issues now that are that contentious.

 

"Perpetual Union" meant the same thing then as now. "Session" is illegal. That does not infer immediate military action to end attempts, but it certainly justifies it.

 

Agreed. All this talk of civil war and such is just propaganda friendly to our enemies, especially foreign ones.

 

Fortunately it so far appears that a civil war would not occur in the case of secession ...at least so long as the results of this poll are reflective of US voters and the will of the people is respected by fedgov of course. I know, 3 is a poor sample group, but we're pointing in the direction of 'peace, live and let live' so far.

 

I am largely opposed, but if California wants to go, let ‘em. The main caveat is when the state goes bankrupt, they can’t come back asking the Federal Government to bail them out.

Newsom is giving free health care and housing to illegal aliens. It should be no surprise that many of them want go there. Heck, Newsom will even pay so that Juan can become Juanita at taxpayers’ expense.

 

Hey, we agree on something. Just as before, this would come down to the seceding states trying to steal federal assets, after which a military response is obviously justified.

 

this isn't a simple black and white matter. there must be some threshold besides a simple majority and a military response would be the court of last resort. the problem is that, in the rush to solidify federal control over the states, no codified path to secession was ever proposed or even examined. i'm sure we all remember the last time this was tried. under the cover of "freeing the slaves" the federal government showed that it would crush any attempt at states exercising their own rights and powers. since then the federal government has essentially kept the nation together through fear.

 

And suppose 51% of the people change their minds the next year and want to reabsorb?

 

This seems like a meaningless question without context. What's the scenario?

Otherwise it seems the default is yes, the military is going to intervene.

 

Well, most of eastern Oregon and washington as well as a big chunk of Northern California want to become part of Idaho.

And the movement is gaining steam, giving left coast liberals fits.

But this is seccession from a state, not sessession from America. The feds have no dog in the fight.

 

as long as we divided the debt by the current state count and that State took their percent of the debt

 

The debt??
You think any politician gives a bunny fart about the debt?

 

I'm a west coast liberal, I have no idea why this would be a problem. The Jefferson thing is a bigger issue, as a new state would shift the balance of power in the senate.

 

If people want to leave, it seems really wrong not to let them. Lincoln was also wrong not to let the south leave.

 

And that would be a problem, why?
So long as our citizens want to remain Americans, and are going about things legally, can't see how one can oppose that, even if the power shift is away from your beliefs.
What would change with a "super Idaho" is the number of representatives in the House. Oregon, Washington, and California would all lose at least one representative.

 

The senate is already undemocratic in shifting power towards rural voters. Of course anybody who is a liberal would oppose a new state added that's conservative. But it would also compound the inherent unfairness of the senate which gives rural voters an undemocratic advantage as it is.

The representatives doesn't matter because the areas are conservative either way. Even California has republican representatives from rural areas. Neither side should be doing any inappropriate gerrymandering. That's something we need to get rid of generally.

 

Hmmm.... do you support Puerto Rican statehood?