Either federal or regional, in other words the government that is being seceded from.
This bill (as well as he one it repeals) addresses a scenario in which a State government has attempted to secede form the Federal government. Under the Scott Doctrine, the Regional government would be forced to side against the State regardless of the circumstance. My bill would allow the Assembly to take a rational look at the situation and come to a decision based on that, rather than simply be forced to resort to violence as our only option.
Right, but if the federal government is so bad that states are seceding from it, if the regional government still exists, it's not going to have a choice about which side to back. At best this bill is pointless, at worst unconstitutional.
Not necessarily. The first possibility that comes to mind would be a situation in which the Governor is on the side of the Federal government but a majority of Representatives are not. If this bill fails, the Governor would have legal authority to send troops to the seceding State with no legislative review. If my bill were to pass, the Assembly would have to debate the issue and come to a decision, and could file a lawsuit against the Governor if he/she attempted to use force against the seceding State.
I don't think I'm making myself clear enough. The point is, in a situation where states are seceding the normal rules of government aren't going to apply. It's like that midwest aliens bill a while back. Sure it might be nice to have a procedure like this on paper, but were this event actually to happen, there is no way the procedure would be followed. If the federal government are so bad that a state wants out of the union, they are not going to respect the assembly's dictats.