Skip to comments.Antonin Scalia: No right to secede
Posted on 02/17/2010 9:08:09 AM PST by Palter
click here to read article
Utimately, in the end, the Second ammendment trumps all.
Would these same people ( Turn in their Firearms ) If the Supremos rules against them? James Madison understood all of this - The legislature of the State could ‘impose’ itself.
“But it is objected, that the judicial authority is to be regarded as the sole expositor of the Constitution in the last resort; and it may be asked for what reason the declaration by the General Assembly, supposing it to be theoretically true, could be required at the present day, and in so solemn|a manner.
On this objection it might be observed, first, that there may be instances of usurped power, which the forms of the Constitution would never draw within the control of the judicial department; secondly, that, if the decision of the judiciary be raised above the authority of the sovereign parties to the Constitution, the decisions of the other departments, not carried by the forms of the Constitution before the judiciary, must be equally authoritative and final with the decisions of that department. But the proper answer to the objection is, that the resolution of the General Assembly relates to those great and extraordinary cases, in which all the forms of the Constitution may prove ineffectual against infractions dangerous to the essential rights of the parties to it. The resolution supposes that dangerous powers, not delegated, may not only be usurped and executed by the other departments, but that the judicial department, also, may exercise or sanction dangerous powers beyond the grant of the Constitution; and, consequently, that the ultimate right of the parties to the Constitution, to judge whether the compact has been dangerously violated, must extend to violations by one delegated authority as well as by anotherby the judiciary as well as by the executive, or the legislature.”
What preamble you reading? Perhaps the Declaration of Independence?
Ok, so I was a little off base, the fact remains that we have the right to secede, our constitution says so and the rights we have as free people says so.
Can you show me one historical example where the assertion of a revolution, without (at least) the threat of force, was successful in securing the political objective?
(Just for a moment, let’s leave out the Exodus from Egypt. Somehow I don’t think God holds the same favor for us that He did for Israel.)
I have wondered what our military commanders (and troops) would do if he ordered them to use force to keep them from seceding. I can’t imagine federal troops firing on their national guard brothers because Obama said so.
It’s not the 1860’s any more.
Please show me where the Constitution says that.
“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.”
I would offer an Honorable solution to( your and our differences ) But you’d call some Federal Agency.
The winners of wars get to dictate history.
As human beings, we have the right to choose our government and when it because a dictatorship we have the right to throw off the shackles and change it. Secession is changing the government.
Don't believe that? Then you don't believe in individual freedom and deserve to be a slave to people like Bozo, the WH clown.
States acceded to the Federal Constitution they can secede from. http://books.google.com/books?id=q_M9AAAAIAAJ&dq=albert+taylor+bledsoe+davis+a+traitor&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=vWxmgmzQ0h&sig=oVKoEHBf5sVdduijWjfIa_hOFoU&hl=en&ei=PPGVSuivI-qI8QaVvoS3DA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false
To which all the NC residents say, “Sure, just as soon as you give us back all the stuff in NY, that was built partly with funds from US!”
“Unless you can point to the clause in the Constitution allowing rebellion.”
He fails to understand the Constitution limits the power of the government and not a document that tells us what we can do.
“EXACTLY where does it say in the Constitution that a Sate has the right to secede? “
Where does it say they do not?
“We don’t need to overthrow anything, we need to get the feral government train back on the tracks — whether they like it or not.
Yep. I’ve been saying myself that this is not a revolution but a counter-revolution. We need to get our country back.
The closest example would be the federal government nationalizing the state national guards to enfore desegregation orders in the 1950s and 60s. The state guardsmen followed the federal orders then.
I think the more important issues that “settled” the matter were the passing of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. Those three sealed the fact that the states were junior to the federal government in the Constitutional scheme. The states essentially lost all control over the regulation of individuals within their boundaries and it clarified that all citizens of the states are also citizens of the United States.
And really, from a legal standpoint, that is why secession would not be allowed. If Texas decided to leave the union, Texas would - in theory - be denying its residents federally protected rights.
More likely the Feds don’t have a RIGHT to STOP me personally, nor the States collectively from Seceeding!
Did the government have any authority to suppress slave uprisings like Nat Turner's Rebellion?
I was thinking I read somewhere that Texas did have the right of succession, but none of the other states.
(The latter, by the way does codify the DUTY not right, or people to overthrow tyrannical governemnts, but I'm back to revolution when I want to stay on secession).
The question of secession is much simpler: is the Constitution an irrevocable contract, regardless of what anyone does.
Scalia's answer does not satisfy. It is simply: Might Makes Right. That's not a legal answer.
The answer is to be found in a careful study of the Constitution and the documents surrounding its creation. There are several books that explore this:
One Nation, Indivisible? A Study of Secession and the Constitution (Paperback) ~ Robert, F. Hawes (Author)
There is also the historical view, ie: what was said the first time. Like this book:
Constitutional History Secession, A (Hardcover) ~ John Graham (Author), Donald Livingston (Foreword)
When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Secession (Paperback) ~ Charles Adams (Author)
There is even a "how to" guide for Vermont.
I imagine Scalia would have a better answer if it came up before the court, as it well may. This was a short sweet note to someone.
Dred Scott, Slaughterhouse, Cruikshank, Roe, Casey, Kelo, Raich, Bean...
The Velvet Revolution?
And really, from a legal standpoint, that is why secession would not be allowed. If Texas decided to leave the union, Texas would - in theory - be denying its residents federally protected rights.”
Since the 14th Amendment was never ratified.
“Since the 14th Amendment was never ratified.”
And we are off to Militiaville.
I spent six months of my life getting emails from a client who wanted me to argue - in federal court - that the 14th Amendment was never ratified. I was eventually able to persuade him that such a tactic would probably do little more than make the judge want to hit him in the head with a gavel.
>>>If New York and California want to secede, it would be ok with me.LOL.<<<
Well, if that happens, I’d have to move to the new and improved USA. Would you take me, or would you bar immigration from the People’s Republic of New York? :)
If we go back to the original topic the question should be: can you show me one historical example of secession where at least the threat of force was not needed to secure the objective
Singapore secession from Malaysia, 1963.
Here is a fun webpage on this topic. It shows "secession meet up groups" in a map format.
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.
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.
If Texas decides to go... 9 robed jurists will have NO SAY.
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,
“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
“The Constitution give the government the power to suppress insurrections”
Insurrections, yes, States leaving, no.
No, I'd probably burst out laughing. Try me.
All Freepers welcome. The rest of NYorkers are banned.LOL
“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.
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.
I dare you to commit a crime and use that as your defense.
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?
Take your 14th Amendment and shove it!
Bump. Good information.
Take your 14th Amendment and shove it!
Yeah! Who needs a right to vote?
“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.