Skip to comments.White House Responds to All of Those Secession Petitions: There’s No Right to Secede
Posted on 01/12/2013 10:07:52 AM PST by Mozilla
The Obama administration on Friday responded to the wave of secession petitions that spread online following the November election, preaching unity over division and saying theres no right to secede.
In a nation of 300 million people each with their own set of deeply-held beliefs democracy can be noisy and controversial. And thats a good thing. Free and open debate is what makes this country work, and many people around the world risk their lives every day for the liberties we often take for granted, wrote Jon Carson, director of the Office of Public Engagement.
But as much as we value a healthy debate, we dont let that debate tear us apart, he said.
More than two dozen states from all corners of the country filed online White House petitions after President Barack Obamas victory over Gov. Mitt Romney, calling for the government to allow them to secede. Carsons letter was filed in response to requests from Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas, all of which garnered the necessary 25,000 signatures.
(Excerpt) Read more at theblaze.com ...
Petition Response: Our States Remain United
By Jon Carson, Director of the Office of Public Engagement
Thank you for using the White House's online petitions platform to participate in your government.
In a nation of 300 million people -- each with their own set of deeply-held beliefs -- democracy can be noisy and controversial. And that's a good thing. Free and open debate is what makes this country work, and many people around the world risk their lives every day for the liberties we often take for granted.
But as much as we value a healthy debate, we don't let that debate tear us apart.
Our founding fathers established the Constitution of the United States "in order to form a more perfect union" through the hard and frustrating but necessary work of self-government. They enshrined in that document the right to change our national government through the power of the ballot -- a right that generations of Americans have fought to secure for all. But they did not provide a right to walk away from it. As President Abraham Lincoln explained in his first inaugural address in 1861, "in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual." In the years that followed, more than 600,000 Americans died in a long and bloody civil war that vindicated the principle that the Constitution establishes a permanent union between the States. And shortly after the Civil War ended, the Supreme Court confirmed that "[t]he Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union composed of indestructible States."
Although the founders established a perpetual union, they also provided for a government that is, as President Lincoln would later describe it, "of the people, by the people, and for the people" -- all of the people. Participation in, and engagement with, government is the cornerstone of our democracy. And because every American who wants to participate deserves a government that is accessible and responsive, the Obama Administration has created a host of new tools and channels to connect concerned citizens with White House. In fact, one of the most exciting aspects of the We the People platform is a chance to engage directly with our most outspoken critics.
So let's be clear: No one disputes that our country faces big challenges, and the recent election followed a vigorous debate about how they should be addressed. As President Obama said the night he won re-election, "We may have battled fiercely, but it's only because we love this country deeply and we care so strongly about its future."
Whether it's figuring out how to strengthen our economy, reduce our deficit in a responsible way, or protect our country, we will need to work together -- and hear from one another -- in order to find the best way to move forward. I hope you'll take a few minutes to learn more about the President's ideas and share more of your own.
Tell us what you think about this response and We the People.
Stay connected to the White House by signing up for periodic email updates from President Obama and other senior administration officials.
I also got a response to the petition to Impeach Obama and of course it said that he would not be impeached. It basically said that debate was healthy and lied about Obama following the constitution and upholding laws in the books.
Well, we are not prisoners to dictatorships, so we must have the right to leave the union once it no longer serves its intended purpose and treads on our liberties.
If they move against the 2A, then they are breaking the contract, and it’s no longer valid.
Right. Nothing the White House can say can stop a state or states from leaving. It would help protect the state from a tyrannical government.
That’s what the Brits said in 1776, but the taxpayers at Lexington and Concord begged to differ.
Why are we going? It is our country.
Did the Kenyan point out that I am not responsible for the debts of my forefathers and by extention not responsible for actions they took by virtue of having been born in a certain place? I don’t recall seeing that word “perpetual” anywhere in the constituion either.. Perhaps I missed it. I do see such things as powers not specifically given to the central government are reserved to the states and or the people. I guess that does not count either in a government that wishes to pick and choose what is and what is not to be followed.
It always amuses me when mouthpieces for this government, which was founded on rebellious and violent separation from the British Empire, state that subsequent separation from itself cannot be contemplated.
Liar. No one signed those petitions because of "healthy debate" or unhealthy debate. Why not address the real reasons instead of hiding behind a form letter?
“... democracy can be noisy and controversial.”
Yes it can. That is why the United States was formed as a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy.
Those old white guys knew the difference.
“If they move against the 2A, then they are breaking the contract, and its no longer valid”
Exactly. The “union” is not some magical mystical beast. It is simply an agreement. If they ignore the agreement then we get to ignore it, too.
There is a natural right to self determination. The Constitution has no mechanism for secession. The Constitution can only recognize natural rights, it cannot grant or withhold them.
As to the assertion that secession has been settled and we are not allowed to leave the union, I would refer to this article . . .http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/01/on_secssion.html
So says the Undocumented-Tyrant by Fraud.
I'll tell you what I think of their response: they can print it out on paper, roll it up real tight and stick it straight up their candy asses!
Ah, and who’s going to stop them?
I have always wondered what would the federal government do if states just said “no more”.
What if the taxes that are sent to the feds just stopped being sent?
What if the state militia went to the boarder and stopped inter state travel, without permission?
Would the feds send in an army to crush them, or just give a press conference and say something or other?
(Talking about now, not two centuries ago)
Free and open debate is what we don’t have in this country. Political correctness means that saying truthful things is now a crime.
If I could afford to go to a more sensible place, I would.
Actually, when it comes to secession, it is up to the Feds only until they no longer challenge a state.
If a state declares independence, no US court can legally compel them to follow its orders, or, any US Federal law. The Feds can only enforce the law if they choose to go to war.
Unlike the Civil War, the Feds do not have certain advantages now that they enjoyed in 1861-1865. States have much better infrastructure and communications networks now than the Confederacy did in 1860’s. Also, since so much of our manufactured products are now made overseas....the Feds would have a much harder go getting materiel for war...and some of the basic things would require foreign nations to supply...even the most blithering Globalist apologist knows that this would be a great opportunity for Communist China to slap down a US federal government in war with seceeding states.
Yes there is (Declaration of Independence, and Article V of the Constitution), it didn't go well the first time.
Even though it didn't go well the first time, maybe we need to hit the reset button (Second amendment), one more time...
I read that as affirming that we do have the right to seek just government, whether that's through secession - or other means. Don't expect me to be bound by that suicide pact that is the "living constitution".
Geo. III didn't think secession was a right either. It finally comes down to who can make their assertion stick.
The jug-eared jackass is all about tearing us apart.
The decision, power, and right to secede are states’ rights; such powers were not authorized to the federal government in our Constitution.
The government of the United States of America exists, and serves, at the pleasure of the states’ legislatures and the American citizens are who residents of those states who duly and lawfully elected representatives to their legislature. The states and the union do not exist at the pleasure of the federal goverment.
At any time, a three-fourths majority of the states’ legislatures can agree to completely replace the existing federal government.
At any time, a three-fourths majority of the states’ legislatures can agree to dissolve the union.
At all times, the people, thru their duly-elected representatives sitting in the states’ legislatures, are the lawful authors outranking the federal government.
In a nutshell, the states can tell the federal government or any agent(s) or official(s) of the federal government: “You’re fired!” If the federal government refuses to submit, then the states may exercise martial power to affect relief and replace, as well as restore the federal government to operating in adherence to whatever the states’ legislatures decide will be the Amended Constitution.
I pledge here and now that if a state attempts to secede from this union, and that secession is for the intent to restore a constitutional republic of traditional American values, I will sell my house and move to that state, and take up arms in its defense.
And the 2A is the line in the sand.
Ask the Armenians, Russians, and the Jews:
Did the Turks, Soviets and Nazis treat them better, or worse, after they were disarmed in the name of “public safety?”
It’s not the Constitution that assures the right of secession. It’s the Declaration of Independence...by its very existence.
“Right. Nothing the White House can say can stop a state or states from leaving. It would help protect the state from a tyrannical government.”
Hmmm.... seems to me that’s exactly what President Jefferson Davis believed, as well as Generals Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson and a thousands of Confederate soldiers and citizens.
I want no part of secession. I want it all back and the Lying Commie B_tards in jail.
No Right? BS!
July 4th, 1776
..”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. ....
Rights are granted by God not Government. Certainlty not the Lying POS who sleeps in our house at 1600 Penn. Ave.
Secession attempts would be fun for China even if the US didn't resist them. In fact, you could probably look forward to China supporting such movements.
Unlike the Civil War, the Feds do not have certain advantages now that they enjoyed in 1861-1865. States have much better infrastructure and communications networks now than the Confederacy did in 1860s.
No state is ever likely to be as unified about anything as the cotton-belt states were about slavery in 1860.
Secession now would mean a true "civil war" (if the last one some how wasn't): fighting in the streets of Atlanta or Dallas, Charlotte or Houston.
Maybe brother against brother and neighbor against neighbor, but certainly one side of town against the other.
There are, at the very minimum, two states, who by their constitution can secede.
and Maine: http://www.maine.gov/legis/const/
Both also allow the use of deadly force to protect self and property that is lawfully owned.
... democracy can be noisy and controversial.
When the gun grabbing starts it’s going to be very noisy and “confrontational”
Funny how you chose only Southern cities to make you point. LOL, you are SOOOOOO transparent.
Here are some of the best (lame) excuses so far:
-states cant secede because of the power grid.
-China will invade us.
-There will be a riot in a city somewhere.
-There will be chaos(like the state governments don't even exist)
It is getting funny.....
Also, it's too cold for street-fighting.
With all the ice somebody could slip and get hurt.
In any case, is Dallas really a Southern city?
They are gathering info - addresses and attitudes. It will all become clear shortly...
The rest of us live in a world where things are way, way more complicated than that. For starters, think "nuclear weapons" and "alliance with the US."
the excuses I have seen on Free Republic making it somehow impossible for a state or group of states to form their own country as impossible are laughable.
Maybe to you. You and your kind are willing to wade through seas of blood to get what you want. And you don't even understand that the goal is unattainable -- that nobody's following you.
The country is already mixed together enough -- North, South, East, West -- that it's hard to separate out states or regions. The kind of solidarity the 19th century slave states had is impossible nowadays.
People are also a little less blood-thirsty than they were a century ago, and that's not entirely a bad thing.
In fact, a state could secede simply by refusing to participate in any federal activities. Who are the feds going to arrest? And how are they going to compel compliance?
For example, let's say a state declares itself independent, then prohibits employers in that state from withholding federal taxes. The feds can stomp around all they want and muscle their way into the statehouse, but then what?
Furthermore, if all the citizens of the state refused to pay federal taxes, the load on the IRS would be so great they could not possibly prosecute all of them.
Or the citizens could simply declare themselves not bound by laws passed in another jurisdiction and go on about their lives.
Secession can be accomplished in a lot of ways, many of which don't begin with gunfire.
Speak for yourself ...
“There is a natural right to self determination. The Constitution has no mechanism for secession. The Constitution can only recognize natural rights, it cannot grant or withhold them.”
I very much agree with your point here. We declare the right of self-determination self-evident in the Declaration of Independence and give conditions (i.e. “a long train of abuses and usurpations”) for replacing them. But there has always been the understanding that the Union is permanent. Even the Articles of Confederation assert the permanancy of the Union multiple times. Presidents have asserted the right of the federal government to forcibly hold the Union together from the beginning. I enjoy the discussion, but in reality, seccession is a matter for the armed populace not constitutional ciations. It is a self-evident truth recognised in the 2nd amendment.
It should be pointed out to the jug-eared moron that there’s no right, or morality, in treating one group of citizens differently than others; but he seems to have no problem with that.
You may find a few like minded followers, but I don't see this idea appealing to a critical mass anytime soon.
Could "a state" simply secede by refusing to pay taxes or follow federal laws? Non-violent action is preferable to taking up arms, but the federal government could respond with a variety of annoying actions of their own. Perhaps in the end a resolution could be reached.
Personally, though, I like having the freedom to leave my own corner of the country and settle elsewhere. I don't trust state authorities any more than I trust federal ones, so I don't support the idea of secession. I suspect most Americans are closer to my point of view than the secessionist.
Secession, by its very nature, does not require the approval of the federal government.
"Secession (derived from the Latin term secessio) is the act of withdrawing from an organization, union, or especially a political entity." Separation or "secession" by mutual consent is certainly a possibility. The idea that somehow you have to break all ties and in doing so demonstrate some kind of existential freedom, rather than work within the system for a parting of the ways is a bizarre and dangerous one. For a lot of secessionists the emotional act of slamming the door on the way out is more important and satisfying than the actual change in political status. Such emotionalism is where separationist movements often go wrong.
That's a lot like saying if you want to escape from jail, you need to get the warden's permission.
That's the same mistake. If your goal is getting out of jail with no repercussions or dangers, why not wait until you've served your time? Why is it so important that you break the law again or get exactly what you want when and how you want it? And how did being part of the United States of America become the equivalent of being incarcerated?
You do have the right to leave, as an individual.
Of course there is a right to seceed. The constitution discusses how a state may join the union. It does not utter a word about how a state may leave. This clearly means it is a power not enumerated to the Federal government. The 10th Amendment clearly states that this is then left up to the states or to the people.
There is nowhere in the founding that America as a union is some sort of suicide pact. All the civil war “decided” was what happens when a populous industrial region fights a rural agricultural region with limited infrastructure.
You find the word ‘perpetual’ in the articles of confederation. You find ‘more perfect union’ in the constitution.
Texas v. White explained that the perpetual union was made more perfect by the constitution.
People ask because not all of us want to secede, and asking permits a debate to happen that will help find the proper course.
“The Constitution has no mechanism for secession”
Meaning under the 10th Amendment, it was left to the states to decide. If a power is not specifiacally granted to the Feds, it remains with the states. It’s in plain english.
That is why the constitution only discusses how a state may join the union. When it may leave is automatically left to the state.
The natural right to self determination can be expressed by voting, by moving, by preaching and by teaching.
Some of the powers of sovereignty are expressed through government, and require collective action to have effect.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.