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

Thanks again to Bull_Diesel. My first debate has been enjoyable. Legal viability: "A: Secession by A State is not a valid option because it isn"t legal, therefore not valid. B: Secession by A State is not a valid option because it isn"t supported by even the people who support the idea of secession (myself, Governor Perry, Justice Scalia included)" Con drops these arguments in his second response and instead argues that secession is not valid because it is an option of last resort. So, we must conclude that Con sees secession as legally viable. "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 " This quote summarizes the argument Con uses to replace his previous legal argument. The issue to be taken with the new argument is the subjectivity of the phrase 'last resort.' What Con considers a last resort can not be held as the standard for all people. Consider: The people of Wyoming are currently seeking to nullify any federal gun laws with HB104, which states "...any federal law which attempts to ban a semi-automatic firearm or to limit the size of a magazine of a firearm or other limitation on firearms in this state shall be unenforceable in Wyoming..."[1] It is not incredible to think that attempted federal enforcement of firearm laws would be considered a violation of fundamental rights and cause for secession. As Con quoted: "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..." Wyoming is attempting to nullify. In the case that the federal government ignores this attempt, Wyoming has reached it's 'last resort.' In the example, Wyoming has tried more peaceful means and been rebuffed. Secession now becomes valid based on Wyoming's understanding of 'last resort' and the federal attempt to restrict a fundamental right. Economic viability: Con now hinges his economic argument on the fact that we (US citizens) are all responsible for the current economic woes and therefore would be unable to function individually if we are not able to function as a whole. A baseless argument. Let's start with the fact that what a politician says and what they do are very different. Millions of Americans voted for fiscal responsibility and gave the GOP control of the House of Representatives on several occasions based on the promise of less spending. Is it the voter's fault that the politician misled them? Or that 'politics as usual' derailed the efforts of fiscally responsible Congressmen? Con then argues that these same mistakes would be made within each state, making secession from the debt monster pointless. This argument ignores the idea of local scrutiny. Most of the states in the Union have no where near the debt accumulated by the federal government (either in proportion or in total). If Con's argument were to hold up, every state would have a debt ratio as high, if not higher, than the current federal debt. After all "Who elected the groups of politicians that approve, condone, and champion such warrantless spending? The States did, by way of their citizenry." {Con} This is demonstrably not true. Nebraska (my home state) for instance, had the lowest per capita debt in the nation at $15 per citizen [2] in 2010. These are the same people that voted in the national elections. Why is their debt not like California's? or Illinois'? (both states are on the verge of bankruptcy). Con ignores the fact that many states (like Nebraska) have relatively few electoral votes and are regularly overpowered by states like California. So the (relative) fiscal responsibility of Nebraska has trouble making its way to D.C. as states like California and New York use their electoral clout to sway candidates. Con will now state that without the federal government handing out money, the states that are economically viable would not be as viable. But, again, he ignores that secession means less money taken from the state in the first place. True, there may be less state revenue in the case of secession, but the long term economic effects would be far healthier. (I apologize if I got a little sloppy. My work load exploded this week :) ) [1] http://www.opposingviews.com... [2] http://money.cnn.com...