Skip to comments.Dear Arizona; Has SCOTUS made secession your only option
Posted on 06/25/2012 12:13:28 PM PDT by Bob Ireland
click here to read article
SCOTUS is a bunch of chicken**** cowards. Barry made them wet their robes. Let the invasion of the southwest by latin America roll on!
I won’t go to the re-education camp because I’d rather stand on my feet and die fighting.
Secession is not a legal option.
The only way to constitutionally get out of the Union is to have Congress pass a law excluding a state or states. And that may not even be constitutional.
Madison declared once in the Union always in the Union.
Maybe a constitutional convention or amendment might make it possible. But possible or not it is a very bad idea and would lead to far more troubles than it would solve.
Besides Sheriff Joe is not too upset by the ruling.
I think we should just stop paying federal taxes. We can bring this regime to its knees by starving it.
But I don’t see a coordinated effort happening. Too many people don’t have the spine to break the law even though this administration has done so repeatedly and Congress won’t stop it.
A law passed back under Jimmy Carter made it a violation of federal law to kill or harm a federal employee, appointee or elected member of Congress, etc.
It should be the most trivial of exercises to EXCLUDE those folks from state and local protection in case of accidents, killings, robberies, etc.
Just wait on the FBI to find the bodies, or the injured parties, and tend to them.
Won’t happen. The most probable outcome will be that Arizona writes a new law that creatively plugs whatever holes caused it to not receive SCOTUS blessing that attempts to plug the leak.
I can see a situation where they create a law that requires specific identification for actions that fall under State authority and once that is in place, they can arrest anyone who doesn’t have that identification, irregardless of suspicion of citizenship status. Then, once they are in custody, a background check will be done, immigration status one of the factors.
Of course, the civil libertarians will throw a fit.
“Secession is not a legal option”
BS. The way the Constitution works is unless a power was explicitly sacrificed by the states it is reserved for the states or the people. Cf. the tenth amendment. There need not be a secession process drawn out for it to be legal. Since the Constitution does not say that the union is perpetual, and does not say that the states cannot secede, they can secede.
This is elementary. If the states had known in 1789 that the union was perpetual they never would have ratified it. Everyone knows that.
By the way, if it’s not legal, so what? Then it’s a revolution. Declaring independce wasn’t legal, nor was replacing the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution.
“Madison declared once in the Union always in the Union.”
He should have declared it in the Constitution.
“possible or not it is a very bad idea and would lead to far more troubles than it would solve”
Maybe, maybe not. I’m thinking more and more things might’ve been better had we just let the South go.
Secession is not a legal option...
LOL - Of course it is not!
Rebellions, revolutions, and successions never are legal.
They are done in point of fact by locales, districts, areas or states, not by Federal law, and they are done because the controlling head of state has broken down into actions considered unlawful or repugnant to those so declaring - at gunpoint if needed.
Tea Party GET OUT THERE AND START THE SOUND AND FURY OF WE THE PEOPLE!
I am advocating sovereign [not individual] rebellion against tyranny!
The constitution merely changed the form of government of the union declared “perpetual” by the Articles.
Conditional ratification (the ability to rescind a ratification) was widely discussed at the state ratification conventions for the Constitution. The most direct comment came from the letter Madison wrote to Hamilton on the occasion of the NY state convention where the antis had Hamilton momentarily stymied. The constitution had already been written.
The Revolution was against the Royal government within which there was no representation and which our people had never given its consent and were not treated as “Englishmen”. You are advocating a revolution against a government which is of our own making and within which we have representation. It is silly to believe that anyone today could come up with something better without a massive restriction of the number of people who could vote.
Had the Union been split by the RAT Rebellion of 1861 you would probably be speaking German and saluting Hitler’s successor. There was nothing good or principled about the South’s stupidity, it was an IGnoble Cause from start to finish. That was what Washington warned about in his Farewell Address.
Let me know when the Committees of Correspondence form.
You know, of course, that the Colonials exhausted all forms of legal protest and attempted to have their concerns addressed for decades before Lexington.
So, you have a contract with someone, and they refuse to live up to that contract, but you are still obligated to remain in that contract and fulfill your part?
I realize “the other side” has a gun pointed at you, but that isn’t “legal”.
It’s actually not the SCOTUS that is the problem here,
but the 0bama administration’s refusal to cooperate with the part of the law they upheld.
Your position appears indefensible on both counts... but 'perilous times' for sure.
The part of the law that actually mattered to me, making TPD actually give a crap about illegals, stood. The rest was window dressing.
Only the original 13 would have any claim of preexistence outside the Union. And not even all of them had Constitutions in place prior to the Revolution.
FR has at least one decade! E.g. impeachment: 1998...
SCOTUS rulings become much more invasive over all law than you seem to realize. Do not look at this ruling as only applying to Arizona immigration problems. Antonin Sclaia has properly noted that this ruling eliminates 'State Sovereignty'.
Who do you think made this government? Aliens? It has grown into what it is because that is what the majority wanted. Our problem is not so much who is in it but that it reflects what the People have wanted. Without a massive change in how people think (mainly women actually) there will be no significant change.
Just because you do not like the representation or agree with it does not change the fact that we have it.
As bad as things seem we are no where near that point. The Statists of both parties will try to play us for as long as possible -- stealing our wealth and our Liberties.
The second reason it will not happen soon is that there a no elected leaders on the national scene that have the true love of Liberty to spearhead such a movement.
Sadly, I think we have many years, if not a decade or more of this growing tyranny before real change happens.
Executive fiat is not representation. The Caesars succeeded in eliminating the Roman Republic Senate in the same manner you prescribe... all by popular fiats.
It was the rest of the law I was describing as window dressing not the ruling. As for Scalia he’s about 35 years behind the curve. 55 MPH speed limit was the end of state sovereignty.
Didn’t a bunch of Southern States attempt the succession thing back in the 1860s? I think they called it The War Between the States or The Great Civil War.
This decision today is why it is imperative that the next SCOTUS appointee be a Conservative.
I can see you need to hyperventilate more to be at home on this thread.
LOL. Yeah I get that problem a lot.
The primary purpose of our current media-gov’t-academia complex is to elect a new people, i.e. eradicate White Christians from the U.S. body politic. They would respond to serious secession efforts with genocidal fury.
Aren’t we speaking of a Judicial finding here? Executive fiat in this Republic only applies to controls over the executive branch responsibilities.
Caesar eliminated the Republic by refusing to lay down the control over his ARMY which he brought back into Italy from Gaul. He and his successors ruled THROUGH the Senate no by executive fiat in any case. They never eliminated the Senate just its power.
Where did I “prescribe” anything? I only described.
Well, that is an opinion based on the result of a war.
As Ben Franklin said "Force sh*tes upon Reason's back."
Whatever eloquent argument one might make for the legality, constitutionality, etc., of a particular act, it really boils down to who has the ability to use force to enforce their desire.
Heck of a way to run things, but there you go.
“This decision today is why it is imperative that the next SCOTUS appointee be a Conservative.”
My belief is based upon the thoughts of the Founders and the meaning of a “constitution” not the result of that little dust-up of 1861-5.
You bring up a good point and one I have been ringing an alarm on for some years. Such laws as the 55 mile-an-hour speed limit had one limitation: the states did not have to abide by it, but they would lose federal funding for roads.
All these federal agencies can dictate to the states because they have the power to cut off federal funding for roads, housing, food stamps, welfare, health care, etc., etc.
The problem inherent there is that the federal govt. is taking too much $$$ out of our local communities so that we cannot provide the services we need by raising local taxes - Taxed Enough Already!
In the end it all comes back to the same issue: a federal govt that is run-away with all freedom and liberties.
...like john Roberts?
My point is simply that it is power, not reason, that ultimately decides such questions.
Secession is legal only to the extent that force allows it to succeed. Had the South won, it would have been “legal.” Because it lost, it was “illegal.”
This has been true throughout history. Peaceful secession is almost unheard of.
The Feds will just print what they don't steal. That isn't going to work.
That fits Venezuela and it almost fit Chile. I suppose the minority could just accept that as their fate and let liberty be taken because after all, it is what the majority wants. Does failing to effect a massive change in how people think mean we must accept tyranny? I'm all for changing peoples minds but you do reach a point where you say my liberty is more important than their comfort.
Exactly what the left has always wanted.
Doesn’t matter how many Illegals they arrest - the never-to-be-sufficiently-cursed President has ordered ICE not cooperate with AZ Law Enforcement on illegal aliens.
“The constitution merely changed the form of government of the union declared ‘perpetual’ by the Articles.”
Huh? No it didn’t. It replaced the Articles wholly, and illegally at that. Yeah, okay, so preamble says “a more perfect union,” but not I notice a more perfect perpetual union. If it wanted to remain perpetual, why didn’t it say so? What other phantom passages from the Articles are incorporated by the Constitution without it saying so? You and I know that the union that was supposed to be perpetual was specifically the union as outlined by the Articles.
This other union, the one we live in now, was not envisioned by the states when they agreed to the Articles. I know it was a new union because they had to agree again. Why go through the process of ratification if the states had sacrificed their sovereignty to the Articles and it was perpetual? Becuase for a new government to supercede the Articles the states had to agree, because they were still sovereign. In the exact same manner, they could agree to another new union different from the one according to the Constitution if they saw fit, because they are still sovereign.
To think they could shuck off one constitution, the Articles—and use their sovereignty to do so—and not another, the Constitution, is bonkers. I suppose you’ll say it was different than a seperate state or a group of states that isn’t all the states forming a new union because it’s all the states together as a union that’s the perpetual thing. You can organize them, shuffle them back and forth, make left right and up down, and change the form of government all you want, so long as they’re all still one union? That’s bunk. Know why? Because you resorted to asking the states’ permission on the pretext that they are sovereign. And you still call them sovereign. If by their sovereign power they can change the form of government of the union, then they can choose to be independent or link up with any number of states within or without the union.
The states came before the union. The union did not make the states. This whole idea that the union is the thing, that it is forever, and that the states can mold it any way they want but can’t escape it is Lincolnian nonsense. It is after the fact rationalization because you’ve lived within the union all your life, think it’s natural, and can’t imagine the states without it. But they didn’t have to link up, didn’t have to seek independence together, and don’t have to stay united. That they did is an accident of history. It does not have to stay that way.
By the way, even if the Articles said they were for a perpetual union, it still says, and it also says in the Constition, that the states are sovereign, no? The Articles created a confederation of sovereign states, as I understand it. What does it mean to be sovereign except that the states reserve the right to leave the union? You can’t be sovereign if you’ve given up your sovereignty. That makes no sense.
“Conditional ratification (the ability to rescind a ratification) was widely discussed at the state ratification conventions for the Constitution. The most direct comment came from the letter Madison wrote to Hamilton on the occasion of the NY state convention where the antis had Hamilton momentarily stymied. The constitution had already been written.”
I don’t really understand your point here. But let me say, conditional ratification wouldn’t have to be written into the Constitution. The tenth amendment didn’t have to be written, either, but it makes clear that all powers not granted to the federal government by the Constitution are reserved by the states or the people. The Constitution therefor did not have to tell the states they still had the right to leave after ratification.
Ratification was de jure conditional, even if that wasn’t made explicit. It didn’t have to be explicit. You have the Constitution backwards.
You keep referencing Madison, and I’ll just assume you’re right about him. What about the scores of people then and later, Northern, Souther, and Western, who explicitly asserted or acted as if they believed in retained sovereignty and the right of secession? Do they not count?
“The Revolution was against the Royal government within which there was no representation and which our people had never given its consent and were not treated as ‘Englishmen’”
So? What is the point, here? You’re talking about the reasons for seperation, whereas I thought the argument was over its legality. Much rides on your point about consent, though not so much as you seem to think. So they never gave consent. I’m not sure it matters, since the colonies can be seen as creations of the crown instead of the states as creators of the union. But nevermind, what does it mean to consent? Consent once and that’s it? You can never take it back? Does that represent sovereignty to you?
The colonies revolted as corporate agents of the people against their having been denied the rights of Englishmen. They can do so again against the U.S. under the Constitution, for denying the people their rights or for any old reason. That’s what sovereignty actually means.
“You are advocating a revolution against a government which is of our own making and within which we have representation”
So? Governments properly formed and constituted can become destructive of the ends of liberty. Anywa, the states are still sovereign. They can secede for good or bad reasons; it doesn’t matter. I don’t recall the Declaration declaring:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed 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, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Unless at some time in the past they agreed to it, and they have representation of some sort. Then they’re screwed and have to stick with whatever government.”
Pretending as if onloy the War for Indepence was justified and the states revolting against anything else out of bounds is ex post rationalizing and cherry-picking. Your argument is the exact same anyone arguing for the colonial system or the Articles of Confederation as perpetual.
“It is silly to believe that anyone today could come up with something better without a massive restriction of the number of people who could vote.”
So? I still fail to see your point. Could you form a coherent argument, please? So it’d be silly, or undemocratic, or whatever. What does that have to do with its legality? What does that have to do with, if it’s illegal, being different than the illegal revolution or usurpation of the Articles?
“Had the Union been split by the RAT Rebellion of 1861 you would probably be speaking German and saluting Hitlers successor”
There is no basis for this in fact or whimsy. If the nazis couldn’t invade across the Channel, certainly they couldn’t across the Atlantic. Whence this notion that the U.S. was in any direct danger from nazi Germany? I don’t get it. Must be because people cling to the illusion that we only fight wars of existential self-defense.
“Had the Union been split by the RAT Rebellion of 1861 you would probably be speaking German and saluting Hitlers successor. There was nothing good or principled about the Souths stupidity, it was an IGnoble Cause from start to finish.”
Are we talking about the legality of secession as such, or beating up on the South? Let me join in: damn rebel redneck hillbilly racist human rights abusing jerkfaces. That being said, they had every right to leave the union.