Replies

You would put James Madison in that category? He wrote on several occasions that secession required the consent of the states.

He was wrong, as we see by the fact that such a restriction was expressed after the fact and not included in the Constitution itself. This is no different from Jefferson's Dandury Letter implying a strict separation of church and state different from the actual words of the First Amendment. The Constitution is binding and does not change just because an individual later wrote a letter expressing an opinion.

Yeah, by going to court and getting someone else to say your divorced.

In other words, by due process. An act of that state's government passed by both houses and signed by that state's governor would be due process, even if a socialist in our White House didn't like it.

That was a revolution, a rebellion. There was nothing legal in the colonist's actions and they didn't pretend that they were.

I take it you don't believe in natural law. Secession of one or more states follows from natural law as a basic human right. Of course it wasn't "legal" under British law. Secession is, however, legal under our Constitution. Granted, Obama could turn it into a civil war, but that would be his choice. He need merely permit free people to exercise their human rights, and it would be peaceful.

He was wrong, as we see by the fact that such a restriction was expressed after the fact and not included in the Constitution itself.

Thanks, but Madison was there. I'll take his opinion and that of the Supreme Court on whether unilateral secession was wrong.

In other words, by due process. An act of that state's government passed by both houses and signed by that state's governor would be due process, even if a socialist in our White House didn't like it.

In your analogy only one party is declaring the marriage over. What's to stop the other side from declaring it isn't? What makes one right and the other wrong?

But if a single state can declare the partnership ended then why secede at all? Why not just expel the states you don't like, toss them out of the Union against their will? If a state can leave unilaterally then why can't they expel unilaterally too?

I take it you don't believe in natural law.

The problem with natural law is that if you ask 50 people what it means then you'll get 50 different answers.

Of course it wasn't "legal" under British law.

And yet you compare their actions with secession.

Secession is, however, legal under our Constitution.

Not unilaterally, no.

Granted, Obama could turn it into a civil war, but that would be his choice. He need merely permit free people to exercise their human rights, and it would be peaceful.

The war would lie in your hands.