[Non-Sequitur]

Saying we can’t secede because of a SCOTUS ruling is like saying we can’t nullify overreaching federal laws.

Uh, you can't.

[ml/nj]

Doe this mean that you do not believe in the Declaration of Independence?

ML/NJ

[fightinJAG]

You are assuming that all federal laws are de facto supreme over the constitutional rights reserved by the states.

Yes, the SCOTUS has severely diminished state’s rights over the years, through vehicles such as the interstate commerce clause, but that’s a different issue from the point of what the Constitution intended.

Yes, the Constitution requires balancing state sovereignty with the powers reserved to the federal government, and in the last century the SCOTUS, sometimes rightly, has tilted that balance toward the feds. But the Constitution never intended that the federal government could pass any type of law it wanted, make any type of intrusion it wanted, in any area of governace and state citizenship, and then simply force the states to go along with it.

Even today there are many laws that states are not actually required to follow. It’s just that if they don’t, the feds refuse to send the states money. So the states follow the federal laws simply so they don’t lose federal money. That is quite different than being required to follow the federal law by law.

[BP2]

> Saying we can’t secede because of a SCOTUS ruling is like saying we
> can’t nullify overreaching federal laws.

>> Uh, you can't.

Sure you can. It's happened before.

Here's the legal precedence from 1776:

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

-snip-

We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.