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.
I sure wish I got to say whatever dumb fucking shit I wanted and still got paid more than the average person who actually contributes to society.
Be a republican. Also, start rich.
Also you can work your way up by sucking someone's dick higher up the food chain. You could take that metaphorically, or you could go full Boebert.
These fucktards are carrying Putin’s water. They’re actively working against America. It’s out in the open, it’s not subtle. And people actually vote for them. Bizarre.
These same fuckers glassed half of Central America, and used us as proxies in the 80s to keep Russia out of this side of the globe. Now those same politicians are sucking Putin's dick and inviting Russia right in.
Before the enemy was communists who were trying to overthrow the rich. But Putin is one of them. Of course they welcome him.
"I hate them commies, that's why I'm glad that former KGB guy is in charge of Russia!"
I'd bet good money that Putin plays the same game Epstein played, just on another level.
Something something P-tape
P-edo tapes
South Carolinians are just nostalgic for secession because it's the last time they were first at anything.
I’m more nostalgic for Sherman’s March tbh. We can spare Charleston and Savannah this time though.
deleted by creator
I like that the article lays out the development of federalism pre-civil war. I think the most concise description of their argument I've heard is that it's just the "Air Bud argument".
"There's no
rulesection of the constitution that says adogstate can'tplay basketballsecede."deleted by creator
You want proof no state can secede?
We had a rapey embarrassment running the show like a drunk circus marshall and California didn't peace out.
The moment Texas takes its ball and goes home, California becomes its own independent country and Oregon starts whispering to Washington about the pretty girl next door.
I mean, Haley is right about one thing: all government decisions here are theoretically up to the people. If there is enough of a legit consensus that a state needs to secede, then they will try to make it happen.
However, it is also true that the Constitution doesn't currently have a mechanism for that. So in order for a state to secede, all the other states need to agree on a framework for it and amend the Constitution to make that happen, or we need to rip the whole thing up and start over from scratch. So while Haley is technically correct in what she said, she left out the hardest bits.
For what it's worth, I think tearing up the whole thing is the Conservative's endgame in all this. They fetishize the founders so much that they would do anything to be the "new" Founders, and bind future Originalists to their views for hundreds of years. They've been trying to call for a new Constitutional Convention under Article V to make amendments, but that convention could also start over from scratch if enough states sign on. While there are some progressives who have embraced the Article V cause, thinking it is the best way to overturn Citizens United, most people on the Left think it is a bad, bad idea. Here is a good link describing the movement (from a liberal group that doesn't like it at all....)
https://www.commoncause.org/resource/u-s-constitution-threatened-as-article-v-convention-movement-nears-success/
How else are you going to end the corruption and get money out of politics, if not for an article V convention to ban the bribes via an amendment? It can’t be done through the corrupt politicians in DC, it has to come from the states.
Fear mongering over what conservatives might do, as an excuse to do nothing, is such a laughably classic neoliberal strategy which always accomplishes nothing. The system is broken, it isn’t working, and we either do something drastic to fix it now or the empire will fall.
I am not against an amendment to reverse Citizens United. (let's do another one for Supreme Court Term Limits while we're at it). All our prior amendments have been ratified without a convention.
My issue with an Article V Constitutional Convention is that the only one we ever had was the one that gave us the entire Constitution, before the article even existed. There are no limits on what the convention could do -- and the last one tore up the Articles of Confederation and rewrote it all. Some people think that Congress might put limits on what the Convention can discuss, but it's totally untested.
It's not even settled how the voting would take place. If the Convention decides to have each state have one vote, then it pretty much guaranteed that the Conservative minority in the country would be writing the whole thing. We will even see problems if it's weighted more like the Electoral College is right now. One thing that's guaranteed is that, since it's the smaller conservative states wanting it, they will come up with rules that favor them.
Any output of the convention would need to be ratified by 3/4 of the States. That's really the only check against the convention going totally off the rails.
3/4ths ratification rule is the safeguard, and why we could be reasonably assured of a narrow scope if the convention is held. It’s also a 2/3 requirement to even call the convention to begin with.
You’re right that this is effectively unprecedented, but so are a great many modern day political developments in the US. If the outcome means ending the corruption resulting from the corporate stranglehold on our politicians, then I say try it. The left might be surprised to find allies on the right in this regard…if you listen to what MAGA folks think, often their motivations lie in being consistently failed by their government since the 70s. They believe in the promise of America, and are willing to try increasingly desperate measures to bring it to fruition. If both sides can agree that citizens united is the problem, then meaningful reform becomes increasingly possible, if not probable. The trick is overcoming the sleight of hand played by media and political pundits, on both sides, frankly.
The alternative to confronting the fierce urgency of now, means maintaining the status quo. A system in which normal Americans have no representation at all, and where America consistently costs more for far worse outcomes across virtually all aspects of life compared to other western peers. It’s unacceptable.
We don't need a convention to make an amendment to overturn Citizens United. But Conservative groups have been actively gaming out how to take control of a constitutional convention like this and rewrite the whole thing.
They've been planning this for years. There are already 28 Conservative states who passed resolutions calling for one, in spite of there being no established rules so far. Only 6 more are needed. And if it happens, they don't intend to play fair. If you're pissed about how Mitch McConnell engineered a conservative Supreme Court that doesn't reflect the views of the majority in the country, just wait until he gets to rewrite the Constitution.
Respectfully, I insist we do need a convention to pass that amendment.
99% of Congress is addicted to this very legal bribe money. How are you going to convince them to amend the constitution to take that away? Consider how Pelosi laughs in the face of anyone inquiring about the STOCK act, as indication of the levels of greed and corruption we’re dealing with here. They won’t do it of their own volition, and they sure as hell won’t listen to the voters. The states must force the issue.
Why would you think the very people you say are too corrupt to ever fix the problem would somehow fix the same problems if you temporarily gave them more power?
I don’t think they are given more power in this case. afaik, there’s nothing that says article V convention delegates must be state legislators, or even that the legislators need be appraised of the goings on at the convention. It supersedes them. The delegates’ deliberations reign supreme in our republic, literally emanating from “We the people” in that circumstance. In 1787 they met in secret for that matter - the state legislators didn’t even know what was happening.
Saturday Night Live refresher?
They had her on. The opening act had someone asking her a question, "what was the cause of the civil war again, and does it start with an s and end with lavery?". I think she said yes, and things would have gone a lot better if she answered it that way the first time.
She's skating on thin ice, if she admits to any more conservative failings she'll be a RINO for good.
If that's what you think flailing is. Looked like she did pretty well at not giving her own thoughts and opinions, avoiding the question, and claiming texas can't secede because of the constitution. Didn't look much like she failed at all.
Political headlines read like Pokemon battles.
At least they seem to moving on from "slammed".
Interviewer used You Didn't Answer The Question. It's super effective!
Someone that fucking stupid should never be allowed anywhere near a top public office.
Her competition is even dumber
Yet another reason never to vote for the worthless republican traitors.
Fucking let them secede.
I really don't want to see the harm that will cause millions of people. Not everyone in Texas is the same.
As a trapped Texan, thank you for remembering the good people. It's hard even for myself to shake the "fuck em, let them find out" attitude. Honestly the morbid part of me really wants to see the day-one collapse, much as it would hurt.
But then again we all know for a fact that the Cons will find/fabricate a new bogeyman to blame for their very own actions.
Hypothetical, obviously, but how would you feel if we let Texas secede but offered relocation assistance for folks that want to flee the state?
I think that would be the least the U.S. could do for its (former?) citizens. Or at the least allow for dual citizenship. But secession is definitely not going to happen so I'm not worried :)
Hypothetically though, yeah it would be a huge relief and I'd emigrate without a second thought.
Yeah, it seems very unlikely at this point. I was just interested in your perspective.
Hang in there, hope it ends up getting a bit more sane over the next few years.
deleted by creator
I'm not actually worried that it would happen, and I agree with all your points; fear-mongering is their bread and butter. But thanks for taking the effort to reassure a stranger!
In a nearby parallel universe I'm simultaneously packing my bags and choking on my laughter from my front-row seat 🤣
I didn’t mean just Texas either.
And they are causing harm to entire states that didn’t vote Republican or vote for anyone who appointed these Supreme Court justices. Their reps are blocking bills in the legislature. Fuck them.
Texas has more people who voted against Republicans than all but 3 states: California, Florida, New York. So all those people you are telling to go starve?
Cut Texas out and inflation again goes up. Beef, Grain, Corn... More people will blame the president for it, and then we will get more Republican voters. Issue continues but the people in Texas no longer have social security, Medicare, Medicaid and the U.S. Navy/Army stepped in to secure the oil fields. Exports/imports likely stopped as punishment and the oil companies will sell to 49 states instead of 1. So the people struggle to get gas. Struggle to get to work.. and without food imported from the rest of the states, they will have food shortages outside of beef flour and corn. Electricity will fail once the people can't get to work, so the Internet is no longer useful.. The United Nations will condemn the actions of the U.S. and strain will be put further on our ties, likely further impacting our imports/exports and causing higher inflation. Texas will need help and where would they get it? They won't accept help from China, but guess who has oil and would want to help them? Russia. The U.S. would be Texas's enemy at that point... So Russia doesn't look half bad to keep the lights on and be able to get to work and pay the bills. Then the U.S. would have to pressure Russia into not helping them... Aka U.S. eventually having to go to war against Texas and forcing them into statehood to ensure no other country has access to the land within the U.S. where missiles can reach everywhere without needing to cross a massive ocean.
Not just starve, remember that when secession started in Texas they started murdering people who were against secession. They'll absolutely do it again.
I could see Mexico declaring war on Texas.
You do recognize that secession won’t be a simple process where they can just leave and we keep going about our business as usual, right?
Texas has a huge effect on the national economy. A ton of commerce, energy production,manufacturing, and transport all goes through the Houston ship channel, Mexican points of entry, and across the state through I-10 and I-35.
Secession would mean almost immediate war between the US and Texas, which would cause not only significant loss of life but instability and inflation to a large number of both sides’ civilian population.
The “let them go” arguement is short sighted and unrealistic. It’s just not going to happen.
I don't think it would be much of a war with the US having complete air superiority. Couldn't we just drop leaflets telling people to stand clear and obliterate their grid and wait until it gets really hot or really cold while interdicting any commerce other than food and medicine. Some of those bigger facilities need hardware that isn't easy to come by. They would probably still be in the dark 90 days after they sued for peace.
Feeling frustrated? Now you can give up* on the Constitution! (*can't actually give up on the Constitution)
What about this is flailing? She said no like 2-3 times and didn't say anything else contradictory in the interview. Now idk wtf she actually said on that podcast because the reporter didn't press her on it or quote her, if she did contradict herself then it's the reporter that fumbled and I'd be way madder about that.
Here's a thought.
Not a requirement when the interviewer knows of it and the audience should too.
The reporter doesn't make her say one thing one day and another thing the next (with no explanation for the volte-turn). She's done that all her own, but for someone to point out the obvious and land her in the hot seat of her own waffling creation.
Flip-flopping used to be a death knell for a campaign: John Kerry, Julia Jilliard, Gordon Brown, and some Toole from Canada, all lost because they couldn't be consistent.
While she is the least-bad option for the degenerates she'd lead, this kind of stupidity could end her career at the helm like it almost did George HW 'no new taxes' Bush.
The audience shouldn't be expected to know jack shit. That's the most autist take imaginable, to expect all people to know all relevant things before it's even known to be relevant.
You still haven't shown me where she "flailed" in this interview btw, just a bunch of whiny bitching about grammar and past elections.
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
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.
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?