Secession

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

(1) No. There is a very great difference between the natural right of the people to rebel against a tyrannical government (which is self-evident), and a constitutional right of a state to declare itself outside the jurisdiction of the United States Constitution (which is absurd). If a minority of the people may at any time dissolve the Union for their own petty or private reasons, then you do not have a government, but a debating club.

Suppose, for a moment, that such a right existed, and you are immediately confronted with a multitude of problems. First and most obviously, to recognize the legality of secession in effect admits that federal law is not binding at all: if enough people, concentrated in a particular state (and here it's worthwhile to note that what constitutes a "state" varies wildly from region to region — New York and Wyoming, for example, are about as different in history, geography, and culture as two corners of the same country can be) decide they no longer wish to follow those laws, they don't have to. Because secession would be a disaster for everyone financially, militarily, and diplomatically, the potential for it must inevitably become a weapon with which a handful of states can blackmail the rest of the nation. Indeed, that is exactly what happened in the 1850s, when the Southern slave power repeatedly used the threat of secession to exact concession after concession on slavery and a host of other matters.* This undermines the very premise of representative democracy in the same way giving the DNC and RNC access to the nuclear codes would: if anyone and everyone can declare "game over" whenever they don't get their way, the options remaining are inaction and dissolution.

(2) Also no, because (a) see above; and (b) I rather prefer the present arrangement to life in the Mike Pence Volkstaat, thank you.

*Somewhat tangentally, this is why arguments that the Civil War began because of "Northern aggression" are absurdly ahistorical, unless you consider voting for the person you want to be president an act of aggression. In the nearly three decades between the reelection of Andrew Jackson and the election of Abraham Lincoln (and especially in the twelve years immediately preceding the attack on Fort Sumter), threats of secession were the first and only tool in the Southern tool box. By 1850, the Northern states had begun to pull ahead of their Southern sisters in terms of population, industrial growth, and — critically — representation in Congress. In reality, Southern fears of electoral subjugation were wildly exaggerated and arguably did more to fuel the emergence of an anti-slavery majority than anything else; but so panicked were the ruling Southern elites that they mortgaged their continued fidelity to the Union on the condition of a total moratorium on federal legislation perceived as even remotely anti-slavery. This manifested itself in two patterns: increasingly uneven "compromises" on the slavery question that were, in effect, ransoms paid to persuade the South not to dissolve the Union; and the collapse of Northern influence within the Democratic Party, as Southern Democrats wrestled their way to power by threatening to secede if their candidate didn't get in. The third effect of this strategy was that, by 1860, the South had been threatening to loose the wolf for so long that most Northerners no longer believed them, and granted the Republicans' request to elect Lincoln and call the Southern bluff. 

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Sovereign entities that join together in a political union voluntarily should have a right to leave said union if so desired.

For the sake of the argument, let's accept this premise: how then would the thirty-five states (i.e. everyone outside the original 13 colonies, Texas, and Vermont) that never existed as sovereign entities, but were in fact formed from federal territory by act of federal legislation? If, say, Virginia were to secede from the Union, would she take with her the lands she ceded to the central government in 1781? Does this right only apply to states (and if so, why), or can I unilaterally declare my house the independent People's Republic of Trumansylvania if I so choose?

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I do believe that the United States is ripe for a split/secession movement along some lines so that, ideally, conservative and liberal Americans can "co-exist" without having the other side's policies forcibly imposed upon them after every election.

Of course, liberals in conservative secessionist states and conservatives in liberal secessionist states would still have "the other side's policies forcibly imposed upon them" — just by a government closer to home. Personally, I'm not particularly eager to see how the LGBTQ+ community would fare in the independent Republic of Alabama.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I do believe that the United States is ripe for a split/secession movement along some lines so that, ideally, conservative and liberal Americans can "co-exist" without having the other side's policies forcibly imposed upon them after every election.

Of course, liberals in conservative secessionist states and conservatives in liberal secessionist states would still have "the other side's policies forcibly imposed upon them" — just by a government closer to home. Personally, I'm not particularly eager to see how the LGBTQ+ community would fare in the independent Republic of Alabama.

For that we have planes, trains, and automobiles.  We will never have utopia no matter what the government does or how the borders are drawn, but how can you maintain a stable republic where the likes of Bernie Sanders and Roy Moore share the power?

Why are we assuming that everyone can (or should) relocate to a state-turned-nation where their politics are in the majority? Even assuming an EU-style Schengen area is established in the former United States (and given the politics of immigration in places like Alabama and Texas, I'd say it's highly unlikely they would ever agree to such a system), that's just not a realistic proposition for most people. What, then, happens to the Obamacare patients in Alabama who suddenly lose their insurance when their state leaves the Union? What happens to the LGBT couple whose marriage is no longer legally recognized? This isn't "utopia" we're talking about, but we're all Americans and we have an obligation to look out for the rights and well being of our fellow citizens. It seems rather callous to abandon these people to the mercy of their states simply to avoid the difficulties of representative democracy in a pluralistic society.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Sovereign entities that join together in a political union voluntarily should have a right to leave said union if so desired.

For the sake of the argument, let's accept this premise: how then would the thirty-five states (i.e. everyone outside the original 13 colonies, Texas, and Vermont) that never existed as sovereign entities, but were in fact formed from federal territory by act of federal legislation? If, say, Virginia were to secede from the Union, would she take with her the lands she ceded to the central government in 1781? Does this right only apply to states (and if so, why), or can I unilaterally declare my house the independent People's Republic of Trumansylvania if I so choose?

Considering that those states that have never existed as sovereign entities still had to ratify a state constitution and conducted a referendum on statehood, they still possess some level of sovereignty and still made the conscious decision to voluntarily join the federal union. And this right applies uniquely to state because it is the state government that underwent this process to bind itself to the federal government. Counties and municipal governments do no such thing.

In that case, do counties and municipalities have the right to secede from their respective states?

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Sovereign entities that join together in a political union voluntarily should have a right to leave said union if so desired.

For the sake of the argument, let's accept this premise: how then would the thirty-five states (i.e. everyone outside the original 13 colonies, Texas, and Vermont) that never existed as sovereign entities, but were in fact formed from federal territory by act of federal legislation? If, say, Virginia were to secede from the Union, would she take with her the lands she ceded to the central government in 1781? Does this right only apply to states (and if so, why), or can I unilaterally declare my house the independent People's Republic of Trumansylvania if I so choose?

Considering that those states that have never existed as sovereign entities still had to ratify a state constitution and conducted a referendum on statehood, they still possess some level of sovereignty and still made the conscious decision to voluntarily join the federal union. And this right applies uniquely to state because it is the state government that underwent this process to bind itself to the federal government. Counties and municipal governments do no such thing.

In that case, do counties and municipalities have the right to secede from their respective states?

The counties do not draft a constitution and hold a referendum to join the state, so no.

That's not entirely true, though. Especially in New England, many towns were formed as result of a charter drafted by the townspeople, or by incorporation referendums in which the inhabitants voted to become a city (subject to the rights and privileges granted them by state law).

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I do believe that the United States is ripe for a split/secession movement along some lines so that, ideally, conservative and liberal Americans can "co-exist" without having the other side's policies forcibly imposed upon them after every election.

Of course, liberals in conservative secessionist states and conservatives in liberal secessionist states would still have "the other side's policies forcibly imposed upon them" — just by a government closer to home. Personally, I'm not particularly eager to see how the LGBTQ+ community would fare in the independent Republic of Alabama.

For that we have planes, trains, and automobiles.  We will never have utopia no matter what the government does or how the borders are drawn, but how can you maintain a stable republic where the likes of Bernie Sanders and Roy Moore share the power?

Why are we assuming that everyone can (or should) relocate to a state-turned-nation where their politics are in the majority? Even assuming an EU-style Schengen area is established in the former United States (and given the politics of immigration in places like Alabama and Texas, I'd say it's highly unlikely they would ever agree to such a system), that's just not a realistic proposition for most people. What, then, happens to the Obamacare patients in Alabama who suddenly lose their insurance when their state leaves the Union? What happens to the LGBT couple whose marriage is no longer legally recognized? This isn't "utopia" we're talking about, but we're all Americans and we have an obligation to look out for the rights and well being of our fellow citizens. It seems rather callous to abandon these people to the mercy of their states simply to avoid the difficulties of representative democracy in a pluralistic society.

As far as marriage rights and healthcare are concerned, presumably the liberal-leaning states would quickly adopt same-sex marriage and have an easier time transitioning to a better single or multi-payer healthcare system without resistance from the X number of states that only elect people who oppose those things, as well as environmental protection, abortion rights, voting rights, a living wage, etc.  Representative democracy only works if the citizenry shares some core values.  Polarization doesn't work in anybody's favor, especially in the United States which is arguably more politically polarized than it's been since the 1860s.  When you try to force national unity on an unwilling populace, tribalism becomes inevitable.  We are left with a no-win situation.

My issue is, what about the people who don't live in those states — do we abandon them to their reactionary neighbors? Speaking from my personal situation, the supremacy clause is the only reason my family can afford to buy health insurance; an independent Indiana is not likely to continue those policies, let alone adopt single payer, so in the event that my state were to secede, I'd face a choice of becoming a political refugee (and that's assuming liberal America lets me into the country) or taking my chances with whatever garbage system Indiana cooks up. From my perspective, at least, union is not a "no-win situation" — it's the surest safeguard of my safety and happiness. Frankly, I'm not willing to be thrown under the bus so that liberals in Vermont don't have to argue with Mitch McConnell about tax policy.

1. Yes, every person has the right to freedom and this includes freedom of dismissing the current government and declaring secession.

Every person? Presumably, you mean a majority of persons in a particular constituency — but how do we decide what the relevant basic unit of political organization is? Most in this thread seem to assume that the states are the districts that most accurately represent the basic communities that compose the present union; I would argue that this is an antiquated and unrepresentative view of how American political life is actually organized in the modern era, and that the basic unit of political organization is, as Aristotle said, the polis. I don't see why voters in Chicago should be able to take southern Illinois out of the union against their will, any more than Indiana should be able to take New York out of the union.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

My issue is, what about the people who don't live in those states — do we abandon them to their reactionary neighbors?

Hey. Im quiet, don't snoop, and move my trashcans the same day as pickup. I'm a perfectly fine neighbor.

LOL, fair enough.