• samus12345@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    19 hours ago

    They can’t do it legally without changing the law. Of course, the only laws that will matter soon are those that the GOP supports.

    • LovableSidekick@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      19 hours ago

      It’s not like the DON’T WALK sign at the crosswalk. If a state presented Congress with a demand to secede they would have to address it. Simply telling the state it was illegal wouldn’t be enough. The state could take whatever next step they want, the federal government would have to respond, and whatever was going to happen would happen. There’s no point speculating about the results, but if a state got to the point of actually starting this sequence rolling, it wouldn’t just stop with “sorry no you can’t it’s illegal.”

      • ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        18 hours ago

        A jaywalker doesn’t petition the town council to cross the street illegally. They jaywalk. A state seceding could involve as little as a governor declaring their state left the Union. At that point the ball would be in the Federal Government’s court to set the record straight, to clarify that the state in fact did not secede.

        • LovableSidekick@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          18 hours ago

          The conversation wouldn’t end there. The state would retort to the effect that, “Oh yes we did,” and the central theme of the discussion would quickly shift away from proper use of the term “secede” and whether a jaywalker analogy works to what everybody is actually going to do about it.