• @LovableSidekick
    link
    English
    3
    edit-2
    4 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.”

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      13 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
        link
        English
        12 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.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          12 hours ago

          The Federal Government’s current preferred medium of communication is UAVs. They leave little room for further discussion and semantics.