Posted on 02/17/2010 3:43:05 PM PST by Constitutionalist Conservative
Prior to the American Civil War, it was popularly assumed that states which had freely chosen to enter the Union could just as freely withdraw from said union at their own discretion. Indeed, from time to time individual states or groups of states had threatened to do just that, but until 1860 no state had actually followed through on the threat.
Since then, it has been considered axiomatic that the War “settled the question” of whether or not states had the right to secede. The central government, backed by force of arms, says the answer is No. As long as no state or group of states tests the central government’s resolve, we can consider the question to be “settled” from a practical viewpoint.
This assertion has long troubled me from a philosophical and moral viewpoint. We are supposedly a nation of laws, and the central government is supposedly subservient to the laws that established and empower it.
In a nation of laws, when someone asks, “Do states have a right to secede from the Union?”, a proper answer would have one of two forms:
Here, x would be an explanation of the laws that supported the Yes or No answer.
With the secession issue, though, we are given the following as a complete and sufficient answer:
“No, because if any state tries to secede, the central government will use force of arms to keep it from succeeding.”
There is no appeal to law in this answer – just brute force.
Based on this premise, the central government can amass to itself whatever right or power it chooses, simply by asserting it. After all, who has the power to say otherwise?
Come to think of it, that’s exactly how the central government has behaved more often than not since the Civil War.
This issue came to mind today because of an item posted today on a trial lawyer’s blog (found via Politico). The lawyer’s brother had written to each of the Supreme Court justices, asking for their input on a screenplay he was writing. In the screenplay, Maine decides to secede from the US and join Canada. The writer asked for comments regarding how such an issue would play out if it ever reached the Supreme Court.
Justice Antonin Scalia actually replied to the screenwriter’s query. I have a lot of respect for Scalia regarding constitutional issues, but his answer here is beyond absurd.
I am afraid I cannot be of much help with your problem, principally because I cannot imagine that such a question could ever reach the Supreme Court. To begin with, the answer is clear. If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede. (Hence, in the Pledge of Allegiance, "one Nation, indivisible.")
He actually said that a constitutional issue was settled by military action. Oh, and by including the word “indivisible” in the Pledge of Allegiance, the issue became even more settled.
What if the president were to send out the troops to prevent the news media from publishing or broadcasting anything critical of his administration? This is clearly an unconstitutional action, but by Scalia’s logic, if the president succeeds, we must then say that the military action “settled the question” of free speech.
If these scenarios are not comparable, I’d like to hear why.
Hmmm, 184,000 hits, looks like you got your work cut out for you.
Call it what you want.
Well, if you can come up with one of the bills that specifically said it was readmitting one of the rebellious states as a state in the Union and not just readmitting their delegation to Congress then you would pretty much prove your point, wouldn't you? Here you go, it's got to be in there somewhere.
If not there, then it'd be in here:
That replaced the Globe in 1873.
He was not president when the suit was filed to be sure but he is in fact entitled to be called President Madison!
Since you insist on hair splitting I will modify the question.
Was ANYONE ever punished in any fashion for ignoring the opinion of the supreme court in Marbury vs Madison?
Nice attempt at covering up your ineptness, but since you thought Madison made the appointment and since you thought Madison might have been censured for ignoring it then that makes it pretty clear that you hadn't a clue about the case to begin with. But keep up the good work; no doubt you'll successfully snow your Lost Cause buddies.
Was ANYONE ever punished in any fashion for ignoring the opinion of the supreme court in Marbury vs Madison?
(*sigh*) No. But rather than digging yourself in deeper and parading your ignorance with every post, why not please, please read the decision and then you can tell us all exactly why nobody was punished?
I assume that is what your are referring to but my question is and always has been from where did Justice Marshal and the court derive the power to to do that? It sure as heck isn't contained in the plain language of the Constitution!
Just part of it. You should have read the entire Wiki article before responding.
It sure as heck isn't contained in the plain language of the Constitution!
Nor is the power to establish an air force or any denial of the power to expel a state. But I expect you'll continue to avoid that.
Which Wiki article would that be?
I tend not to trust Wiki on much of anything.
It’s simple: the relevent phrase is “To raise and support Armies....” So the existence of a ground Army doesn’t preclude the raising and supporting of an ‘Air Army’, which is exactly what the French call their Air Force (l’Armée de l’Air).
“NASA was established by legislation passed in the 1950’s and was never under any military branch, your incorrect claim to the otherwise notwithstanding.”
NASA was created from the NACA - a civilian research organization built in concert with and for the War Department.
Yes, it was “civilian”, but so is DARPA.
OK, so you're implying that the founders allowed for a separate branch of service called an Air Force, is that it? So where does NASA come in?
NASA was created from scratch. NACA was folded into it along with other missile programs.
Really it doesn’t. Nasa should have been a private consortium seeded by the government but not run by the government. It would probably been safer and more efficient. Kind of like the TVA of space.
Never mind! I 'll answer for you!
Because that would not have suited their federalist agenda!
test
“NASA was created from scratch. NACA was folded into it along with other missile programs.”
The NACA was the core organization that helped WRITE the legislation - the Space Act.
Oh, and where did those missile programs come from (NACA was not a “missile program”)? The Army and Navy.
http://history.nasa.gov/naca/overview.html
Your post is the same as saying the USAF wasn’t formed from the US Army.... You are way out of your depth here.
That was practically the first words out of Slick's mouth when he went to OKC to condole with the survivors blame Rush.
Rush drove the truck, Newt lit the fuse -- they did it!
Hypocrite. You've been refusing to respond to mine for a couple hundred posts now.
Who is the Sovereign of the United States? Who OWNS the United States, its Constitution and its laws and its Government, who has the very last say in everything?
Who is supreme?
Well?
Answer the question, Non-Sequitur
WTF are you talking about?
That's right. Bush is one of ours.
Obama is one of yours...............
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.