The Future Break Up of the United States of America

Post Scripts ^ | 5/7/09 | Don Koenig

[OneVike]

The United States of America is really 50 sovereign states in a union and that union can dissolve just like the Soviet Union did. This article will give some possibilities how that break up can occur but there certainly could be other scenarios for this to happen.

The major possibility is that after national elections socialist/liberal/progressive forces take control of the executive and legislative branches of government and soon thereafter the Supreme Court. They then would proceed to pass and uphold every sort of socialist legislation such as: hate speech laws, gun laws, immigration laws, socialized medicine, social activism and secular humanism agendas in schools and places of work, outlawing of home schooling, expanding social give-away programs, passing tax laws that burden the middle-class, implementing carbon restrictions and fees, increasing big brother/nanny state police powers and many other laws and regulations that subvert individual freedoms given under the Constitution of the United States for what they will claim to be the greater good of society.

[rintense]

ITA.

[rintense]

With Obama’s lack of support in the military, I can not see American troops firing on other Americans in something like this. More likely, the national military will dissolve and members will go to their home areas and take up arms.

[Tahoe3002]

ping

[SkyDancer]

In any event it sure will be interesting to watch what states do ...

[Tolik]

It only happens when states start refusing orders from Washington.

Yes. But then the easier route is to elect different politicians and work within the system. While secessionist ideas might not be alien for a libertarian, to any other American they sound quite removed from reality.

[KrisKrinkle]

SkyDancer:  OK, each state now has its National Guard. Can’t the president call them to national service and put down any rebellion by a state government?

MamaTexan:  Constituionally, no.   A State has to request assistance from or give permission to the federal government before the federal government can use military force inside the State.

Article 1 Section 8 Clause 15:

“The Congress shall have Power… To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;”

Article 4 section 4

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.”

I don’t know what laws or procedures Congress may have established regarding suppressing insurrections, but it looks like a request from the State is only needed in the case of domestic violence and that no such request is needed in the cases of invasion or insurrection.  Mere domestic violence is pretty far from insurrection. “(R)ebellion by a state government” isn’t. 

[SkyDancer]

So what I’m thinking is if the state government acting on the wishes of its constituents decides to secede from the Union the federal government can invade the state to keep in in the Union against its will ... also by calling up that states militia? Therefor the government can say there’s an insurrection going on ....

[marron]

I’m not a secessionist. In my view, there is room to move back to a “10th Amendment” country, where the states assert their constitutional prerogatives.

In line with that I noted in post #51 what is happening in Montana and possibly to be followed by other states:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2246462/posts

This is not secession. This is merely the states beginning to assume their normal constitutional role which has been allowed to atrophy a bit over the years.

[MamaTexan]

but it looks like a request from the State is only needed in the case of domestic violence and that no such request is needed in the cases of invasion or insurrection.

I've given a legal source stating otherwise. Do you have any evidence to support your assertion?

-----

Mere domestic violence is pretty far from insurrection.

Domestic violence and insurrection ARE rebellion if those forces are turned against the lawful authority of the State.

Until a State requests assistance, the federal government has NO jurisdiction inside one of the respective States....period.

[KrisKrinkle]

So what I’m thinking is if the state government acting on the wishes of its constituents decides to secede from the Union the federal government can invade the state to keep in in the Union against its will ...

Briefly, the federal government is a creation of the States and is only an agent of the States. If the federal government "invaded" a state to keep it in the union, it would be acting on the wishes of its constituents (the other States). And of course, theoretically, those states could agree to secession in which case no "invasion" would be necessary.

...also by calling up that states militia?

Well, theoretically yes but if the state was seceding it's doubtful the militia would answer the call. Some of them might though. Not everyone in the states that seceded in 1860 wanted to secede.

Therefor the government can say there’s an insurrection going on ....

I don't know how that would work. I don't know at what point insurrection begins and who gets to say. The word "rebellion" has been used and in my last post I was thinking some of the states or people in them are already rebellious, but so far it's peacefully.

[El Gato]

Got six gallons of diesel reserved, it lights quite calmly.

Perfect. You can even use "out of date" stuff, might not burn well in your Mercedes, your Fiat/Cummins Turbo Diesel, your Government Motors Duramax, or your Ford Powerstroke, but it will serve nicely for turning the AntiChrist into a Chrispy Critter.

[humblegunner]

Mostly I use it to fire up trash & brush piles.
I had a real nice one on Earth Day™.

I keep a goodly supply of gas too but I rotate it more diligently than the diesel.

This came in quite handy after Hurricane Ike when no fuel was to be had for a week or so.

[Tolik]

I like what you said.
I am simply amazed with some guys here who say that the breakup is the way to go.

[Lurker]

For later.

[KrisKrinkle]

I've given a legal source stating otherwise. Do you have any evidence to support your assertion?

I’m not certain what you mean.  I quoted the US Constitution just as you did.  I don’t dispute the part about the State Constitutions.  That leaves the George Tucker quote, and your conclusion from it, so let me quote Mr. Tucker too:

This does not, however, says Barbeyrac, hinder but each confederated state may provide for its particular safety, by repressing its rebellious subjects. And herewith the present constitution of the United States fully agrees. For although congress are bound to guarantee to every state in the union a republican form of government, and to protect each of them against invasion; and also against domestic violence; yet this last is only to be done where the legislature, or executive of the state (where the legislature cannot be convened) shall make the application.
George Tucker Of the Several Forms of Government, SECTION XII

So according to Mr Tucker, before Congress can take measures to protect against domestic violence, “A State has to request assistance from or give permission to the federal government before the federal government can use military force inside the State”, but he does not say that such State action is necessary before the federal government can use military force inside the State to guarantee a republican form of government or to protect against invasion. 

Domestic violence and insurrection ARE rebellion if those forces are turned against the lawful authority of the State.

I wrote “Mere domestic violence is pretty far from insurrection”.  Your response joins domestic violence and insurrection, which means its more than mere domestic violence as I wrote, and I’m not disagreeing with you

Until a State requests assistance, the federal government has NO jurisdiction inside one of the respective States....period.

I’ll probably regret asking, but what is your legal source for such a broad statement?  Have the provisions of Article I Section 10 of the Constitution requiring consent of Congress for certain things been overcome by something I’m not thinking of?

[NoGrayZone]

Have you ever watched Pastor Flurry on Key of David? If you go to the site, keyofdavid.com you can watch the 1/2 hour shows and also request the free books, booklets, etc.

And yes, it's all free and they don't send you any junk mail, lol. I've been watching him and reading for the past 3-5 years. It's all about Bible prophesy and how it relates to our times. You should check it out.

[MamaTexan]

but he does not say that such State action is necessary before the federal government can use military force inside the State to guarantee a republican form of government or to protect against invasion.

Yes, he did, and so did Rawle

Hence, the term guarantee, indicates that the United States are authorized to oppose, and if possible, prevent every state in the Union from relinquishing the republican form of government, and as auxiliary means, they are expressly authorized and required to employ their force on the application of the constituted authorities of each state, "to repress domestic violence."If a faction should attempt to subvert the government of a state for the purpose of destroying its republican form, the paternal power of the Union could thus be called forth to subdue it.
William Rawle

The means of maintaining a republican form of government is by having the States call for help if a situation was more than they could handle.

BTW- The federal government using force inside a State without that States permission is directly CONTRARY to a Republican form of government.

-----

I’ll probably regret asking, but what is your legal source for such a broad statement?

"The federal government, then, appears to be the organ through which the united republics communicate with foreign nations, and with each other. Their submission to its operation is voluntary: its councils, its sovereignty is an emanation from theirs, not a flame by which they have been consumed, nor a vortex in which they are swallowed up. Each is still a perfect state, still sovereign, still independent, and still capable, should the occasion require, to resume the exercise of its functions, as such, in the most unlimited extent.
St. George Tucker View of the Constitution of the United States – 1803 [paragraph 337]

I would like to ask again for your legal source for the assertion that the federal government can waltz into the interior of a State at will.

-----

Have the provisions of Article I Section 10 of the Constitution requiring consent of Congress for certain things been overcome by something I’m not thinking of?

Article 1 Section 10 makes no mention of insurrection, rebellion, domestic violence or a republican form of government, so what was your point?

[KrisKrinkle]

Yes, he did, and so did Rawl

No he didn’t and neither did Rawl, at least neither did so in the citations you have provided.  We are at loggerheads here, taking different meaning from the same words.

Their submission to its operation is voluntary

So they voluntarily ceded some degree of jurisdiction which still negates your assertion that “…the federal government has NO jurisdiction inside one of the respective States....”.

I would like to ask again for your legal source for the assertion that the federal government can waltz into the interior of a State at will.

I didn’t assert “that the federal government can waltz into the interior of a State at will.”  You asked “Do you have any evidence to support your assertion?” when my assertion was “but it looks like a request from the State is only needed in the case of domestic violence and that no such request is needed in the cases of invasion or insurrection” and I responded to that.  I did not write “at will” I wrote “in the cases of invasion or insurrection” and I specifically indicated they couldn’t come in merely “at will” in the case of domestic violence.

Article 1 Section 10 makes no mention of insurrection, rebellion, domestic violence or a republican form of government, so what was your point?

You wrote “NO jurisdiction” which I took to be “no jurisdiction at all of any kind” and an expansion beyond insurrection, rebellion, domestic violence and a republican form of government.  My point was that Article 1 Section 10 states areas in which consent of Congress is required and therefore the federal government does have some jurisdiction.  I take it you agree there are circumstances when the federal government does have some jurisdiction within the respective states even if assistance was not requested.  I take it you believe that until a State requests assistance, the federal government has no jurisdiction in regard to insurrection, rebellion, or domestic violence inside one of the respective States.

[MamaTexan]

My point was that Article 1 Section 10 states areas in which consent of Congress is required and therefore the federal government does have some jurisdiction.

Yes, my statement was made within the context of the conversation and was not meant to include any authority Constitutionally delegated by the States.

-----

I take it you believe that until a State requests assistance, the federal government has no jurisdiction in regard to insurrection, rebellion, or domestic violence inside one of the respective States.

Exactly. The mention in Article 6, Clause 2 of the State Constitutions would seem to confirm it.

Since the military is subordinate to the civil authority, the military authority cannot act of it's own volition, thus preventing any action by it without the express permission of the State.

[redgolum]

Actually, if it gets that bad, the chances of a revolution sky rocket.

Fat, dumb, and happy people don't mount the barricades. Desperate men with nothing to loose do.