>> ^vaporlock:

I'd love to see the South secede from the Union. I'm sure it wouldn't be long before their roads were unpaved and they were in a war with Mexico. Their low wages and corrupt politicians might do well in the current world economy.


I think my main curiosity about such a hypothetical is how close to reinstating slavery they'd get.

Mostly though, I wish people would recognize that secession would be massively ugly for everyone.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

How is what these guys said any different than what the 'other guy' says (and gets a pass)?

What I think is different about things like what Angle and Bachmann said is that are incitement of violence.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Politicians since times ancient have grossly extrapolated the actions/policies of their opponents.
[snip]
Bachman wanted people 'armed and dangerous'. Barak Obama wanted people "angry, get in their face, hit back twice as hard, bring a gun". I see no difference.

First, you need to source your Obama quote. I only found this as context:

“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Obama said at a Philadelphia fundraiser Friday night. “Because from what I understand folks in Philly like a good brawl. I’ve seen Eagles fans.”

Kinda sounds like it's a metaphor, does it not?

Secondly, that never became any sort of Democratic talking point or campaign slogan. You didn't hear it coming out of the mouths of everyone on the left every 10 seconds for the better part of a year, the way you heard "death panels".

Thirdly, have you followed the link on Bachmann's full quote, and read it in context? If not, here's more:

I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back. Thomas Jefferson told us ‘having a revolution every now and then is a good thing,’ and the people – we the people – are going to have to fight back hard if we’re not going to lose our country. And I think this has the potential of changing the dynamic of freedom forever in the United States.

I see the word revolution being used literally. I see talk of losing the country, of losing freedom, in the context of saying "I want people armed and dangerous".

Fourth, have I mentioned that this is in the larger context of falsely accusing Democrats of making up global warming?

So, the Obama quote isn't well sourced, doesn't involve a lie, was pretty transparently a metaphor for traditional electioneering activities, and I suspect if Obama was asked about it today he'd say it was a poor word choice. Bachmann's quote we have audio recordings of, involves a big lie, was pretty clearly about armed insurrection against the legitimate government of the United States, and while I suspect she would say "I didn't mean that", she probably wouldn't confess to any kind of issue with her word choice.

I don't see any equivalence.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Palin's death panel is an exaggeration of the rationed care that IS a part of Obamacare. Similarly, Democrats accuse the GOP of starving people when they want to cut a social program.

Really? Neither statement is true.

First, medical care is a scarce resource, and any system by which we choose to distribute it is by definition "rationing", whether it's a market, or something else, so saying "Obamacare" has "rationing" is a meaningless statement. Even if I grant some special meaning of the word "rationing", there still isn't anything even remotely like Palin's "death panel" in the bill anywhere.

Second, when have Democrats accused Republicans of starving people? To be frank, I wish they would, especially since it's true more often than not. The closest I've seen is Alan Grayson saying that the Republican health care plan is "#1 Don't get sick. #2 If you do get sick, die quickly."

For that one to be true you need to wrap some caveats around it, but basically if you can't afford insurance, or have a preexisting condition, that was totally accurate.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Do I like the overblown rhetoric? No, but it is part and parcel of any vigorous debate.
No normal person takes these statements literally though. And trying to pander to the NOT normal people seems to me an exercise in futility. Moreover, trying to be "PC" using the outliers of society as a standard is an impossible moving target, and rather subject to opinion.

To a large degree, this is a response to an argument I'm not making. I actually really like overblown rhetoric. What I don't like is the way the right imputes sinister motives to the left. It's not just "they're corrupt and beholden to special interests (and sometimes mansluts)", these days it's "they're coming to take your guns, kill your family, make your kids into gay drug addicts, take your house, your job, and piss on the American flag while surrendering to every other nation in the world".

The left is getting pretty coarse about the right, but most of our insults are that Republicans are corrupt and beholden to special interests...and dumb, heartless liars.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
There is no nice way to say this, but you are wrong. They were not, and you know it. There is no GOP candidate who would have survived 5 seconds if they'd been calling for armed rebellion if they lost. That is hyperbole.

I'd love to be wrong about this. I am not. Scroll back up to my first comment here, there are two videos of Republicans calling for armed insurrection if they lose. These two were small potatoes, but Michele Bachmann and Sharron Angle both were saying the same thing, just a little less directly. Rick Perry has been a bit more overt, but also a lot less graphic (talk of secession rather than revolution). Not to bring the Tea Party into this, but they kept showing up with signs talking about "Watering the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants"

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
I put it to you kindly that this opinion is another symptom of perception bias. Would you not agree that from Glenn Beck's perspective his infamous 'chalkboard histories' are an attempt to educate and outreach? And quite frankly, I feel very little sense of 'outreach' or 'education' when liberals call conservatives hateful, angry, evil, nazis, corporate shills, mind numbed robots, neocons, teabaggers, racist, sexist, and bigoted.

No, Beck's not trying outreach with his blackboards. He's painting a false picture of history in which liberalism is about violence and domination, and entirely overrun by a conspiracy of nefarious interests. That's not outreach, that's poisoning the well so that it's impossible for people who think he's illuminating some sort of truth (and to be clear, he is not), to talk to the people who haven't subscribed to Beck's belief that liberalism progressivism is just the new mask the fascists have put on to insinuate themselves into modern society so they can subvert it from within.

It's true that the left isn't engaging in outreach when they're calling you names. I suspect you haven't seen much outreach, given the way you personally tend to approach topics around here. You don't seem like the kind of person who's open to outreach.

That said, if I thought there was a way to show you what I think is good about liberalism, I would do so. I'd be happy to give you my take on what liberals believe and why, if you're genuinely interested in trying to understand the way we think.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Sure - just be sure to allow that both ways. Criticize conservative pundits all you want. But don't get all testy if conservatives criticize liberal ones. And if you try to pin accessory to murder on conservatives, don't be surprised when they get their back up.

Yeah, I didn't. See, the right's been calling us murderers and tyrants quite a bit lately. They've been making the case in countless different ways that government run by Democrats, and especially by Obama is fundamentally illegitimate. Not "something we strongly disagree with" but a total break with the fundamental principles of our government that present a direct threat to people.

Here I personally went one click further and suggested that perhaps this is an intentional strategy to rile up the crazies, so they'll physically intimidate liberals.

Again, I'd love to see someone prove me wrong about that. Ad hominem tu quoque arguments won't really do the job.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
That is because I'm bearding the lion in its metaphorical den, so to speak. The sift is liberally slanted. I'm not. So even when dare to challenge the consensus groupthink - even when done respectfully - I get blowback. I would say that I am incredibly patient, respectful, and moderate in my tone. I rarely (if ever) make things personal. Even when I'm on the receiving end of some rather nasty abuse I tend to keep it civil.

I think then there may be room for me to maybe help understand the kinds of reactions you get.

Part of the issue is a lot of your comments are of the formation "What liberals are saying is utterly, demonstrably, and obviously false, and in fact, they're more guilty of it than the right". You then support your argument with a litany of asserted facts...that you don't source, and are in direct contravention of what was said elsewhere (regardless of whether it'd been sourced or not).

Part of the issue with making an argument purely on challenging facts is that you run headlong into questions about the legitimacy of the source, and those can be some of the ugliest arguments of all, especially if the only source cited is yourself.

I'd recommend trying to make philosophical or moral arguments that don't hinge on the specific circumstances, especially when we're talking about events we only know about from news stories. I find it helps move conversations from heat to light when you shift the discussion to the underlying philosophical disagreement like that.

I also think you'll get farther with making a positive statement about what you believe, than a negative statement about what you believe liberals believe. (i.e. instead of "Liberals just want to boss people around with their nanny state", try "Conservatives are trying to give people more freedom to choose how to run their own lives")

People will likely still disagree with you, but at least there's a chance they'll respond to what you said, rather than just hurl invectives at you.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
I don't apologize for being a rare conservative voice in a chorus of liberals, but that doesn't mean that "I" am responsible for 'increased vitriol'. The vitriol comes when people other than myself. I simply present a different point of view.

I don't think you should apologize. However, I also think you have to be willing to accept some responsibility for how people react to what you say. I'm self-aware enough to know that what I say is going to sound inflammatory to some people, and I certainly don't feel like criticism of my own inflammatory speech is somehow an assault on my free speech.

If you're getting a lot of vitriol (and I know you are), and that's not what you want, I think you should examine the way you're presenting yourself rather than assuming it's all the result of some sort of universal liberal intolerance.

This place has a bunch of really thoughtful people who enjoy civil discussion with people who they disagree with. If that's what you want, I gotta say I think you're just pushing the wrong buttons.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

What I intended to do in my rather strident initial comment was to smack some sense into folks who seemed to be [engaged in] a loathsome intellectual scavenging of misery. It could not go unchallenged.

To be honest, I have the same motivation behind about 80% of my comments. It the "someone on the Internet is WRONG" syndrome.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Are there people out there who are using violent and apocalyptic rhetoric? Not as many as are typically implied. I cannot name a SINGLE person who I would hold up as “the example” of a person that routinely uses ‘violent and apocalyptic rhetoric’. When such rhetoric exists it is typically very isolated.

Let me give two examples of something I found both pervasive, and an incitement to violence.

The first one is Sarah Palin's invention of the "death panel":

The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care.

That was never something even remotely part of the Affordable Care Act, but you had it repeated and defended almost to a man by conservatives. Even the normally anti-talking point libertarians we have around here felt compelled to occasionally add "perhaps that's the basis for the 'death panels' the Republicans keep talking about..." to their criticisms of the ACA.

If you think that what liberals are trying to do is, as Senator Chuck Grassley put it, "pull the plug on Grandma", then it justifies trying to stop it by all means necessary. If talking about it doesn't work, intimidation, harassment, vandalism, and ultimately armed rebellion is okay, because it's all self defense against an unconscionable act of nihilistic genocide.

The second one is the talk about revolution and secession. The most famous are Sharron Angle's "Second Amendment remedies", Michele Bachmann's "armed and dangerous" about Cap & Trade, and Gov. Rick Perry winds up on TV a lot for talking about secession.

I'd also say that when I compare left vs. right on this topic, it's not so much about the quantity, but the quality and authority. The right-wing elected officials and candidates were talking about armed rebellion if they lose the election, while left-wing ones never did. Glenn Beck is making the case, night after night, that Obama and liberals aren't metaphorically taking us down the path of fascism and genocide, but literally doing so. That's qualitatively different from the average boisterous protester drawing a Hitler mustache on Obama or Bush's face, or some nobody like me calling him that in a comment.



>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
I'd just be a bit happier if they'd return the favor, and admit that liberal philosophy has a legitimate place in American politics, rather than talking about it like it's a cancer that must be completely eliminated.
Conservatives feel the exact same way. It’d be nice if liberals treated conservatives like human beings instead of vermin to be eradicated. Classic example: like how liberal pundits & politicians treat the Tea Party.

Okay, again, I think there's a big difference. The criticism of the Tea Party from the left has mostly been to call them:

• Racist
  
• Angry
  
• Incoherent/Stupid
  
• Believe a revisionist version of history
  
• Believe in a revisionist version of the Constitution
  
• Quick to resort to intimidation or violence
  
• Run by corporations
  

That's a pretty negative set of attributes. Well earned too, IMO.

Thing is, we don't really want them gone, we want them to snap out of it. We want to demonstrate to them the value of what we believe, and we want to show that the things we want and what they want aren't really so different when you come down to it.

Their criticism of us is:

• Elitist
  
• Incoherent/Stupid
  
• Weak (on terror/drugs/Ruskies/welfare parasites, etc.)
  
• Lazy
  
• Naive
  
• Run by special interests (mostly Unions and enviro-terrorists)
  
• Propagandist (we supposedly control all media, remember?)
  
• Unpatriotic
  
• Un-American
  
• Baby-killing
  
• Grandma-killing
  
• Job-killing
  
• Troop-hating
  
• Gay-loving
  
• Flag-burning
  
• God-hating
  
• Socialist
  
• Communist
  
• Fascist
  

I don't get the same sense of desire for outreach/reformation of liberals. I also don't get the sense of compatibility from them. They're not okay with a government that's part-conservative and part-liberal in inspiration. It's an all-or-nothing game to them.

I think that's less true in the broader right-wing movement, but the Tea Party-style of argument is in ascendance over there, and it seems like hardly anyone on the right thinks they should be trying to cool down that eliminationist streak.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
But most of the time the reality is that the guy we want to believe is such a jerk is nowhere near as bad as we imagine in our head.

I agree.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
So when some politician says, “Hey – Limbaugh (or whoever) is poisoning our national discourse with their violent rhetoric”, all too many people are ready to lap up the demagoguery. Politicians who do so are manipulating us for votes. Pundits who do so are manipulating you for ratings.
Don’t be a dupe. We live in a free country, where speech – even speech you don’t like – is protected.

I agree with where you start here, but not where you end. Throughout, I am talking about condemnation, not criminalization.

I can condemn anything I want because I have free speech. I also think that there's a lot of validity to the idea that our national discourse has been poisoned with over the top rhetoric.

I think the kind of political junkies who come and get in my face here are kindred spirits, but I get so very, very tired of trying to break through the vitriol, and I mostly just write off responding to the people who seem to only speak to provoke.

To be frank, you have been a pretty borderline case in my book. You come across to me as someone who's commentary often only serves to raise the amount of heat and useless vitriol in conversations. I know I can dish it out myself, but I tend to dial it way back if I sense someone wants a real conversation.

I'm glad to see you do that at least a bit here.

Like you said, don't be a dupe -- don't be one of these people who carries nothing but a burning hatred of people who disagree with you, especially if you like to hang out in a place you think is 90% people who disagree with you.

>> ^VoodooV:

democrat version of tea partiers on the horizon?
lets see..Coffee Filters? Capri Sun Pouches? Sweet&Low Packets? What would be a good name for them?


Double Mocha Frappacino, Whip + Sprinkles...

Seems pretty progressive compared to a lousy cup of tea...>> ^quantumushroom:

Have you ever considered that the ideology of the left is itself a failure? California is bankrupt and the fools there just reelected the same-same, once again illustrating the definition of insanity. Extremely liberal California is sinking while not-liberal Texas is thriving (it's where companies are moving when they flee CA).
I'm all for secession. This federal mafia is too big and too corrupt. Let liberal politicos pay off their constituents with the blood of some other host besides taxpayers in other states.



The ideology of the left in the USA is a failure because, by and large, the politicos who are supposed to espouse that ideology are corrupted by the lure of money...

Says more about the US than it does about the left, there are plenty of leftward leaning governments around the world that function quite well. Just because US culture (as opposed to individual people) isn't capable of wrapping it's head around a more liberal ideology without fucking it up doesn't mean the ideology is flawed...

But hey, stick with the current right wing way of doing things, I'm sure when the US causes the next GFC you'll just find someone or something else to blame... ; )

Uhm..you can make that argument on both sides of the aisle, dumbass. Lots of places are bankrupt and yet they continue to not make changes. Insanity knows no distinction between party.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Have you ever considered that the ideology of the left is itself a failure? California is bankrupt and the fools there just reelected the same-same, once again illustrating the definition of insanity. Extremely liberal California is sinking while not-liberal Texas is thriving (it's where companies are moving when they flee CA).
I'm all for secession. This federal mafia is too big and too corrupt. Let liberal politicos pay off their constituents with the blood of some other host besides taxpayers in other states.

>> ^Enzoblue:
WE did the right thing, we got dems in power in all three branches. They failed us miserably.
Wonder why voter turn out for young people and dems was so low? Because we don't give a shit anymore. Our only hope for real change is to let the idiots have the helm and, this time, drive us into a recession that we can't bail out of. One that causes our complete collapse and results in state secession.
You want God in your government Alabama/Louisiana/Mississippi etc? Make your own constitution. I will fully support you.
I will be in the Peoples Republic of Pennsylvania, (hopefully).

Have you ever considered that the ideology of the left is itself a failure? California is bankrupt and the fools there just reelected the same-same, once again illustrating the definition of insanity. Extremely liberal California is sinking while not-liberal Texas is thriving (it's where companies are moving when they flee CA).

I'm all for secession. This federal mafia is too big and too corrupt. Let liberal politicos pay off their constituents with the blood of some other host besides taxpayers in other states.


>> ^Enzoblue:

WE did the right thing, we got dems in power in all three branches. They failed us miserably.
Wonder why voter turn out for young people and dems was so low? Because we don't give a shit anymore. Our only hope for real change is to let the idiots have the helm and, this time, drive us into a recession that we can't bail out of. One that causes our complete collapse and results in state secession.
You want God in your government Alabama/Louisiana/Mississippi etc? Make your own constitution. I will fully support you.
I will be in the Peoples Republic of Pennsylvania, (hopefully).

WE did the right thing, we got dems in power in all three branches. They failed us miserably.

Wonder why voter turn out for young people and dems was so low? Because we don't give a shit anymore. Our only hope for real change is to let the idiots have the helm and, this time, drive us into a recession that we can't bail out of. One that causes our complete collapse and results in state secession.

You want God in your government Alabama/Louisiana/Mississippi etc? Make your own constitution. I will fully support you.

I will be in the Peoples Republic of Pennsylvania, (hopefully).

The simplest solution is the restoration of States' Rights, and/or secession. Different states know how to do different things best; it's a lot easier to fix a state than the whole nation.

Lyrics:

What if the tea party was black
Holding guns like the Black Panther Party was back
If Al was Rush Limbaugh and Jesse was Sean Hannity
And Tavis was Glenn Beck would they harm they families
If Sarah Palin was suddenly Sistah Soaljah
Would they leave it with the votes or go and get the soldiers
Yall know if the tea party was black
The government would have been had the army attack

What if Michael Baisden was on ya FM dial
For 3 hours every day calling the president foul
Would they say free speech or find evidence how
To charge him with treason like see he’s unamerican now
What if Minister Farrakhan prayed for the death
Of the commander in chief that he be laid to rest
Would they treat it as the gravest threat or never make an arrest
Even today he’s still hated for less
What if President Obama would have lost the election
Quit his job so he could go talk to the left and
Bash the government for being off of direction
Fraught with deception
And told black people they want all of our weapons
And we want our own country and called for secession
Would he be arrested and tossed in corrections
For trying to foster aggression
Against the people’s lawful selection
Our questions

What if the tea party was black
Holding guns like the Black Panther Party was back
If Al was Rush Limbaugh and Jesse was Sean Hannity
And Tavis was Glenn Beck would they harm they families
If Sarah Palin was suddenly Sistah Soaljah
Would they leave it with the votes or go and get the soldiers
Yall know if the tea party was black
The government would have been had the army attack

What If black people went on Facebook and made a page
That for the death if the president elect we prayed
Would the creators be tazed and thrown in a cage
We know the page wouldn’t have been displayed all these days
What if Jeremiah Wright said that everybody white
Wasn’t a real America would you feel scared of him
If he had a militia with pictures that depict the president as Hitler
They would kill and bury that
Wait
What if Cynthia McKinney lamented the winning of the new president
And hinted he wasn’t really a true resident
With no proof or evidence
Would the media treat it like a huge press event
They would have attacked whatever group she represents
They would have called her a kook on precedent
And any network that gave her due preference
Would be the laughing stock of the news so our question is

What if the tea party was black
Holding guns like the Black Panther Party was back
If Al was Rush Limbaugh and Jesse was Sean Hannity
And Tavis was Glenn Beck would they harm they families
If Sarah Palin was suddenly Sistah Soaljah
Would they leave it with the votes or go and get the soldiers
Yall know if the tea party was black
The government would have been had the army attack

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

It sounds to me like Paul is at least foreshadowing secession and civil war - if not fomenting it. He comes across like a gentle old grandpa - but he's pushing some scary stuff.

Still not sure how "secession" is not tied directly to slaves, slave trade and state sanctioned racism/discrimination.

The only time secession was actually declared was in the Confederate States of America (ie: the confederate slave trading racist motherfuckers). in 1869, the SCOTUS declared that secession is basically null. Also, I'm not sure how one can be constantly screaming about following the US Constitution, without understanding that it replaced the Articles of Confederation. Meaning, this state sovereignty schtick is hollow rhetoric. You can't believe firmly in one, and the other at the same time. Well you can, but you're either doing it to hide your real racist views, or you're an idiot.

The more and more you push this secession and property owners rights to discriminate against races, the more and more you scream "I'M A RACIST!".

I think us liberals are all still feeling a bit pissed about being called traitors for (take your pick): saying the Iraq war was a bad idea, saying there were no WMD's in Iraq, saying that we shouldn't torture people, saying we shouldn't wiretap American citizens without warrants, saying the PATRIOT act is unconstitutional, saying that we should give terror suspects trials, saying that our soldiers have killed civilians, saying that Iraqis have died in much larger numbers than US citizens, talking about timetables for withdrawal from Iraq, talking about getting better body armor for troops, saying that Muslims for the most part are civil and even friendly people, mentioning the ever increasing cost of the war, pointing out the ineptitude, corruption, and violently criminal acts of our "independent contractors", questioning the President's motives for starting the Iraq war, and on, and on, and on.

I think when people literally start talking about secession (in a time of war! ), it's fair to toss back accusations of treason, especially when it's done in a fairly tongue-in-cheek fashion.

I support secession. It's not treasonous. I believe the Federal Government is in breach of contract and has been for a long, long time, so I welcome and wholeheartedly support this dingdong lady's version of "civil war".

As an observer to the American state, living for most of my life in England and for the last several years in Australia, I am deeply confused about the sort of mass hysteria that seems to be endemic to the conservative collective.

Australian politics confuse the hell out of me, but England certainly has conservatives and politicians on the right - some sensible and others depraved - but the United Kingdom Independence Party and the British National Party are on the Goddamned fringe. BNP are oftentimes called fascists, UKIP are singled out for their purely nationalistic desire for European secession.

In the recent elections, the mid-right Conservative party formed a coalition with the leftist Liberal Democrats, with a good deal of compromise in both parties' manifestos and policies.

From what I've seen, this could never happen in modern America; genuine co-operation between differing parties, combining their efforts for the good of the nation. The "tea party" movement is an example of an American-conservative lunacy that has somehow spread itself through the country like a Goddamned plague. Why the vitriol? Why the pointless rage? Why the lies and deception, and why is it necessary for Republicans to act like the little bitch party? Here's a bill! Oh, the democrats like it? Fuck that bill! Democrats hate America!

Surely everyone who regards themself as a nationalist, as these people obviously do, should commit themselves to the benefit of the nation, not the inconvenience and demonization of the "other side".

Glenn Beck, among others, invokes Godwin's Law at every opportunity, drawing direct and deliberate comparisons between Obama and Hitler, the ruling administration and Nazi Germany, and then continue to accuse the government of propagandism, fascism and socialism.

The only faction I can see Goebbels patting on the back is Fox News and the Republican right. Facts and reality do not conform to your notion of what the world should be, regardless of how hard you try to warp the truth. Fuck Iran and fuck North Korea, the Republicans are the ones I'm REALLY scared of having nukes.

Seriously though, if I'm allowed one more paragraph, could someone explain why the conservatives and their groupies are so oftentimes retarded? Did the Civil War never end, with a psychological/social continuation of that greatest of rifts creeping its way into the modern day? Why are Liberals bad, why is the truth never enough, and exactly why are they so fanatical that America is the greatest country in the world?

United States Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Which is to say, once your state decides to become part of the United States by legally becoming a party to the Constitution, you can't ignore the supreme law of the land.

The Civil War pretty much settled the question of secession. You can't pull up stakes and leave the union unilaterally. You can try, of course, but if what you're looking for is a peaceful way to do it, claiming you already have the legal right to do so just won't cut it.

Maybe you should try to get Congress to pass a law stating you're allowed to leave the Union. Better still, a Constitutional amendment that provides a legal mechanism for secession.

Until then, plan on all 50 states remaining a part of the United States, and bound by the laws passed by Congress.