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 there’s 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 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,” wrote Jon Carson, director of the Office of Public Engagement.
“But as much as we value a healthy debate, we don’t 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 Obama’s victory over Gov. Mitt Romney, calling for the government to allow them to secede. Carson’s 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 ...
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.
I'm with you.
Freedom to seceed seems to be in keeping with the natural law, or at least not contradictory to it.
But states are required to resolve controversies with the federal government with the supreme court as original jurisdiction.
The 10th amendment doesn’t change that.
“But states are required to resolve controversies with the federal government with the supreme court as original jurisdiction.”
You don’t even know what “original” means in that context. It just sounds formal to you.
“With all the ice somebody could slip and get hurt.”
Maybe some cowardly geezer such as yourself might break a hip but we’ll manage just fine without you.
There is no enumerated right of secession. However, the God-given right of rebellion is referred to in the DOL.
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.
No it doesn't.
There is nowhere in the founding that America as a union is some sort of suicide pact.
It wasn't designed as one, but isn't it interesting how the southron slavers tried to make it into one?
All the civil war “decided” was what happens when a populous industrial region fights a rural agricultural region with limited infrastructure.
Some people are so eager to loose the blood of their fellow countrymen...
That didn’t work so well when it was attempted. Any power exercised inder the Constitution assumes the continued adherence to the charter that granted the power.
I thoroughly agree that a discussion should be held regarding the issue of secession. However, that discussion should be held at the state level and among the citizens of that state and a vote taken to determine the future status of statehood. The imperial federal government can be informed of the state’s decision.
There is a right to secede. It comes from the same source as our Right to keep and bear arm - God Himself - and a government that no longer rules with the consent of the governed and under the rule of a written Constitution cannot stop secession except by force. I hope and pray that our soldiers are too honorable and patriotic to obey any unlawful orders that they may receive in such a situation. I wish the thug in our White House would reread the Declaration of Independence; it articulates our right to secede quite well.
See, you don’t know what I know.
And at that time, they can decide if they have any controversy with the federal government, or with another state, and can file suit. Or they can decide that there is no controversy, and go home.
The controversy, if it exists, is then resolved as a matter of law at the supreme court.
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.