National divorce may already be in motion, as some politicians consider secession, or a restoration of federalism.
By Eileen Griffin
One presidential candidate says the national division between red states and blue states is dangerous and concerning.
Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy said the country may already be headed toward national divorce on the heels of the indictment of former President Donald Trump, Breitbart reports.
“Earlier today, my competitor in this race, Donald Trump, was criminally indicted in a politically motivated prosecution,” Ramaswamy says in a video statement. “This is wrong. This is dangerous. We’re skating on thin ice as a country right now. I think we may be heading on our way to a national divorce.”
U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) has proposed a national divorce. Greene has suggested splitting the country by political ideology. Blue states would comprise one country and red states another.
“People saying national divorce is a bad idea because the left will never stop trying to control us literally make the case for national divorce,” Greene tweeted.
A twitter site launched in February titled “Republicans for National Divorce” in support of the separatist movement.
“National divorce isn’t about dividing the country,” the group said in a tweet. “We are already divided. National divorce is about putting an end to the abusive, toxic relationship. We just want to be left alone. Only abusers and manipulators stand in the way of that.”
Various “acts of exit” have already occurred, wrote Michael J. Lee, a communications professor at Charleston College, for Yahoo News. “Just as there are ways to withdraw from a marriage before any formal divorce, there are also ways to exit a nation before officially seceding.”
Lee says several smaller scale exits include acts such as the refusal to follow federal or state law. Some communities have refused to comply with laws by declaring themselves “sanctuary cities.”
“These escalating exits make sense in a polarized nation whose citizens are sorting themselves into like-minded neighborhoods,” Lee wrote. “When compromise is elusive and coexistence is unpleasant, citizens have three options to get their way: Defeat the other side, eliminate the other side or get away from the other side.”
Secession movements often are conservatives desiring to leave when they are governed by leftist policies, such as the 11 eastern Oregon counties attempting to join Idaho, as Heartland Daily News previously reported. Texas also has an active campaign to secede from the nation.
“Texas is a very different state in many ways,” former U.S. Comptroller General David M. Walker, told Heartland Daily News. “Texans are independent, and they pride themselves on being independent.”
“Texas sends a lot more money to Washington than the government sends to Texas,” Walker says. “Texas is a lot less reliant on the federal government and Texas is suffering from current federal policy. [The current federal government] has done 180-degree turn changing all kinds of policies.”
Walker cites energy policy as an example. “Before, we were energy independent, now we are energy dependent. The current federal government is also anti-fossil-fuels, which is a big problem for Texas in general, and Houston specifically.”
“The border is totally out of control,” Walker says. “The federal government is responsible for the border policy, and it is a complete failure. The federal government has failed to do their job and Texas is disproportionately affected by the failure of the federal government to do its job, so Texans are understandably frustrated.”
Walker says that Texas cannot secede, but there are solutions to consider that would help advance the goal of more self-governance.
“When Texas was admitted [to the United States] they negotiated their right to break up into five states,” Walker says. “This would give them 10 U.S. senators rather than two representing their views. This would give them a lot more power. This would give them the power to deal with energy policies, border policies, et cetera—all the other things where they have not been treated fairly.”
Another method to improve states’ rights would be to change how senators are elected. Prior to the ratification of the 17th Amendment to the Constitution, senators were chosen by their respective state legislatures. Since the ratification of the 17th Amendment, senators have been elected by the people.
“It used to be that they [senators] would back states’ rights or they would not get reappointed,” Walker says. “Now senators can pander and focus on what it takes for them to get reelected.”
States can have more control. They can push back against the expansion of federal power and authoritarianism by convening a Convention of States.
“The best way for states to reclaim the balance envisioned by the founders is to use Article V of the Constitution to be able to convene a Convention of States to propose amendments that are important to the states,” Walker says. “Things such as reducing the size and scope of government’s energy policies. The Convention of States would do this.”