Posted on 11/28/2012 9:42:40 AM PST by Perseverando
For decades, it has been obvious that there are irreconcilable differences between Americans who want to control the lives of others and those who wish to be left alone. Which is the more peaceful solution: Americans using the brute force of government to beat liberty-minded people into submission, or simply parting company? In a marriage, where vows are ignored and broken, divorce is the most peaceful solution. Similarly, our constitutional and human rights have been increasingly violated by a government instituted to protect them. Americans who support constitutional abrogation have no intention of mending their ways.
Since Barack Obama’s re-election, hundreds of thousands of petitioners for secession have reached the White House. Some people have argued that secession is unconstitutional, but there’s absolutely nothing in the Constitution that prohibits it. What stops secession is the prospect of brute force by a mighty federal government, as witnessed by the costly War of 1861. Let’s look at the secession issue.
At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, a proposal was made to allow the federal government to suppress a seceding state. James Madison, the acknowledged father of our Constitution, rejected it, saying: “A Union of the States containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. 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.”
On March 2, 1861, after seven states had seceded and two days before Abraham Lincoln’s inauguration, Sen. James R. Doolittle of Wisconsin proposed a constitutional amendment that said, “No State or any part thereof, heretofore admitted or hereafter admitted into the Union, shall have the power to withdraw from the jurisdiction of the United
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Also, treaties do not trump the bill of rights.
There is a principle in law where precedent acts are given full faith and credit until and unless they are explicitly reprealed. The Constitutional Convention was convened to improve the Articles of Confederation. Today’s commentators often observe how the delegates to the Constitutional Convention exceeded their authority by authoring a replacement for the Articles of Confederation rather than simply amending the Article of Confederation. These same commentators are mistaken and wrong in those statements. The delegates pushed their authority to the limits, but they never did replace the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution. Instead, they technically complied with their grant of authority by extending the original “Enagements” such as the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation by writing the Constitution “to form a more perfect Union” that incorporated the prior Engagements and laws while superceding others with the revised provisions in the Constitution. This is further evidenced by the Constitution not reiterating or being redundant in such matters as to how the “Stile” of the United States of America would ermain the same or the States would remain Sates in the Perpetual Union even though they had not yet ratified the Constitution. The authros of the Constitution remained within their grants of authority by improving the Articles of Confederation with the extending Constitution and not by scrapping and replacing the Articles of Confederation altogether.
Untrue. The States seceded from the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, and the first legal treatise written after Ratification acknowledged both the secession from the Articles AND the continued right to do so under the Constitution.
And since the seceding states, by establishing a new constitution and form of federal government among themselves, without the consent of the rest, have shown that they consider the right to do so whenever the occasion may, in their opinion require it, as unquestionable, we may infer that that right has not been diminished by any new compact which they may since have entered into, since none could be more solemn or explicit than the first, nor more binding upon the contracting parties. Their obligation, therefore, to preserve the present constitution, is not greater than their former obligations were, to adhere to the articles of confederation; each state possessing the same right of withdrawing itself from the confederacy without the consent of the rest, as any number of them do, or ever did, possess.
Of the Several Forms of Government, St. George Tucker, View of the Constitution of the United States, Section XIII
“Any state seceeding would have to use force to evict the federal forces, and it would mean war.” - RF
I don’t think so. Just offer them citizenship, and a job in the new army.
Everyone that declines would have a set time period to go home to the fedgov controlled states.
Outside of that time period any holdout would be subject to (individual) arrest and deportation.
You have good points, the folks of 150 years ago were the rugged individual types capable of enduring hardship and living off the land.
The libs of today are crowded in small areas and totally dependent on one level of government or another for their mere existence. Being libs, few are armed and cannot think on their own, let alone figure out how to get the toilet to flush or feed themselves in a crisis. These people would unknowingly be the fifth column that would keep much of the federal forces busy.
Now the folks in the red states more closely resemble those of 150 years ago. Well armed, more apt to be self sufficient in a crisis.
Amen
Do we want to break away from today's Liberty Destroying Liberals or just sit around arguing semantics about a war 150 years ago that has little bearing on today's world?
But: ARTICLE II (Articles of Confederation) Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.
I would argue that by establishing a stronger bond among the states, the Constitution increased the risk and potential burden of the union and thus implicitly revoked the perpetuity, a case that is supported by a literal reading of both documents. To the extent that the Articles of Confederation carried over, the bold quote above would implicitly mean that the states regained all powers not expressly delegated to the United States under the Constitution, when the Constitution "supplemented, superseded . . ." the Articles. To the extent that the Articles did not carry over, the 10th Amendment would guarantee the same powers to the states. Either way, I disagree with most of your post.
Whether by Article II of the Articles or by the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, the assertion of perpetuity expired upon approval of the Constitution. I would prefer to see secession occur with the approval or at least peaceful acquiescence of the free state's government, of Congress, and of a majority of the remaining states. I would prefer to see secession occur without the need for armed rebellion. However, when the federal government has systematically violated the Constitution, the contract that governs the existing union, it is the right and possibly the duty of the states to sever that union over the breach of contract and of fundamental, God-given natural rights, as outlined in the Declaration of Independence. I do not consider my current position to be treason - I am advocating a legal position and a legal mutual separation. If the far left insists on war, then whether my position or actions are treason will be decided by the force of arms. If freedom loses, then my actions will probably be defined by the far left under the law as treason. If freedom wins, then I will be defined by the free states to be a patriot. If the far left permits free states to depart in peace, then there will be no need to discuss that issue at all.
If you weere to consult the works of the legal treatises on the law of Nations and the laws of warfare, you will find a considerable amount of discussion about the nature of a sovereign, sovereignty, and sovereign powers and duties. Grotius is of particular interest in this regard. One of the common themes is the circumstances and authorities under natural law, divine law, and customary law of nations whereby a sovereign can and cannot alienate the territory and people in his sovereign domain. One point of such a discussion is the common recognition that a sovereign must possess a power to alienate territory and citizens to at least some extent due to the need to negotiate peace with a belligerant sovereign in occupation of the territory and subjection of the citizens.
In the case of the United States of America, the Citizens are the co-sovereigns with their sovereign powers delegated to the States, the Congress, and the President of the United States. Just as a sovereign such as a totalitarian or absolute power monarch is deemed under customary law to have the power to alientate the sovereign’s domainand citizen’s, so too do the co-sovereigns of the United States by way of their dlegates as provided by the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution. This is why under the principles of law thousands of years old and the principles embraced by the Congress in the American Revolution the sovereign/s must consent to the alienation of territory and citizens to avoid such an alienation becoming an insurrection and/or rebellion forbidden by law.
So any seceding state would not only have to fight invading federal forces, it would at the same time have to fight an internal civil war to suppress dissent.
The core deep southern states = LA/MS/AL/GA/SC all have state populations >30% black, and increasing. There continues to be a significant population shift where black Americans are moving to the south.
Well aware of that. Should be a relevant point to those who want to secede. Nothing like a little race war tossed into your secession to liven things up.
Are you implicitly assuming that our current federal government is operating in accordance with the Constitution of the United States? Would it then be legal by your standards for a majority of states to expel the "blue states" from the Union? I'm okay with that option too, although I think your application of the "treason" rhetoric is entirely inappropriate to the situation, whether the issue is (1) secession of the states that want to be governed under a written Constitution with enumerated powers or (2) expulsion of the states that wanted to be ruled by an unlimited government presence operating under a "living constitution" that means whatever they want it to mean.
It is not treasonous to advocate for constitutional government in which the words of the constitution mean what they say. Personally, I consider it treasonous to advocate for continuing the massive overreach of federal intrusion into our lives, which directly violates the Constitution, although I prefer to avoid the "treason" discussion because the connotations distract from the legitimate arguments in favor of one position and interfere with identifying any legitimate arguments that the other side might have other than that hot-button word, "treason".
My argument is that the Constitution of the United States has been so altered by the courts and the Federal government as to be a breach of the original contract entered into by the states. As such it is null and void.
That is why I would hope to see a mutual agreement to separate - a no-fault divorce due to irreconcilable differences. With appropriate negotiation and compromise on federal debt, federal lands, and other issues, we could peacefully disentangle the Nanny States from the Free States. I will be moving from my Nanny State to a Free State at the first opportunity! My concern is that the Nanny Staters love power over others too much and would be unwilling to permit freedom to exist peacefully in an adjacent country.
No one seriously doubts that the enormous economic stake the South had in its slave labor force was a major factor in the sectional disputes that erupted in the middle of the nineteenth century.
I don’t see it happening. At worse, they’ll send in federal marshals which will be met in return by Texas Rangers. The governor will probably also call up the National Guard and have them swear allegiance to the Nation of Texas.
I don’t envision a wait and see situation. Congress will deadlock as usual. It would be a public relations nightmare for Obama, He won’t do any better than he has with anything else. The last thing he needs is for Texas to out and out prove the guy is useless. After he blows it with Texas, other states are going to get serious about bailing.
My guess is he won’t miss any time on the links. The country is already disintegrating under him.
Well, I share your sentiments but I think it would play out bloody and vicious until the whole structure is so rotten and decrepit that it collapses like the Soviet Union. I don’t think we are there yet. I do think it is on the horizon...
You are pushing a false and dishonest argument. You are at the very least being dishonest with yourself. Our Republic is setup for us to govern ourselvees. yet everywhere I turn I find people who complain about being helpless to change the government, yet they by the vast majority never attend political meetings, vote at those meetings, write political planks or write such planks that conform to the Constitution or conservative principles. U.S. Citizens have within their power to remove and/or vote out the Obama Administration, but they flat refuse to do so. Even now conservatives and the Republican Party could deny the Electoral College a quorum and force the election of the Presideent into the House of Representatives for their vote. Yet, the conservatives in this forum and the Republican Party recoil in horror at any suggestion that such a Constitutional election could be used to remedy the illegal and unCconstiutiional vote fraud. I have no patience with subversivee talk of secession when the opportunities for self-goernment are so woefully neglected and even reviled amoong the propneents of illegal secession.
It should also be remembered that the Communists have lusted for a century to incite the disunion of the United States through just such secession protests. I take a dim view of any efforts to subvert the Union and self-government I and my ancestors sacrificed so much to create for the past 400 years. Secession is a cause of last resort, and the circumstances justifying the abandonment of the last 233 years of efforts to protect and defend the Republican form of self-government and the Union are nowhere close to existence. Rather than help the marxists and Communists to destroy the Union, we all need to be dedicated to protecting the Unioin and defeating its invasion and subversion by all enemies, foreing and domestice, marxist and conservative.
Back to work to do what? Keep Boehner, Cantor and their pitiful ilk in power?
To hell with the GOP. They are becoming worse than the Dems.
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.