Click on the banner to access our video library
Here’s a list of 42 states where residents have filed secession petitions in recent days: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming
UPDATE: Secessionist leader: Texas should separate from Marxist states
They don't want to take their country back. They just want to leave it behind.
As the dust settles in the wake of President Obama's decisive reelection last Tuesday, the White House petition website has been flooded by a series of secession requests, with malcontents from New Jersey to North Dakota submitting petitions to allow their states to withdraw from the union.
Most of the petitions submitted thus far have come from solidly conservative states, including most of the TDeep South and reliably separatist Texas. But a handful come from the heart of blue America - relatively progressive enclaves like Oregon and New York.
All told, petitions have been filed on behalf of 20 states: Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas.
Many of the petitions invoke the Declaration of Independence's dramatic assertion that "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and institute new Government."
The petitions have been submitted through the White House's "We the People" website, which aims to give "all Americans a way to engage their government on the issues that matter to them." The White House promises that "If a petition meets the signature threshold, it will be reviewed by the Administration and we will issue a response." The threshold is 25,000 signatures in 30 days and, at the time of this article's publication, none of the secession petitions have reached the threshold (the Texas petition has received over 22,000 and needs to hit 25,000 by Dec. 9; Louisiana, with just under 15,000 signatures, needs to hit the threshold by Dec. 7.)
For some of the states represented, the secession requests are nothing novel: South Carolina, the state whose 1860 secession sparked the civil war, is hardly an unlikely locus of conservative angst in response to Mr. Obama's victory.
And in Texas, which still conceives of itself as a "republic," not a mere "state," politicians seem to make an almost annual show of flirting with secession, periodically dropping dark hints that Washington's chicanery may force the Lone Star state to flee the Union.
After repeatedly nodding at the possibility of secession in the last few years, Gov. Rick Perry, R-Tex., has more recently kept mum on the subject. But some local GOP officials in Texas have been happy to fill the void: Tom Head, a county judge from Lubbock predicted in August that Obama's reelection could lead to a second civil war. And the treasurer of the Hardin County Republican Party, Peter Morrison, asked in a post-election newsletter, "Why should Vermont and Texas live under the same government?" Morrison's newsletter requested an "amicable divorce" from the "maggots" who reelected President Obama, many of them voting on an "ethnic basis."
The Texas petition assails the federal government's "neglect to reform domestic and foreign spending," arguing that "it is practically feasible for Texas to withdraw from the union, and to do so would protect it's citizens' standard of living and re-secure their rights and liberties in accordance with the original ideas and beliefs of our founding fathers which are no longer being reflected by the federal government."
But some political officials in the states involved are not so eager to hop onboard the secession bandwagon, post-election angst or not. Morrison's boss, Hardin County GOP Chairman Kent Batman, explained, "People around here are asking why Texas is so different from the rest of the country, why we see things so differently...but I don't think a lot of people here are saying we ought to leave the Union."
Asked about Morrison's newsletter comments, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram reports that Batman sighed and replied, "Wow...OK, well, I guess I need to start taking a look at his newsletters."
Replies
If Texas and California were to secede from the Union, the remaining states could choose to stay in the United States or align themselves with the Republic of Blue California or Republic of RedTexas.
What happened to the 6 Californias?
Once California secedes from the corporate United States, California can subdivide itself into as many states as they wish without the consent or permission of the representatives of the Wall Street bankers and corporations.
Seceding from the "corporate United States" is a whole other issue than seceding from the original United States. By passing the Act of 1871, Congress committed TREASON against the People who were Sovereign under the grants and decrees of the Declaration of Independence and the organic Constitution.
With no constitutional authority to do so, Congress creates a separate form of government for the District of Columbia, a ten mile square parcel of land (see, Acts of the Forty-first Congress," Section 34, Session III, chapters 61 and 62).
That Act IS un-Constitutional, therefore null and void and needs no state secession from it.
This appears to have been back when the usurper was "selected" for the second time. Not current news at all.
"Secession is the Solution" ONLY if when application and approval to become a state includes secession language in that contract!
Please list the states that had that in that original contract with the approving Congress of the United States...
I disagree. The states have the right to do whatever they want if the action is not prohibited to them in the Constitution. If the people give their consent they also have a right to withdraw their consent. The states are the employer and the federal government is the employee/ Does a boss need to get permission from his employees before he can fire them?
Our founding fathers did not ask for permission to secede from Great Britain and we don't need permission from the Wall Street bankers and corporations to exercise our right to terminate our relationship with the federal government.
If a woman is married to a man who continually abuses her, does she have a right to divorce him?
I understand your confusion, however the Constitution makes it VERY clear that No State shall pass any Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts. U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 10.
When a territory (in most cases) makes an offer to become a state and the U.S. Congress accepts that offer, it becomes a contract. That contract MUST contain wording enabling it to succeed from the "more perfect union" the U.S. Constitution seeks, per the preamble to it. If it does not, there is NO succession possible.
If that wording is added later, BOTH parties MUST agree to that amendment.
I, like you, don't like it, but that's just the way it is.
YPD, I don't think Keith is "confused" about this. The 10th Amendment precedes the post Constitutional period during which new States were added to the union; but, in any case, once a part of that union, States have the 10th amendment authority to pull out. It is not expressly prohibited in the Constitution. Just makes logical sense. Sovereign States agreeing to accede (opposite of secede) to union with fellow States is not a suicide pact. Union at ANY price IS suicide and was never contemplated by the founders. My and Keith's explanation hold. (If you are so inclined, snag my book, "A Patriot's Call to Action", in which I carefully explain the errant mythology surrounding the issue of secession.)
I will snag it.
However a contract IS a contract and Article 1 supersedes the 10th Amendment as it was part of the original constitution, before the 10th Amendment and that Amendment did nothing to repeal or change that Article.
-
1
-
2
-
3
of 3 Next