well if all the people who said they were moving out of the country if bush won, we wouldnt have obama today, which in my opinion would be perfect.
now for the secession movement, there is nothing in the constitution that allows or forbids secession. now when the south seceded prior to the civil war, they used the part of the declaraton of independence that says
"Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it and to institute new government."
Lincoln did not agree with that, he used a part of the Articles of confederation which said
'articles of Confederation and perpetual union between the states of new hampshire, massachusetts-bay, Rhode island and Providence plantations,connecticuit, New york, New jersey,pennsylvania, Delaware, maryland,, virginia, North carolina, South Carolina and Georgia"
Now in the 1869 Supreme Court Decision in Texas v White, which was about Texas selling US Government Bonds that they held, during the civil war, texas sold them, In the majority opinion by chief Justice Solomon Chase, who was Secretary of the Treasury in the Lincoln administration, chase used Lincoln`s interpretation of the constitution saying that the phrase "to form a more perfect union" meant what the Articles of Confederation said by calling the union perpetual. he wrote that since texas entered a perpetual union, the secession was unconstitutional so therefore they were still a part of the Union, during the Civil War so any decision by Texas, excluding civil cases like marraiges, civil matters,, etc were null and void.
Many constitutional scholars are troubled by the decision because while texas used a part of a document that s an official government document (The Declaration) Chase used a part of a document that is not an official document (The articles) and took a liberal interpretation of the phrase "a more perfect union"
That said, in 1870, President Grant signed an act that re-admitted Texas to the Union. so we have 2 branches of the federal government contradicting each other.
Now In my opinion, states that have secession movements, that use territory that was either purchased or annexed by the United States cant secede because the land was part of the United states already before that state entered the union.
Texas on the other hand is different. Texas was an independent country from 1836-1845 before they voluntarilly joined the union. Therefore the Texas secession movement claims that since Texas joined voluntarilly, they can leave voluntarilly.
it will be interesting to see what happens.
joe