You’re correct. I was wrong. The Constitution would have to be amended to allow for it first.

The United States Constitution does not explicitly provide a method for the dissolution of the union. In fact, the Constitution is quite silent on the topic of secession or dissolution.

However, there are a few relevant provisions and historical precedents that are often cited in discussions about the possibility of dissolution:

Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1: This clause, also known as the “Guarantee Clause,” states that the United States shall guarantee to every state a republican form of government. Some argue that this clause implies a constitutional obligation for the federal government to maintain the union and prevent secession.

The Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2): This clause establishes the Constitution and federal laws as the supreme law of the land, which some interpret as precluding the possibility of secession.

The Civil War and the 14th Amendment: The American Civil War (1861-1865) was fought, in part, over the issue of secession. The 14th Amendment (1868) was ratified in the aftermath of the war and includes language that could be seen as prohibiting secession. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment states that no person who has engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States shall be eligible to hold federal or state office.

Texas v. White (1869): In this landmark Supreme Court case, the Court ruled that secession is not permissible under the Constitution. The decision stated that the Constitution looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible states.

While these provisions and precedents suggest that the Constitution does not provide a clear method for dissolution, they do not necessarily rule out the possibility of secession or dissolution entirely. Some argue that secession could be achieved through a constitutional amendment or a negotiated agreement between the federal government and a state or group of states.

It’s worth noting that, in practice, the possibility of dissolution is often seen as a highly unlikely and potentially destabilizing event. The United States has a long history of federalism and a strong tradition of national unity, which has generally been maintained through a system of shared power and compromise between the federal government and the states.

I’ve always loved this quote about conservatism:

Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition: there must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.

• Francis M. Wilhoit

Depends.

Protected by the first amendment, one can legally advocate for the dissolution of the Union through bicameral ratification outlined constitutionally by constitutional amendment. To advocate for armed insurrection or violent overthrow of the federal government is sedition and considered quite illegal.

If you increase my workload but don’t give me a raise, I quit. Immediately.

Yo prefiero vivir con paz si posible.

Should women be allowed to fight on the front lines?

If the individual woman passes the required physical and psychological standards and requirements for the combat MOS, absolutely.

However, they shouldn’t get carte blanche special or relaxed standards and treatment; lives are at stake.

Or maybe the DNC refuses to speak to, let alone execute an agenda regarding the needs of the working class, election after election. Of course they’d be trounced after effectively revealing themselves as controlled opposition.

My forlorn hope is a massive repudiation of the DNC establishment in the next round of primaries.

Armed revolution in the face of predator drones with hellfires and 5th generation multi-role fighter aircraft is a fool’s errand for suicidal rubes.

Sure.

Tankies and MAGA-types will never acknowledge or are incapable of comprehending that many “opposing” political and economic philosophies (e.g., socialism, communism, capitalism, republicanism, etc.) are all historically liberal philosophies that find their roots in The Enlightenment.

Authoritarians (i.e., tankies, corporatists, theocrats, fascists, statists, totalitarians, and anyone else who says “I’m in charge forever”) of every stripe are assholes and should rightly be distrusted, ridiculed, and held in deep contempt by anyone who values free inquiry and thought and the principle of “consent of the governed”.

You responded to me first, dummy. So, kick rocks barefoot.

Codified capitalism, anarchism, republicanism, and socialism are liberal philosophies that find their roots historically in the enlightenment. “Lib” isn’t the insult that tankies and MAGAs think it is.

FWIW, I advocate for democratic market socialism.

This is you, then.

So, you’re triggered enough by my pushback about people not knowing what “liberal” means enough to try to make me insertNegativeEmotionHere?

In a very reductive sense it means if you’re offended by being called it, then it means you.

Wannabe pejoratives usually are overly reductive.

I just think the tankies and MAGA types don’t even know what it really means. Republicanism and Marxism are historically both liberal political philosophies that find their roots in the enlightenment.

I think they want to say “corporatist neoliberal”, but it’s too many syllables or requires too much thought. “Lib” makes for a nicer stone to throw.

“That shit” is far better than the alternative.

Sorry, you wanted this world; you voted for it.

You seem to be unaware or are forgetting that the majority of white women wanted it too. The exit poll stats show the majority of people across the board in about every demographic “wanted this world”; it was a massive defeat for the vestiges of the American political left.

The Trump campaign successfully set up their media machine to equate every environmental protection, women’s autonomy, labor protection, and re-enfranchisement policy proposal of the working class to a talking point of a screeching radical feminist harpy cartoon character that’s bent on “destroying the patriarchy, churches, and America.”

The DNC handwaved the concerns of the working class away again to fellate the billionaire and corporate donors, the “moderate” republicans, and the social justice warriors simultaneously, thinking that would work somehow.

The blame lies on the us if we let the DNC establishment keep their jobs in the next round of primaries.

Yes, I’m aware of the “paradox of intolerance”.

You’re doing great comrade; the revolution is one more snarky internet comment and molotov sippy-cup away.

Should I not have voted?

Libs Corporatist DNC embraced the Cheneys and told Bernie and Tlaib et al to go fuck themselves.

dictionary lawyering

So words don’t matter to you, got it.

Just say you’re gonna fucking ignore what’s happening.

I voted blue up and down the ballot in every election possible in my adult life since 2000, despite the corporatist fellating DNC. I’ve demonstrated. I’ve donated. I’ve written to congressmen. I was in a union earlier in my career.

I’ve been called worse than “shitlib”. Try harder.

To all the infallible unblemished champions of the proletarian revolution who are shitting on “libs”:

According to the Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics and Western Political Theory in the Face of the Future, this is the definition of liberalism:

Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, right to private property and equality before the law.

In your own words, what do you think “lib” means? And if you’re going with my cited textbook definition, what’s so offensive to you about the tenets that are listed?

Either words’ definitions matter or they don’t, and if they don’t, then none of what you say matters.