Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene has repeated her demand that America gets a divorce. An outraged Greene (R-GA) on Monday urged a national split from Democratic states whose lawmakers, and voters, have expressed criticism of President-elect Donald Trump."I’m still in favor of a national divorce if need...
  • M600@lemmy.world
    35·
    14 hours ago

    How is it not illegal for her to say these things? Like is that a threat against the United States?

    • Goodmorningsunshine@lemmy.world
      19·
      8 hours ago

      A known traitor threat against the United States was allowed to run for and be elected president. This country doesn’t have laws except for the poor and it certainly doesn’t have a functioning system of justice or even government at this point.

    • NeilBru@lemmy.world
      19·
      2 hours ago

      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.

        • NeilBru@lemmy.world
          2·
          32 minutes ago

          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.

        • NeilBru@lemmy.world
          11·
          9 hours ago

          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