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 ...
I live in despair of getting an intelligent answer from you as well, but I keep trying.
So if you don't think that the government or the court should step in and tell a state what to do, why do you think the court should have stepped in and overruled the state court in the Kelo decision? Why should a solution be imposed on Connecticut from Washington? Shouldn't the solution come from the people of the state themselves? If they did not like the courts interpretation of the law then shouldn't they change it or vote in a legislature that will govern according to their wishes? Is a ruling that says "You must do this" any different than one which says "No you cannot do this"? Especially when it does not clearly conflict with the Constitution?
I don't want to play with you, little doggie. Please stop humping my leg, and go find someone who does. Surely you must have some friends, somewhere.
And I can understand why my asking you hard questions that you simply cannot answer makes you uncomfortable. I'll try not to bother you any further, but if you post any more ridiculous comments I can't guarantee I won't ask for clarification.
I don't want to play with you, little doggie. Please stop humping my leg, and go find someone who does. Surely you must have some friends, somewhere.
“...Well they had better shake a leg....holding Pubbies accountable shouldn’t be a problem....”
From your lips to God’s ear, brother. Let’s hope so.
And thank you for the ping!
-Hale
And I can understand why you want me to go away, given your problem with answering hard questions and all. And like I said, I'll do my best to respect your wishes and leave you in peace. But if you most more nonsense somewhere down the line I can't gurantee that I won't give in to temptation. So apparently all you have to do is stop posting completely and you'll never hear from me again.
RE Post #220:
Marsh2:
Masterful history lesson. Thank you for reasearching and posting. Excellent!
At what point did I say we disagreed.
I made comments about a quote, not about you.
Thanks and you’re welcome.
And the Constitution accounts for this.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of it's equal Suffrage in the Senate.So do exactly what the Founding Fathers did when the Articles of Confederation weren't working out very well. Get 33 states together to call a convention. Cut out whatever you want from the Constiution and write in anything else you want. Get three-quarters of the states to pass it. If that seems too difficult to get what you want, it's meant that way.
And more personality.
When its the people that are broken, the mechanisms of the constitution are wholly inadequate to to fix the problem.
A con-con cant fix whats wrong with this nation.
Besides that... The natural right for people to form and dissolve political bonds is not something that can be altered or abdicated through a contract, constitution, law, etc...
ALL humans have natural rights that exist outside of whatever system men put in place. Honestly, Im shocked that you fail to understand the concept of natural rights.
If the yankee coven acknowledged the "concept of natural rights", then they'd also have to acknowledge that the South was right and they'd rather live under the yoke of a dictatorial communist regime waving the Constitution while trampling on it than admit that.
I understand them very well. I understand the state of nature, the social contract, and the natural rights one surrenders to live in society, which is the opposite of the state of nature. Revolution overthrows the social contract and creates a new one in its place. Sometimes this happens peacefully. Usually not. And the existing order has no obligation to simply roll over.
I'm more Hobbesian than Rousseauian.
Why don't you tell us what your natural rights are. List them.
He said that "persons" had the right. He didn't say anything about reptiles.
Although I’ll grant you, FDR was definitely revolting.
While some natural rights are slightly modified when living in a society, there are others that remain untouched. The right to withdraw consent to be governed by or associated with people who seek dominance over your life is one such natural law that is neither surrendered nor modified.
Revolution or secession, We could probably get into a fairly long debate over the intricacies and nuanced differences, but in the end the words we choose to define our cause are done so carefully and with purpose. Revolution has an aura of violence about it and Secession has an aura of civility (or at least the hope of civility). The results are often times the same but the justifications are entirely different.
As for the threat of violence the existing “order” hangs over our heads... heh... If thats the cost of freedom, then so be it.
Listen to the tone of your reply. It smacks of the same elitism that has become the crevasse between us true American conservatives, who fully understand what our God given unalienable rights are, and you snobbish liberals.
I suppose you smack down Sarah Palin every chance that you get.
And your post smacks of reflexive populist anti-intellectualism. So we're even. Except that I know how to use bigger words.
I suppose you smack down Sarah Palin every chance that you get.
Not really. She hasn't particularly impressed me yet, but there's time.
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.