ASKING 'PERMISSION' OF OBAMA TO SECEDE? (Look at Constitution in light of popular petition drive)

The beginning is more than half the whole, the ancient philosopher famously said. The ongoing failure of America’s free institutions is especially due to the failure, in this generation, to understand and perpetuate the faith of the founding. The success American liberty has achieved from that time to this owes much to the fact that the outstanding leaders of the founding generation were willing to articulate the reasonable faith that characterized what they called the “genius” of the American people.

So in our time it is the apostasy of America’s elites, and their willful disrespect for, and rejection of, the reasonable, decent moral understanding of the people, that engenders and deliberately promotes the failure of liberty. The foundational premise of that understanding is the self-evident truth that the Creator God endowed each and every human being with rights, inherent in the nature of humanity, that human government exists to secure.

A necessary corollary of that understanding is the right of the people to alter or abolish government institutions that abandon this purpose of government, abusively violating the rights just government power exists to defend.

In the aftermath of the recent election, a new secessionist movement has surfaced in which citizens are “posting petitions on the White House site requesting permission to peacefully secede from the union.” This week a WND article about this movement referenced an article that cited “a 2006 letter purporting to be from Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia that said: ‘There is no right to secede. (Hence, in the Pledge of Allegiance, “one Nation, indivisible.”)’” If accurate, Scalia’s quotation of words from the Pledge differs significantly from the official text, as set in the U.S. Code at 4 USC 4.

[Quote]
Other than destroying the Union and the Constitution there is no “right” to secede.

There IS the right to convene a Constitutional Convention to replace our beloved USC with whatever we want (given the 47% problem do we really want that?) God Bless old T.J.

Texas v. White: learn it, know it, love it.
[Unquote]

You are bady mistaken and misrepresenting Texas v. White, which does confirm only one means of lawfully seceding a State from the Union of the United States., which is with the same consent of the States which authorized the accession to the Union of the United States.

The only other means of secession is unlawful revolution as described by Texas v. White. Petitions for secession to a lawful President or to an unlawful usurper of the Office of the President may when accompanied by violence or the threat of violence be construed as qa violation of a number of Federal criminal statutes. Compliance with the Constitution requires a State to submit a request to the U.S.Congress for approval by the Congress and ratification by the States. This is exactly the same procedure used to admit the State to the Union. Petitions to the White House are by their very nature subversive of the Constitution and Federal law.

“You don’t ask the government that you’re trying to secede from, for permission.”

That’s nonsense, because there have been numerous instances in history when secessions occurred by mutual agreement. More recently Czechoslovakia mutually agreed to secession. It made sense because their accession was a somewhat arbitrary mismatch of two cultures as a result of the breakup of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

The secessionist petitions in the present discussion are wholly unwarranted, illicit in nature and presentation, and serve no useful purpose whatsoever.

Other than destroying the Union and the Constitution there is no “right” to secede.

LOL! Yes there is. The States seceded from the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, and the new treaty they wrote called the U.S. Constitution didn't change that.

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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate, that governments established by compact should not be changed for light or transient causes; but should a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evince a design in any one of the confederates to usurp a dominion over the rest; or, if those who are entrusted to administer the government, which the confederates have for their mutual convenience established, should manifest a design to invade their sovereignty, and extend their own power beyond the terms of compact, to the detriment of the states respectively, and to reduce them to a state of obedience, and finally to establish themselves in a state of permanent superiority, it then becomes not only the right, but the duty of the states respectively, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.
Of the Several Forms of Government, St. George Tucker, View of the Constitution of the United States, Section XIII

-----

Texas v. White: learn it, know it, love it.

DO please show us the authority given in the Constitution OR the Judiciary Act of 1789 that allows the US Supreme Court to sit in judgment on a case between a State and one of IT'S OWN citizens.

I attended a Republican county officer’s meeting last night. There were only 15 people there including myself and my wife. For all of the wailing, gnashing of teeth, gloom and doom, you would think some part of the thousands of Republicans in the county would have been at that meeting and clamoring for an opprtunity to voice their complaints and demands to the county officers. This is one of the principal reasons why I have no sympathy for all of the crying around aboutt not having an opportunity to change the corruption. Too many people simply fail to oppose the corruption by neglecting their democractic rights and powers to do so in lawful self-government. If these people are going to refuse to trouble themselves to exercise their civic duties while a part of the Union, you can hardly expect them to be any more attentive to those duties and powers apart from the Union.

There were only 15 people there including myself and my wife.

Perhaps many of them were either at church or at home praying. What has happened to our country the past 4 years is biblical. The majority has denounced God and he has removed his grace and protection. We will be able to fix this. The followers of the Anti Christ are now in power.

I plan to spend more time working at being a better Christian and preparing myself and my family for Gods judgment.

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.