Posted on 02/17/2010 9:28:36 AM PST by Para-Ord.45
You've got to love that Antonin Scalia answered a letter from a screenwriter asking for tips on a screenplay involving Maine seceding from the union:
"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."
So what about your revisionist history theories? There are more than 1 opinion on the Constitutionally of a lot of what Lincoln did as POTUS! You might want to vist it.
GMTA, FRiend
I'm no lawyer but seems kind of crazy logic here. Having winning or losing a war determine what is constitutional.
That doesn't sound very good. I wonder how this jibes with our leaving Britain?
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.") [emphasis added]Scalia did not write, "If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Pledge of Allegiance, it is that there is no right to secede. (Hence, the Civil War.)
Except that in 37 out of 50 cases the state didn't form anything. They were admitted to the Union, and only with the consent of the existing states. Why shouldn't leaving require the same thing at a minimum?
B) the principles upon which our Federal Government are formed are actually based on those of an earlier document, the Declaration of Independence it states in part...
The Declaration of Independence outlined the reasons why the colonies launched an armed rebellion against the Crown. They did not pretend their actions were legal, and it can be argued that the right to rebellion is inherent. Just be sure you win, and don't pretend your actions are sanctioned by the Constitution.
The Civil War settled only two issues: Slavery would not exist, and the North was militarily more powerful than the South. The legality or correctness of secession was not addressed.
It was by the Supreme Court in 1869.
The Civil War did NOT solve a Constitutional issue. Force was used to make the South submit to the will of the North. When some in the North wanted to put southern leaders on trial they were advised that they might “lose in the courtroom that which was won on the battlefield”.
Do you think he was using that as a formal arguement, or maybe just trying to make a point to a screenwriter?
Does this ring a bell ?
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands 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
And he left out the reason our nation is going places in a handbasket..
“Under God”.
I am well aware of all the opinions out there on the unconstitutionality of Lincoln's actions. I am also aware of all the opinions out there on the constitutionality of Lincolns actions. At the end of the day the only opinions that matter are those of the men who were sitting on the Supreme Court at the time. And crying 'unfair' and claiming judicial bias doesn't change that.
Sorry that debt is more than paid with your giving us Pelosi, Waxman, and Boxer!
Maybe he should have based his answer on the latest children’s book? The last epside of “Bob the Builder” possibly.
Maybe he should have based his answer on a kid's book, since it was a stupid question from a stupid liberal? I wouldn't have bothered answering at all. After all, what is in it for him? He gets slammed by overly sensitive people who think a mere mention of secession is grounds for hanging. Good luck on your witch hunt.
Don’t tell anyone but I always skip the word “indivisible” when I say the pledge.
Isnt that 37 out of 57?
I sometimes input the name of a deity. “Under God”. “Under Zeuss”. “Under Odin”. “Under Bacchus”. “Under Shiva”.
It isn't. However if we all take the pledge of allegiance, then we are all pledging to not secede. If a state secedes, then it would be a matter of everyone in that state violating their pledge.
Personally, given the current state of the US government, I would love to be in a state that is independent from the rest of the US. But such a thing is not possible without another "civil" war. On the balance, it is better to fix the US govt we have than to go to war to secede from it.
“Why shouldn’t leaving require the same thing at a minimum?”
When you join an organization, do you require permission to leave it?
“The Declaration of Independence outlined the reasons why the colonies launched an armed rebellion against the Crown. They did not pretend their actions were legal, and it can be argued that the right to rebellion is inherent. Just be sure you win, and don’t pretend your actions are sanctioned by the Constitution.”
Winners write the history books and determine legality, I suppose. But they don’t determine morality or natural law, which, I believe was what the Founding Fathers were appealing to in their declaration.
I wouldn’t argue that the Constitution states that seccession is a right. HOWEVER, it does NOT specifically disallow it. And I believe the Tenth Amendment reserves to the People and to the respective states, all those rights not specifcally enumerated as being granted to the Federal Government.
I am not advocating seccession. WW2 and the Cold War would have turned out far differently were we two separate states.
But I am saying that the States have a Consitutional Right and a moral responsibility to take whatever action is approptiate to them should the Federal Government dissolve into a tyranny.
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.