Pacific Referendum Rights Bill (Failed)

[Clyde1998]

Mr. Potus I believe secession is illegal.

There is nothing in the current constitution to block the succession of a region - as I discovered ahead of the Northeast Independence Referendum.
Potus - I would advise a constitutional amendment stating that independence will occur on a specific date, with a roadmap to implement independence. As a referendum of this type would be non-binding - should it ever occur.

[Clyde1998]

Even a constitutional amendment would be of questionable means, because the Federal Government would have to agree to a release of some sort-it's similar to how a state amendment barring gay marriage/civil rights is largely ignored.

It's pretty sad to again see a rush towards independence, let by the usual suspects

The current constitution doesn't foresee independence, although it would be an action of folly for the Federal Government to prevent independence for a region that has voted for it.

In the case of the Northeast referendum, we would've opened negotiations with the Federal Government - to resolve certain issues - with the Northeast becoming independent two months after the referendum.

[Clyde1998]

If the Senate were to pass this bill (and I highly advise that it does not), I would recommend having a firm date and campaign period in it so you don't see voters starting to rush into the region just before the referendum so they can on it.

Agreed - there should be a clause stating that only the voters that in the region at the time of the passage of the bill shall be eligible to vote.