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.
To paraphrase the immortal Jerry Garcia, I'm not the one with two good eyes but who still can't see. Everything I've said about you and your contradictions and your confusion and your hypocrisy is evident to anyone who reads your posts.
The contradictions in what YOU continually post are legion!
I know I'm going to regret this, given your habit of punting questions, but I have to ask. But for example?
You can call yourself a sovereign nation if you want. Like that guy on the cable commercial you can take your neighborhood and announce your secession and say you've established the nation of Cowboywaylandia. You can make a flag and organize what you call a government. You can do that and declrare yourself the grand high king over all. Youc an do all that and nobody will stop you. But until people start bowing and calling you "Your Majesty" then you aren't the grand high King of Cowboywaylandia. You're just some nut with a flag and a government and some crazy ideas.
Nobody considered the confederacy a sovereign nation. Nobody recognized them as such, dealt with them as an independent nation, or considered them as anything other than a rebellious part of the U.S. They may have thought of themselves as a sovereign nation. But to the rest of the world they were just some nuts with a flag and a government and some crazy ideas. Plus a whole lot of slaves.
A whole lot more than you. If your posts are any judge.
No, like half-a-dozen Southern states getting together and walking out, repudiating any responsibility for their share of debt and national obligations and stealing all the property they could get their hands on.
The rebel plan, remember?
ROTFLMAO!!! You mean by your own, odd definition of the term.
You're on the record investing sovereignty in the United States Government. Not the People of the United States.
You're a funny, funny guy.
Lincoln, suborner of rebellion.
So I guess you were right -- there was a rebellion, only not the one you're talking about.
And as our colleagues have pointed out, the Confederates offered to negotiate compensation and the debt, which a) you refuse to acknowledge and b) Lincoln refused to discuss, because he didn't want to accord the departing States the sovereignty that was their due.
Who is the Sovereign of the United States?
Who says "yes" and "no" to all things?
ROTFLMAO!!! You mean by your own, odd definition of the term.
Fascism definition of Fascism in the Free Online Encyclopedia.
fascism (făsh`ÄzÉ™m), totalitarian philosophy of government that glorifies the state and nation and assigns to the state control over every aspect of national life.
encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Fascism
More of your northron mythology and denial.
Like your hero, Obama, you think that just because YOU say something it's true.
You just right ahead and keep lying to yourself while we all sit out here and laugh our asses off at you.
Lincoln, suborner opponent of rebellion.
Fixed it for you.
Instead we're supposed to think that just because YOU say something it's true? Who's being Obama-ish now?
N-S replies "You're a funny, funny guy.", as he has at least a dozen other times on this one thread, and wonders why so many people are laughing their A$$ES off at him!
Except that you're wrong in your analysis. No surprise there.
It's pretty clear how I've been laughing at you all along. Not hard to do given how you take firm positions on both sides of the argument time after time. I suppose some might say it's because you've forgotten what you said on an earlier post. Others might say you're the king of wafflers. But personally I think it's because you have no idea what you're talking about.
So says the GREAT Non-Sequitur who, in truth, would not recognize the truth of the matter if you hit him upside the head with it!
Oh my! Now I am REALLY concerned!!!
NOT!!!
NOT!!!
Well I'm glad to hear that. Otherwise you might run away and then where would I get my entertainment from?
One thing I never have to worry about getting hit with from one of your posts is the truth.
secede
A verb
1 secede, splinter, break away
withdraw from an organization or communion; “After the break up of the Soviet Union, many republics broke away”
secession
A noun
1 secession, withdrawal
formal separation from an alliance or federation
I'll defer to Mr. Davis:
“First, he said, came that spurious and decayed off-shoot of democracy, which, claiming that this Federal government has no power, leaves the people our next greatest evil, despotism; and denies protection to our Constitutional rights. Next comes the party that proclaims the Union and the Constitution, but that dares not tell what the Constitution is—a mere catchword, sounding, but meaning nothing. Then, my friends, there is the “rail-splitter,” aptly selected for the purpose, first proclaiming there was an “irrepressible conflict” between the sections; and having proved himself able to rend the yoke, who so fit as he, with such a theory as that, to be selected for the accursed performance of rending the Union? Then, my friends, comes the true democracy, proclaiming the Constitution and the Union, and what the Constitution is; writing your opinions on your banner, throwing it to the winds, and inviting all who believe to command worship at the altar of truth. [Applause.] This banner proclaims the futility of Abe Lincoln's efforts to rend the Union. Though he did rend the yoke, he will find the Constitution and the Union worse than any black gum in the forest.
Our cause is onward. Our car is the Constitution; our fires are up; let all who would ride into the haven of a peaceful country come on board, and those who will not, I warn that the cow- catcher is down—let stragglers beware! [Cheers.] We have before us in this canvass the highest duty which can prompt the devoted patriot. Our country is in danger. Our Constitution is assailed by those who would escape from declaring their opinions—by those who seek to torture its meaning, and by those who would trample upon its obligations. What is our Union? A bond of fraternity, by the mutual agreement of sovereign States; it is to be preserved by good faith—by strictly adhering to the obligations which exist between its friendly and confederate States. Otherwise we should transmit to our children the very evil under which our fathers groaned—a government hostile to the rights of the people, not resting upon their consent, trampling upon their privileges, and calling for their resistance. But I place my trust in democracy—in that democracy which has borne this country on from its commencement, which has illustrated all its bright passages of history, which has contributed to it all which is grand and manly, all which has elevated and contributed to its progress—the democracy of Washington, of Jefferson, of Jackson, and of Buchanan [great applause] shall be the democracy of the next four years. [Renewed applause.]”
The national democracy present a ticket to the country which may well inspire the most lofty patriotism. The name of Breckinridge comes down by lineal descent from one who asserted the great principles of 1798, as reaffirmed at Baltimore; and as for Lane, he is too modest to boast of the deeds of his younger days. No doubt he has split a hundred rails to Lincoln's one! [Laughter and cheers.] Let us then be encouraged to go into the conflict, determined to succeed, and transmit to our children the rich inheritance we have received from our fathers unimpaired. [Applause.] "
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.