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 ...
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, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
I disagree. To my mind, the justification is exactly the same, i.e, this social order/government is no longer working for us. What's different is the process. Secession is an inherently legalistic process, which means that it can only take place within the structure of the laws of the government. Revolution ignores the laws and rolls the dice. Win and the laws no longer apply. Lose and face the consequences.
As for the threat of violence the existing “order” hangs over our heads... heh... If thats the cost of freedom, then so be it.
Exactly. But at least your ancestors rolled the dice. I don't see anyone today even starting to try to pick them up, despite a lot of bluster about burning our houses down.
This is an incorrect analysis. Secession simply is, in this case, a breaking of the political bonds which binds people. There is a revolutionary process that takes place to create an environment compatible with secession, but that is primarily in the hearts and minds of the people. That revolution is WELL underway my friend.
Secession is: "I hate everything about you. I am leaving and unless you want to kill me over this, its over. your free to live your life how ever you want without me".
Revolutionary war is: "I hate everything about you and I am going to force us to live together but this time under MY rules. That is, if I don't decide to kill you"
The justification for each is very different. Its all about what your goal is and what people will agree to do.
No, that's revolution. Literally, a return to the state of nature from which a new social contract can be drawn. If your revolution takes place in an orderly, legalistic fashion, leaving the old order diminished but still in place, you might call it secession. You might call it being granted independence. Seccession is a subset of Revolution.
Secession is: "I hate everything about you. I am leaving and unless you want to kill me over this, its over. your free to live your life how ever you want without me".
Revolutionary war is: "I hate everything about you and I am going to force us to live together but this time under MY rules. That is, if I don't decide to kill you"
My first reaction is that by that definition, the American Revolution is misnamed. My second is to wonder what the magic words are that turn my insurrection into a secession that, if I understand you correctly, the government has no moral authority to resist. If I say that I'm only claiming California, or Texas, or the entire south, does that mean by definition that I'm not rebelling?
I never mentioned "moral authority". I mentioned justification. Justification in the minds of the people about to carry out an action, that it is the right thing to do.
Perhaps it was misnamed.
"But what do we mean by the American Revolution? Do we mean the American war? The Revolution was effected before the war commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people; a change in their religious sentiments of their duties and obligations. ...This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people, was the real American Revolution." -John Adams
Revolution is something that is happening right now, even as we type back and forth to each other. Its something that is happening at every "tea party" and every town hall meeting. It is something that happens in the minds and hearts of the people. That can either culminate in an attempt to secede peacefully or another American war. Either way, the revolution is already effected. Our argument, it seems, is over the method of finalization.
Very few actions that take place anywhere in history weren't justified in the minds of the minds of the people who were about to carry them out. Everyone thinks they have good reasons to do what they do. That guy who flew his plane into the IRS building in Austin wrote a whole manifesto laying out his justification. My point lies in what seems to be your belief that saying the magic words, "I secede" means that the government loses all power to resist what you proceed to do.
Revolution is something that is happening right now, even as we type back and forth to each other. Its something that is happening at every "tea party" and every town hall meeting. It is something that happens in the minds and hearts of the people. That can either culminate in an attempt to secede peacefully or another American war. Either way, the revolution is already effected. Our argument, it seems, is over the method of finalization.
I guess I don't agree that those are the only two options--the breakup of the United States or another bloody civil war. I see a multitude of options within the existing sociopolitical structure.
One of the best attributes of our Constiutional government is that it allows itself to be altered, if there's sufficient popular support as expressed by voters--specifically, voters demanding their state legislators call for the convention. You dismissed this idea upthread by saying "the people are broken," but then you talk about the revolution that happening right now at Tea Parties and town halls. Gain enough popular support and you can take over the government and rewrite the Constitution. It's yours now. Put in "All of this is now null and void and all states are now on their own to reorganize or remain independent." Call it whatever you like.
The key is popular support. If you have enough people, the government really does lose all power. Enough people can just will a government away. It's what happened all through Eastern Europe. In our case, we have an orderly system in place to change the government, a system that's far easier than what, say, the Czechs did in the Velvet Revolution.
And if you can't do that, if you complain that the game is rigged, that it's too hard, that you can't get enough votes, you can't get enough people at your rallies, that people are too dumb to support your political goals, then maybe you need to think that it's not them, it's you.
When the time comes, it will not matter a wit what the federal government has to say about anything... Let their members chew on hot lead.
The Civil War settled nothing, except to set in stone the antagonistic axiom that the so-called “federal” government is composed of the most caustic tyrants, whose ability to pursue evil in the name of their pompous notions of “justice” is without equal.
The Declaration of Independence makes the issue of severance exceedingly clear. If the SCOTUS, or any other parasitic whore clinging to the bastardized fascist bulwark that fancies itself a “federal” government, believes it may escape the precedent set by the Declaration, then the Constitution must be utterly without merit. For the latter could not exist without the former.
As usual, the “federal” government demonstrates its rampant hypocrisy. The only way by which this present cabal of tyrants will learn the word “NO” is through force of arms... and the sooner the better.
“Alternatively the states might declare themselves free, refuse to abide by the laws of the United States, prevent their citizens from paying Federal taxes, take control of their borders, etc., and then put the onus on the Federal Government to either use force, or consent to the secession.
I hope it never comes to that.”
RE: IT ALREADY HAS COME TO THAT. That is the only way this contest can be decided. The federal government is no longer federal... It has violated the Constitution and crowned itself a national supreme power. It is no better than any other dictatorship... In fact, it is worse because it hides behind the Constitution while it sodomizes that august document and the people who claim it their own. The only cure for such a horrendous act of sodomy upon the American people is war.
When was the Pledge of Allegiance written, and by whom? What was the individual’s background and political philosophy?
Now, juxtapose that convenient little exercise in authoritarianism with the Declaration of Independence... and the historical records written down by those who in fact FORMED this nation. What did they believe?
Here you will find the combat that is explicit in its divergence from the original intent of the authors of this nation, and those who practice the propaganda of tyrants, so to enforce whatever perversion of our Constitution may be expedient that they may lord over and dictate to all free men against their wills.
By the post above we can all conclude that bubba-ho = liberal elitist POS.
She hasn't particularly impressed me yet,
Further evidence that bubba-ho = liberal elitist POS.
Right, and you’re so in touch with the common man, despite the fact that you can’t get a single candidate elected to office on a seccessionist platform. But here you are, claiming to know better than the ignorant masses who refuse to break up the Unted States. Who’s the real elitist?
What in the hell are you talking about? Did you imbibe a little too much cognac, you elitist liberal POS.
I’m saying that you’re the elitist, a self-proclaimed vanguard for a political movement that can’t win an election for dogcatcher, leading you to rail about the ignorant masses who fail to see your brilliance.
Don't you ever get tired of posting huge piles of dung like that crap above?
Don’t you get tired of backing an ideology that no serious candidate will actually endorse? Why aren’t you running for office, oh Great and Wise cowboyway? Surely you believe that the people will be behind secession once you explain it to them in your charming way.
Bravo.
The judges work for the winner, or for the side that has more firepower. "Law" is all and only about power. "Constitutionally correct" is a patina.
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.