NeilBru

You're correct. I was wrong. The Constitution would have to be amended to allow for it first.

The United States Constitution does not explicitly provide a method for the dissolution of the union. In fact, the Constitution is quite silent on the topic of secession or dissolution.

However, there are a few relevant provisions and historical precedents that are often cited in discussions about the possibility of dissolution:

Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1: This clause, also known as the "Guarantee Clause," states that the United States shall guarantee to every state a republican form of government. Some argue that this clause implies a constitutional obligation for the federal government to maintain the union and prevent secession.

The Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2): This clause establishes the Constitution and federal laws as the supreme law of the land, which some interpret as precluding the possibility of secession.

The Civil War and the 14th Amendment: The American Civil War (1861-1865) was fought, in part, over the issue of secession. The 14th Amendment (1868) was ratified in the aftermath of the war and includes language that could be seen as prohibiting secession. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment states that no person who has engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States shall be eligible to hold federal or state office.

Texas v. White (1869): In this landmark Supreme Court case, the Court ruled that secession is not permissible under the Constitution. The decision stated that the Constitution looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible states.

While these provisions and precedents suggest that the Constitution does not provide a clear method for dissolution, they do not necessarily rule out the possibility of secession or dissolution entirely. Some argue that secession could be achieved through a constitutional amendment or a negotiated agreement between the federal government and a state or group of states.

It's worth noting that, in practice, the possibility of dissolution is often seen as a highly unlikely and potentially destabilizing event. The United States has a long history of federalism and a strong tradition of national unity, which has generally been maintained through a system of shared power and compromise between the federal government and the states.

I've always loved this quote about conservatism:

Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition: there must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.

• Francis M. Wilhoit

Depends.

Protected by the first amendment, one can legally advocate for the dissolution of the Union ~~through bicameral ratification outlined constitutionally~~ by constitutional amendment. To advocate for armed insurrection or violent overthrow of the federal government is sedition and considered quite illegal.

If you increase my workload but don't give me a raise, I quit. Immediately.

The linear algebraic computations performed on their GPU's tensor cores (since the Turing era) combined with their CUDA and cuDNN software stack have the fastest performance in training deep neural network algorithms.

That may not last forever, but it's the best in terms of dollars per FLOPS an average DNN developer like myself has access to currently.

Yo prefiero vivir con paz si posible.

Should women be allowed to fight on the front lines?

If the individual woman passes the required physical and psychological standards and requirements for the combat MOS, absolutely.

However, they shouldn't get carte blanche special or relaxed standards and treatment; lives are at stake.

Quiet desperation is the English way...

Or maybe the DNC refuses to speak to, let alone execute an agenda regarding the needs of the working class, election after election. Of course they'd be trounced after effectively revealing themselves as controlled opposition.

My forlorn hope is a massive repudiation of the DNC establishment in the next round of primaries.

Armed revolution in the face of predator drones with hellfires and 5th generation multi-role fighter aircraft is a fool's errand for suicidal rubes.

My pleasure.

Putin has modeled his rule after the Csarist monarchy of the Russian Empire. He notably despises communism and blames it for the collapse of the USSR. He calls himself "president" but many within the state Duma believe the title to be an embarrassing western descriptor and would prefer to bestow on him the title of "pravitel" or "ruler".

But Putin ran into a bit of a problem. Just as to be called Caesar you need to rule Rome, to be called czar you need to rule over all of Rus. For him, the cultural, historical, and religious significance of Kievan Rus was just too large to be ignored.

When it existed, the Russian Empire tried to erase the other eastern Slavic languages from their shared cultural memory. They acted as if there was no Ukraine and never had been, just as with Belarus. According to the Tsarists, Ukrainians had always been Russians and had no history of their own. The Ukrainian and Belorussian languages were banned. Ukrainian nationalism was a threat to the underlying myths of Russia and threatened the czars' attempts at creating an “All-Russian People.”

Putin is emulating their rule and presents himself as a tsar-like figure. He’s built a massive, opulent palace for himself, with gold-plated double-headed eagles, a clear Imperial Russian symbol, everywhere—even in his personal strip club. Similarly, the Russian Orthodox Church helps him pacify the population and supports whatever myths Kremlin wants to glorify. He wanted to go down in the history books as a grand unifier of Russian lands—if not under the same government, then definitely as the hegemon of the Russian world.

Putin wants it both ways, to take credit for the Soviet legacy and, at the same time, be viewed in the same light as the emperors and czars of old. Therefore, he's had to bring back and reaffirm the old, imperial myths and values—and to do that, he has to get Kyiv under his thumb. After all, it was the restored Kievan Rus that became Russia, the "Third Rome." Ukraine going its own way, claiming Kievan Rus as its legacy, moving away from Moscow, getting autocephaly for its own orthodox church—all this runs contrary to Russian state mythology.

These imperial myths are what define Russia, what it even means to be a Russian. Without them, Russia just stops being Russia in the eyes of many. Putin is convinced that if this social glue is disrupted, then Russia will just split up in pieces again—and if he allows that to happen, then his legacy is ruined. For him, there can be no separate Ukrainian language, culture, or history.

That is where his mind is at, stuck in the 18th and 19th centuries.

Sure.