Posted on 02/17/2010 9:08:09 AM PST by Palter
Is there a right to secede from the Union, or did the Civil War settle that?
Certain Tea Partiers have raised the possibility of getting out while the getting's good, setting off a round of debate on legal blogs. The more cerebral theorists at the smart legal blog The Volokh Conspiracy question whether such a right exists.
Enter a New York personal injury lawyer, and Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.
The lawyer, Eric Turkewitz, says his brother Dan, a screenwriter, put just such a question to all of the Supreme Court justices in 2006 -- he was working on an idea about Maine leaving the U.S.and a big showdown at the Supreme Court -- and Scalia responded. His answer was no:
"I am afraid I cannot be of much help with your problem, principally because I cannot imagine that such a question could ever reach the Supreme Court. To begin with, the answer is clear. If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede. (Hence, in the Pledge of Allegiance, "one Nation, indivisible.") Secondly, I find it difficult to envision who the parties to this lawsuit might be. Is the State suing the United States for a declaratory judgment? But the United States cannot be sued without its consent, and it has not consented to this sort of suit.
I am sure that poetic license can overcome all that -- but you do not need legal advice for that. Good luck with your screenplay."
(Excerpt) Read more at voices.washingtonpost.com ...
Kind of like...WHO ASKED YA?
If we come to a point where a state (or many) decide to secede, we could care less about your opinion.
“If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede.”
No wonder our court is a joke. Wars do not answer constitutional questions. They only answer “Might is Right”. The Civil War did not answer if a State could suceed, and, in fact, answered that it could.
My comment was totally relevant.
You, being the constitutional giant that you are, were attempting to correct Scalia with only half of the answer. (The one that you subscribe to and have iterated ad infinitum.)
I simply pointed out that you had conveniently left out a rather important part of the majority opinion.
Of course, being the consummate troll, you countered with that imbecilic 'how'd that work out for ya' post.
Which is the reason why you don't begin to meet the requirements expected of a mod,
What requirements?
Being an unemployed bore with a PC, like you?
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Well, we’ve been talking about West Virginia history here. It’s kind of hard for me to say, “Yea...Why is your tax money going there!” When I drove home for ten years on I-68, the most beautiful road in America that connects absolutely nothing.
I guess it was important to open up that key Morgantown-Cumberland route for the Conestoga Wagons.
Its a very precarious thing.
But if a state did decide, there really isn't much the federal government could do to stop it.
The *the incredible sh*tstorm* is always more fun to watch.
“The citizens of that state paid federal taxes during the years in which the feds were building stuff in their state. “
Not to mention, the federal government has no Constitutional authority to have made those construction projects in the first place.
:) I agree it would be, especially with someone who can’t be fired.
“Yeah that revolution part really worked for you, didn’t it?
“
We left England under revolution, so I’d say your snide remarks are nothing but bullshit from a bullshit artist. The South failed in their attempt but your arrogance about it is just silly as you cannot possibly lay claim that no further attempt will succeed. Pussies like you aren’t going to stop any rebellion.
The issue isn’t settled primarily because the federal government was formed by the free actions of the states and gets its authority from the people and the states, not the other way around.
It was a snide remark directed at a rabid Lost Cause revisionist fanatic. I can see why you would take offense as well.
The South failed in their attempt but your arrogance about it is just silly as you cannot possibly lay claim that no further attempt will succeed. Pussies like you aren’t going to stop any rebellion.
Well if the next rebellion is depending on the likes of you for its success then I'm certainly not going to be losing any sleep over it.
The preamble says in effect that humans have the right to choose their government, that means if we find we are being enslaved we can throw off the shackles, if the throwing off is peaceful, that would be secession, if it is violent, that is revolution.
The war between the states is an example of a non-peaceful secession, even though the confederate states peacefully seceded the Union wouldn't allow it, therefore there was a bloddy conflict.
The Union cannot force the states to stay in the Union of the people don't want to unless they use force. It may work out slightly differently this time around.
BTW, even without a constitution, people have the God given right to choose their government, that includes Americans.
Correct to post 113. bloddy conflict = bloody conflict.
Ping
I mentioned this on another thread a while ago. For reasons I can’t fully explain, I was watching old Firing Line clips on Youtube.
Anyway, there is a fascinating interview there between WFB and Huey P. Newton. Newton is high as a kite, but asks Buckley at what point, “What side would you have been on in 1776?”
Buckley states that he suspects he would have been on Washington’s side but is not sure since - generally speaking - revolutions always lead to violence, chaos, and a new government worse than the former government - regardless of which side wins.
It made me realize that the so-called conservatives who call for revolution are not really conservatives. They are, well, revolutionaries.
And that is ultimately what the civil war was - a revolution that failed. And - as Buckley would have predicted - it left chaos, death, and a worse government in its wake.
As relevant as most of your crap, which is virtually nil. The thread is on secession. Justice Scalia says it is not Constitutional and that the Supreme Court ruled on it. I'm pointing out that the same decision identified one way to legally secede. The rebellion part is not relevant to that discussion. Your relevance to any discussion is usually problematic at best.
You, being the constitutional giant that you are, were attempting to correct Scalia with only half of the answer. (The one that you subscribe to and have iterated ad infinitum.)
There is only one Constitutional answer. Unless you can point to the clause in the Constitution allowing rebellion.
Of course, being the consummate troll, you countered with that imbecilic 'how'd that work out for ya' post.
Which was more than your imbecilic remark deserved.
Being an unemployed bore with a PC, like you?
Truth for one. Intelligence for another. Two qualities lacking in that remark, and all your other ones as well.
But it doesn't matter.
If you decide to leave and have the power to back it up, the law doesn't mean a whole lot.
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.