Should the United States split into multiple countries based on political and moral values?

Asked by: Cowboy0108
  • Power Corrupts, Values Differ.

    In the interest of combating tyranny, governments should be as small as possible. The Federal Government is too big and costs too much to maintain. Opinions on issues such as Abortion, Gay Marriage and Gun Control vary from state to state, and it's not fair to force one state to abide by a law they disagree with.

    Posted by: APB
  • It isn't working!

    The current union is haning by a thread, and debt is piling up way too fast. The Federal governemnt can't possibly represent all of us, and is starting to seem like an oligarchy. Let the states form smaller unions as long as they aren't as closely tied as our federal system.

  • This country suffers from irreconcilable differences

    The divide between the left and right is a chasm that cannot be bridged. As a liberal, I wholeheartedly disagree with the reasonings or logic behind the Republicans philosophy of governing, and they feel the same about the Democrats. On just about every issue, the two parties are at complete opposite ends of the spectrum, which engenders endless gridlock. Neither wants anything to do with each other. It's as if we are two different species being forced to cohabitate. Divide the country, and see who's philosophy comes out on top.

  • Time For a Divorce

    When married couples reach a point where they cannot agree on anything and are constantly arguing, they end the marriage. We as a nation have reached the point where a divorce is necessary. Conservatives and liberals will not give-in on various issues from gun control to gay marriage. We need to go our separate ways. We have tried to make the marriage work, and it did for a long time. But now all we have done for several years is to go at each others throats. We need to become two separate nations. We will get along as neighbors. We no longer get along as a married couple.

  • I want to watch the leftist side self destruct.

    Just reading the posts that support keeping the country together make me want to belong to another country. The fact remains that the leftists who want more and more government and more and more taxes on "somebody else" will be stuck in a country with everybody wanting a free ride, but the people who used to be forced to give that free ride will be in a country where they can reap the reward of their own hard work.

  • 50% of country disenfranchised

    Our nation has become so divided in national goals, priorities, religion, politics and those divisions are so strongly geographical that allowing individual states or groups of states to become their own nations would allow us to have governments that were more representative of their local aspirations and desires.

    Currently, regardless of whether the government is controlled by right-wing conservatives, flip-flopping moderates or commie liberals you still have at least 40% of the country who things that everything is going wrong. If the far left has power, the far right and some of the center is unhappy. If the center has power, the far left and far right is unhappy. I think that the radical differences can be reduced by splitting the country up as there are fewer regional differences. (i.E. Texans, Oklahomans and most of Dixie have common world views while Boston, New York, New Jersey and Chicago have similar world views)

    I think that we are quickly approaching the point where conflict will become inevitable if we don't give each other some room to live and breathe and set our own regional goals.

  • Debt and moral decay

    We are already heading for disaster in this country due to debt issues and moral decay, specifically the general notion that all are entitled to certain things and an income stream without work. Those who believe that should gather together in there own country and those who value work and capitalism in another. The socialists don't want that to happen because they would not have others employment and wealth to live upon!

  • It obviously isn't working out now

    I think if one side allows the other to secede it will be a lot better for both sides because there are already hate between the differing religions and political groups, and there is already a split in the country from the east coast west coast and center of the country and it will just get worse until it erupts into a civil war

  • It will get things done!

    It does not take a politician to tell a person that the government is doing its job. Sure, if the governement's job is to argue about taxes and guns constantly and never actually pass a bill about them, it does its job. For example, say that there was a North/South split identical to that of the 1860's today, the Northern, democrat, states would get their desired taxes and gun control and the Souther, republican, states would get their desired taxes and gun control. No more arguing. Things will get done.

  • Healthcare, Environment and education for all.

    The last 20 years we as a country have been splitting into two like the movement of tectonic plates. I am a liberal northener living the south but be glad to uproot and take my family and trade with me. I strongly support Medicare and higher education for all. There is enough ignorance in this world. The rich should pay more and at least half the country will reduce carbon emissions. I’m sure republicans are just as tired of us as we are of them.

  • We don't need to split up, we need to debate and educate each other.

    Splitting the country would be very costly and inconvenient for so many. It would make much more sense to simply attempt to think about everything and reason with people. Education instead of indoctrination is the answer. Splitting the country would create hostilities and intense violence if not war. We can not afford to divide the country.

  • We have these things called states

    We do not need to scatter into multiple countries to achieve the benefits of states' rights. It would be much more productive to stay as a union, but strictly limit the federal government (as outlined in the Constitution), and hand all powers not explicitly allowed to the federal government over to the states.

  • No, political and moral diversity will always exist.

    It dont matter where you go, peoples opinions differ, its about freedom. UNITED its in the name. Besides even if we did split we would just buddy up and protect and support each other anyway. I f not, the eastern wolves would devour us one at a time. We should grow, not divide.

  • Scalia on the Legality of Secession

    Many of these posts show a lack of knowledge about American history, the US Constitution, and the roles of the Federal versus the state governments.

    The Monarchies throughout history were ruled by tyrants (e.g., George III of Great Britain, Tsar Nicholas II of Russia) with relatively small governments and the Monarch making all decisions. The Monarchs had large armies to enforce their rules, to collect taxes, to murder those who disagreed with the monarch, etc.

    The USA is a Federal republic with a representative democracy. The USA population is about 314 million and growing rapidly. The idea that we can have a small government like when the US constitution was ratified on March 4, 1789, when there were 13 states with a population of about 4 million is silly. The size of the federal, states, counties, cities and town governments will continue to grow, and the costs to run those governments will continue to increase.

    America’s Civil War of 1861 – 1865 was about the legality of expanding slavery into new United States’ territories, freeing slaves and the secession of the Confederate States.

    The current idea about separating the Northern and Southern states into two separate Federal governments borders on insanity.

    It is not legal for one, and the US Supreme Court would overturn any State Court ruling saying it was legal. And, if the Southern states were stupid enough to go to War again, they would be destroyed in a heartbeat by the Federal Military forces.

    Then it is preposterous to assume the USA could be split into multiple countries based on political and moral values, especially moral values. Where would the political independents and those who do not vote go? What moral values? Where would those who believe in God who are democrats go? Where would Republican atheists go? Better yet, where would republican Christians who don’t go to Church, believe in abortion and believe that all guns should be banned go?

    There seems to be some confusion about phrase “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” That phrase appears nowhere in the US Constitution. It is the well-known phase in the United States Declaration of Independence that was adopted by the Second Continental Congress of July 4, 1776.

    Unlike the US Constitution, the Declaration of Independence is not a legal document.

    “The Declaration was ultimately a formal explanation of why Congress had voted on July 2 to declare independence from Great Britain, more than a year after the outbreak of the American Revolutionary War.”

    The primary purpose of the Constitution is to provide the framework which establishes the proper functions of government, and as a design document indicating how each section of government is to work (as well as the division of responsibilities among the parts of government). It is a "blueprint" document, which is less concerned with ideals (though, it does touch on some), and more concerned with functionality.

    The Federal government was not created to regulate morality or politics.

  • No. The United States should not split into multiple countries based on political and moral values.

    However, neither should the Federal Government be deciding what is morally and or politically “acceptable” for each State (County and City, District, Home or individual citizen). The Federal Governments single responsibility should be to protect its Citizens from foreign and domestic aggression. In other words, The Federal Government should only get involved in “moral issues” when those issues threaten the basic sanctity of any of its citizens; the basic sanctity of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. For example: if a tax break exists to give one person a “break” (benefit) but denies another person that same benefit, the Fed should step in to ensure that all persons can receive that same benefit without prejudice. For a more detailed example: if a tax break is going to be giving to a male and a female for living as “spouses” but than that tax break is denied to two (or more) persons for choosing to live as spouses, that is discrimination just the same as if a tax break was giving to white males but denied to black males. In short, the Federal government should only fight to PROTECT Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness of its citizens and only get involved when those basic human rights of human equality are threatened. By attempting to DECIDE what constitutes a citizens Happiness (who they can or can not be married to), Life (where or how they live) or Liberty (what freedoms they should or shouldn’t be allowed to do) instead of striving for only PROTECTING the rights of its citizens to decide for themselves what constitutes those things, the Federal Governments is not living into the principles of a United States, but instead they are pushing its citizens into a desire for a Divided States.

  • Yes AND No

    I will definitely agree ^, and we have already been through the whole civil rights and slavery thing and made it out alive.

    HOWEVER---> I think it will happen, be it a group leaving the existing states or an entire state seceding. Christians mainly, though others as well, are very adamantly against the rights of humans AND the constitution. (gay marriage, all types of abortion, the removal of "in God we trust", etc.) I think it is a race to see if they leave first or if they get kicked out, though the latter(though possibly popular) would include us breaking the 1st amendment free exercise clause.

  • Get money out of politics

    The biggest problem we face as a government today is that none of us feels represented. Why is that? Because the politicians we elect are beholden to the fundraisers and the lobbyists.

    If we could remove money from the political system (for example, Canada), maybe we would get representation.

    Money does not equal free speech. For those who argue this point, consider if your representative actually represents you.

    This is the only way forward. Otherwise, our representatives will never represent us.

  • Give States Power

    You'll never get as many people as we have in this country to agree on everything. But when the federal government starts trying to do so, people start asking questions like this. Let people differ where they need to differ by letting states have power to decide what to do. Then when a state gets so large that the people inside of it can't agree, the state can split. This shouldn't be seen as radical, but as a necessary function of our government. Look at how many times states have split while the US came to be what it is today. This only works though, if the federal government is limited in its reach. No, the US should not split, but if the federal government keeps trying to get bigger and bigger with its reach and power, it will split inevitably.

    A simple analogy: Imagine opening a small business, a grocery store. As owner, you participate hands-on with the daily work. Eventually the store grows, so you hire people to run the cashier and stock shelves while you mainly do paperwork and make business decisions. The pattern continues until the role you play is just a small fraction of the responsibilities you used to have, but that small fraction now takes up a lot of your time (or resources). Now pretend you're the US federal government. You're duty is to govern and you start out with a small population of say, 2.5 million. It's a hefty load, so you form state governments who form county, city, etc governments to help get the job done. As the nation grows you form more states and in following suit with the previous example, you shed responsibilities to the local governments so that the amount of resources needed to keep you sustained aren't unreasonable. However, our government for some reason is headed in the opposite direction. As it gets larger, it's trying to take on more responsibilities. It's trying to govern more and more. Since when did the federal government start trying to govern healthcare, gun ownership, marriage? Of course nothing is going to get done on capitol hill if they're 'taking' it upon themselves to govern so much. We shouldn't split the nation to deal with these problems, we should just let the states have the power they're supposed to, and let them split when needed.

  • Should the US split base on political and moral values.?

    What a stupid idea! Sounds like the FAR right. Who was it that said, "United we stand, divided we fall"? No, unfortunately, it was not that most famous Republican (who changed parties for his second term - to Democrat-Republican {whatever that was?}, Honest Abe. It is attributed to Aesop, a famous Greek story teller, who may not have actually existed! Regardless, it is true. Think of the last 148 years and how it would have changed, not just the USA, but the entire plant (remember the Great War (aka WWI) or WWII?) and what the US would look and be like if the Confederacy had won the Civil War? The USA would definitely be TWO, maybe THREE and possibly FIVE nations. Who would have tipped the balance to FREEDOM [vice the far right = Fascism] in WWi (aka the Great War or the war to end all wars) or in WWII and the multitude of other world events the US has shaped. United we stand fellow, citizens.
    But George Washington was right, we should not have political parties.
    It would be best if each candidate for any office stood on their own "platform" = beliefs and ethics. Murf

  • No, we have a constitution.

    The constitution guarantees we, the people, to have freedom of religion. Why must one abide the laws of the "original U.S."? Simple. People have weird beliefs, but they may or may not belief in this right as a good right. However, this right guarantees you any religion. If people were forced to move with their religion, some wouldn't be too happy.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.