The Ominous ‘S-Word’ – Secession

Big Government ^ | 3-31-10 | Timothy H. Lee

[GonzoGOP]

Don't you think they deserved a say in the matter before being screwed over?

What I think doesn't figure into it. There are no critera stated therefore there are only two options. (1) You can't do it. (2) You don't need to justify why you did it. In the example you gave about taking Jim's servers with you the answer is that you don't have the right to do it. No matter what justification for taking the servers you give.

Since the constitution does not place any requirements on secession they would not be required to pay any debts or return any properties. Of course what the law requires and what you are likely to get away with are two very different matters. You can walk into a biker bar, insult the biggest guy in the room, his gang, his mother, and his bike and then try to walk out. While everything you did was covered under freedom of speech and association you are highly unlikely to reach the door without a fight.

[Non-Sequitur]

However, it was not the only issue.

It was by far the single most important issue, above and beyond all other issues you might claim combined. I will go so far as to say take out slavery and leave every other issue you care to mention and the South doesn't rebel. Leave slavery and take away everything else and the South still rebels. And the speeches and writings of the men of the period supports that.

You always pop up on these threads with nothing but antagonism for Southerners.

For example? Unless you're counting any disagreement at all with the Southron side of the issue 'antagonism'. Other than that you tell me just how my antagonism has manifested itself on anything but the topic of the Soutehrn rebellion?

While slavery was a detestable institution, the South did fight with bravery and honor.

And where did I ever say they did not?

I have not once seen a positive depiction of any Southerners in your posts.

So what exactly are you looking for me to say? What Southeron myths am I expected to embrace so you can say I'm depicting the South in a positive light?

We even have a better cause this time.

And you can dream of your Confederacy v2.0 all you want. I won't stop you.

[Chickensoup]

Personally I think there will be partitioning.

[Non-Sequitur]

Since the constitution does not place any requirements on secession they would not be required to pay any debts or return any properties.

So what you want us to believe is that the Constitution protects those who are leaving and not those who are staying. That those who are leaving can take any action they want, regardless of the impact on the remaining states, and there is nothing those states can do. They have no choice, no say in the matter, no protections afforded by the Constitution at all. The Constitution is, in effect, a club that the seceding states can use at will to batter the remaining states with. So do you really think that the Founders would have signed on to an idea like that? That the Constitutional solution is one guaranteed to foster bitterness and acrimony, and is likely to lead to war? Do you really expect us to believe that?

[GonzoGOP]

So what you want us to believe is that the Constitution protects those who are leaving and not those who are staying.

No what I believe personally is that, like your example about the servers secession is simply illegal, and as such the laundry list of reasons, northern aggressions, and such are superfluous to the argument.

Showing that the law is by its nature binary forces people to address the absurdity of the secession as a legal act argument. The founding fathers showed considerable insight when they wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights. They anticipated that a president might need t obe removed, and wrote criteria and procedures for doing it. They anticipated that new states would be added and wrote criteria and procedures for adding them. They recognized that the congress might pass unconstitutional laws, and wrote criteria and procedures for the supreme court to overturn them. They anticipated that the constitution would need to change and wrote criteria and procedures for amendments. Yet they wrote no criteria or procedures for secession. Therefore the only two logically sound arguments are that there are absolutely no criteria or restrictions on secession or conversely that it is illegal under all circumstances.

This is the classic argument between law and justice. If an action is legal it does not need to be justified. Simply show that the criteria are met and walk away. Since there are no criteria for secession in the constitution in order to accept its legality we must accept that anyone can leave the union at any time with no responsibilities or duties attached, and no justifications required.

In 1776 the 13 colonies rebelled. When the founding fathers rebelled they never pretended what they were doing was legal. The famous statement that we must all hang together or we will surely all hang separately, and their pledge of their lives property and sacred honor acknowledged that if they failed they expected to pay the ultimate price. A rebellion might be justified, but we should never pretend that it is legal. The fact that the pro-Confederate faction spends so much time trying to justify their actions testifies to the fact that they know darn well it wasn't legal.

[ohioman]

Jesus Man. I do want the confederacy v2.0, nor did I ever day that. I want the entire country to be free of socialism, which is the Democratic party. Secession would be the last thing on the To Do list. If all went to hell, Revolution would be much more practical.

[ohioman]

Jesus Man. I do NOT want the confederacy v2.0, nor did I ever SAY that. I want the entire country to be free of socialism, which is the Democratic party. Secession would be the last thing on the To Do list. If all went to hell, Revolution would be much more practical.

[MrB]

Say, would there be any difference between “secession” and asserting, nay, INSISTING on 10th amendment sovereignty and not allowing federal laws outside of Art I Sec 8 to be enforced within the state?

[GonzoGOP]

Say, would there be any difference between “secession” and asserting, nay, INSISTING on 10th amendment sovereignty and not allowing federal laws outside of Art I Sec 8 to be enforced within the state?

Three big differences. (1)The state remains in the union. (2) The state continues to recognize the constitution (10th Amendment) is the supreme law of the land. (3)The dispute is mediated by the supreme court following it's constitutionally assigned duty to resolve laws that are in conflict with each other and/or the constitution.

[MrB]

Your number 3 is where the rub is.

The USSC is a MEMBER of one party of the contract called the Constitution.

They are conflicted and cannot be trusted to render an unbiased “interpretation” of that contract.

[Non-Sequitur]

I do want the confederacy v2.0, nor did I ever day that.

But under confederacy v1.0 you had a president who consolidated power at the expense of the states in ways Lincoln never dreamed of. Where the government literally took over whole industries like salt and textiles. Where the government proposed income taxes that were confiscatory in nature. Where the president ignored the constitution at will. Where private property such as farm produce or slave labor or cargo space on privately owned ships could be taken by the government without compensation 'for the war effort'. Where people were locked up without trial on the authority of government appointed 'habeas corpus commissioners'. That's the ideal you have for the U.S.?

I don't think that any rational person would deny that we have fallen far afield from what the Founding Fathers vision for this country was. Nor would any rational person deny that this country currently is on a self-destructive course and that it should be halted. But let's not pretend that the confederacy was or would have wound up being a whole lot better. Or that the Davis regime should be our model going forward. I think we have a lot better examples to follow than that.

[GonzoGOP]

They are conflicted and cannot be trusted to render an unbiased “interpretation” of that contract

Interpretation of the constitution is the only constitutionally sanctioned duty of the supreme court. If they cannot do that, then the institution should be eliminated.

It goes back to my earlier argument of law vs rebellion. If you can no longer trust either the Congress, the Supreme Court or the Executive to uphold the constitution it is time for a rebellion. It may be justified, but it cannot be legal. Since what you are doing is throwing the entire body of law into the dumpster with the intention of writing a new body of laws.

[GonzoGOP]

P.S. Did i not say that the binary argument would make your head explode :)

[Outlaw Woman]

Which side would prosper and experience an influx of migration from the other?

Ticks always go where the blood supply is.

[ohioman]

You like to put words in people’s mouth and then endlessly expound upon it. I have never said that the confederacy or the Davis regime were the model to follow. The hope is that the current South will never give in to an overbearing and socialist Federal Government. In fact, the current South is closer (politically) to what this country ought to be like than anywhere in the country. Of course some of the cities are liberal cesspools everywhere and this is more of a city vs. rural fight. Put the rebellious nature of the South is certainly a plus in this day and age.

[southernsunshine]

Thank you!

Always good to see that even when individuals do not agree on some subjects, a helping hand is still extended.

[Non-Sequitur]

You like to put words in people’s mouth and then endlessly expound upon it. I have never said that the confederacy or the Davis regime were the model to follow.

You did in the response directed to me. You sent the correction to yourself and I didn't see it until after I responded.

In fact, the current South is closer (politically) to what this country ought to be like than anywhere in the country.

We in the great plains and Rocky Mountain states might disagree with that. When four of the last six presidents have been Southerners and when many of the biggest pork-barrel congressmen and senators are Southerners then it's pretty clear that the South may talk a good game but in the end it's mostly talk.

[ohioman]

I actually like the rural plains states and the Rocky Mountain areas. Really, not much difference in them than conservative folks in the South. The Southern politicians who are a problem have one thing in common - they are all liberals. However, most would agree that (in general) the South is the most conservative part of the country.

[rockrr]

Thanx Noni - I’ve updated my bookmark.

[Non-Sequitur]

The Southern politicians who are a problem have one thing in common - they are all liberals.

Bush, McConnell, Frist, Shellby, et.al. are liberals? The first three oversaw a near doubling of our debt and a tremendous increas in the size of government and the last is one of the biggest entitlement hogs going.