Why are you confrontational? You’re more emotionally invested in this than I am I guess.
I don’t care about thought exercises, anybody can hypothesize whatever scenario they want but there is no best case scenario because it’s not feasible.
From a purely practical perspective there is no way this could happen and giving credence to it only benefits these extremist types.
You might not be American but you sure act like one. Pretending to be an authority on a country that isn’t yours is a distinctly American behavior on the internet.
Ain’t that the whole point of common law? There’s no legal framework -> go to court -> set the precedent -> there’s your framework
Separatists have to support each others, my nation’s separatist movement is older than anyone alive today. If some US states feel like they would be better off outside the union then good on them, the super nation experiment has run its course, it’s the same as empires of ages past and I don’t see anyone here defending the British Empire and being against Canada’s Confederation or saying that Haiti should still be a French colony… Weird how hard it is to apply equal standards to everyone 🤷
Precedent like Texas v. White? Or when Antonin Scalia wrote, “The answer is clear. If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede. (Hence, in the Pledge of Allegiance, ‘one Nation, indivisible.’)”?
The decision in Texas v. White (1868) held that the U.S. Constitution does not permit states to unilaterally secede from the United States, while adding, “except through revolution or through consent of the States.” The ruling held null all ordinances of secession and all acts of the state legislatures aimed at secession.
So states could revolt, although that’s not legal. They could try and get consent of the States, if that were actually feasible. They cannot unilaterally secede which is why this is a dog whistle.
It’s really telling that you haven’t mentioned the separatist movements of the native tribes in the US, or the movements in Puerto Rico, or the recent calls for it in Hawaii. Groups that arguably have really solid arguments, but instead focus on groups who are upset because they can’t subjugate and control those around them that don’t conform to their ideals.
Maybe you should emigrate to the US, you certainly have the arrogance and false bravado that Americans often exhibit when talking about matters in countries other than theirs.
Why are you confrontational? You’re more emotionally invested in this than I am I guess.
I don’t care about thought exercises, anybody can hypothesize whatever scenario they want but there is no best case scenario because it’s not feasible.
From a purely practical perspective there is no way this could happen and giving credence to it only benefits these extremist types.
You might not be American but you sure act like one. Pretending to be an authority on a country that isn’t yours is a distinctly American behavior on the internet.
I don’t care about thought exercisesUnless it’s yours 🤷
It’s not mine, I’m not the commenter you originally replied to.
That’s what the original commenter said. What I’m saying is it’s not feasible, in part because there is no legal framework for this.
This is one heck of a dog whistle if it’s reaching all the way outside the US.
Ain’t that the whole point of common law? There’s no legal framework -> go to court -> set the precedent -> there’s your framework
Separatists have to support each others, my nation’s separatist movement is older than anyone alive today. If some US states feel like they would be better off outside the union then good on them, the super nation experiment has run its course, it’s the same as empires of ages past and I don’t see anyone here defending the British Empire and being against Canada’s Confederation or saying that Haiti should still be a French colony… Weird how hard it is to apply equal standards to everyone 🤷
Precedent like Texas v. White? Or when Antonin Scalia wrote, “The answer is clear. If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede. (Hence, in the Pledge of Allegiance, ‘one Nation, indivisible.’)”?
Are you sure you’re not American?
In Texas v. White’s ruling:
There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States.Scalia’s opinion on the subject was shared as an answer to a letter so it has no legal precedence.
How about all of the information?
So states could revolt, although that’s not legal. They could try and get consent of the States, if that were actually feasible. They cannot unilaterally secede which is why this is a dog whistle.
It’s really telling that you haven’t mentioned the separatist movements of the native tribes in the US, or the movements in Puerto Rico, or the recent calls for it in Hawaii. Groups that arguably have really solid arguments, but instead focus on groups who are upset because they can’t subjugate and control those around them that don’t conform to their ideals.
Maybe you should emigrate to the US, you certainly have the arrogance and false bravado that Americans often exhibit when talking about matters in countries other than theirs.
Sorry if I gave an example of a state that already has agreed borders and that actually compares to rich nations like I was asked 🤷
You weren’t asked. Yet, again, just like an American you had to chime in.
I also see you edited one of your comments to add that bit about Iceland. Checked the false equivalence fallacy box with that.
You’re a shill or a troll, either way I’ll give you no more of my time.