With Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump now the presumptive United States presidential nominees for the Democratic Party and Republican Party, respectively, one secessionist micronation has gained new vigour.
On Wednesday, a day after the latest primaries, the government of the Republic of New England, founded in Maine in 2015, took to Twitter to suggest that the Clinton v. Trump ticket for November’s presidential election made unity with the United States a non-starter. “Secession now seems to be the only viable action to maintain the rights of the people,” the government’s official Twitter account stated.
But why the despair about the prospect of either Clinton or Trump being the next President of the United States?
In comments to the Coprieta Standard, a representative of the New England secession movement condemned each candidate’s willingness to “take away the rights of the people and local government at their own will”. The official suggested that Clinton’s desire to introduce limitations on the right to bear arms and Trump’s readiness to limit freedom of religion were unconstitutional, and that this piecemeal approach to upholding the constitution only served to nullify its authority.
The perceived ability for the next President of the United States to pick-and-choose which parts of the constitution to enforce or ignore was empowering for secession, said the official. “If these candidates wish to break the constitution – a document that they repeatedly say defines secession as illegal – [then] the people can equally define the government, and its guidelines nullified.”
Amid a belief that the United States government has become too large, overbearing on private citizens, and too selective of their constitutional rights, the Republic of New England hopes that the Clinton v. Trump decision will be one that others find unsavoury. The official hoped that disaffected Americans “unite under banners and flags, not picket signs” in support of secession and to show that they are willing to fight for their rights and liberties despite a “tightening of laws and rules only making what angers us worse”.