From Scalia's Mouth: There is no right to secede

[Vanquish]

New York Personal Injury Law Blog: Scalia: "There Is No Right to Secede"

The right of a state to secede from the nation is way outside my personal injury wheelhouse. But it has become a source of conversation on professorial and political blogs, and the concept has generated interest from the Tea Party movement.

As it happens, my brother has a letter from Justice Antonin Scalia that is directly on point as to the legitimacy of secession. How he got that letter, and its contents, are the subject of today's post.

The inspiration for writing, and the release of the letter, comes from Prof. Eugene Volokh, who wrote, "I keep hearing the claim that the legitimacy of secession from the U.S. was 'settled at Appomattox,' and I wanted to say a few words about why I think that makes little sense."

Just the beginning of a really really interesting blog post. Worth reading...especially since there are some people on this board who seem to think secession is a viable option.

 

[jillian]

Like this is a revelation of some type...

good find, though. i'll hit you with some rep when my repping ability recharges.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

New York Personal Injury Law Blog: Scalia: "There Is No Right to Secede"

The right of a state to secede from the nation is way outside my personal injury wheelhouse. But it has become a source of conversation on professorial and political blogs, and the concept has generated interest from the Tea Party movement.

As it happens, my brother has a letter from Justice Antonin Scalia that is directly on point as to the legitimacy of secession. How he got that letter, and its contents, are the subject of today's post.

The inspiration for writing, and the release of the letter, comes from Prof. Eugene Volokh, who wrote, "I keep hearing the claim that the legitimacy of secession from the U.S. was 'settled at Appomattox,' and I wanted to say a few words about why I think that makes little sense."

Just the beginning of a really really interesting blog post. Worth reading...especially since there are some people on this board who seem to think secession is a viable option.

So much for that consent of the governed and the tree of liberty.


Someone dig up Washington and let him know Scalia has a few words for him about seceding from the British Empire.

 

[ItHappens]

It's all a bunch of talk.
But there's also laws against j-walking.

 

[jillian]

It's all a bunch of talk.
But there's also laws against j-walking.

but armies don't come marching down to slam your butt if you j-walk.

 

[ItHappens]

It's all a bunch of talk.
But there's also laws against j-walking.

but armies don't come marching down to slam your butt if you j-walk.

Depends which town you live in.
Seriously none of this is even worth talking about.
But if a state (Texas the one always thrown around) was to...at least under our current political climate...I'd move there.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

It's all a bunch of talk.
But there's also laws against j-walking.

but armies don't come marching down to slam your butt if you j-walk.

Well, maybe in Russia...

 

[mal]

Like this is a revelation of some type...

good find, though. i'll hit you with some rep when my repping ability recharges.

If I agree with you, can I get some Rep?...

Cause I do on this one...



peace...

 

[Liability]

I wonder if the Founders would necessarily agree, now, with Justice Scalia on this point?

I have SOME reason to believe that they might not:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. * * * *

I firmly believe in the limiting language regarding what prudence dictates.

But I cannot fathom how it makes sense to craft a limited government upon such originating principles as these, and yet maintain that the new government is such that we may never again legitimately throw it off if it seriously and persistently transgresses the bounds we have set for it.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

New York Personal Injury Law Blog: Scalia: "There Is No Right to Secede"

The right of a state to secede from the nation is way outside my personal injury wheelhouse. But it has become a source of conversation on professorial and political blogs, and the concept has generated interest from the Tea Party movement.

As it happens, my brother has a letter from Justice Antonin Scalia that is directly on point as to the legitimacy of secession. How he got that letter, and its contents, are the subject of today's post.

The inspiration for writing, and the release of the letter, comes from Prof. Eugene Volokh, who wrote, "I keep hearing the claim that the legitimacy of secession from the U.S. was 'settled at Appomattox,' and I wanted to say a few words about why I think that makes little sense."

Just the beginning of a really really interesting blog post. Worth reading...especially since there are some people on this board who seem to think secession is a viable option.

So much for that consent of the governed and the tree of liberty.


Someone dig up Washington and let him know Scalia has a few words for him about seceding from the British Empire.

If the people have the strength of will and can force the Congress to vote for separating then all the more power to them. Failing that they have to resort to armed conflict.

 

[jillian]

I firmly believe in the limiting language regarding what prudence dictates.

But I cannot fathom how it makes sense to craft a limited government upon such originating principles as these, and yet maintain that the new government is such that we may never again legitimately throw it off if it seriously and persistently transgresses the bounds we have set for it.

Don't you think that if the Founders intended the states to be able to separate and intended that war could be waged in furtherance of separation, then the only crime set out in the constitution wouldn't be treason?

 

[mal]

I wonder if the Founders would necessarily agree, now, with Justice Scalia on this point?

I have SOME reason to believe that they might not:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. * * * *

I firmly believe in the limiting language regarding what prudence dictates.

But I cannot fathom how it makes sense to craft a limited government upon such originating principles as these, and yet maintain that the new government is such that we may never again legitimately throw it off if it seriously and persistently transgresses the bounds we have set for it.

Excellent Observation, Counselor...



peace...

 

[☭proletarian☭]

New York Personal Injury Law Blog: Scalia: "There Is No Right to Secede"

Just the beginning of a really really interesting blog post. Worth reading...especially since there are some people on this board who seem to think secession is a viable option.

So much for that consent of the governed and the tree of liberty.


Someone dig up Washington and let him know Scalia has a few words for him about seceding from the British Empire.

If the people have the strength of will and can force the Congress to vote for separating then all the more power to them. Failing that they have to resort to armed conflict.

Do they have a right to do so?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

I firmly believe in the limiting language regarding what prudence dictates.

But I cannot fathom how it makes sense to craft a limited government upon such originating principles as these, and yet maintain that the new government is such that we may never again legitimately throw it off if it seriously and persistently transgresses the bounds we have set for it.

If the Founders intended the states to be able to separate and intended that war could be waged in furtherance of separation, then the only crime set out in the constitution wouldn't be treason.

Secession=/= treason.

Treason: a member of the Union acting to destroy the Union

Secession: walking away from the Union and letting those who stay do as they will

 

[jillian]

I firmly believe in the limiting language regarding what prudence dictates.

But I cannot fathom how it makes sense to craft a limited government upon such originating principles as these, and yet maintain that the new government is such that we may never again legitimately throw it off if it seriously and persistently transgresses the bounds we have set for it.

If the Founders intended the states to be able to separate and intended that war could be waged in furtherance of separation, then the only crime set out in the constitution wouldn't be treason.

Secession=/= treason.

Treason: a member of the Union acting to destroy the Union

Secession: walking away from the Union and letting those who stay do as they will

The Supreme Court has already held that the States cannot seceed. It has been implied on this thread and in other places, that the response to that prohibition is armed insurrection.

That IS treason.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Fuck Scotus. The Law overrides no rights. If the court declared that Man had no right to live when he became obsolete, would he lose his right to life? No! No more than that does Man lose the right to self-determination because the State declares that he does.

If to exercise the right to liberty is treason, then clearly treason can be just when it is levied against authoritarians and tyrants.

 

[Liability]

I firmly believe in the limiting language regarding what prudence dictates.

But I cannot fathom how it makes sense to craft a limited government upon such originating principles as these, and yet maintain that the new government is such that we may never again legitimately throw it off if it seriously and persistently transgresses the bounds we have set for it.

Don't you think that if the Founders intended the states to be able to separate and intended that war could be waged in furtherance of separation, then the only crime set out in the constitution wouldn't be treason?

No.

There are lots of possible reasons (motivations) for treason. And perhaps most of them are and should be most emphatically "actionable."

But where the sovereign we set up -- WITH limits -- intentionally and consistently transgresses those very limits to the detriment of our liberty, then that sovereign is no longer legitimate, and the very words of the Declaration rise up again.

 

[jillian]

Fuck Scotus. The Law overrides no rights. If the court declared that Man had no right to live when he became obsolete, would he lose his right to life? No! No more than that does Man lose the right to self-determination because the State declares that he does.

If to exercise the right to liberty is treason, then clearly treason can be just when it is levied against authoritarians and tyrants.

No.. the Supreme Court interprets the law and since we live in a civil law country, it IS equally the law that we have to abide by...

and whether you like it or not, the 'state' does determine our rights.... because it determines what it will enforce and what it won't.

the idea of inherant rights is a nice philosophical construct.

 

[Liability]

Fuck Scotus. The Law overrides no rights. If the court declared that Man had no right to live when he became obsolete, would he lose his right to life? No! No more than that does Man lose the right to self-determination because the State declares that he does.

If to exercise the right to liberty is treason, then clearly treason can be just when it is levied against authoritarians and tyrants.

No.. the Supreme Court interprets the law and since we live in a civil law country, it IS equally the law that we have to abide by...

and whether you like it or not, the 'state' does determine our rights.... because it determines what it will enforce and what it won't.

the idea of inherant rights is a nice philosophical construct.

At the time of the Revolution, England was a civil law society. We very deliberately chose NOT to abide by their law anymore.

 

[RodISHI]

We need to secede from our own American Corporate sponsored, congress, WTO and WHO since they seem to be failing the basics of liberty and democracy as of late.