[WhiskeyPapa]

When the judicial branch becomes abusive of its power by ruling as they please regardless of the written law (legislating from the bench) it is the responsibilty of several different groups to place checks on this abuse of power.

That's fine. But it is not the solution based in U.S. law. It is the solution based in natural law.

No one is saying that people don't have natural rights that supercede the government's rights.

Where you find the "pro-union" posters (for want of a better term) taking issue with the neo-rebs is whether or not there was any justification for revolution in 1861. The pro-union posters also take issue with the unsupported idea that secession were legal under U.S. law -- no, and whether the main luminaries like Washington, Madison and Jefferson would have favored it -- also a big no.

Walt

[doryfunk]

US Constitution - Ammendments 9 and 10, Bill of Rights

9 -The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

10 - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

According to ammendments 9 and 10 of the U.S. Constitution, secession is clearly legal. While secession is not a power specified for the States, that should not be used to say it is not a power of the state per ammendment 9. Secession is clearly not a power delegated to the union nor does the constitution specifically bar it from the States. Thus, as a right that the States and the people had before as illustrated by their secession from the crown, it is a power reserved to the States and the people. Clearly secession is constitutional.