Bullets beat paper.
I do not need nor require the gov'ts permission to pursue life,liberty and happiness. If they hinder that pursuit it is my duty to fight back through any means necessary up to and including force.
Sadly, Lincoln killed the secession right. It is now, however, time to resurrect it; to breathe new life into it.
Jefferson died long before 1865, so of course he is irrelevant to legal pragmatists like Scalia.
Let those states that wish to leave secede from the United States
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/228/644/059/let-those-states-that-wish-to-leave-seceed-from-the-united-states/
I think we need a form of economic secession with states themselves effectively going Galt.
Is it possible for a state to refuse to collect federal taxes for the feds? Lets say a Michigan company sells 100 tons of copper to a company that makes wire and copper sheeting while only collecting taxes for the state and local government.
Scalia is usually right, but he is wrong on this one. The "right" to secede is determined by facts on the ground, just like the "right" of military conquest. If one or more states secedes, and the federal government chooses not to stop them, or attempts to stop them and fails, then the states had the legal right to secede. As for a moral right or natural right to secede, see the Declaration of Independence.
Given the sudden changes, we are no longer a constitutional republic with a limited government constrained by enumerated powers. Our natural right to freedom overrides any legal limits that Scalia may believe are imposed by precedent, even by the precedent of the (first) Civil War. If one or more states secede, my guess is that they will eventually re-merge with the United States, once constitutional government is restored. My guess is also that Obama is so far from being Lincoln that even if Obama tried to force unwilling citizens of (for example) Texas to remain in the USA, Obama would mess it up and deepen the rift, probably pushing more states onto the same side as Texas.
Justice Scalia knows the terrible price that may have to be paid.
His heart is in the right place. But on this issue, he is wrong.
God Bless the man, he really does see the writing on the wall, and wants ONE MORE CHANCE to try and change it, without blood. Because after all, there is only one currency recognized in the “price of freedom.”
And that currency is blood.
Bookmarked.
I think just the opposite argument makes more sense, that expulsion from the union, not secession, should be the direction of the future.
And to put it into contemporary thinking, let’s look at the situation of Puerto Rico. For years, the Democrats have been trying to rig a vote there that would guarantee their acceptance into the US as the 51st State, and in a rather underhanded manner, made so by just a Democrat controlled simple majority in congress.
As things are going right now, they have just had their vote *asking* to become a state, with *very* little media coverage. So the time is ripe for the Democrats, at a time of their choosing, to create a new state without any Republican input. A Democrat state increasing their power in congress.
So what the Republicans need to do is to approach this situation from the point of view of, “What do the individual states need to do to expel a state from the union?” That is, to put “not yet a state”, Puerto Rico back on an even keel to approach statehood in a normal manner.
Importantly, this would help to establish some ground rules by which, say, 3/4ths of the states could resolve to expel a state from the United States.
Right now, I think the best candidate for expulsion is California. And, oddly enough, California might actually be amenable to the idea. Here are some of the rationales:
California could become a separate country, a one party state, with unlimited immigration, its own laws and regulations, and Californians could enjoy the fruits of their unique view of life and things.
About the only major changes would be that California would no longer participate in the national life of the United States, nor have to abide its laws, and that borders would be erected between California and Arizona, Nevada and Oregon.
Sadly, yes, the majority of Americans are content with surrendering all vestiges of liberty to a government that promises to shower largesse upon them.
They`re interested in beer, pot, tattoos, abortions, contraceptives, obamaphones, EBT cards, taxpayer-paid college, living in Mom`s basement, Obamacare, atheism/agnosticism and homo “marriage.”
Those of us who value liberty and the traditions that made this country the greatest in the world have been relegated to minority status.
Bullets beat paper.
I do not need nor require the gov'ts permission to pursue life,liberty and happiness. If they hinder that pursuit it is my duty to fight back through any means necessary up to and including force.
I thought Scalia was an originalist; that is the belief that the U.S. Constitution should be interpreted according to the intent of those who composed and adopted it ... and the founders were silent on secession. The guns were not silent, and if that war were fought today, the north would lose.
No, not since the States gave up their militias in favor of a standing federal army, along with other sovereign powers.
states have the power to secede from the union... it is up to the people to defend and protect that power through fighting... in 1865 the union won... but did not eliminate the power of a state to seceded.
the resolve to dissolve will be the factor. resist we much.
teeman