Is this guy totally nuts?

 

First time I hear this theory ... 

 

He is predicting the US may become a patchwork of rogue states and 10 states may join Canada. 

 

 

10. Michigan 

9. Vermont

8. Alaska !!

 

7. Washington

6. Texas

 

5. Minnesota

4. California

 

3. New York

2. Maine

1. Oregon

 

Fear-mongering crackpot?

Not sure where he's getting his theory from. 

 

 

So maybe the anti-Trumpers have been right all along? 

 

 

Not sure why you took six posts either.

 

Oops, seven.

10 hours ago, NanLaew said:

Not sure why you took six posts either.

 

To create drama and suspense.

I was typing as I was watching. 

Sorry.

 

4 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

Fear-mongering crackpot?

Not sure where he's getting his theory from. 

 

 

Perhaps Sarah Pailin got her geography mixed up ?

Not sure I agree with all of his (?) States, but I can easily see this before 2028, especially if Trump survives and tries to run again:

 

CA, OR and WA secede to form Pacifica.

 

New England, NY, NJ, DE, MD and eastern PA secede to form Atlantica.

 

MI joins Canada, and maybe is joined by IL.

 

Texas could become its own country ruled by Musk.

 

Makes a lot of sense for the coasts, as they are mostly net contributors to the Federal Budget. The west has tech and military industry, the east has tech and finance, plus both coasts have the best universities.

 

MAGAstan can then simmer in its own juices, in debt, unproductive and ignorant.

 

Everybody wins.

2 minutes ago, Wingate said:

Not sure I agree with all of his (?) States, but I can easily see this before 2028, especially if Trump survives and tries to run again:

 

CA, OR and WA secede to form Pacifica.

 

New England, NY, NJ, DE, MD and eastern PA secede to form Atlantica.

 

MI joins Canada, and maybe is joined by IL.

 

Texas could become its own country ruled by Musk.

 

Makes a lot of sense for the coasts, as they are mostly net contributors to the Federal Budget. The west has tech and military industry, the east has tech and finance, plus both coasts have the best universities.

 

MAGAstan can then simmer in its own juices, in debt, unproductive and ignorant.

 

Everybody wins.

 

Ooohh, Magastan.

 

Pithy.

11 minutes ago, Wingate said:

CA, OR and WA secede to form Pacifica.

 

Add them to BC for for Cascadia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascadia_movement

14 hours ago, NanLaew said:

 

Ooohh, Magastan.

 

Pithy.

To be polite, I always make sure I dumb things down for MAGAnistas, those people captured by a four word slogan on a red hat, and who are eternally fooled by a self-serving, willfully ignorant clown.

47 minutes ago, Wingate said:

To be polite, I always make sure I dumb things down for MAGAnistas, those people captured by a four word slogan on a red hat, and who are eternally fooled by a self-serving, willfully ignorant clown.

 

Reported

I don't recall every reading that the Constitution allows secession, or a process to do so. In theory, it might be done by a proposal by either two-thirds of both houses of Congress or a convention called for by two-thirds of the states. The amendment would then have to be ratified by three-fourths of the states. I don't see a few states being able to achieve this. Another method may be via an act of Congress consenting to a state’s departure, which would then need agreement from the other states. This would be a political negotiation to dissolve the bond, but no established procedure exists. Why would a handful of states get Congress to agree?

Revolution is a third method that seems Constitutional but again, the continental US would control the military and invade the revolutionary states. 

It has been tried before when eleven slave-owning Southern states declared their withdrawal from the United States. Asserting a constitutional right to leave, they formed the Confederate States of America and prepared to function as an independent nation. Abraham Lincoln, rejected this claim, viewing the Union as perpetual and acts of secession as legally void. 

If I were to bet, I'd bet that the borders of the USA and Canada won't move. 

 

But if they did, it's more likely that Western Canada would become part of the USA.  And it would be resident Canucks driving that movement,

 

In the interest of being a good neighbor, I'd propose a swap of New England for Alberta and BC.  And just to open up the road access to Alaska, I'd gladly swap upstate New York for The Yukon.

 

4 hours ago, Purdey said:

I don't recall every reading that the Constitution allows secession, or a process to do so. In theory, it might be done by a proposal by either two-thirds of both houses of Congress or a convention called for by two-thirds of the states. The amendment would then have to be ratified by three-fourths of the states. I don't see a few states being able to achieve this. Another method may be via an act of Congress consenting to a state’s departure, which would then need agreement from the other states. This would be a political negotiation to dissolve the bond, but no established procedure exists. Why would a handful of states get Congress to agree?

Revolution is a third method that seems Constitutional but again, the continental US would control the military and invade the revolutionary states. 

It has been tried before when eleven slave-owning Southern states declared their withdrawal from the United States. Asserting a constitutional right to leave, they formed the Confederate States of America and prepared to function as an independent nation. Abraham Lincoln, rejected this claim, viewing the Union as perpetual and acts of secession as legally void. 

Each passing day I'm starting to see Civil War 2.0 coming. When the Texas legislature puts Democrats under house arrest unless they agree to accept police escorts 24x7 - I mean, come ON, in what democracy is this acceptable? And that's just one of many tragedies against civil rights being abused every day.

 

I'm just glad I divorced myself from any entaglements with the US. It's ugly and getting uglier and I don't see a way out without violent clashes.

13 hours ago, HappyExpat57 said:

Each passing day I'm starting to see Civil War 2.0 coming.

 

But there is a greater risk of outside threats if countries get too small.

 

What if Xi decides to invade "Pacifica"?

Or maybe even Mexico's military would be more powerful than "Pacifica's" military. 

The cartels might move in and take over. 

 

Then you might beg Trump to take you back. 

 

It's an interesting political discussion, but not one likely based on any actual realistic scenario:

 

Per the California Legislative Analyst's Office opinion:

 

January 8, 2025

 

"Section 1 of Article III of the State Constitution provides that California “is an inseparable part of the United States of America.” The State Constitution also provides that the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land."

...

"U.S. Constitution Does Not Provide for Secession. The U.S. Constitution does not include a mechanism for a state to secede from the United States. In 1869, following the Civil War, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Texas v. White that the initial act admitting a state to the Union “was final.” The court said: “There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the states.” [emphasis added]

 

(more)

 

https://lao.ca.gov/BallotAnalysis/Initiative/2024-001

 

 

14 hours ago, Purdey said:

I don't recall every reading that the Constitution allows secession, or a process to do so. In theory, it might be done by a proposal by either two-thirds of both houses of Congress or a convention called for by two-thirds of the states. The amendment would then have to be ratified by three-fourths of the states. I don't see a few states being able to achieve this. Another method may be via an act of Congress consenting to a state’s departure, which would then need agreement from the other states. This would be a political negotiation to dissolve the bond, but no established procedure exists. Why would a handful of states get Congress to agree?

Revolution is a third method that seems Constitutional but again, the continental US would control the military and invade the revolutionary states. 

It has been tried before when eleven slave-owning Southern states declared their withdrawal from the United States. Asserting a constitutional right to leave, they formed the Confederate States of America and prepared to function as an independent nation. Abraham Lincoln, rejected this claim, viewing the Union as perpetual and acts of secession as legally void. 

 

Alex Garland skips (wisely) the hows and whys in his provocative movie, but in the opening scene, acknowledges such a move would be seen as illegal. I thought it was an interesting film, with individual vignettes quite plausible.

 

 

 

But I don't think there is a single modern country where seccession does not require some sort of support from the legislature or executive. Scotland got into trouble when it tried to hold an independant referendum without the agreement of Westminster. Then the Catalan declaration of independance which lead to seperatists going on the run in France. Yugoslavia infamously and bloodily fell apart in a way that reminded us that when it comes to sheer brutality to one another, kith and kin, we Europeans are a master at it, give the right circumstances. And now, we are seeing in in Ukraine, this time based around a fake Russian ethnicity.

 

Most secessions fail, usually after conflict and the most bloody fraticide. Some succeed after conflict and the most bloody conflict. The American Declaration of Independance was an Act of Treason, the conspirators of which deserved to suffer the death of a traitor. So would have been the history if things had gone differently. The legality of that treasonous act made little difference in the eventual outcome, even though the so-called Patriots were only ever  a minority of the population of the 13 colonies (no more than 40%. Hardcore Loyalists were 20%, the rest I would characterise as people who wanted to obey the law, like most of us today).

 

In that sense, the later American Civil War remains an open sore; the seccession was brutally put down, and to this day, the South remains economically backward. in someways bearing the Mark of Cain as punishment on successive generations for daring to have independant thought (that's one characterisation).

 

The Law matters little as to whether Secession succeeds. That depends on the Will, either the Will to stick to your principles, or the Will to kill your family. The British lacked the latter.  Later on, the Americans seemed pretty happy to do the latter.

 

If a State was to secede, Congress or any other body, can't stop it trying.

Just Washington Oregon and California we would like the enlighten healthcare system and help Canada sell her products to Asia and elbows up trumps kyster!

Greenland fits well with Canada. Look at a map. Oops. Americans are mostly too dumb to be able to read maps

1 hour ago, MicroB said:

 

Alex Garland skips (wisely) the hows and whys in his provocative movie, but in the opening scene, acknowledges such a move would be seen as illegal. I thought it was an interesting film, with individual vignettes quite plausible.

 

 

 

But I don't think there is a single modern country where seccession does not require some sort of support from the legislature or executive. Scotland got into trouble when it tried to hold an independant referendum without the agreement of Westminster. Then the Catalan declaration of independance which lead to seperatists going on the run in France. Yugoslavia infamously and bloodily fell apart in a way that reminded us that when it comes to sheer brutality to one another, kith and kin, we Europeans are a master at it, give the right circumstances. And now, we are seeing in in Ukraine, this time based around a fake Russian ethnicity.

 

Most secessions fail, usually after conflict and the most bloody fraticide. Some succeed after conflict and the most bloody conflict. The American Declaration of Independance was an Act of Treason, the conspirators of which deserved to suffer the death of a traitor. So would have been the history if things had gone differently. The legality of that treasonous act made little difference in the eventual outcome, even though the so-called Patriots were only ever  a minority of the population of the 13 colonies (no more than 40%. Hardcore Loyalists were 20%, the rest I would characterise as people who wanted to obey the law, like most of us today).

 

In that sense, the later American Civil War remains an open sore; the seccession was brutally put down, and to this day, the South remains economically backward. in someways bearing the Mark of Cain as punishment on successive generations for daring to have independant thought (that's one characterisation).

 

The Law matters little as to whether Secession succeeds. That depends on the Will, either the Will to stick to your principles, or the Will to kill your family. The British lacked the latter.  Later on, the Americans seemed pretty happy to do the latter.

 

If a State was to secede, Congress or any other body, can't stop it trying.

Pure fiction.

 

I thought Tom Clancy was dead.

41 minutes ago, Tug said:

Just Washington Oregon and California we would like the enlighten healthcare system and help Canada sell her products to Asia and elbows up trumps kyster!

You do realize Calif is more than leftists...right? 

On 8/18/2025 at 10:03 AM, save the frogs said:

Is this guy totally nuts?

 

First time I hear this theory ... 

 

He is predicting the US may become a patchwork of rogue states and 10 states may join Canada. 

 

 

There is no provision in the US Constitution for states to leave the union. 

 

he U.S. Constitution contains no clause that allows a state to withdraw from the Union once admitted. It outlines how to join the Union, not how to leave it.

 

This was clarified in the Supreme Court case Texas v. White (1869), where the Court ruled that the United States is “an indestructible Union composed of indestructible States,” and that no state may unilaterally secede.

 

Therefore, any act of secession would be unconstitutional unless accomplished through a constitutional amendment or revolution. Secession is a political idea, not a legal right under the Constitution.

2 hours ago, MicroB said:

Later on, the Americans seemed pretty happy to do the latter.

Leftists are lazy.   They will only talk about it. 

12 hours ago, HappyExpat57 said:

Each passing day I'm starting to see Civil War 2.0 coming. When the Texas legislature puts Democrats under house arrest unless they agree to accept police escorts 24x7 - I mean, come ON, in what democracy is this acceptable? And that's just one of many tragedies against civil rights being abused every day.

 

I'm just glad I divorced myself from any entaglements with the US. It's ugly and getting uglier and I don't see a way out without violent clashes.

Cool story, bro.   It's illegal to leave the state to prevent a vote. 

27 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

You do realize Calif is more than leftists...right? 

You do realize 99,999% of folks don’t fit that magga box your ilk try to fit them in don’t you?

39 minutes ago, Tug said:

You do realize 99,999% of folks don’t fit that magga box your ilk try to fit them in don’t you?

 

Then how do you 'splain the embarrassing Dem loss to the 0.0001% in November '24?