Nikki Haley Flails When Confronted by Her Own Secession Comments
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.
If I remember correctly, Article 10 of the Constitution basically says that any power not given to the federal government in the Constitution is up to the states, and since the Constitution does not specifically prohibit states from secession, then that power lies with the states.
The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the once a state joins the US, it can't un-join it. And this is a unique concept in that it has not only been held up in the courts, but also on the battlefield. Lee's surrender at Appamatox seems to have settled the matter more than any court could have.
Also, there is no article 10. He's talking about the tenth amendment in the bill of rights.
I will agree with the surrender part on the battlefield, but as far as the Supreme Court goes, you're telling me that someone can join a partnership willingly and then be told that they cannot leave. That seems not right. The states joined the United States voluntarily, and now the United States is forcing them to stay. That sounds more like a dictatorship.
It’s not a dictatorship. It was the will of the people as executed by a democratic government. That’s called democracy. 
It’s not a dictatorship just because you don’t like the result. 
And if the will of the people changes in favor of secession, such as the movements in Texas and New Hampshire? Those two states are the ones where secession is actually seriously discussed.
the tyranny of a few loud traitors don't get to rule through fear and terror in a democracy. what they're doing, as the confederates did, is illegal-- not to mention the fact that both sedition and treason.
Americans in general seem to have a knack for not giving a shit what is illegal at the time. If we did, we would not have women's rights, equal rights for black people, gay marriage, legal marijuana (in some places), or a country at all for that matter. Because it was treason to secede from England and declare ourselves independent, yet we did it anyway.
actually, the vast majority of us do
protesting against tyrannical and unjust laws != not giving a shit what is illegal
because we were fighting for freedom and independence against the tyranny of a dictatorial monarchy so that we could establish a democracy run by the people.
it's sad that, even after having this explained to you clearly, you simply cannot connect the dots. but i suppose it makes sense when your whole worldview is constructed from cherry-picked facts connected by spurious logic.
because the US government is not tyrannical in any way at all. /s
like trying to overthrow democracy when your candidate loses an election?
it sure will be if Trump gets elected. he said so himself.
that's what tehy did in 2000.
The Republicans? Absolutely they did.
Brooks Brothers Riot to stop the count:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooks_Brothers_riot
Supreme court goes "Eh, nothing to see here..."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore
Oh, but when the Florida vote was finally counted in January? Yeah, Gore won. By any measure, Gore won.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/jan/29/uselections2000.usa
they even got the supremes to help
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.
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.
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?
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.
Says who? As far as I know, people who give up their citizenship don't get huge checks.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Who is this "we" you are talking so much about, because I, sure as hell, wasn't there. It may have been decided by our great-great grandparents, but we are not them, and can make different choices. Therefore, it may need to be decided again.
This is actually known as the Air Bud principle. And there’s zero people I know that believe that such an argument would succeed.
The Air Bud principle is always this really fun exercise of ejusdem generis, but I think the number of times a case won with just that argument alone can be counted on less than half a hand.
I'm not 100% sure on this, but I think there might possibly have been a five-year war fought on this very subject in the mid-1800s and the "we can secede" people lost.
At least that's what some guy on TV told me this one time.
And there has been absolutely no change since the 1860s. Women still don't have the right to vote. Black people are still segregated and commonly kept from jobs. Marijuana is not legal. Time changes societies.
Which amendment to the Constitution added since the 1860s has allowed states to secede?
Because Article 10 was written before the 1860s.
Exactly. Nowhere in the Constitution is secession mentioned. Therefore, Article 10 would apply since that is not given to the federal government. The only thing we have that says we can't is Texas versus white. And that is quite dubious because of course the United States would pass a court judgment saying you can't secede from the United States.
Again, there was a war fought over whether or not the states could secede. The ones that thought they could lost.
I'm not sure why you need something more decisive than that.
I would hope a war is not needed to settle such a dispute in modern times. If the states truly wish to leave peacefully, let them. The harder we hang on to this "union" the more devided and hateful we all become. Its time to let Bye-gones, be bye-gones. We tried and it is in the process of failing as we speak.
Yet again, it has already been settled.
Clearly it's not settled because people still wanted. And we all know that the hardest thing to kill is an idea.
People still want to deny women the right to vote. That matter is still settled. As is the matter of secession.
What percent of people want to deny women the vote? I doubt it's very high, where secession garners at least one fifth and possibly over a third. I have heard estimates ranging from 20% to over 40% with as high as 65% in specific areas. If the national average really is more between 20 and 40% you're talking about 66 million to 132 million people. That is way bigger than a large enough pool to keep the idea alive.
I have no idea why you think keeping an idea alive means that the idea is legal to do.
It could be 99% and it still was deemed to not be something that states could do between 1860 and 1865 and nothing has changed on that particular front since then.
May I remind you that your only legal case in favor of secession was a part of the constitution written decades before the 1860s?