Can state governments be overthrown without national government involvement?
It is my understanding that the state and national government of the United States are separate entities (that's what federalism is, combining smaller states into a larger one).
State governments seem to be much smaller than national governments, and they also affect the lives of it's citizens more than the national government does. Could unhappy citizens overthrow a state government while still remaining on favorable terms with the national government?
Could state militaries over throw their own state government and establish a new state government and still be on good terms with the national government?
Has this been done in the past?
Has this happened in other federations around the world?
united-states us-state-laws federalism
New contributor
Expanding-Dev is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
|
show 9 more comments
It is my understanding that the state and national government of the United States are separate entities (that's what federalism is, combining smaller states into a larger one).
State governments seem to be much smaller than national governments, and they also affect the lives of it's citizens more than the national government does. Could unhappy citizens overthrow a state government while still remaining on favorable terms with the national government?
Could state militaries over throw their own state government and establish a new state government and still be on good terms with the national government?
Has this been done in the past?
Has this happened in other federations around the world?
united-states us-state-laws federalism
New contributor
Expanding-Dev is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
How is "over throw" defined? Does the recent state initiative to split California into three states meet the criteria? Or the long-proposed State of Jefferson, which does not involve establishment of the State by military means? Switzerland increased the number of cantons from 8 to 26 from the time of the origin of their federal system.
– guest271314
2 hours ago
@guest271314 Yes splitting California into three states meets that criteria exactly. The State of Jefferson movement seems to have been a bit violent when it first started, but the more recent actions in the 21st century where county supervisor boards voted to withdraw from Oregon/California meets the criteria
– Expanding-Dev
2 hours ago
@guest271314 My question about state militaries over throwing state government would probably be more on the forceful/militant side of "over throw"
– Expanding-Dev
2 hours ago
What does "without national government involvement" mean?
– guest271314
2 hours ago
1
@guest271314 I will accept my own answer once the 48 hour timer is up
– Expanding-Dev
1 hour ago
|
show 9 more comments
It is my understanding that the state and national government of the United States are separate entities (that's what federalism is, combining smaller states into a larger one).
State governments seem to be much smaller than national governments, and they also affect the lives of it's citizens more than the national government does. Could unhappy citizens overthrow a state government while still remaining on favorable terms with the national government?
Could state militaries over throw their own state government and establish a new state government and still be on good terms with the national government?
Has this been done in the past?
Has this happened in other federations around the world?
united-states us-state-laws federalism
New contributor
Expanding-Dev is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
It is my understanding that the state and national government of the United States are separate entities (that's what federalism is, combining smaller states into a larger one).
State governments seem to be much smaller than national governments, and they also affect the lives of it's citizens more than the national government does. Could unhappy citizens overthrow a state government while still remaining on favorable terms with the national government?
Could state militaries over throw their own state government and establish a new state government and still be on good terms with the national government?
Has this been done in the past?
Has this happened in other federations around the world?
united-states us-state-laws federalism
united-states us-state-laws federalism
New contributor
Expanding-Dev is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Expanding-Dev is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Expanding-Dev is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 2 hours ago
Expanding-DevExpanding-Dev
215
215
New contributor
Expanding-Dev is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Expanding-Dev is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Expanding-Dev is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
How is "over throw" defined? Does the recent state initiative to split California into three states meet the criteria? Or the long-proposed State of Jefferson, which does not involve establishment of the State by military means? Switzerland increased the number of cantons from 8 to 26 from the time of the origin of their federal system.
– guest271314
2 hours ago
@guest271314 Yes splitting California into three states meets that criteria exactly. The State of Jefferson movement seems to have been a bit violent when it first started, but the more recent actions in the 21st century where county supervisor boards voted to withdraw from Oregon/California meets the criteria
– Expanding-Dev
2 hours ago
@guest271314 My question about state militaries over throwing state government would probably be more on the forceful/militant side of "over throw"
– Expanding-Dev
2 hours ago
What does "without national government involvement" mean?
– guest271314
2 hours ago
1
@guest271314 I will accept my own answer once the 48 hour timer is up
– Expanding-Dev
1 hour ago
|
show 9 more comments
How is "over throw" defined? Does the recent state initiative to split California into three states meet the criteria? Or the long-proposed State of Jefferson, which does not involve establishment of the State by military means? Switzerland increased the number of cantons from 8 to 26 from the time of the origin of their federal system.
– guest271314
2 hours ago
@guest271314 Yes splitting California into three states meets that criteria exactly. The State of Jefferson movement seems to have been a bit violent when it first started, but the more recent actions in the 21st century where county supervisor boards voted to withdraw from Oregon/California meets the criteria
– Expanding-Dev
2 hours ago
@guest271314 My question about state militaries over throwing state government would probably be more on the forceful/militant side of "over throw"
– Expanding-Dev
2 hours ago
What does "without national government involvement" mean?
– guest271314
2 hours ago
1
@guest271314 I will accept my own answer once the 48 hour timer is up
– Expanding-Dev
1 hour ago
How is "over throw" defined? Does the recent state initiative to split California into three states meet the criteria? Or the long-proposed State of Jefferson, which does not involve establishment of the State by military means? Switzerland increased the number of cantons from 8 to 26 from the time of the origin of their federal system.
– guest271314
2 hours ago
How is "over throw" defined? Does the recent state initiative to split California into three states meet the criteria? Or the long-proposed State of Jefferson, which does not involve establishment of the State by military means? Switzerland increased the number of cantons from 8 to 26 from the time of the origin of their federal system.
– guest271314
2 hours ago
@guest271314 Yes splitting California into three states meets that criteria exactly. The State of Jefferson movement seems to have been a bit violent when it first started, but the more recent actions in the 21st century where county supervisor boards voted to withdraw from Oregon/California meets the criteria
– Expanding-Dev
2 hours ago
@guest271314 Yes splitting California into three states meets that criteria exactly. The State of Jefferson movement seems to have been a bit violent when it first started, but the more recent actions in the 21st century where county supervisor boards voted to withdraw from Oregon/California meets the criteria
– Expanding-Dev
2 hours ago
@guest271314 My question about state militaries over throwing state government would probably be more on the forceful/militant side of "over throw"
– Expanding-Dev
2 hours ago
@guest271314 My question about state militaries over throwing state government would probably be more on the forceful/militant side of "over throw"
– Expanding-Dev
2 hours ago
What does "without national government involvement" mean?
– guest271314
2 hours ago
What does "without national government involvement" mean?
– guest271314
2 hours ago
1
1
@guest271314 I will accept my own answer once the 48 hour timer is up
– Expanding-Dev
1 hour ago
@guest271314 I will accept my own answer once the 48 hour timer is up
– Expanding-Dev
1 hour ago
|
show 9 more comments
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
Can state governments be overthrown without national government involvement?
Yes. It happens sometimes when there's an election.
Could state militaries over throw their own state government and establish a new state government and still be on good terms with the national government?
Most likely no. Each state also has a constitution, and prescribes how changing the makeup of each state government should occur. Should a state's national guard (or other state-level militia) attempt a state level "coup," the Supreme Court of the state would most likely rule that such an action violated the state's constitution. In all likelihood, the action from the perspective of the federal government I believe would be viewed not much differently as general insurrection and would be responded to.
Of course, each state is different and has different constitutions. For example, New Hampshire's contains the Right of Revolution:
Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.
Since this is part of the state constitution, the state Supreme Court may be swayed by the arguments of the state militia depending on the exact circumstances. Other state constitutions contain similar clauses, a good listing of states with a positive right of revolution can be found on Wikipedia.
If the state Supreme Court isn't swayed, the federal Supreme Court might, but the wording presents a bit of a conundrum since if we're appealing to the courts then by definition that means that redress is available. This redress also becomes available every time there is an election. As long as the people have faith in their state level elections, then the choice of the make-up of a government still belongs to the people.
See also Article 4, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution:
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government [...]
A military overthrowing a popularly elected government is not a republican form of government.
Has this been done in the past?
Not in the manner are describing, but the legislatures of many states attempted to dissolve the union between them during the Civil War, which was later ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. I doubt a state-level militia would get favorable treatment for attempting to do something similar.
Does not Natural Law and the U.S. Declaration of Independence also provide for or contain the "Right of Revolution" "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."?
– guest271314
1 hour ago
2
The Declaration of Independence was a policy statement on the Revolutionary War, it didn't guarantee anything except execution for Treason should the revolutionaries have lost. But it probably does provide some grounding for those states that did wish to codify such a right in their state constitution (such as New Hampshire). The only comment I have on "Natural Law" since that can mean whatever anyone wants it to is that only history decides whether a revolutionary is a criminal or a hero.
– Jeff Lambert
1 hour ago
The Declaration of Independence is founded in Natural Law. The "Founders" considered themselves "natural elite". An instructive text on the subject matter is Natural Right and History by Leo Stauss.
– guest271314
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Thanks to @Drunk Cynic and @guest271314 , I think I can cobble together an answer to my question.
@guest271314 pointed out the State of Jefferson debate, which led me to find this thread: Why can't the counties that support the proposed state of Jefferson appeal directly to the federal government for statehood?
The answer given in this thread mentions
Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1 of the US Constitution:
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new
States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other
State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States,
or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the
States concerned as well as of the Congress.
This shows that probably any means of "over throwing" (legal or forcefully) state government is not going to be able to join the United States because the new state occupies the space occupied by the already recognized previous state government.
@guest271314 provided an example of this occuring in the past around the world:
Republic and Canton of the Jura in Switzerland.
After World War II, a separatist movement campaigned for a secession
of Jura from the canton of Bern. After a long and partly militant
struggle, which included some arson attacks by a youth organisation
Les Béliers, a constitution was accepted in 1977. In 1978 the split
was made official when the Swiss people voted in favour, and in 1979
the Jura joined the Swiss Confederation as a full member.
Perhaps this replacement of state governments can occur in other federations around the world, but for the United States it does not seem possible.
New contributor
Expanding-Dev is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
Could unhappy citizens overthrow a state government while still
remaining on favorable terms with the national government?
Could state militaries over throw their own state government and
establish a new state government and still be on good terms with the
national government?
If read the question correctly, one example is the Republic and Canton of the Jura in Switzerland.
After World War II, a separatist movement campaigned for a secession
of Jura from the canton of Bern. After a long and partly militant
struggle, which included some arson attacks by a youth organisation
Les Béliers, a constitution was accepted in 1977. In 1978 the split
was made official when the Swiss people voted in favour, and in 1979
the Jura joined the Swiss Confederation as a full member.
@Expanding-Dev See The Jura Conflict: Direct Democracy in Practice
– guest271314
2 hours ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "475"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Expanding-Dev is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f37912%2fcan-state-governments-be-overthrown-without-national-government-involvement%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Can state governments be overthrown without national government involvement?
Yes. It happens sometimes when there's an election.
Could state militaries over throw their own state government and establish a new state government and still be on good terms with the national government?
Most likely no. Each state also has a constitution, and prescribes how changing the makeup of each state government should occur. Should a state's national guard (or other state-level militia) attempt a state level "coup," the Supreme Court of the state would most likely rule that such an action violated the state's constitution. In all likelihood, the action from the perspective of the federal government I believe would be viewed not much differently as general insurrection and would be responded to.
Of course, each state is different and has different constitutions. For example, New Hampshire's contains the Right of Revolution:
Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.
Since this is part of the state constitution, the state Supreme Court may be swayed by the arguments of the state militia depending on the exact circumstances. Other state constitutions contain similar clauses, a good listing of states with a positive right of revolution can be found on Wikipedia.
If the state Supreme Court isn't swayed, the federal Supreme Court might, but the wording presents a bit of a conundrum since if we're appealing to the courts then by definition that means that redress is available. This redress also becomes available every time there is an election. As long as the people have faith in their state level elections, then the choice of the make-up of a government still belongs to the people.
See also Article 4, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution:
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government [...]
A military overthrowing a popularly elected government is not a republican form of government.
Has this been done in the past?
Not in the manner are describing, but the legislatures of many states attempted to dissolve the union between them during the Civil War, which was later ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. I doubt a state-level militia would get favorable treatment for attempting to do something similar.
Does not Natural Law and the U.S. Declaration of Independence also provide for or contain the "Right of Revolution" "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."?
– guest271314
1 hour ago
2
The Declaration of Independence was a policy statement on the Revolutionary War, it didn't guarantee anything except execution for Treason should the revolutionaries have lost. But it probably does provide some grounding for those states that did wish to codify such a right in their state constitution (such as New Hampshire). The only comment I have on "Natural Law" since that can mean whatever anyone wants it to is that only history decides whether a revolutionary is a criminal or a hero.
– Jeff Lambert
1 hour ago
The Declaration of Independence is founded in Natural Law. The "Founders" considered themselves "natural elite". An instructive text on the subject matter is Natural Right and History by Leo Stauss.
– guest271314
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Can state governments be overthrown without national government involvement?
Yes. It happens sometimes when there's an election.
Could state militaries over throw their own state government and establish a new state government and still be on good terms with the national government?
Most likely no. Each state also has a constitution, and prescribes how changing the makeup of each state government should occur. Should a state's national guard (or other state-level militia) attempt a state level "coup," the Supreme Court of the state would most likely rule that such an action violated the state's constitution. In all likelihood, the action from the perspective of the federal government I believe would be viewed not much differently as general insurrection and would be responded to.
Of course, each state is different and has different constitutions. For example, New Hampshire's contains the Right of Revolution:
Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.
Since this is part of the state constitution, the state Supreme Court may be swayed by the arguments of the state militia depending on the exact circumstances. Other state constitutions contain similar clauses, a good listing of states with a positive right of revolution can be found on Wikipedia.
If the state Supreme Court isn't swayed, the federal Supreme Court might, but the wording presents a bit of a conundrum since if we're appealing to the courts then by definition that means that redress is available. This redress also becomes available every time there is an election. As long as the people have faith in their state level elections, then the choice of the make-up of a government still belongs to the people.
See also Article 4, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution:
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government [...]
A military overthrowing a popularly elected government is not a republican form of government.
Has this been done in the past?
Not in the manner are describing, but the legislatures of many states attempted to dissolve the union between them during the Civil War, which was later ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. I doubt a state-level militia would get favorable treatment for attempting to do something similar.
Does not Natural Law and the U.S. Declaration of Independence also provide for or contain the "Right of Revolution" "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."?
– guest271314
1 hour ago
2
The Declaration of Independence was a policy statement on the Revolutionary War, it didn't guarantee anything except execution for Treason should the revolutionaries have lost. But it probably does provide some grounding for those states that did wish to codify such a right in their state constitution (such as New Hampshire). The only comment I have on "Natural Law" since that can mean whatever anyone wants it to is that only history decides whether a revolutionary is a criminal or a hero.
– Jeff Lambert
1 hour ago
The Declaration of Independence is founded in Natural Law. The "Founders" considered themselves "natural elite". An instructive text on the subject matter is Natural Right and History by Leo Stauss.
– guest271314
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Can state governments be overthrown without national government involvement?
Yes. It happens sometimes when there's an election.
Could state militaries over throw their own state government and establish a new state government and still be on good terms with the national government?
Most likely no. Each state also has a constitution, and prescribes how changing the makeup of each state government should occur. Should a state's national guard (or other state-level militia) attempt a state level "coup," the Supreme Court of the state would most likely rule that such an action violated the state's constitution. In all likelihood, the action from the perspective of the federal government I believe would be viewed not much differently as general insurrection and would be responded to.
Of course, each state is different and has different constitutions. For example, New Hampshire's contains the Right of Revolution:
Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.
Since this is part of the state constitution, the state Supreme Court may be swayed by the arguments of the state militia depending on the exact circumstances. Other state constitutions contain similar clauses, a good listing of states with a positive right of revolution can be found on Wikipedia.
If the state Supreme Court isn't swayed, the federal Supreme Court might, but the wording presents a bit of a conundrum since if we're appealing to the courts then by definition that means that redress is available. This redress also becomes available every time there is an election. As long as the people have faith in their state level elections, then the choice of the make-up of a government still belongs to the people.
See also Article 4, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution:
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government [...]
A military overthrowing a popularly elected government is not a republican form of government.
Has this been done in the past?
Not in the manner are describing, but the legislatures of many states attempted to dissolve the union between them during the Civil War, which was later ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. I doubt a state-level militia would get favorable treatment for attempting to do something similar.
Can state governments be overthrown without national government involvement?
Yes. It happens sometimes when there's an election.
Could state militaries over throw their own state government and establish a new state government and still be on good terms with the national government?
Most likely no. Each state also has a constitution, and prescribes how changing the makeup of each state government should occur. Should a state's national guard (or other state-level militia) attempt a state level "coup," the Supreme Court of the state would most likely rule that such an action violated the state's constitution. In all likelihood, the action from the perspective of the federal government I believe would be viewed not much differently as general insurrection and would be responded to.
Of course, each state is different and has different constitutions. For example, New Hampshire's contains the Right of Revolution:
Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.
Since this is part of the state constitution, the state Supreme Court may be swayed by the arguments of the state militia depending on the exact circumstances. Other state constitutions contain similar clauses, a good listing of states with a positive right of revolution can be found on Wikipedia.
If the state Supreme Court isn't swayed, the federal Supreme Court might, but the wording presents a bit of a conundrum since if we're appealing to the courts then by definition that means that redress is available. This redress also becomes available every time there is an election. As long as the people have faith in their state level elections, then the choice of the make-up of a government still belongs to the people.
See also Article 4, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution:
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government [...]
A military overthrowing a popularly elected government is not a republican form of government.
Has this been done in the past?
Not in the manner are describing, but the legislatures of many states attempted to dissolve the union between them during the Civil War, which was later ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. I doubt a state-level militia would get favorable treatment for attempting to do something similar.
answered 1 hour ago
Jeff LambertJeff Lambert
8,45142445
8,45142445
Does not Natural Law and the U.S. Declaration of Independence also provide for or contain the "Right of Revolution" "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."?
– guest271314
1 hour ago
2
The Declaration of Independence was a policy statement on the Revolutionary War, it didn't guarantee anything except execution for Treason should the revolutionaries have lost. But it probably does provide some grounding for those states that did wish to codify such a right in their state constitution (such as New Hampshire). The only comment I have on "Natural Law" since that can mean whatever anyone wants it to is that only history decides whether a revolutionary is a criminal or a hero.
– Jeff Lambert
1 hour ago
The Declaration of Independence is founded in Natural Law. The "Founders" considered themselves "natural elite". An instructive text on the subject matter is Natural Right and History by Leo Stauss.
– guest271314
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Does not Natural Law and the U.S. Declaration of Independence also provide for or contain the "Right of Revolution" "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."?
– guest271314
1 hour ago
2
The Declaration of Independence was a policy statement on the Revolutionary War, it didn't guarantee anything except execution for Treason should the revolutionaries have lost. But it probably does provide some grounding for those states that did wish to codify such a right in their state constitution (such as New Hampshire). The only comment I have on "Natural Law" since that can mean whatever anyone wants it to is that only history decides whether a revolutionary is a criminal or a hero.
– Jeff Lambert
1 hour ago
The Declaration of Independence is founded in Natural Law. The "Founders" considered themselves "natural elite". An instructive text on the subject matter is Natural Right and History by Leo Stauss.
– guest271314
1 hour ago
Does not Natural Law and the U.S. Declaration of Independence also provide for or contain the "Right of Revolution" "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."?
– guest271314
1 hour ago
Does not Natural Law and the U.S. Declaration of Independence also provide for or contain the "Right of Revolution" "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."?
– guest271314
1 hour ago
2
2
The Declaration of Independence was a policy statement on the Revolutionary War, it didn't guarantee anything except execution for Treason should the revolutionaries have lost. But it probably does provide some grounding for those states that did wish to codify such a right in their state constitution (such as New Hampshire). The only comment I have on "Natural Law" since that can mean whatever anyone wants it to is that only history decides whether a revolutionary is a criminal or a hero.
– Jeff Lambert
1 hour ago
The Declaration of Independence was a policy statement on the Revolutionary War, it didn't guarantee anything except execution for Treason should the revolutionaries have lost. But it probably does provide some grounding for those states that did wish to codify such a right in their state constitution (such as New Hampshire). The only comment I have on "Natural Law" since that can mean whatever anyone wants it to is that only history decides whether a revolutionary is a criminal or a hero.
– Jeff Lambert
1 hour ago
The Declaration of Independence is founded in Natural Law. The "Founders" considered themselves "natural elite". An instructive text on the subject matter is Natural Right and History by Leo Stauss.
– guest271314
1 hour ago
The Declaration of Independence is founded in Natural Law. The "Founders" considered themselves "natural elite". An instructive text on the subject matter is Natural Right and History by Leo Stauss.
– guest271314
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Thanks to @Drunk Cynic and @guest271314 , I think I can cobble together an answer to my question.
@guest271314 pointed out the State of Jefferson debate, which led me to find this thread: Why can't the counties that support the proposed state of Jefferson appeal directly to the federal government for statehood?
The answer given in this thread mentions
Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1 of the US Constitution:
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new
States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other
State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States,
or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the
States concerned as well as of the Congress.
This shows that probably any means of "over throwing" (legal or forcefully) state government is not going to be able to join the United States because the new state occupies the space occupied by the already recognized previous state government.
@guest271314 provided an example of this occuring in the past around the world:
Republic and Canton of the Jura in Switzerland.
After World War II, a separatist movement campaigned for a secession
of Jura from the canton of Bern. After a long and partly militant
struggle, which included some arson attacks by a youth organisation
Les Béliers, a constitution was accepted in 1977. In 1978 the split
was made official when the Swiss people voted in favour, and in 1979
the Jura joined the Swiss Confederation as a full member.
Perhaps this replacement of state governments can occur in other federations around the world, but for the United States it does not seem possible.
New contributor
Expanding-Dev is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
Thanks to @Drunk Cynic and @guest271314 , I think I can cobble together an answer to my question.
@guest271314 pointed out the State of Jefferson debate, which led me to find this thread: Why can't the counties that support the proposed state of Jefferson appeal directly to the federal government for statehood?
The answer given in this thread mentions
Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1 of the US Constitution:
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new
States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other
State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States,
or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the
States concerned as well as of the Congress.
This shows that probably any means of "over throwing" (legal or forcefully) state government is not going to be able to join the United States because the new state occupies the space occupied by the already recognized previous state government.
@guest271314 provided an example of this occuring in the past around the world:
Republic and Canton of the Jura in Switzerland.
After World War II, a separatist movement campaigned for a secession
of Jura from the canton of Bern. After a long and partly militant
struggle, which included some arson attacks by a youth organisation
Les Béliers, a constitution was accepted in 1977. In 1978 the split
was made official when the Swiss people voted in favour, and in 1979
the Jura joined the Swiss Confederation as a full member.
Perhaps this replacement of state governments can occur in other federations around the world, but for the United States it does not seem possible.
New contributor
Expanding-Dev is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
Thanks to @Drunk Cynic and @guest271314 , I think I can cobble together an answer to my question.
@guest271314 pointed out the State of Jefferson debate, which led me to find this thread: Why can't the counties that support the proposed state of Jefferson appeal directly to the federal government for statehood?
The answer given in this thread mentions
Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1 of the US Constitution:
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new
States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other
State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States,
or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the
States concerned as well as of the Congress.
This shows that probably any means of "over throwing" (legal or forcefully) state government is not going to be able to join the United States because the new state occupies the space occupied by the already recognized previous state government.
@guest271314 provided an example of this occuring in the past around the world:
Republic and Canton of the Jura in Switzerland.
After World War II, a separatist movement campaigned for a secession
of Jura from the canton of Bern. After a long and partly militant
struggle, which included some arson attacks by a youth organisation
Les Béliers, a constitution was accepted in 1977. In 1978 the split
was made official when the Swiss people voted in favour, and in 1979
the Jura joined the Swiss Confederation as a full member.
Perhaps this replacement of state governments can occur in other federations around the world, but for the United States it does not seem possible.
New contributor
Expanding-Dev is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks to @Drunk Cynic and @guest271314 , I think I can cobble together an answer to my question.
@guest271314 pointed out the State of Jefferson debate, which led me to find this thread: Why can't the counties that support the proposed state of Jefferson appeal directly to the federal government for statehood?
The answer given in this thread mentions
Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1 of the US Constitution:
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new
States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other
State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States,
or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the
States concerned as well as of the Congress.
This shows that probably any means of "over throwing" (legal or forcefully) state government is not going to be able to join the United States because the new state occupies the space occupied by the already recognized previous state government.
@guest271314 provided an example of this occuring in the past around the world:
Republic and Canton of the Jura in Switzerland.
After World War II, a separatist movement campaigned for a secession
of Jura from the canton of Bern. After a long and partly militant
struggle, which included some arson attacks by a youth organisation
Les Béliers, a constitution was accepted in 1977. In 1978 the split
was made official when the Swiss people voted in favour, and in 1979
the Jura joined the Swiss Confederation as a full member.
Perhaps this replacement of state governments can occur in other federations around the world, but for the United States it does not seem possible.
New contributor
Expanding-Dev is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Expanding-Dev is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 1 hour ago
Expanding-DevExpanding-Dev
215
215
New contributor
Expanding-Dev is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Expanding-Dev is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Expanding-Dev is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
add a comment |
Could unhappy citizens overthrow a state government while still
remaining on favorable terms with the national government?
Could state militaries over throw their own state government and
establish a new state government and still be on good terms with the
national government?
If read the question correctly, one example is the Republic and Canton of the Jura in Switzerland.
After World War II, a separatist movement campaigned for a secession
of Jura from the canton of Bern. After a long and partly militant
struggle, which included some arson attacks by a youth organisation
Les Béliers, a constitution was accepted in 1977. In 1978 the split
was made official when the Swiss people voted in favour, and in 1979
the Jura joined the Swiss Confederation as a full member.
@Expanding-Dev See The Jura Conflict: Direct Democracy in Practice
– guest271314
2 hours ago
add a comment |
Could unhappy citizens overthrow a state government while still
remaining on favorable terms with the national government?
Could state militaries over throw their own state government and
establish a new state government and still be on good terms with the
national government?
If read the question correctly, one example is the Republic and Canton of the Jura in Switzerland.
After World War II, a separatist movement campaigned for a secession
of Jura from the canton of Bern. After a long and partly militant
struggle, which included some arson attacks by a youth organisation
Les Béliers, a constitution was accepted in 1977. In 1978 the split
was made official when the Swiss people voted in favour, and in 1979
the Jura joined the Swiss Confederation as a full member.
@Expanding-Dev See The Jura Conflict: Direct Democracy in Practice
– guest271314
2 hours ago
add a comment |
Could unhappy citizens overthrow a state government while still
remaining on favorable terms with the national government?
Could state militaries over throw their own state government and
establish a new state government and still be on good terms with the
national government?
If read the question correctly, one example is the Republic and Canton of the Jura in Switzerland.
After World War II, a separatist movement campaigned for a secession
of Jura from the canton of Bern. After a long and partly militant
struggle, which included some arson attacks by a youth organisation
Les Béliers, a constitution was accepted in 1977. In 1978 the split
was made official when the Swiss people voted in favour, and in 1979
the Jura joined the Swiss Confederation as a full member.
Could unhappy citizens overthrow a state government while still
remaining on favorable terms with the national government?
Could state militaries over throw their own state government and
establish a new state government and still be on good terms with the
national government?
If read the question correctly, one example is the Republic and Canton of the Jura in Switzerland.
After World War II, a separatist movement campaigned for a secession
of Jura from the canton of Bern. After a long and partly militant
struggle, which included some arson attacks by a youth organisation
Les Béliers, a constitution was accepted in 1977. In 1978 the split
was made official when the Swiss people voted in favour, and in 1979
the Jura joined the Swiss Confederation as a full member.
answered 2 hours ago
guest271314guest271314
1,66417
1,66417
@Expanding-Dev See The Jura Conflict: Direct Democracy in Practice
– guest271314
2 hours ago
add a comment |
@Expanding-Dev See The Jura Conflict: Direct Democracy in Practice
– guest271314
2 hours ago
@Expanding-Dev See The Jura Conflict: Direct Democracy in Practice
– guest271314
2 hours ago
@Expanding-Dev See The Jura Conflict: Direct Democracy in Practice
– guest271314
2 hours ago
add a comment |
Expanding-Dev is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Expanding-Dev is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Expanding-Dev is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Expanding-Dev is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Politics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f37912%2fcan-state-governments-be-overthrown-without-national-government-involvement%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
How is "over throw" defined? Does the recent state initiative to split California into three states meet the criteria? Or the long-proposed State of Jefferson, which does not involve establishment of the State by military means? Switzerland increased the number of cantons from 8 to 26 from the time of the origin of their federal system.
– guest271314
2 hours ago
@guest271314 Yes splitting California into three states meets that criteria exactly. The State of Jefferson movement seems to have been a bit violent when it first started, but the more recent actions in the 21st century where county supervisor boards voted to withdraw from Oregon/California meets the criteria
– Expanding-Dev
2 hours ago
@guest271314 My question about state militaries over throwing state government would probably be more on the forceful/militant side of "over throw"
– Expanding-Dev
2 hours ago
What does "without national government involvement" mean?
– guest271314
2 hours ago
1
@guest271314 I will accept my own answer once the 48 hour timer is up
– Expanding-Dev
1 hour ago