In 2008 Obama was against gay marriage. In California, Proposition 8 was passed and then thwarted by Judicial activists. Stuff Changed.
Texas has always had a little yearn for being Independent, even it's flag is symbolic of this inclination.
There are reasons to suspect that there exist natural fault lines throughout the nation, and that during times of stress, the thing could easily break up into distinctive chunks.
Ordinarily, existing governments don't give up their powers without a fight.
A Government which was founded upon such a principle ought not be opposed to the same principle upon which it was founded. Unlike a Kingdom which is founded on "Divine Right of Kings", it should have had no legitimate claim to hold states in bondage.
Except for people who are incarcerated, every American retains a right to leave this country. No one is challenging that right.
In 1776, Allegiance was perpetual, and the British would not have allowed anyone to throw off their citizenship no matter where they went, but had they approved of such a concept, do you think it was reasonable to tell Washington that you can "leave", and by the way, we'll take your lands?
Why cannot he and others of their state create and maintain whatsoever kind of government suits them as a right expressly asserted in the Declaration of Independence?
With all due respect, I think it is you who is challenging the right of people to decide "rightly or wrongly the course they wish to take in their lives." If you accept your own argument, then the people of the United States have an inherent God-given right to maintain a huge, bloated government if that's what they want.
The Wishes of the people do not repeal the laws of nature. One way or another their "huge bloated government" will eventually collapse. The Math says the trends are unsustainable. Venezuela is already being bitchslapped by math and the laws of nature, but they still haven't figured it out.
But that side steps your point. To address it square on, individuals also have natural rights. The whims of the public do not override the natural rights of individuals. You cannot "vote" someone's execution. You can't "vote" to seize their house, (well actually you can, but that is a peculiar and uncommon set of conditions) you ought not be able to "vote" to seize more than a well defined and necessary share of their money or work product.
If you follow natural law philosophy in your thinking, natural barriers and restraints manifest themselves as the balance between the principles involved. A public ought to be permitted to go so far, but no farther.
This is an echo of the Lincoln Douglass debate in which Lincoln noted that if states have rights, can they not have the right to be a none slave state?
Yes, people may be inclined to vote for bloat, but if their governance is constituted correctly, they ought not be able to get it.
You seem to suggest that if you, you personally do not agree with some of the current, existing policies of our government, then you retain some sort of God-given right to leave without really leaving in any geographical sense and that it doesn't really matter what your neighbors might want. That doesn't seem workable to me.
Well no, it isn't, and that is not what I am advocating or suggesting. What I am suggesting is that if a sufficiently large population has emerged from a geographical area to which they are native, they ought to be able to govern themselves in a manner they so choose, within the normal and usual rules of human interaction.
Defining the amount and demographic necessary to exercise this valid collective right is not necessarily easy, but as Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart noted regarding pornography, "I know it when I see it."
It would seem to me that most if not all states ought to qualify. (Rhode Island has way too much power for it's size and Demographics.) Measuring against the population that the Founders had when they exercised the right seems reasonable to me.
If you were to emphasize that aspect of your proposal (i.e., that a reorganization would be based upon the wishes of a significant percentage, a majority at a minimum) you could make that argument as a prospective proposal that wouldn't entangle you with the Confederacy, slavery, etc. Scotland just had a similar election.
Until financial factors are considered, one might suppose that red states would be more disposed to separate from the USA than blue states. But, as shown by Wallet Hub (a financial website), red states are more financially dependent on the Federal government than blue states. Overall, the Federal government is being used to transfer financial resources from blue states to red states. It would be a huge mistake to overlook or to ignore this fact. We constantly notice news stories that make it clear that politicians from red states somehow never make good on their election day promises to reduce Federal spending. We shouldn't wonder why.
At the present time, there isn't any state in which anything like a majority of people would wish to sever their connection with the USA. For better of for worse, I think we're all in this together and that if we are going to reduce the size of our government, we're going to have to do it within the context of the present political structure. And, we're going to need the support of both red states and blue states to succeed. The fiscal problem may have to get worse before there will be enough political will to reverse course.