this post was submitted on 25 Feb 2024
168 points (93.3% liked)

No Stupid Questions

36130 readers
1103 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

A loud minority of Texans call for Independence, which is not really possible as far as I know, BUT could the Rest of the USA just kick another state (Not necessary Texas) out? Or is this also not possible?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] dhork 138 points 9 months ago (3 children)

The US Constitution currently has no mechanism to break any individual State out of the Union. Throughout our history, this has been interpreted as a sign that the Union is perpetual, and not able to be dissolved. This got put to the test in our Civil War, where a bunch of states up and said "We're Leaving" and the Federal Government said "You can't just do that". They fought a war over it, and the Federal Government won, proving its position correct by force.

With that said, the US was founded as a government of the People, and so if the people want to carve out a way for States to leave, they must first establish a mechanism via amending the Constitution, which requires a 2/3 vote in both houses of Congress (or a Constitutional Convention) coupled with 3/4 of State Legislatures ratifying it.

There is a provision, though, to make States out of other States. Maine and West Virginia were both formed out of land that belonged to Massachusetts and Virginia.

[–] [email protected] 26 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Wonder though, does that mean states can combine?

[–] dhork 38 points 9 months ago (3 children)

Actually, yes, but that has never happened.

[–] chuckleslord 13 points 9 months ago

Yeah, because you're giving up federal power for... a bigger state budget? Not really a great trade.

[–] Tyfud 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)
[–] LemmyFeed 1 points 9 months ago

"By your ~~powers~~ states combined, I am Captain Planet!"

[–] Fosheze 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago
[–] [email protected] 10 points 9 months ago (2 children)

It's laid out very explicitly in the COTUS (Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1):

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

The funny thing is that during the civil war, West Virginia seceded from Virginia, and Congress voted to allow it and they were accepted into the union. There are a lot of people who argue that when that happened it was unconstitutional. However, it has never been tested, as far as I know.

[–] John_McMurray 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

That would almost imply the Confederacy had legally left the USA, and Wrst Virginia legally left the Confederacy and joined the Union. Basically you could say none of this was un constitutional if the Confederacy was not a part of the USA at the time.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I would be doing it a disservice to try and explain it myself, but there were a lot of legal theories on how they could justify WV without justifying the Confederacy leaving the union. It's an interesting topic.

[–] John_McMurray 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Seems like it'd be easier, more honest and less "Jump through hoopy" to just say they left and we reconquered them. Unless you really don't want think states leaving is legal when it probably is.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

You're mistaking the fact that I recognize a limitation of myself with something else.

[–] John_McMurray 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

If what I said wasn't fairly accurate, there'd be no need for legal arguments so arcane you don't feel capable of describing them accurately.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

One thing I am pretty good at is recognizing blatantly bad logically fallacious arguments on the internet, such as the classic "false dichotomy."

[–] John_McMurray 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

No, you clearly aren't, especially if you think this is a false dichotomy. I'm sorry, you were right about your limitations.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

That's a new word. We have POTUS, FLOTUS, SCOTUS and now COTUS.

[–] Maggoty 3 points 9 months ago (3 children)

You could just pass an amendment...

But specifically for kicking a state out I don't think the bar is that high. If the legislature and executive agreed then it could be done very quickly.

[–] dhork 12 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

Oh, but there are all sorts of details to work out....

  • are citizens of the state no longer US citizens?
  • if so, what happens to their Social Security? Medicare? I don't want to keep paying for those freeloaders
  • if they treat it like renouncing citizenship, they make those people pay taxes on all their assets and 401(k) holdings before leaving
  • Do armed forces members from those states now get kicked out of the US armed forces and go to the new state's armed forces?
  • Does the new state get to take over any military bases and Federal buildings?
  • Can the rest of us build a wall on the border and make them pay for it?

There's a lot to iron out. The Brits got screwed with Brexit, and they weren't even leaving a country.

[–] lordnikon 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

it was worse than that and even dumber the UK was a founding member and had extra perks. That other EU members didn't get and they threw all that away. Even if they do join back they will never get that deal again.

[–] mojofrododojo 5 points 9 months ago

Even if they do join back they will never get that deal again.

and yet it's still the most logical thing for them to do, security, trade and otherwise. it'll hurt a bit, that sting is pride lol.... but it'd still be the best thing for both the UK and EU.

otherwise eventually I see Ireland unifying and Scotland going to the EU lol.

[–] Maggoty 1 points 9 months ago

Presumably those have been worked out in the bill Congress passed.

[–] HandBreadedTools 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

No lol your second statement is literally just wrong. The only way to do anything like this would be through an Amendment, which equated to literally changing the rules bc the current rules do not allow for it.

[–] Maggoty -3 points 9 months ago

Is there something specifically saying you can't?

No?

Question answered.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

"Just" passing an amendment requires more than 75% of states to ratify the amendment. So even if all of Congress decided nuts to Delaware, we're moving them out, it would still go to the state of legislatures to be formalized

[–] Maggoty -1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

Oh no the amendment is for if a state wants to leave. Since there's no standard around kicking a state out at all, it defaults to 50+1 votes in Congress and a President willing to enforce it

[–] HandBreadedTools 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

This is literally just wrong dude

[–] Maggoty 1 points 9 months ago
[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I expect at the very least you'd also need scotus to agree, though if legislative and executive are both willing to ignore them then ...profit?

[–] Maggoty 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Yeah that's the checks and balances. SCOTUS literally has no power without Congress or the President.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, but it wouldn't be "legal" unless scotus agreed it was, even if it happened anyway.

[–] Maggoty -1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

No. SCOTUS does not have to agree to everything. In fact there's no Constitutional power for them to take a law up for review without a case. They gave themselves that power.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I find it implausible there would be no challenge, so scotus would have to agree either passively by refusing to take the case or actively by taking it in order for its legality to be settled.

[–] Maggoty 0 points 9 months ago

And I find it implausible that anybody listens to SCOTUS if we've gotten to the point that at least half of Congress is kicking a state out. It's certainly not a normal political environment at that point.