Quote:
Quote:
|
""What exactly will change if we separate?" The answer although few like to admit it, is absolutely nothing positive.
|
If Vermont left the United States, it would be merely to 'stick it' to the Federal government at the detriment of it's citizens.
|
This is unfortunately true. Any secession will need to be done by a state having more established economic clout, and by a net 'payer' that sends more money to DC than they get back by a significant margin. (Don't know if Vermont fits that latter or not.)
Quote:
|
There are much more productive ways to solve these issues other than to just quit.
|
That depends on whether the issues show any potential for resolution. From what I understand of the VT seccessionist movement, the issues not only show no potential progress, but are getting worse. In that case, quitting probably Is the most productive resolution. (Assuming avoiding the current hardships warrants incurring the implied hardships of the previous paragraph.)
Quote:
|
secession was a piece of political heresy that was settled in 1865 as being verboten
|
If the Confederacy hadn't been impatient and attacked Fort Sumter, the Civil War would've been Unconstitutional (and might be anyway). Because secession isn't mentioned in the Constitution, that right, by default, falls to the individual states. Lincoln justified forced reunification based on prior ratification of the Articles of Confederation, which, as I understand it, disallowed secession. If some state far enough west to have not been invovled with the AoC were to secede, there would be no legal justification for US aggression. (As opposed to flimsy legal justification.)