[Non-Sequitur]

Eventually, perhaps, through the replacement of their elected representatives, but directly? Probably not. After all, the people in the colonies, based on historical evidence, seemed to be split pretty evenly on the question of independence, and there were, of course, large portions of southern states that opposed secession.

So what you're saying is that the people of the state have zero say in whether the state stays in the Union or leaves? That the governor and the legislature can take the union out at a whim and the people of the state have no right to say yeah or nay?

[Publius Valerius]

So what you're saying is that the people of the state have zero say in whether the state stays in the Union or leaves?

Directly? Yes. They can, of course, vote with their feet or elect representatives that could attempt to reconcile. The historical record, though, doesn't seem to support giving the people a direct choice.

This really isn't all that concerning to me, really. This is what representatives do; they represent. Yes, it's a big decision, but just because it's a big decision doesn't mean that we need a referendum.