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.

  • dhork@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    5 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@monero.town
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      5 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
        ·
        5 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@monero.town
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          5 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@monero.town
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              5 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
                ·
                5 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@monero.town
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  5 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.

                  • AbidanYre@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    What makes you think I care where you live? If you’re unhappy with your situation, fix it yourself. But we already decided that secession wasn’t an option back in the 1860s.