Is Secession a Right?

Capitalism Magazine ^ | Walter Williams

[mconder]

The Declaration states that people have a natural right to rebel against tyrannical govenment; that doesn't equate to any sort of legally enforceable right to secede.

The natural right to rebel in the declaration basically means that if you live under a tyrannical government that you have a right to "disolve" the bands that tie you to that government and God won't hold it against you.

[FreeTally]

The Declaration states that people have a natural right to rebel against tyrannical govenment; that doesn't equate to any sort of legally enforceable right to secede.

So its a moot point. One needs not a "legally enforceable right" recognized by a "governmental authority" to secede. Why would a government recognize one's right to remove themself from its control anyway?

[al_possum39]

I wish California would secede.

Maybe we should be discussing whether the other 49 states should have the right to banish a state.

[mconder]

Yes, you have a right to seccede. But you don't have a right to attack your former nation and expect no reprisal.

That's true. The oppressive and evil government is not likely to take it sitting on it's hands...that's why it's oppressive.

[mconder]

A state cannot "vote to give itself a right" under the Constitution of the United States. It either has that right, or it doesn't.

Why does it either have a right or it doesn't? Does the Fed give states their rights?

[Poohbah]

So its a moot point. One needs not a "legally enforceable right" recognized by a "governmental authority" to secede. Why would a government recognize one's right to remove themself from its control anyway?

Exactly. It gets tested on the battlefield, where might makes right. And the victors get to write the history books. Special note: opening fire on the property of the nation you are seceding from is liable to annoy a lot of people in said nation, and is a really stupid idea.

[Poohbah]

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The states agreed to this clause. End of discussion.

[mconder]

A state cannot "vote to give itself a right" under the Constitution of the United States. It either has that right, or it doesn't.

By the way...a state has the right to recognize any right it is able to righteously disern as one granted by the creator.

[Poohbah]

The natural right to rebel in the declaration basically means that if you live under a tyrannical government that you have a right to "disolve" the bands that tie you to that government and God won't hold it against you.

Exactly. That doesn't add up to a legally enforceable right to secede.

[Poohbah]

By the way...a state has the right to recognize any right it is able to righteously disern as one granted by the creator.

Provided it doesn't violate Article VI of the Constitution.

For example, states may not pay you in "pollution tax credits" that are not legally recognized currency; if they do not choose to pay with federally-recognized legal tender, they must make payment in gold or silver coinage in that event.

[mconder]

If seccession is impossible, then the Declaration of Independence is rather hollow, isn't it?

Sorry. This statement made by Evil Eye is the end of the discussion in my book.

[Poohbah]

Sorry. It's the beginning of discussion among grownups.

[FreeTally]

One of the neglected arguments for the right of secession is the contractarian one -- that the Constitution, being a contract that binds the states and the federal government into a specified set of obligations to one another, is null and void if either side should violate it.

Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner.

The problem, though, is this: No government has ever recognized the "right" to remove oneself from its control, or remove a geographic area from its control. Sure, independence has been "granted" to colonies, but the "granting" implies a choice of the "mother" country. Independence is usually "granted" after a bloody war, which means that the "mother" country, even after the war, implies that it is giving the colony "permission" to secede.

What we have in America is "the powers that be" using courts to justify everyting they do as being "Constitutional". So its all circular. The government just claims that the "contract" has not been violated because the SCOTUS gave itself the right to determine if laws are "constitutional", thus guaranteeing that most any law giving government power will be judged as being "constitutional".

[mconder]

For example, states may not pay you in "pollution tax credits" that are not legally recognized currency; if they do not choose to pay with federally-recognized legal tender, they must make payment in gold or silver coinage in that event.

Because of the right to contract, a state or individual has a right to pay by whatever means two parties agree to, except fraudulent Federal reserve notes...after all, you shouldn't be able to pay for anything with nothing.

[inquest]

OK, question, then. Can a state constitutionally secede if it gets the approval of Congress?

[mconder]

One of the neglected arguments for the right of secession is the contractarian one -- that the Constitution, being a contract that binds the states and the federal government into a specified set of obligations to one another, is null and void if either side should violate it. Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner.

Logic scores another critical blow.

[FreeTally]

Because of the right to contract, a state or individual has a right to pay by whatever means two parties agree to, except fraudulent Federal reserve notes...after all, you shouldn't be able to pay for anything with nothing.

The problem is that you and I are using common law and natural law to argue against mad made law. When CL and NL conflict with MML, you have wars. There is no way around it.

[FreeTally]

OK, question, then. Can a state constitutionally secede if it gets the approval of Congress?

Where does the Constitution delegate the authority to Congress to give "permission" to secede, to let a State out of the contract?

[mconder]

OK, question, then. Can a state constitutionally secede if it gets the approval of Congress?

The right to suceed is not granted by congress or any other government power. The right of succession is inherent in the people right down to the soveriegn individual. If an individual or group of people feel oppressed thay have the right to reject out of hand the impossing power. If this is done in righteousness, the person or people will be sustained by the hand of the almighty to freedom...wether it be in this life or the hereafter. The right to just government is a right sustained by God himself and granted to those who humbly follow Him.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Proven by whom, Frumie? Certainly not by you or by any of your Lincoln worshipping chums. Dream on, son. Your side simply has no conservative patriots of the same caliber as professor Williams. In fact your side has only a handful of wannabe "academics" who have never published a line anywhere outside the internet.

Well if it isn't "Ad-Hominy Grits" Twodees.  The person who tries to prove that states have the right to secede because there is no such thing as "states rights."

I will say this about others I debate.  At least they do some research and try to find data to back up their positions.  If you did the merest modicum of research (rather than let others do your thinking for you) you might find out, for example that your assertion concerning "pro-union" scholarship is as accurate and consistent as your position concerning states rights.

BTW, don't, I beg of you, reference Tom DiLorenzo, for that will destroy what little credibility you already have.  Tom has already been shown to be of the "Fawn Brodie" school of scholarship.  Certainly Williams does as much for his credibility by his continuing support of DiLorenzo as Gore did for his continuing support of Clinton.