If We Leave, Will You let Us Leave In Peace?

Dunno, WMD's probably.​

 

The historical precedent of the Civil War suggests otherwise.

 

1860 was a very different world from 2012.

 

You can't cite historical precedent, and then suggest historical precedent doesn't apply.

 

I didn't say historical precedent doesn't apply.

 

Just the civil war?

 

Secession will never happen again.

But....

What we will see is Balkanization of the various states and groups of states as the federal government becomes too corrupt or too inept to do it's duty. Eventually, the federal government will be like a tree that is rotting from the inside...unable to bear fruit. When that happens it will die and another tree (or several) will take root in its soil.

 

No, it applies, but in context of the discussion I'm referring to post-WWI.

 

The will of the people and/or force of arms tend to overturn such judicial rulings in extreme circumstances.

 

What about Kurdistan?

 

So, in the topic of "will you let us leave in peace", you're suggesting that a military junta should override the Supreme Court?

And the "will of the people" doesn't override the Constitution, no.

 

LOL... Peacefully.

 

More accurately, the constitution is the will of the people. Carefully considered, eloquently expressed and legally certified.​

 

Here's what I think:

Secession is a constitutional power of states under the 9th and 10th Amendments to the US Constitution. As no amendment was ever ratified which would deprive the states of that provision, it is safe to assume said power does exist under the Constitution. However, the nature of the United States has not remained the same over the years, and certainly if the federal government would not allow seceding states to part peacefully the first time, there is little reason to suspect secession would happen peacefully today - nobody even wants to consider it, really, for fear of being called a racist (strange as it may seem, there are still people who think the War Between the States was a war on slavery) or a 'neo-Confederate' (???).

One of my personal heroes, William Lloyd Garrison, a libertarian abolitionist and author of "The Liberator", supported the notion of the Northern states seceding from the Union to aid in the abolition of slavery - it isn't just some backward idea only used to support involuntary servitude. The South had the better of the constitutional argument in the action of seceding (President James Buchanan, Jr., not the best president, nonetheless partially recognized this when he realized he had no constitutional authority to interfere with Southern secession, though he, like Lincoln and Johnson and so forth, rejected the notion that secession itself was constitutional). Also, secession was an important reserved right for states when the US Constitution was being ratified - they fought for self-government, and they wanted to preserve their self-government. The Southern states fought for their self-government, and lost. The Compact Theory and strict constructionism today have been largely abandoned.

Short answer: The "federal empire" will try to stop you, and likely will succeed, so good luck.

 

Even more accurately It's the will of the people then that the judiciary decide matters of constitutionality, and not random mobs of citizens.

 

Which is the exact reason that Texas v. White included a judicial dicta indicating that "consent of the States" would allow for secession. Basically, via a Constitutional Amendment.

Supreme Court disagrees with you.

Since the determination on Constitutionality is left to the Supreme Court, and not you, I'm going to go with them being right. Feel free to provide legal citation for it being Constitutional.

The South never seceded. The Southern states were in rebellion against the United States. Just like the Whiskey Rebellion, declaring yourself not subject to federal laws, does not have a legal basis.

It is fairly explicit. The Southern states were in Rebellion. The President is authorized to subdue Rebellions as needed.

Short answer: There is no Constitutional basis for it.

 

That was Lincoln's position at the time he was in office.

Short response: I don't care.

Why would, multiple times, states threaten secession before the Civil War, had it never been constitutional? I tell you, in the plain words of the Constitution, secession is legal since it was never made illegal (the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union were no longer in effect, you don't get to pick and choose which parts of it remain in force otherwise. The documents contradict each other.)

The Articles of Confederation, Mr. FactChecker, were replaced by the US Constitution and its Bill of Rights. Who goes back to the Articles of Confederation to judge if their government is or is not abusing their power? The Supreme Court is not God; it does not have the exclusive final say on Constitutionality. The President does. The Congress does. The states do. We uphold the Constitution, not the Supreme Court's ever-changing interpretation of the Constitution.

[HR][/HR]

The 10th Amendment says that all powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the states are reserved to the states or to the people. The 9th Amendment says that just because a power/right is not specifically enumerated in the Constitution does not mean said right does not exist.

In a letter written in September of 1803, Thomas Jefferson wrote that "Our peculiar security is in possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction." Thomas E. Woods mentions that the idea of having a "living, breathing Constitution" is the very system that the Revolution was fought against - the British government deciding what was 'constitutional' and what was not, and using this to increase their grip on the British American colonies, and in effect, decreasing the colonists' self-government.

I'm not inclined to agree with the unaccountable, practically unchecked federal government's judgement as long as it declares itself to be the sole arbiter of its own power, and I will say no more on this point.

[HR][/HR]
Afterthought:
And even if you agree with the Supreme Court, I don't care. If (and how this would be is beyond me) they are right, I don't care. Here one may fall back on natural law and argue that the government itself is an illegitimate and criminal institution with no rightful place in society, and thus declare its laws null and void, anyway, and not be wrong in doing so. Now, it may be incredibly imprudent and foolish of him to do so, but nonetheless, he would be right. Thus, even if secession is not granted to us by the government's law, we may fall back on natural law and say that the government and its law do not conform to the natural law. Of course, this in particular is not at all the argument I need to make here, but again, I don't care .

[HR][/HR]

I seem to be suffering from too many choices of where I might take the argument; I can't seem to choose, I apologize.

 

So, it is your position that a State is incapable of attempting to enact something unconstitutional?

Except that, according to the Supreme Court, secession was and is illegal. I suggest you take a thorough read of Texas v. White. Furthermore, that wouldn't be "in the plain words of the Constitution". That is called an implication, drawn on inference. Specifically, an inference made by deductive reasoning.

You're absolutely correct. Which is why they addressed exactly that, in their statement. The differences in the formation of the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, versus the Constitution, is very important in understanding the original intent of the founders. This is how Constitutional law works. The opinion mentioned the Articles of Confederation specifically to address the parts that were changed, and why. The Articles stated (Article XIII):

As the Supreme Court noted

Basically, the change in wording from the Articles to the Constitution, indicated that declaring the union to "be perpetual" was insufficient. Thus, the Constitution was written in such a manner as "to form a more perfect Union." The implication of the phrase, based on the context of the time, indicates that Constitution was written such that States were not subject to withdrawal or dissolution. That is not indicating the primacy of the Articles, but rather, using them as historical context in understanding the Constitution.

It is very true that the Constitution is subject to change via Congress/the States through a Constitutional Amendment. It is not, however, their realm to determine the meaning of the existing Constitution (including amendments). That belongs exclusively to the Supreme Court.

Also, your emphasis of the word interpretation, indicates a lack of familiarity with the word. I suggest you understand it before using it again. On behalf of everybody who actually studies constitutional law, we're sick of explaining it. It's in the dictionary.

Which is how you arrived at your conclusion. However, in a more thorough analysis of the Constitution, such a right does not exist.

The citizens of the United States are free to amend the Constitution as they see fit. If the Supreme Court rules that something is Unconstitutional, but the citizens want that right, they have the capacity to make alterations such that it is Constitutional. It is not, however, subject to the whims of individuals. There are three methods by which the Constitution can be amended. If you want the right to unilateral secession, you may pursue any of them that you wish.

What you may not do, however, is unilaterally apportion yourself the Constitutional authority to deprive other citizens of their Constitutional rights.

"The Federal Government" is not a single amorphous entity. "The Federal Government" is a carefully designed system of checks and balances, that retains the rights of the individuals to limit their power. You not availing yourself of the options available to you does not constitute a failure on the Federal Government's part.

It isn't about agreement. That's what I don't think you're getting. It is a fact that unilateral secession is illegal. Your acceptance or rejection of this fact does not alter it.

Ironically, you're agreeing with the Texas v. White ruling, right now. If you don't like the government, the people of the United States retain the right to Revolution. Revolution, however, not being the same as Rebellion.

You're right that you don't. The Supreme Court already made it. About 150 years ago.

 

I wish the socialist would all leave, but you can't take your entire state with you.

 

Well not random mobs, but enough of the citizens can over ride any aspect of the Constitution by passing an Amendment, although the process would likely mean voting in new representatives at every level prior to the Amendment going forward. The unwashed masses still have power, but our politicians are smart enough to keep us hating each other more than we hate them...

 

FactChecker, I found your post informative and realized a few mistakes I made; I want some time to do some more research before I come up with a response. I'm looking up Texas v. White, information on whether or not eleven states actually withdrew from the Confederation government (the implications of which are debatable), Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, and John C. Calhoun, a couple of articles and a book by Thomas Woods, and a couple of other things. I was straining to come up with something quickly, but I think I'd just butcher it again and come off like an idiot, so I'm going to spend some time on this while also getting some sleep tonight. Thanks, though, I appreciate it.

 

No problem. If you need help getting sources, just let me know, and I'll grab you whatever you need.

I have the text of Texas v. White available as well.