Posted on 02/17/2010 9:08:09 AM PST by Palter
Is there a right to secede from the Union, or did the Civil War settle that?
Certain Tea Partiers have raised the possibility of getting out while the getting's good, setting off a round of debate on legal blogs. The more cerebral theorists at the smart legal blog The Volokh Conspiracy question whether such a right exists.
Enter a New York personal injury lawyer, and Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.
The lawyer, Eric Turkewitz, says his brother Dan, a screenwriter, put just such a question to all of the Supreme Court justices in 2006 -- he was working on an idea about Maine leaving the U.S.and a big showdown at the Supreme Court -- and Scalia responded. His answer was no:
"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.") Secondly, I find it difficult to envision who the parties to this lawsuit might be. Is the State suing the United States for a declaratory judgment? But the United States cannot be sued without its consent, and it has not consented to this sort of suit.
I am sure that poetic license can overcome all that -- but you do not need legal advice for that. Good luck with your screenplay."
(Excerpt) Read more at voices.washingtonpost.com ...
We are talking about Courts that restrict are First Amendment ( Fighting words,Hate laws ).
What Freedom? Facts are Facts - No matter what popular belief is.
our
So stick that in your ear Scalia!
The new constitution and government of Ohio was required only to be “republican, and not repugnant to the ordinance of the thirteenth of July, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven, between the original States and the people and States of the territory northwest of the river Ohio,” Enabling Act of 1802.
So this would lead me to think that if the Federal government fails to meet the republican standard...we have the right and obligation to secede.
If Texas decides to go... 9 robed jurists will have NO SAY.
LLS
You might actually consider this quote too:
—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,
OK
“Consent. A valid contract also requires the parties’ consent, which must be free, mutual and communicated to each other. Consent is not free when obtained through duress, menace, fraud, undue influence or mistake. Books have been written about the complexities of those factors. Obviously, a person who signs a contract because there's a gun pointed at his head hasn't consented to the agreement and can rescind it. All cases, of course, are not that clear-cut, and the law must applied to each individual case.”
Therefor - Any law passed - After - Lincoln's war is VOID
“The Constitution give the government the power to suppress insurrections”
Insurrections, yes, States leaving, no.
No, I'd probably burst out laughing. Try me.
All Freepers welcome. The rest of NYorkers are banned.LOL
“Insurrections, yes, States leaving, no.”
James Madison - Discussed this very subject
“The use of force against a state would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound.”
Mr. Hamilton talked about this -
“It has been observed, to coerce the states is one of the maddest projects that was ever devised. A failure of compliance will never be confined to a single state. This being the case, can we suppose it wise to hazard a civil war?
“Suppose Massachusetts, or any large state, should refuse, and Congress should attempt to compel them, would they not have influence to procure assistance, especially from those states which are in the same situation as themselves? What picture does this idea present to our view? A complying state at war with a non-complying state; Congress marching the troops of one state into the bosom of another; this state collecting auxiliaries, and forming, perhaps, a majority against the federal head.
“Here is a nation at war with itself. Can any reasonable man be well disposed towards a government which makes war and carnage the only means of supporting itself — a government that can exist only by the sword? Every such war must involve the innocent with the guilty. This single consideration should be sufficient to dispose every peaceable citizen against such a government. But can we believe that one state will ever suffer itself to be used as an instrument of coercion? The thing is a dream; it is impossible.”
Why does it not surprise me that an anti-semitic, holocaust-denying, White-Citizens-Council-leading, Huey-Long-following Louisiana political boss , who was quoted as saying, "Negroes are just not equipped to vote" wrote a legal brief in a school desegregation case arguing for his viewpoint.
You really need to develop your crackpot filter.
I dare you to commit a crime and use that as your defense.
But what constitutes a legal secession? How many people do I have to get on my petition in order to declare myself and the others an independent nation? At what point can I get out my guns and start defending my self-defined borders? I really want that Army base up the road. Can I take that and everything on it, too?
Take your 14th Amendment and shove it!
Bump. Good information.
Take your 14th Amendment and shove it!
Yeah! Who needs a right to vote?
“I really want that Army base up the road. Can I take that and everything on it, too?”
If the base if Ft. Sumter, yes.
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.