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."
Sometimes folks make me laugh. Of course Scalia was 100% correct. He wasn’t issuing a legal opinion, in fact he stated he did not envision a manner in which the question would come before the court. He was alluding to historical reality, including the pledge which forced states to acknowledge the union is indivisible.
And you folks who think the states can still secede, that some of their armies could defeat the federal government, etc. really need to get a life. It ain’t happening and let’s pray it never does again.
Constitutional questions should be answered with the Constitution.
EXCEPT, MR JUSTICE, IF THE STATES IN SUFFICIENT NUMBER RATIFIED A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT THAT ALLOWED SECESSION!
WHAT IDIOTS...AND I AM NOT EVEN A CONSTITUTIONAL LAWYER.
Your secret is safe with us.
On this, I agree with your every word. Nice job.
“And you folks who think the states can still secede, that some of their armies could defeat the federal government, etc. really need to get a life. It ain’t happening and let’s pray it never does again.”
The question is, if one of the states today announced that it was amicably leaving the union (let’s say Texas or Vermont), would a tyrannical central government wage a scorched earth war on it rather than letting it go its own way?
I agree
Because you pledge allegiance to an entity, does that mean you surrender your right to withdraw that allegance? I think not.
“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.”
As things stand now, I don’t believe there is any justification for secession or rebellion. If the people don;t like their government, they can vote the individuals running it out of office. But should that right be any way compromised or tainted, such actions would, in my mind, be justifiable.
Life under a tyrant can be a worse alternative than a Civil War.
Thank you.
It also says "to the REPUBLIC for which it stands..." We stopped being a Republic when the coup occurred. As the magazine loudly proclaimed..."We are all Socialists Now" Find another precedent there Judge,
People have a right to govern themselves. This country will split in our lifetime.
I'm a screenwriter in New York City, and am writing to see if you might be willing to assist me in a project that involves a unique constitutional issue.Somehow, I don't think this screenwriter anticipates, or expects to portray, the sufficient number of States holding a sufficient number of Constitutional Conventions, etc.My latest screenplay is a comedy about Maine seceding from the United States and joining Canada. There are parts of the story that deal with the legality of such an event and, of course, a big showdown in the Supreme Court is part of the story.
At the moment my story is a 12 page treatment. As an architect turned screenwriter, it is fair to say that I come up a bit short in the art of Supreme Court advocacy. If you could spare a few moments on a serious subject that is treated in a comedic way, I would greatly appreciate your thoughts. I'm sure you'll find the story very entertaining.
~~Daniel Turketwitz
Pelosi usually ad-libs a bit differently: "One nation, under ME,..."
oops, it’s “Turkewitz”
New York would be a better start.
They were the proximate location of the activity that destroyed our economy, and they house the world’s worst media outlets by far!
It would also create a buffer between us and the New England craziness.
When you are allowed to join only with the permission of a majority of the other members, and once allowed it could only perform a multitude of actions with the approval of a majority of the other members, then why shouldn't their approval be needed to leave?
Winners write the history books and determine legality, I suppose.
And losers write the myths explaining how lost. Nowhere is that more true then when dealing with the U.S. Civil War.
But they don’t determine morality or natural law, which, I believe was what the Founding Fathers were appealing to in their declaration.
And you can appeal to natural law all you want and justify it as the reason for your rebellion, and nobody in their right mind will dispute it. But don't pretend that your actions are legal under the Constitution, and that's what Justice Scalia was talking about.
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 believe that if you look at the 10th Amendment you will not find the word 'specifically' anywhere in it. Or anywhere else in the Constitution. Chief Justce Marshall noted that there were implied powers, which are determined through a balanced reading of the Constitution as a whole.
I am not advocating seccession. WW2 and the Cold War would have turned out far differently were we two separate states.
Of course you're not.
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.
That would depend on your opinion on what is constitutional and what is not. The Constitution itself does not grant you the power to determine that.
You’re getting close the right solution.
First you gerrymander a rump state that includes LA, Beverly Hills, Hollywood, and all the other spots the Hollywood Left calls home; you string a strip of land from there up the coast through other leftie hangouts like Monterey and Santa Cruz, and finally connect up with San Francisco, with maybe some of the parts of Silicon Valley that the worst of the computer geek socialist millionaires call home - that becomes one state, Caliphonyair.
It will serve to provide entertainment (and a bad example) for the rest of the country.
The rest of California you split into about 6 normal size states with regular middle-class folks, whose main purpose is to elect people to the Senate and House who will totally outvote the jerkwads who will undoubtedly represent the LA/SanFran state (before it collapses in self-induced ruin).
Only for the Democrats.
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.