Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Antonin Scalia: No right to secede
The Washington Post ^ | 17 Feb 2010 | Robert Barnes

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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 10thamendment; cwii; rights; ruling; scalia; scotus; secede; secession; states; statesrights
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 261-277 next last
To: Jack Black
"The Velvet Revolution?"

A striking, if atypical example.

Do you think there's a snowball's chance in hell it would play out that way here?

By the way, I appreciate the distinction you are drawing between the legal status of a revolution and the act of secession. The fact is, however, that secession would be seen as, and would be de facto a revolutionary act.
181 posted on 02/17/2010 3:12:48 PM PST by shibumi (Health and well being for S. and L. - in Jesus name we pray!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad
You and many other armchair lawyers really need to go study Civics 101 and contract law.
182 posted on 02/17/2010 3:18:40 PM PST by mad_as_he$$ (usff.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: MrRobertPlant2009

We are talking about Courts that restrict are First Amendment ( Fighting words,Hate laws ).

What Freedom? Facts are Facts - No matter what popular belief is.


183 posted on 02/17/2010 3:20:22 PM PST by Idabilly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: Idabilly

our


184 posted on 02/17/2010 3:21:30 PM PST by Idabilly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: RED SOUTH
Actually most states joined the Union under certain contractual agreements extraneous to the Constitution. If at anytime the Union fails to meet, uphold, or overrun said state the contract is non-binding.

So stick that in your ear Scalia!

The new constitution and government of Ohio was required only to be “republican, and not repugnant to the ordinance of the thirteenth of July, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven, between the original States and the people and States of the territory northwest of the river Ohio,” Enabling Act of 1802.

So this would lead me to think that if the Federal government fails to meet the republican standard...we have the right and obligation to secede.

185 posted on 02/17/2010 3:22:16 PM PST by EBH (The warning bell of Freedom is ringing, can you not hear it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: DesertRhino

If Texas decides to go... 9 robed jurists will have NO SAY.

LLS


186 posted on 02/17/2010 3:24:40 PM PST by LibLieSlayer (hussama will never be my president... NEVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner

You might actually consider this quote too:

—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,


187 posted on 02/17/2010 3:24:52 PM PST by EBH (The warning bell of Freedom is ringing, can you not hear it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: mad_as_he$$
“You and many other armchair lawyers really need to go study Civics 101 and contract law.”

OK

“Consent. A valid contract also requires the parties’ consent, which must be free, mutual and communicated to each other. Consent is not free when obtained through duress, menace, fraud, undue influence or mistake. Books have been written about the complexities of those factors. Obviously, a person who signs a contract because there's a gun pointed at his head hasn't consented to the agreement and can rescind it. All cases, of course, are not that clear-cut, and the law must applied to each individual case.”

Therefor - Any law passed - After - Lincoln's war is VOID

188 posted on 02/17/2010 3:27:12 PM PST by Idabilly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: Bubba Ho-Tep

“The Constitution give the government the power to suppress insurrections”

Insurrections, yes, States leaving, no.


189 posted on 02/17/2010 3:42:41 PM PST by CodeToad (If it weren't for physics and law enforcement I'd be unstoppable!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: Idabilly
I would offer an Honorable solution to( your and our differences ) But you’d call some Federal Agency.

No, I'd probably burst out laughing. Try me.

190 posted on 02/17/2010 3:48:44 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: Idabilly
Giant leap there. The South fought a war and lost. The powers that were in charge consented (under duress) to rejoin the Union. ALL of that was voted upon by the citizenry and subsequently by their duly elected officials. You would get thrown out of court in seconds on the logic you stated.
191 posted on 02/17/2010 3:54:53 PM PST by mad_as_he$$ (usff.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: Above My Pay Grade

All Freepers welcome. The rest of NYorkers are banned.LOL


192 posted on 02/17/2010 3:57:39 PM PST by greeneyes (Moderation in defense of your country is NO virtue. Let Freedom Ring.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad; Bubba Ho-Tep
“The Constitution give the government the power to suppress insurrections”

“Insurrections, yes, States leaving, no.”

James Madison - Discussed this very subject

“The use of force against a state would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound.”

Mr. Hamilton talked about this -

“It has been observed, to coerce the states is one of the maddest projects that was ever devised. A failure of compliance will never be confined to a single state. This being the case, can we suppose it wise to hazard a civil war?
“Suppose Massachusetts, or any large state, should refuse, and Congress should attempt to compel them, would they not have influence to procure assistance, especially from those states which are in the same situation as themselves? What picture does this idea present to our view? A complying state at war with a non-complying state; Congress marching the troops of one state into the bosom of another; this state collecting auxiliaries, and forming, perhaps, a majority against the federal head.

“Here is a nation at war with itself. Can any reasonable man be well disposed towards a government which makes war and carnage the only means of supporting itself — a government that can exist only by the sword? Every such war must involve the innocent with the guilty. This single consideration should be sufficient to dispose every peaceable citizen against such a government. But can we believe that one state will ever suffer itself to be used as an instrument of coercion? The thing is a dream; it is impossible.”

193 posted on 02/17/2010 4:04:21 PM PST by Idabilly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: Idabilly
Since the 14th Amendment was never ratified.

Why does it not surprise me that an anti-semitic, holocaust-denying, White-Citizens-Council-leading, Huey-Long-following Louisiana political boss , who was quoted as saying, "Negroes are just not equipped to vote" wrote a legal brief in a school desegregation case arguing for his viewpoint.

You really need to develop your crackpot filter.

194 posted on 02/17/2010 4:04:39 PM PST by Bubba Ho-Tep ("More weight!"--Giles Corey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: Idabilly
Therefor - Any law passed - After - Lincoln's war is VOID

I dare you to commit a crime and use that as your defense.

195 posted on 02/17/2010 4:06:11 PM PST by Bubba Ho-Tep ("More weight!"--Giles Corey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad
Insurrections, yes, States leaving, no.

But what constitutes a legal secession? How many people do I have to get on my petition in order to declare myself and the others an independent nation? At what point can I get out my guns and start defending my self-defined borders? I really want that Army base up the road. Can I take that and everything on it, too?

196 posted on 02/17/2010 4:12:35 PM PST by Bubba Ho-Tep ("More weight!"--Giles Corey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: Bubba Ho-Tep
I'm Glad ( You enjoy an unlawful Amendment ) That gave your beloved Supremo Court - The Loophole to Ok the MURDER of Unborn Children and Flooding your Empire with illegal immigrants. We must not deny that due process right?

Take your 14th Amendment and shove it!

197 posted on 02/17/2010 4:17:21 PM PST by Idabilly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: FateAmenableToChange

Bump. Good information.


198 posted on 02/17/2010 4:20:49 PM PST by BuckeyeTexan (Integrity, Honesty, Character, & Loyalty still matter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Idabilly
Your contempt for the constitutional process is noted.

Take your 14th Amendment and shove it!

Yeah! Who needs a right to vote?

199 posted on 02/17/2010 4:22:56 PM PST by Bubba Ho-Tep ("More weight!"--Giles Corey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: Bubba Ho-Tep

“I really want that Army base up the road. Can I take that and everything on it, too?”

If the base if Ft. Sumter, yes.


200 posted on 02/17/2010 4:28:11 PM PST by MrRobertPlant2009
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 261-277 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson