The GOP candidate had said last week that states could secede if they felt the need to do so.

Nikki Haley, fresh off her Civil War history refresher on this week’s Saturday Night Live, appeared to remember what the Constitution allowed when it comes to state secession: nothing.

Haley again walked back her comments saying states could choose if they wanted to secede from the U.S., telling CNN’s State of the Union on Sunday that she didn’t believe the Constitution afforded them that right. It came days after she told radio host Charlamagne tha God that states like Texas could “make the decisions that their people want to make.”

“According to the Constitution, they can’t,” Haley told CNN. “What I think they have the right to do is have the power to protect themselves and do all that. Texas has talked about that for a long time. The Constitution doesn’t allow for that.”

The GOP presidential candidate then tried to pivot to why Texas would consider such an option, citing Gov. Greg Abbott’s frustration with the Biden administration’s handling of the Southern border and the state’s desire to protect itself.

  • shortwavesurfer
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    17
    ·
    9 months ago

    I will agree with the surrender part on the battlefield, but as far as the Supreme Court goes, you’re telling me that someone can join a partnership willingly and then be told that they cannot leave. That seems not right. The states joined the United States voluntarily, and now the United States is forcing them to stay. That sounds more like a dictatorship.

    • gregorum@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      It’s not a dictatorship. It was the will of the people as executed by a democratic government. That’s called democracy. 

      It’s not a dictatorship just because you don’t like the result. 

      • shortwavesurfer
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        13
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        And if the will of the people changes in favor of secession, such as the movements in Texas and New Hampshire? Those two states are the ones where secession is actually seriously discussed.

        • gregorum@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          the tyranny of a few loud traitors don’t get to rule through fear and terror in a democracy. what they’re doing, as the confederates did, is illegal-- not to mention the fact that both sedition and treason.

          Just asking questions (also known as JAQing off, or as emojis: “🤔🤔🤔”[1]) is a way of attempting to make wild accusations acceptable (and hopefully not legally actionable) by framing them as questions rather than statements. It shifts the burden of proof to one’s opponent; rather than laboriously having to prove that all politicians are reptoid scum, one can pull out one single odd piece of evidence and force the opponent to explain why the evidence is wrong.

          The tactic is closely related to loaded questions or leading questions (which are usually employed when using it), Gish Gallops (when asking a huge number of rapid-fire questions without regard for the answers), and Argumentum ad nauseam (when asking the same question over and over in an attempt to overwhelm refutations).

          • shortwavesurfer
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            9
            ·
            9 months ago

            Americans in general seem to have a knack for not giving a shit what is illegal at the time. If we did, we would not have women’s rights, equal rights for black people, gay marriage, legal marijuana (in some places), or a country at all for that matter. Because it was treason to secede from England and declare ourselves independent, yet we did it anyway.

            • gregorum@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              Americans in general seem to have a knack for not giving a shit what is illegal at the time

              actually, the vast majority of us do

              If we did, we would not have women’s rights, equal rights for black people, gay marriage, legal marijuana (in some places), or a country at all for that matter

              protesting against tyrannical and unjust laws != not giving a shit what is illegal

              Because it was treason to secede from England and declare ourselves independent, yet we did it anyway.

              because we were fighting for freedom and independence against the tyranny of a dictatorial monarchy so that we could establish a democracy run by the people.

              it’s sad that, even after having this explained to you clearly, you simply cannot connect the dots. but i suppose it makes sense when your whole worldview is constructed from cherry-picked facts connected by spurious logic.

    • dhork@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      Well, it’s not like a group of people can simply decide to join the US and become a state on its own; the Constitution imposes a requirement that the Congress approve the formation of the new state. (And, if the State is being formed out of the territory of the existing State, that State must approve also.)

      So, what makes more sense: that the Founders did not mention secession because it is up to the States to execute, even though there is a higher burden to join the Union? Or, the Founders thought the union to be permanent, so left no method for secession on purpose?

      There is explicit wording in the Articles of Confederation that preceded the Constitution to a “perpetual union”, which is ironic since that document was only in force for a few years. But it’s recognized that the US Constitution’s call for a “more perfect union” was a refinement of the original government’s 'perpetual union".

      Of course, nothing is ever permanent, and we have an amendment process we could use to hash out how a territory could leave if it wants to. It could answer questions like: Do the citizens retain their US Citizenship? Do they take a proportional share of US Debt with them? Are members of the US military from that state required to go home and form the military of the new country? Do assets owned by the US Government stay there? There is a path available should the entire country decide it’s for the best, but it involves the entire country making the decision, not just the one state.

      • shortwavesurfer
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        The first couple of questions are answered by expats. So yes, if a state left the Union, the citizens born before that secession would still be United States citizens living abroad, and according to the United Nations, if a smaller territory seceds from a larger territory, they do not take any of the larger territory debt with them when they leave.

        • dhork@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          9 months ago

          There’s no reason for the US to do anything just because other countries do it that way. It would all have to be negotiated.

          I certainly don’t see residents in the Republic of Texas remaining US citizens if the whole point is to not be subject to Federal laws anymore. Did the American Revolutionaries still consider themselves to be British subjects after fighting a war of Independence against their King?

          • shortwavesurfer
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            10
            ·
            9 months ago

            If the United States wanted them to not be US citizens anymore, then the country itself would have to pay the citizens of the new country the amount they were owed for contributing to programs like Social Security and Federal taxes.

              • shortwavesurfer
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                7
                ·
                9 months ago

                The way I see it, they would either need to do so, or allow people who disagreed with the secession to begin with, to move into the United States before the process was completed, to continue to be treated as U.S. citizens. If 51% of people vote to leabe that still leaves 49% who didnt. Some system needs to be put in place to allow them to remain citizens.

                • AbidanYre@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  The way I see it, the ones who don’t want to be part of the US should find somewhere else to live and renounce their citizenship.

                  There is no mechanism for secession.

                  • shortwavesurfer
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    9 months ago

                    Send me the money to get citizenship somewhere else and transportation to get there and I most certainly will. The Bill of Goods we were sold as children is totally inaccurate to what the country is now.