Based on international law the states would maintain their current borders, that means the urban areas would come along for the ride (IF under an actual referendum the majority was to vote in favor of separation vs the non democratic exercise that is US elections)
The movement would probably see the creation of a new Union instead of just having a bunch of small new countries, so it would be rich enough to equip itself and create an army (and those voting in favor would probably jump on the occasion to defend their new country).
Separation doesn’t happen overnight, you go and fetch support from other countries so you’re not left without any allies or international recognition if the vote is in favor (France was ready to recognize Quebec if any of the two referendums had been in favor of independence).
You didn’t create a “best case scenario”, you just created a scenario that fits your opinion on the subject.
Disclaimer: Am not from the USA, would gladly see it getting split in multiple countries just like I would gladly see Canada split in multiple countries as I think in both cases it would stop some parts of the country from slowing down progress in other parts. Ex.: If Mississippi and its citizens want to live in a third world country so much then so be it, let the rest of the US move forward.
Sorry, but wrong on many points. If the conservative states were ever going to leave the Union it would have to be a quick transition as a longer process ensures that it won’t happen.
One: The US as a whole is far more homogeneous than European democracies. It’s not like in Europe what you can drive a few hours and find a whole different language and culture. Those asking for a separation are a extreme minority even within their states. Even with them being in power, the moment they actually nice towards separation they literally will be murdered in a few days.
Two: during the slow negotiation for separation, red states would be responsible for their debts. States like Mississippi and Kentucky would have to back out of the separation because they’d become Haiti (economically) once the separation was complete.
Three: even if they peacefully negotiated with blue states, violence would break out in urban areas because red states wouldn’t be leaving to create their own American style for democracy. It would be a Christan Nationalist oligarchy. They want this separation to reinstate slavery, women’s suffrage, and genicide of all LGBTQ+ individuals. This one is inevitable regardless how the separation goes. But a slow separation just gives those urban areas time to prepare for war.
Many states are in a much better position than many existing countries. Just because you refuse to consider it doesn’t make it non feasible.
You get to have your go at a thought experiment but others you disagree with don’t get to do the same?
Edit: Have yet to see someone explain why, for example, Iceland can be an independent country but it’s impossible to imagine Texas or the Carolinas being independent countries except for “People who don’t agree would revolt and the US would bomb the place!” Is it so hard to imagine a future where both sides agree that the union experiment didn’t work and it’s better to just split the country in chunks than continue with the status quo? Even for a thought experiment? Use that wonderful thing we call “imagination”.
Based on international law the states would maintain their current borders, that means the urban areas would come along for the ride (IF under an actual referendum the majority was to vote in favor of separation vs the non democratic exercise that is US elections)
The movement would probably see the creation of a new Union instead of just having a bunch of small new countries, so it would be rich enough to equip itself and create an army (and those voting in favor would probably jump on the occasion to defend their new country).
Separation doesn’t happen overnight, you go and fetch support from other countries so you’re not left without any allies or international recognition if the vote is in favor (France was ready to recognize Quebec if any of the two referendums had been in favor of independence).
You didn’t create a “best case scenario”, you just created a scenario that fits your opinion on the subject.
Disclaimer: Am not from the USA, would gladly see it getting split in multiple countries just like I would gladly see Canada split in multiple countries as I think in both cases it would stop some parts of the country from slowing down progress in other parts. Ex.: If Mississippi and its citizens want to live in a third world country so much then so be it, let the rest of the US move forward.
Sorry, but wrong on many points. If the conservative states were ever going to leave the Union it would have to be a quick transition as a longer process ensures that it won’t happen.
One: The US as a whole is far more homogeneous than European democracies. It’s not like in Europe what you can drive a few hours and find a whole different language and culture. Those asking for a separation are a extreme minority even within their states. Even with them being in power, the moment they actually nice towards separation they literally will be murdered in a few days.
Two: during the slow negotiation for separation, red states would be responsible for their debts. States like Mississippi and Kentucky would have to back out of the separation because they’d become Haiti (economically) once the separation was complete.
Three: even if they peacefully negotiated with blue states, violence would break out in urban areas because red states wouldn’t be leaving to create their own American style for democracy. It would be a Christan Nationalist oligarchy. They want this separation to reinstate slavery, women’s suffrage, and genicide of all LGBTQ+ individuals. This one is inevitable regardless how the separation goes. But a slow separation just gives those urban areas time to prepare for war.
deleted by creator
Many states are in a much better position than many existing countries. Just because you refuse to consider it doesn’t make it non feasible.
You get to have your go at a thought experiment but others you disagree with don’t get to do the same?
Edit: Have yet to see someone explain why, for example, Iceland can be an independent country but it’s impossible to imagine Texas or the Carolinas being independent countries except for “People who don’t agree would revolt and the US would bomb the place!” Is it so hard to imagine a future where both sides agree that the union experiment didn’t work and it’s better to just split the country in chunks than continue with the status quo? Even for a thought experiment? Use that wonderful thing we call “imagination”.
deleted by creator
I don’t care about thought exercisesUnless it’s yours 🤷
deleted by creator
Ain’t that the whole point of common law? There’s no legal framework -> go to court -> set the precedent -> there’s your framework
deleted by creator
In Texas v. White’s ruling:
There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States.Scalia’s opinion on the subject was shared as an answer to a letter so it has no legal precedence.