Well, I think the COTUS grants the fed power to protect the borders (?)
Then start looking at those BC cases and you better do it fast.
Scalia is right as a legal matter. John Locke’s right of revolution that was used as a justification for the first American revolution is highly contingent — you have a right to revolution under the natural law if you win. If you don’t win, then you didn’t have a right to revolution. Fundamentally, the right of revolution is extra-legal. The constitution cannot trump the natural law, but it also doesn’t have to recognize all of the natural law (although there may be an argument that the catchall phrases in the 9th and 10th amendments indicate that the constitution doesn’t contradict the natural law).
Again,,, it’s an interesting and humorous concept that the Supreme court says it’s illegal to seceed. Imagine the USA truly elected a marxist and became a socialist dictatorship. And that a state decided that the time to end their association had come, but that this SAME state still thought they must abide by supreme court rulings. Odd.
This reminds me of thinking you can stop a mass shooting incident in the mall, by posting signs that guns are priohibited on the premises.
Well then that only leaves us with Judge Napolitano’s opinion:
I never understood the idea that somehow a war decides a constitutional question.
Since when does OVERPOWERING the other side mean you are constitutionally correct?
That’s stupid, and those who say things like “the Civil War decided that” aren’t very logical thinkers.
It is a valid question, but to take the easy way out by pointing to the war is lame.
But the point remains,,,If it’s even necessary to argue and discuss the right to seceed, then something has gone *seriously* wrong in DC. Instead of focusing on convincing us that they can force everyone’s continued association, maybe they better start to look deep and hard at why they are pissing off so many people and states.
Time for them to change their totalitarian Bullcrap, and not think they can just use legalistic games to force people to remain.
Of possible interest.
Could Justice Scalia be the author of the majority decision in Texas v White version 2.0?
Then why did the US specifically act to readmit the confederate states to the union? If they had no right to secede, then they never really left.
Also, if Virginia never left the union then the creation of the state of West Virginia, against the will of Virginia, would have been unconstitutional.
I don’t think the Supreme Court had much to do with whether secession is legitimate.
It’s a war issue and if ever the need becomes great enough again it will be settled that way again.
Unless America is so rotten from progressivism that it can’t even lift a finger.
Well technically, Nino, it's not the sort of thing you normally get a legal opinion about.
With at least two of the three branches of government stating they don’t need no stinkin’ constitution then the states should be able to do whatever they please. Yo, Tony, didn’t one branch slap you down the other night on national, make that world, tv? Bought the clue, yet?
It’d be nice if Scalia would be so vocal about the illegality of the socialist revolution. Or about Obama being required to prove eligibility.
If states do not have the right the right to secede, there is no right of a state to deny coercion and power of the Fed.
But isn’t the US Constitution a contract between the Federal Government and the States? Absolutely!
Isn’t the 10th amendment of the “Contract” the opt out provisions given to the states if the Federal Government violates their end of the contract? Absolutely.
Nobody in their right mind would ever enter into a contract that gives exclusive rights for one party to violate the provisions of the contract without recourse?
The States would have never ratified the Constitution without the opt out provision the 10th Amendment legally gives the
The only thing the civil war decided about states rights is that the Union North had a financially superior fighting force and the southern states were beat into submission.
The use of force in upholding individual state rights is specific in the 10th Amendment against federal tyranny. The southern states exercised their option and surrendered.
HOWEVER NOW I don’t believe the rust belt now has the financial power to hold the individual states hostage if the states decide to form a different Republic. A 235 year old contract is still clearly a contract unless 35 states declare it null and void OR the Federal government breaks it’s end of the contract, which it clearly has.
We didn’t have the right to leave the British Empire either, according to King George. Yet here we are. Ponder that for a moment.