Secession is a valid option for a state in these United States

Thanks again to crodgers,Let’s dive in.In this round, I will address my opponent’s arguments while simultaneously defending the merit of my own. ‘Clearly, the writers of the Declaration considered the right to secede a valid one. If they did not, there would have been no American Revolution.’ ‘That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government’ {Pro} It is important that readers recall the prompt/subject of this debate, Pro and I are debating whether or not Secession is a valid option for a state in these United States. I do not argue the philosophical grounds upon which our great Nation was founded; neither do I argue that the concept or theories of secession of States from the Union are inherently flawed. I have stated previously that I personally support secession if it is practical and justifiable. I maintain that those are not currently the case, and that Secession is not currently a valid option for a state in these United States. Simply because the framers of our Constitution and Declaration of Independence recognize the implicit and inherent human right to cultural, religious, and political freedom does not make secession a valid option for a state at this time.Readers should consider that Right to Secede theories and Validity of Secession are not mutually exclusive, but they are most certainly not the same. Jefferson, who is largely responsible for the composition of the Declaration of Independence, was influenced by European Philosophers and social thinkers, chief among them, Locke and Rousseau. Consider that even Locke’s thinking does not support careless secession over efforts to remedy injustice, and even then secession should be considered only as a remedial action. The following excerpts are taken from one of many well respected and read essays/books by Dr. Allen Buchanan, James B. Duke Professor of History and Philosophy at Duke University and has taught at several other major Universities, as well as having served on the President's Commision on Medical Ethics and the Advisory Council for the National Human Genome Research Institute. If Justice Scalia's and Professor Cohen's credentials and opinions don't seem worthy of consideration to Pro, maybe Dr. Buchanan's will be more appropriate. "Remedial Right Only Theories assert that a group has a general right to secede if and only if it has suffered certain injustices, for which secession is the appropriate remedy of last resort " [1] "[T]he (general) right to secede is in important respects similar to the right to revolution, as the latter is understood in what may be called the mainstream of normative theories of revolution. The latter are typified by John Locke's theory, according to which the people have the right to overthrow the government if and only if their fundamental rights are violated, and more peaceful means have been to no avail. " [1]I think the above will make clear to the readers that the Founding Fathers’ intentions as well as those of the Locke school of Secession/Revolution did not then nor do they now condone unjustified secession as anything but a last resort. I again will tie my argument into economic viability, let’s start first by addressing another of Pro’s R2 comments. {Below}‘it ignores the fact that in order to give a state money, the federal government must first take money from that state,In effect, the federal government is giving the states back their own money.’ {Pro}Here, Pro attempts to represent my argument of economic practicality or viability as flawed. He posits that the Federal Government must first take in money in order to spend money. Rather than my arguing the point myself, I’ll allow Pro to defeat his own argument with his very next argument. Suffice to say that the Federal Government doesn’t even come close to operating under this very simple ‘don’t spend it if you don’t have it’ principle. See Pro’s own argument below, which cites several figures relating to our atrociously high National Debt. “With the debt approaching $17 trillion dollars[1], unfunded liabilities to the tune of $86.8 trillion (or 550% the annual GDP of the US)[2], rampant inflation[3], and a budget that has included yearly deficits for the better part of a century[4], it is far more economically viable for a state to distance itself from the likely economic collapse and create a fiscally responsible government.” {Pro}The Federal Government’s rampant spending absent of any appreciably comparable revenues is not something that happened overnight. I dismiss the thought that the answer to such outrageous injustices is to sever ties with the Nation that effectively leads the Free-World instead of taking concerted efforts to educate the populous. Consider that much of the economic justification for secession to Pro’s thinking is the abominable state of the spending/budget deficit. Who elected the groups of politicians that approve, condone, and champion such warrantless spending? The States did, by way of their citizenry. Why then could or would any one State, chosen at random, be believed to achieve any better outcome, when it is fairly likely that that State in effect supports the actions of President Obama and the Legislature? I say that a State cannot be expected to support itself and in hiding from the failures of our Federal Government, shows that it is not responsible enough to be trusted as a Nation of its own. A State that would rather secede than take active steps to remedy the injustices that plague our Nation as a whole has proven that they cannot handle the stresses of independence from the Union and cannot therefore be trusted to react any differently when it finds itself in similar circumstancesI think the readers will agree that while the Right to Secede may seem legitimate, the Validity of Secession as means to correct injustice is unquestionably not legitimate. [1 ]http://philosophyfaculty.ucsd.edu...