As a commonwealth, Pennsylvania can secede much more easily.

[Phillycat]

Also Massachusetts and any other commonwealths. As a PA resident, I would fully support the idea of secession. We pay in more than we get out, anyway.

[Cheswick2.0]

1. sounds like a plan

how do we get rid of our red people? Or do we just crowd them out with all the liberals from NY who will move here?

[Phillycat]

2. Hmm.

Well, we don't need to get rid of them. We can outvote them in the secession, and then they'll probably leave.

If they don't leave, we can give them jobs in the Pennsylvania Militia (yes, that's right, we'd have our own army if we seceded) and let them defend our state. They'd be so happy playing with their guns that they'd forget what they were so pissed about.

[rogerashton]

3. How do you figure that?

Is "commonwealth" more than just a word, in practice?

[Phillycat]

5. Yes it is.

Our state constitution afford us a lot more autonomy than a state.

[rogerashton]

31. I think that is determined by the US constitution,

not that of the state. Mind you, I take the idea of secession seriously -- at this point -- and have posted for it, but I don't see PA as being in any different case than NY on this.

[bones_7672]

4. With the wupping the Steelers gave the Browns ...

... I would be in favor of PA seceeding.

[MousePlayingDaffodil]

6. Well, Virginia is a "commonwealth" . . .

. . . and its last attempt as seceding didn't work out all that well for it. Why do you think this time things would be different?

[Patiod]

7. Oh great, then we can fight with the Pennsyltuckians in the middle

seceeding won't help - we've still got all the mulletheads inhabiting the middle part of the state (where many fine, outstanding folks also live, of course)

[Devil Dog Dem]

8. Hardly. That issue was settled during the Civil War.

Secessionists lost. It doesn't matter one bit what you state Constitution says. You too, Texas; I keep hearing Texans say that they have the right to secede because they were once a Republic. They seem to forget that they actually tried seceding once and had that theory shoved up their rear end by the Boys in Blue.

Being a Commonwealth means nothing. There is no difference under the U.S. Constitution.

[Phillycat]

9. You are incorrect.

A commonwealth is a political body that retains local autonomy but chooses voluntarily to be affiliated with the U.S. Go look it up.

[Devil Dog Dem]

12. And show me in the Constitution where they recognize a distinction?

The outcome of the Civil War was that the Union was a club that -- once joined -- could not be quited. It doesn't matter that the state's membership was voluntary. It only mattered that they joined the Union.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

[Phillycat]

15. Well, you're rude, aren't you?

The matter is up for debate and in fact IS being debated in political circles all across the country. We aren't living in normal times. Desperate times call for desperate measures.

But...whatever. Way to shut your mind with a resounding CLANG! Make sure that we never question what's come before us, won't you? That way we can all keep living the way we have been...it's working out real well, ain't it?

[Devil Dog Dem]

16. I'm truly sorry. I'm not trying to be rude.

Sometimes posts (and emails) come across that way.
I hope you will accept my apology.

That being said, I'm not sure what you are talking about with the shut your mind comments, but in any event, the issue is settled, and I don't see why putting our hopes into something that wouldn't work anyway would help matters.

[Phillycat]

17. Allow me to apologize in return.

It appears I got your tone wrong, as you said. It is difficult in the printed word.

My point is only that, as an academic discussion, it is worth considering, if only for the future. Do I think PA is going to secede while GWB is in office? No, I don't (although it's a nice fantasy). But there really is a discussion going on about setting things up a different way--just as there is much discussion about the electoral college and whether it still works for our country.

Thanks for your apology. Peace. :hi:

[Devil Dog Dem]

19. Peace to you.

I'll say this: If PA secedes, you are talking to a future Pennsylvanian!

But can I still root for the Cubbies?

[Phillycat]

22. Sure!

We're all about rooting for losing teams here in PA! LOL!

[Devil Dog Dem]

24. Yeah, I know.

Sucks doesn't it?

[Phillycat]

27. Eh...you get used to it.

Plus, being a Boston Red Sox fan this year didn't suck.

[Devil Dog Dem]

28. As a Cubs fan it is lonely in MLB without Red Sox fans to share the misery

eom

[Phillycat]

30. Befriend some Vikings fans.

Different sport, but the misery is the same. :)

[atreides1]

18. Actually

There is nothing in the US Constitution that states specifically that states cannot secede. Now in the original Articles of Confederation, that was replaced by the current Constitution, there was a specific article that stated that none of the states could secede without the others agreeing to it, or unless the union was dissolved by the agreement of all of the states.

[Cicero]

20. Show me in the Constitution where States are denied the power to secede

You cannot, its nowhere to be found.

Yes, The Union brought the Confederate states back into the fold at gunpoint, and it would likely happen again if tried today. But secession in and of itself is not prohibited.

later,

[Doohickie]

23. Each state, commonwealth, etc.,

Accepted the United States Constitution when they signed on. It is not only the Law of the Land, it is the Law of their state/commonwealth.

[Devil Dog Dem]

29. The case of Lincoln v. Davis, 1865

It has as much applicability as Roe v. Wade and the like, which recognize a right of privacy that is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution.

Before I get flamed, I'm not attacking Roe v. Wade. I'm simply stating that the right of privacy is not actually in the text of the Constitution, but rather in the gloss. Just as the inability to secede is in the gloss of the Constitution, as was settled by the Civil War.

[KnowerOfLogic]

36. Only thing "settled' was that Northern Liberals won and were right.

Right is on the side of progressives, and they *would* prevail, if it came to a conflict, but there is certainly no guarantee that secession would lead to Civil War. The Civil war was a one-time thing, and really shouldn't be assumed to be the definition of how things would go in a future case of secession.

[rogerashton]

33. Link!

I looked it up in the constitution. Where is your support coming from?

[rogerashton]

32. Um, no part of Texas was ever occupied by the boys in blue.

My home town of Shreveport, either -- the last capital of the Confederacy and the home of "Fort Humbug."

A successful secession would have to be taken, of course, since it would not be granted. Taken by the tactics of nonviolent revolution.

[Devil Dog Dem]

34. Didn't say it was, but Texas' regiments were defeated . . .

on the battlefields of the Civil War, as were the rest of the South's.

Hate to re-fight a war that was waged a century and half ago, but the Confederacy lost.

[mainegreen]

10. What is the difference between a commonwealth...

and a plain old state?

[Phillycat]

11. See my post right above yours.

:)

[mainegreen]

13. Ah yes

Once again I am the victim of the embarrising gaff...

POST LAG!

(the horror)
(shudder)

[Phillycat]

14. Heh.

:)

[muriel_volestrangler]

21. What opinions support this? Because the dictionary disagrees

and so, apparently, does a lawyer.

Main Entry: commonwealth
...
4 : a state of the U.S. -- used officially of Kentucky, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia
...
7 often capitalized : a political unit having local autonomy but voluntarily united with the U.S. -- used officially of Puerto Rico and of the Northern Mariana Islands

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=commonwealth&x=17&y=10

A search on "state difference commonwealth" turned up some useful results. At the About.com: Lawyers site, we learned that there are four commonwealths in the United States: Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Kentucky.

The difference between these commonwealths and the other 46 states is in name alone -- they elected to call themselves commonwealths, a term drawn from political theory. The About.com lawyer assured us that, legally, there is no difference between a state and these four commonwealths.

There is, however, another form of commonwealth. The ever-helpful Dictionary.com offers this alternate definition: a "self-governing, autonomous political unit voluntarily associated with the United States, namely, Puerto Rico and the Northern Mariana Islands." The degree of that dependency varies from place to place, but let's consider Puerto Rico as an example.

http://ask.yahoo.com/ask/20001117.html

[ArkDem]

25. This most definitely falls in the 'Who Cares' category.

[KnowerOfLogic]

37. Who cares?!! I would sure as heck like to live in a country that

did not include the redneck states. Jeez, why are people so timid and lacking in vision? I admit that mass blue-state secession is a long shot, but if no one ever has the courage to dream and work for major changes, then where would we be? For starters, we'd still be a bunch of theocratic little British colonies. Can anyone on this board tell me that they would not like to live in a country composed only of the blue states?

[Phillycat]

38. Thank you! Jeez, no academic discussions allowed here anymore?

Talk about closed-minded, isn't that what we accuse our opponents of?

[SammyWinstonJack]

26. Isn't Texas always trying to secede?

Something to do with Fed. taxes (as in not wanting to pay Fed. taxes) and being a Republic? :shrug:

[doni_georgia]

35. Didn't work so well for Virginia in 1861.

[American Tragedy]

39. Kentucky as well

Hell, I would be glad. Louisville would voluntarily absorb into Indiana, would no longer be subject to the over 100 obscure county reps determined to drain us, and then the far ends of Kentucky would have to find a way to fund the thousands who live on public assistance from metro state taxes. Maybe then we would be able to afford roads that are almost as good as theirs.