Secession: It's constitutional (Walter E. Williams offers evidence from .... U.S. history)

WND ^ | November 27, 2012 | Walter E. Williams

[I_be_tc]

Later

[Boogieman]

"The ratifications of the Articles of Confederation and the Declaration of Independence are among the “Engagements” the Constitution commits to recognizing as the “supreme Law of the Land....”"

Hold on a minute. You originally said the prohibition against secession was explicitly stated in the Constitution, but now your argument is that secession is banned in the Articles of Confederation, which you claim are implicitly (and not specifically) recognized by the Constitution. So which is it?

[MeganC]

“They will (buy) oil (from) the open market.”

Not when these are the same people who would ban an open market given half a chance.

“You are being a little dramatic.”

Nope. I’ve a decent grasp of the history of the past 100 years and I know what happens when leftists get to impose their will on a country. People starve and dissidents die. Every time.

[Boogieman]

“There is a principle in law where precedent acts are given full faith and credit until and unless they are explicitly reprealed.”

There’s also a principle in law that if any legislation conflicts with the natural law and rights of man, it is invalid on its face. Hence, any proposal that would limit the right of self-determination, whether it be in the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution, or an act of Congress, would be worthless. You simply cannot constrain people perpetually to one form of government; it’s not feasible or enforceable, and it could never be lawful, no matter what authority you appeal to.

[MamaTexan]

St. George Tucker is one of the jurists the Confederacy relied upon heavily to threaten the Republic with secession throughout the early 19th Century to intimidate anti-slavery states and proponents.

St. George Tucker was in the Revolutionary War and rose to the rank of Colonel. He communicated regularly with members of Congress, a fact proven by doing a search here:
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/hlawquery.html
for the exact phrase St. George Tucker, brings up ONE HUNDRED returns.

His Annotated version of Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England [of which the view of the Constitution is a part] was one of the reasons President Madison appointed him a Judge of the Virginia District Court, and his annotated Blackstone volumes are among the leather bound tomes found behind every practicing lawyer’s desk in the country.

****

Your interpretation that he was in error is untrue. His View is the single most important work in discerning Original Intent.

-----

So, St. George Tucker’s arguments lack credibiioty and were overruled by the Supreme Court of the United States in Texas v. White.

Oh, really? That's odd. The USSC didn't think he was 'lacking credibility' when they recently QUOTED his work in a RKBA case.

St. George Tucker, Northwestern University Law Review Largely forgotten today, Tucker returned to some legal prominence last Term, when the majority in District of Columbia v. Heller cited his annotated Blackstone’s Commentaries as proof that the Second Amendment had originally been understood as an individual right to arms.

-----

You speak of lack of credibility and adherence to the Constitution and actions 'pursuant thereof' so DO please show us WHERE in the Constitution or the Judiciary Act of 1789 the Supreme Court has either original or appellate jurisdiction to hear a case between a State and one of its own Citizens'

As posted earlier, Madison stated the USSC had no authority to judge the Rights of the parties to the Compact.

---------

BTW - I'm STILL waiting for you to give an exact source for the basis of your claims. Constantly telling me how WRONG I am without any support for you argument whatsoever is not a debate, it's just a childish pissin' contest.

[Nowhere Man]

Well, no. The Confederates fought for the right of white men to govern themselves, and to also forcibly govern black men.

Actually the Civil War started over economic trade, slavery was a later side issue that came into being to find another way to beat up the Confederates on. Although slavery was wrong, Lincoln really did not care one way or the other. I think if the South had won, IMHO, I think slavery would not have lasted too long, maybe by 1900 it would have been gone with the advent of the internal combustion engine and the electric motor. Beyond that, speculating, there could have been a drive to resettle freed slaves in Africa, most likely Liberia. I'm into "alternate history," i.e., "what-if."

There is a darker version of a Southern victory where the South lost WWI and they became the analogue of Nazi Germany where they had concentration camps and the Blacks took place of the Jews. I doubt it would have gone that far, just my take.

It is a real tragedy that the secession movement was tainted by and based on the desire to perpetuate and expand slavery. The idea of secession in and of itself is not inherently wrong.

Agreed. Secession happened many times, peacefully and not peacefully. Take Czechoslovakia, they split peacefully, also the old USSR split with relative peace.

It comes down to this. Unless the two, or more, parties agree to a peaceful split, it comes down to the one who is seceding where if they have enough force to stand on their own and tell the party they are breaking off of to "go fly a kite" and fight them off well enough to make it too much of a cost for the unionists to keep them in the union. You got to be able to cash the checks you write. A big plus is recognition from other countries, preferably other foreign powers with the ability to broker a deal favorable to you and/or provide you with military aid.

Some examples, had the South won Gettysburg, there was word the UK would come in to broker a deal and/or aid the South. If you go by the John Titor story, the rebels, which Titor was a part of were greatful to the Russians launching nukes to some of our cities since those were enemy strongholds. Actually, the Russians were worried because they did not know who was in control over here.

Well, that's my take.

[beelzepug]

Not what I meant.

“...any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

I have always taken this phrase to meaning exactly what it says, “... the constitution (of any state) or the laws of any state...” But I have had arguments with people who see a comma that is not there and believe it to mean “...the (federal) Constitution, or the laws of any state to the contrary, not withstanding.”

Since the founders were so damned prolific with their use of commas that their meaning is often confusing - 2nd Amendment, anyone? - I usually assume that when a comma isn’t there, it wasn’t supposed to be.

I’m also assuming you are a lawyer or have some sort of legal background as you seem to be quite well versed in the Constitution and so forth. I have no legal education at all, but I do refer to that document frequently as well as things like my well-worn copy of the Federalist Papers and other writings of the period. Please don’t take any disagreement we may have on this topic as bad attitude on my part. I just enjoy arguing with people who make a point and stick with it, rather than resorting to name-calling.

[MamaTexan]

Grotius, Locke, Strabo, Aristotle, and others are among the many contributors to these legal principles

You forgot Pufendorf.

I've read them, and so did the Founders, but only ONE Law of Nations was purchased for use in Congress.

Journal of the Senate of the United States of America / Monday / March 10, 1794 / Volume 2 / page 44
Ordered, That the Secretary purchase Blackstone's Commentaries, and Vattel's Law of Nature and Nations, for the use of the Senate.
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsj&fileName=002/llsj002.db&recNum=42&itemLink=D?hlaw:13:./temp/~ammem_LF5V::%230020043&linkText=1

[meadsjn]

Fine, go ahead and act like one of the profane Libtards. We’ll throw your profane ass into a Federal prison along with anyone else committing subversion and treason against the People of the United States and the Constitution for attempting unconstitutional secession and subversion of the Republican form of government mandated by the Constitution.

You've tried to stifle discussion of this article by calling Walter Williams a liar; then by trying to sidetrack the discussion into one about the Civil War; then with the meaningless insertion of the Articles of Confederation.

None of that stopped the discussion, or killed the thread.

Now you're resorting to personal threats against the commenters.

Now that there is some Alinskyite, communist tactics.

[Psalm 144]

This system you would make eternal is a perversion.

It will die.

[donmeaker]

I agree that a government should not use force to deprive people of liberty. How horrible it was that the state governments illegally committed insurrection, denying the liberty and union to their citizens, and raising forces to back that insurrection with war.

The southern slave power’s insurrection began the war. Based on that, the US government put down the insurrection. As part of the means necessary to put down the insurrection, slavery in areas in rebellion was ended. After the insurrection was over, the states by constitutional amendment ended slavery in the rest of the country.

[x]

Bumper sticker seen in South Carolina

"Too Small For a Republic and Too Large For an Insane Asylum."

[Psalm 144]

“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.”

Perhaps you will live long enough to find this coerced “Union” dissolved.

On your watch.

[donmeaker]

A state can secede, by constitutional amendment, perhaps by mere federal law, or by successful supreme court case.

No state can by itself secede. The Union wrote the declaration of independence, the union was made perpetual by the articles of confederation, and the union was made more perfect by the current constitution, to include its provisions for amendment.

The precedent denying secession by state action alone is Texas v. White.

[donmeaker]

Lincoln didn’t start the war. He did a pretty good job of winning it though.

[x]

Especially since if secession ever came close to happening the economy and dollar would crash so fast that it would create such panic that Liberals would riot and burn down their own cities. The remaining United States would be too busy trying to keep control of its cities to even attempt to do something about the states leaving.

"Liberals" meaning pointy-headed intellectuals who can't park their bicycles straight and are always talking about recycling and solar energy? Doesn't seem very likely.

If there's rioting there'd be more in cities in areas that plan to secede -- and possibly open warfare. It's not like everyone would be united on secession. So I'm pretty sure that our country and government wouldn't be as incapacitated as you say.

[iowamark]

The Heritage Foundation: “Can individual states secede from the United States?”

http://www.heritage.org/initiatives/first-principles/basics#can-individual-states-secede-from-the-united-states

[donmeaker]

No, each state did not hold a secession convention, though some did. Each state that pretended to secession had its own notion as to what process would be most convincing. None of them submitted a federal suit to the supreme court, which is the constitutional means to resolve controversies between the states and the federal government.

They all missed the one way that would have been legal. That was because they all recognized that they had no legal case. Rather, they planned to use force to support their insurrection. They lost.

The war saved lives. If the rebels had won, WWI would have had its branch in North America, and millions of US and pretended confederate soldiers would have fought and died then too. By contrast the 11 million killed in WWII had only about 100,000 US soldiers.

[donmeaker]

Oh we just have to shrug for a while until they realize that the community organizer lied to them. I don’t think I would want to be in his shoes when they figure it out.

[MrChips]

Yeah he did.