Walter Williams: Wrong on Secession

vanity ^ | 4/3/02 | Self

[r9etb]

IMHO

[hchutch]

An excellent post, IMHO. I nominate this post for Essay of the Week.

[Maceman]

Although I would think that the right of secession would be consistent with the founding principles of the USA, especially those mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, I must admit (reluctantly) that you make a very compelling argument to support the idea that secession is unconstitutional.

[Texaggie79]

I have always asserted this. If it takes approval of the Fed Congress to change a state boundary how in the world would it be constitutional for a state to drop out of the union?

[hopespringseternal]

The secessionist states clearly violated almost every part of Section 10 -- especially that last clause -- and would by any standard be considered in a state of insurrection.

Will that be a first class ticket to London, or coach?

Ultimately, the point is moot. The Constitution was dead before the ink was dry. Might always makes right.

[Texaggie79]

I also look at it as such. If secession was constitutional and states could drop out any time they wish, This would be a continent of MANY nations. What if the President a state chose didn't win? They leave the Union and make him the president of their new nation. There must be compromise between states for this nation to flourish.

[Paradox]

Great essay, I am going to have to go over it again a few times. This thing ought to be published.

[Free the USA]

Not a very convincing argument.

[babyface00]

Since the colonies had an established form of government when the DOI was signed, it would seem to imply that the DOI trumps the Constitution.

It states:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, ...

... We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, 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 to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness

Does the Constitution somehow eliminate the "Right of the People to alter or to abolish it"?

[Free the USA]

Check the Bump List folders for articles related to and descriptions of the above topic(s) or for other topics of interest.

[dasboot]

barf

[r9etb]

Does the Constitution somehow eliminate the "Right of the People to alter or to abolish it"?

The DOI is not a basis for government, but merely a proclamation of causes for insurrection. As with the Feds in the Civil War, the British Government was well within its rights to respond to the insurrection.

As the Constitution itself puts it, and by ratification the States affirm: "This Constitution ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land."

Groundrules for alteration are spelled out within the Constitution itself. Abolition of the Constitution is not even mentioned within the document itself, and it's hard to see how it could be.

[sharktrager]

There is actually a huge contridiction in the constitution. Congress has the right to take action to put down a rebellion, but the 2nd amendment is specifically designed so the people can be armed should a rebellion be necessary.

[billbears]

CONFEDERATE SECESSIONIST BUMP!!!

[Cable225]

The DOI is not a basis for government, but merely a proclamation of causes for insurrection.

Excellent point. Additionally, the Declaration is expressly written to detail the transgressions of the King, and outline why the colonists felt they had earned the right (by the King's abdication of his responsibilities to govern fairly) to form a new Union.

The actual government of the new Union had not been defined as yet.

[r9etb]

barf

I'd be much more impressed with your emetic response if you'd provided some rational chunks to go along with your mindless bile.

[WhiskeyPapa]

Does the Constitution somehow eliminate the "Right of the People to alter or to abolish it"?

In natural law, no.

In U.S. law however, there is no right to -legal- uniateral secession.

Walt

[wardaddy]

Wrong guy TA, I'm not a neo-seccessionist. I'm just a rabid reactionary about Southern heritage and South bashing. I won't refight the war. Others will of course....go to find in forum and look for Whiskey Papa...the premier Yankee apologist/promoter.

regards

[Eagle Eye]

Too bad the Declaration of Independence is lost on you.

[r9etb]

Not a very convincing argument

Perhaps you'd care to provide some details to back that up?