Posted on 06/06/2012 6:18:45 AM PDT by CNSNews.com
(CNSNews.com) – Nearly one-quarter of Americans believe that states have the right to secede, according to a recent poll from Rasmussen Reports -- up 10 percentage points in two years.
The latest poll is just one of many that shows that Americans have “serious and growing concern about the federal government,” according to Scott Rasmussen, founder and president of Rasmussen Reports.
According to the phone survey released Sunday, 24 percent of Americans believe that states should be able to withdraw from the United States to form their own country, if they want. Nearly 60 percent (59) of Americans say they don’t believe states have the right to secede, while 16 percent are undecided.
“We do see that people are concerned about the federal government in a variety of ways,” Rasmussen told CNSNews.com. “51 percent believe that it’s a threat to individual liberties.
“It may just be part of a growing frustration with other aspects of the federal government,” he said.
“But I think it’s important to keep it in perspective, growing to 24 percent still means that only one out of four Americans think that states have the right to secede, it’s not that they’re advocating for it,” Rasmussen said.
Though a minority, the number has been growing. In 2010, when Rasmussen first conducted the poll, only 14 percent of Americans said states had the right to secede. A year later, the number was up to 21 percent.
The poll, which surveyed 1,000 adults between May 29 and 30, asked, among other questions: “Do individual states have the right to leave the United States and form an independent country?”
Only 10 percent of poll respondents said it was likely a state would attempt to secede in the next 25 years -- “a pretty generous time frame,” Rasmussen said. “So it’s not seen as a very realistic possibility,” he added.
The survey also asked whether the federal government is a protector or a threat to individual rights, to which a majority -- 51 percent -- said the government presents a danger to liberty.
“[O]nly 34 percent of adults in this country regard the federal government more as a protector of individual rights,” according to the poll.
“More Americans than ever are expressing strong concern that the federal government will run out of money,” according to Rasmussen Reports, who also found that 64 percent of Americans are at least somewhat worried that the U.S. government will run out of money. 43 percent are “very worried” that the U.S. government will run out of money, while 31 percent of adults are not worried and 10 percent are “not at all worried.”
The total federal debt currently stands at $15.8 trillion.
Rasmussen told CNSNews.com that recent polling shows that Americans have a “growing frustration” with the federal government.
“What we’re seeing in a whole range of surveys is serious and growing concern about the federal government, about the role of government in American life,” he said. “Only about one out of five Americans believe the government today has the consent of the governed. People believe that America’s best days -- about half the nation believes -- America’s best days have come and gone.”
“Only 16 percent believe that today’s children will be better off than their parents,” he said, “that’s a horrifically low number for America.”
“And then you’ve got individual proposals, [New York City] Mayor [Michael] Bloomberg’s proposal of banning large sugary drinks is supported by 24 percent of Americans, 2 out of 3 oppose it,” Rasmussen added. “So there’s this frustration that’s been building.”
Honesty test for the reb in post 100. Let’s see how it goes. :^)
That’s an interesting hypothesis and different from the ones I’ve seen cited previously on these threads. Here’s another way of looking at the problem, again using California. It’s all but bankrupt and deeeeeep in the hole. If they go into default (and it doesn’t look like there is a single soul who will stand up to prevent it) the rest of us will likely be on the hook to bail them out.
Using similar “logic” shouldn’t we be able to “kick them out of the club”? through an involuntary secession which would serve to absolve us of complicity with their debts? (Not that I would ever do so because I don’t think that it is the responsible way of solving issues).
The south went to war over The Particular Institution. The north went to war over security. People who had been partners, neighbors, and even kin initiated hostilities against us and declared themselves our enemies. They breached the constitution, the law, and the peace. They stole everything that wasn’t nailed down and promised to steal more.
The set themselves apart from the rest of the union and said “We aim to kill you”.
The reaction from the north was perfectly appropriate, if perhaps understated and tentative. Lincoln approached it like a spat, hoping that cooler heads would prevail. It took him awhile to realize that there would be to sensible talk coming from the southron fire-eaters.
Lincoln did what he could and what he had to do to preserve the union - the whole union.
Yeah, you don't really need WW2 for that question. Could Jerry Brown and the California legislature do it today?...declare the union dissolved, seize all federal assets, (aircraft carriers, naval bases, etc), sell it all to China to pay their union pensions a little while longer. If it's good enough for South Carolina, why not Jerry Brown. lol
Using similar “logic” shouldn’t we be able to “kick them out of the club”? through an involuntary secession which would serve to absolve us of complicity with their debts? (Not that I would ever do so because I don’t think that it is the responsible way of solving issues).
Good point. I'm sure under that scenario the California legislators would cite all the taxes California has paid in the last 160+ years and therefore we have to bail them out rather than kick them out.
Weird question, and weirder survey result.
OF COURSE states have the right to secede. The Constitution was and remains a two-way “contract” - - if the federal government fails to perform in accordance with the Constitution, then the federal government has defaulted on its part of the deal and states have the right to secede and tell the federal government to go play in the street.
“Article 4.”
Article 4 says nothing about secession or the dispossesion of Federal property in such an event, so it is just your speculation.
“Not when there is federal property involved. Congress needed the opportunity to prescribe the manner in which that act would be proven.”
Where does the Constitution state this, specifically? Not a clause that you interpret to mean that, but in specific language?
“Could California have done that on Dec 8, 1941? Could California have held a meeting, sent a letter to Congress saying the union is dissolved, seized all ships at the San Diego, San Fransisco, and Los Angeles naval bases, and seized all the buildings at all the naval bases in order raze all buildings and scrap all the ships to show Japan it was neutral so as to not have Japan attack them?”
California would have every right to secede, and by doing so, they would necessarily have to seize any immovable military assets held by foreign governments within their borders. It’s not a matter of “OK” or not, it’s just a fact of life, you can’t ship a fort or military base back to its builder. The question is really, will the original owner decide to try to arrange for compensation through legal, diplomatic, or military channels. The US chose the military channel in the Civil War, it seems to me.
Don't laugh too quick - I've actually seen Lost Causers say that the federal property that was stolen by the confeds was theirs because of all the taxes that they had paid do-date.
FYI... I’m a Yankee.
Article 4 covers acts of states. Secession is an act of a state.
Where does the Constitution state this, specifically? Not a clause that you interpret to mean that, but in specific language?
Article 4.
California would have every right to secede, and by doing so, they would necessarily have to seize any immovable military assets held by foreign governments within their borders. It’s not a matter of “OK” or not, it’s just a fact of life, you can’t ship a fort or military base back to its builder. The question is really, will the original owner decide to try to arrange for compensation through legal, diplomatic, or military channels. The US chose the military channel in the Civil War, it seems to me.
LOL The judgment capabilities of a reb sympathizer on display for all to see. You would have let California seize our ability to fight WW2. Unbelievable.
Can Jerry Brown and the California legislature seize all naval bases in California and sell them to China today?
It was the South that fired on Sumter.
As we can see on this thread they can rationalize anything, even the confiscation of the material and bases to protect ourselves from a clear and present danger as existed on Dec 8, 1941.
One that would sell out to China.
I wonder what the percentage is up in New England. Those Yankees are still carrying on about the War Between the States.
“Article 4.”
It seems that you just can’t admit the difference between what the Constitution says and how you interpret it. Article 4 says what it says, not what you want it to say.
“LOL The judgment capabilities of a reb sympathizer on display for all to see. You would have let California seize our ability to fight WW2. Unbelievable.”
Now you’re trying to place the words you want me to have said in my mouth, so that you can denounce me. I didn’t say I would “let” California do anything. I only said that they would have the right to secede at that time, just like any other state at any other time. The fact that you framed the question to try and color judgement with emotion doesn’t change the fact that the question must be answered based on principles rather than emotion.
“It was the South that fired on Sumter.”
Yawn. Now you’re just talking in circles.
“One that would sell out to China.”
Ooh, what’s next, are you going to tell jokes about my mother?
It would be interesting to see a regional breakdown on the subject of secession.
Below is the Arkansas Declaration. The word slave or slavery is not in it.
Arkansas Secession
May 6, 1861
AN ORDINANCE to dissolve the union now existing between the State of Arkansas and the other States united with her under the compact entitled “The Constitution of the United States of America.”
Whereas, in addition to the well-founded causes of complaint set forth by this convention, in resolutions adopted on the 11th of March, A.D. 1861, against the sectional party now in power in Washington City, headed by Abraham Lincoln, he has, in the face of resolutions passed by this convention pledging the State of Arkansas to resist to the last extremity any attempt on the part of such power to coerce any State that had seceded from the old Union, proclaimed to the world that war should be waged against such States until they should be compelled to submit to their rule, and large forces to accomplish this have by this same power been called out, and are now being marshaled to carry out this inhuman design; and to longer submit to such rule, or remain in the old Union of the United States, would be disgraceful and ruinous to the State of Arkansas:
Therefore we, the people of the State of Arkansas, in convention assembled, do hereby declare and ordain, and it is hereby declared and ordained, That the “ordinance and acceptance of compact” passed and approved by the General Assembly of the State of Arkansas on the 18th day of October, A.D. 1836, whereby it was by said General Assembly ordained that by virtue of the authority vested in said General Assembly by the provisions of the ordinance adopted by the convention of delegates assembled at Little Rock for the purpose of forming a constitution and system of government for said State, the propositions set forth in “An act supplementary to an act entitled `An act for the admission of the State of Arkansas into the Union, and to provide for the due execution of the laws of the United States within the same, and for other purposes,’” were freely accepted, ratified, and irrevocably confirmed, articles of compact and union between the State of Arkansas and the United States, and all other laws and every other law and ordinance, whereby the State of Arkansas became a member of the Federal Union, be, and the same are hereby, in all respects and for every purpose herewith consistent, repealed, abrogated, and fully set aside; and the union now subsisting between the State of Arkansas and the other States, under the name of the United States of America, is hereby forever dissolved.
And we do further hereby declare and ordain, That the State of Arkansas hereby resumes to herself all rights and powers heretofore delegated to the Government of the United States of America; that her citizens are absolved from all allegiance to said Government of the United States, and that she is in full possession and exercise of all the rights and sovereignty which appertain to a free and independent State.
We do further ordain and declare, That all rights acquired and vested under the Constitution of the United States of America, or of any act or acts of Congress, or treaty, or under any law of this State, and not incompatible with this ordinance, shall remain in full force and effect, in nowise altered or impaired, and have the same effect as if this ordinance had not been passed.
Adopted and passed in open convention on the 6th day of May, A.D. 1861.
It says Congress has the right to prescribe the manner in which a state proves its acts. Secession is an act.
Now you’re trying to place the words you want me to have said in my mouth, so that you can denounce me. I didn’t say I would “let” California do anything. I only said that they would have the right to secede at that time, just like any other state at any other time. The fact that you framed the question to try and color judgement with emotion doesn’t change the fact that the question must be answered based on principles rather than emotion.
Emotion has nothing to do with it. You said California would have the right to confiscate our federal warmaking ability on Dec 8, 1941.
The facts of the matter are inconvenient things aren't they.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.