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

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

And if a State can not get Congress to agree to let them leave the Union they can always resort to force of Arms. Because that will be their only choice to leave. People and States can not selectively ignore Federal dictate or law, especially when it is Constitutional.

The Supreme Court rules on what is and is not Constitutional and in 1869 they ruled that a State can not unilaterally leave the Union. It requires the consent of the rest of the States.

 

[jillian]

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

and what is the utopian ideal you envision if you decide you don't like U.S. law any more?

 

[Liability]

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

and what is the utopian ideal you envision if you decide you don't like U.S. law any more?

Your question makes no sense -- at least not at this juncture.

I have not advocated for any secession.

I have merely argued that the right TO seceed is indeed implicit on the creation of the Union.

And no utopian ideal is needed, anyway. The Founders had no particular "ideal" in mind when they found it warranted to urge that WE seceed from Great Britain. Indeed, even later-on, when the time came to craft something more stable than the Articles of Confederation, there was quite a bit of disagreement about the form and shape of what we were to become. Many of the checks and balances -- as well as the principle of Federalism itself -- came about in our Constitution preciesly BECAUSE there was such disagrement. What they managed to cobble to gether out of that broad disagreement has been truly remarkable. That doesn't mean it cannot be fine-tuned when we see that some people in government are more than willing to do end runs around the constraints we put on them.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

Proletarian, do not conflate secession with revolution. They are indeed distinctly different. Washington would undoubtedly, I think, agree that secession was inappropriate except in the most egregious circumstances. In the case of 1860, such was not so. The south refused to respect federal territory, refused to accept constitutional and electoral process, and the south waged war on the north.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

The by your own words Proletarian you are "out law" in the classic sense. It is obvious that you do not believe in the reciprocal social compact of citizen to state. That's OK, but let's make clear what you are: not a patriot but rather 'out law'.

 

[jillian]

Your question makes no sense -- at least not at this juncture.

I have not advocated for any secession.

I have merely argued that the right TO seceed is indeed implicit on the creation of the Union.

And no utopian ideal is needed, anyway. The Founders had no particular "ideal" in mind when they found it warranted to urge that WE seceed from Great Britain. Indeed, even later-on, when the time came to craft something more stable than the Articles of Confederation, there was quite a bit of disagreement about the form and shape of what we were to become. Many of the checks and balances -- as well as the principle of Federalism itself -- came about in our Constitution preciesly BECAUSE there was such disagrement. What they managed to cobble to gether out of that broad disagreement has been truly remarkable. That doesn't mean it cannot be fine-tuned when we see that some people in government are more than willing to do end runs around the constraints we put on them.

i don't think the question is premature for the reason that if one can pick and choose what aspects of our law one adheres to, then that law becomes non-existent, or at very least ineffective.

I think it is implicit in the formation of the union, and apparently the high court agreed, that it was inviolable. In becoming member states, the individual states relinquished certain rights... There doesn't seem to be an opt-out clause in the constitution... and the Supreme Court didn't find one either. I think part of the objection of the people who scream for secession is in the fact that they somehow think, incorrectly, that the states should have powers exceeding the federal government. In certain areas, that is true. But largely, the supremacy of the federal government is fairly well established.. both in the constitution itself and the decisions interpreting it. If it weren't the case, we'd still live under the Articles of Confederation. And any doubt was removed by victory of the union forces over the confederate army in the civil war. I understand that things are not always perfect... and I think they did an amazing job, for their time, in anticipating the future. I also think a great deal of what they intended has been corrupted in recent years. And I'm also fairly well convinced that there are other systems of government it would behoove us to look at in terms of improving our own.

But acting like the secessionists are playing by the rules isn't one of them.

 

[☭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.

And if a State can not get Congress to agree to let them leave the Union they can always resort to force of Arms. Because that will be their only choice to leave. People and States can not selectively ignore Federal dictate or law, especially when it is Constitutional.

The Supreme Court rules on what is and is not Constitutional and in 1869 they ruled that a State can not unilaterally leave the Union. It requires the consent of the rest of the States.

Again, the FF would have disagreed.

After all, we didn't ask the rest of the Empire for permission to tell the Crown to fuck off.

The right to self determination overrules any law any State might declare.

 

[☭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.

Proletarian, do not conflate secession with revolution.

Don't confuse revolution with a war for independence.

No revolution has ever been fought in the US since the formation of the colonies.

They are indeed distinctly different.

That they are.

Washington would undoubtedly, I think, agree that secession was inappropriate except in the most egregious circumstances

Same with revolution. War and death are always a last resort.

. In the case of 1860, such was not so.

Depends on one's perspective. The Fed trampled all over states' rights and sovereignty and the North was effectively waging an economic war against the South.

Now, what do the justifications of and objections to the Confederate War for Independence have to do with whether men maintain the right to self determination when the State declares them to be slaves?

 

[☭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.

The by your own words Proletarian you are "out law" in the classic sense. It is obvious that you do not believe in the reciprocal social compact of citizen to state. That's OK, but let's make clear what you are: not a patriot but rather 'out law'.

Being a true patriot, I understand that the State serves the People and the People have no obligation to the State. The state is not a person, and is not a part to the social contract. Rather, it is the will of the People given form, the machinations by which their will is exercised.


Should the State turn against the People, the people have no obligation of loyalty to the State, but only to their principles and to their fellows.

 

[Liability]

Your question makes no sense -- at least not at this juncture.

I have not advocated for any secession.

I have merely argued that the right TO seceed is indeed implicit on the creation of the Union.

And no utopian ideal is needed, anyway. The Founders had no particular "ideal" in mind when they found it warranted to urge that WE seceed from Great Britain. Indeed, even later-on, when the time came to craft something more stable than the Articles of Confederation, there was quite a bit of disagreement about the form and shape of what we were to become. Many of the checks and balances -- as well as the principle of Federalism itself -- came about in our Constitution preciesly BECAUSE there was such disagrement. What they managed to cobble to gether out of that broad disagreement has been truly remarkable. That doesn't mean it cannot be fine-tuned when we see that some people in government are more than willing to do end runs around the constraints we put on them.

i don't think the question is premature for the reason that if one can pick and choose what aspects of our law one adheres to, then that law becomes non-existent, or at very least ineffective.

I think it is implicit in the formation of the union, and apparently the high court agreed, that it was inviolable. In becoming member states, the individual states relinquished certain rights... There doesn't seem to be an opt-out clause in the constitution... and the Supreme Court didn't find one either. I think part of the objection of the people who scream for secession is in the fact that they somehow think, incorrectly, that the states should have powers exceeding the federal government. In certain areas, that is true. But largely, the supremacy of the federal government is fairly well established.. both in the constitution itself and the decisions interpreting it. If it weren't the case, we'd still live under the Articles of Confederation. And any doubt was removed by victory of the union forces over the confederate army in the civil war. I understand that things are not always perfect... and I think they did an amazing job, for their time, in anticipating the future. I also think a great deal of what they intended has been corrupted in recent years. And I'm also fairly well convinced that there are other systems of government it would behoove us to look at in terms of improving our own.

But acting like the secessionists are playing by the rules isn't one of them.

We ALL have always had the ability to pick and choose "which aspects of the law" we choose to adhere to.

If you lived in Nazi Germany under the laws of the Nazi government, for example, and the "law" said that you were not permitted to "harbor a Jew," it might be that you would "choose" to disobey that law.

It is not even slightly surprising that the high Court of the FEDERAL Government would "rule," as a matter of "law," that once the union was formed it was inviolable. That ruling however is not necessarily a sound one just because the SCOTUS made the call.

It is logically much more defensible, in my view, to contend that IF we (i.e., the States) FORMED the Federal UNION upon certain very specific terms and conditions (limitations), then we retain the right to withdraw from our own creation should those terms and conditions be violated.

In those areas where the agreement that created it grants authority to the Federal Government, I have no doubt that the Supremacy Clause means what it says.

But in OTHER areas? Why on Earth would any of us now "agree" that their word is (or their actions are) "superior" to those of the States or of the People?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

It is logically much more defensible, in my view, to contend that IF we (i.e., the States) FORMED the Federal UNION upon certain very specific terms and conditions (limitations), then we retain the right to withdraw from our own creation should those terms and conditions be violated.

In those areas where the agreement that created it grants authority to the Federal Government, I have no doubt that the Supremacy Clause means what it says.

Buit in OTHER areas? Why on Earth would any of us now "agree" that their word is or their actions are "superior" to those of the States of of the People?

 

[California Girl]

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.

Only if they lose, if they win, it's called Revolution.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The Supreme Court only said that any State leaving the Union must have the permission of the rest of the Country.

 

[Liability]

The Supreme Court only said that any State leaving the Union must have the permission of the rest of the Country.

And that holding is itself silly.

If the Federal Government is violating the terms and conditions upon which Texas entered the Union (I like to pick on Texas) then why should Texas have to stay in the "relationship" unless her sister States agree to "let" her go?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

The Supreme Court only said that any State leaving the Union must have the permission of the rest of the Country.

Did we ask the rest of the Empire for permission cast off the tyranny of the Crown?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The Supreme Court only said that any State leaving the Union must have the permission of the rest of the Country.

Did we ask the rest of the Empire for permission cast off the tyranny of the Crown?

Once again dumb ass, you have 2 choices if you want to leave. One is convincing the rest of the Country to let them go, the second is to arm yourself and force a separation by force of Arms.

That is the way it works.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Once again, dumbass, I ask you the question you're too scared to answer

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?

 

[Contumacious]

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.

Just so you know , King George III also told the colonists that they couldn't secede from England.

Fuck him and Scalia.

.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

And if a State can not get Congress to agree to let them leave the Union they can always resort to force of Arms. Because that will be their only choice to leave. People and States can not selectively ignore Federal dictate or law, especially when it is Constitutional.

The Supreme Court rules on what is and is not Constitutional and in 1869 they ruled that a State can not unilaterally leave the Union. It requires the consent of the rest of the States.

Again, the FF would have disagreed.

After all, we didn't ask the rest of the Empire for permission to tell the Crown to fuck off.

The right to self determination overrules any law any State might declare.

The FF would have told you, Proletarian, to shut up, that you did not represent their beliefs correctly at all.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

Proletarian, do not conflate secession with revolution.

Don't confuse revolution with a war for independence.

No revolution has ever been fought in the US since the formation of the colonies.

That they are.

Washington would undoubtedly, I think, agree that secession was inappropriate except in the most egregious circumstances

Same with revolution. War and death are always a last resort.

. In the case of 1860, such was not so.

Depends on one's perspective. The Fed trampled all over states' rights and sovereignty and the North was effectively waging an economic war against the South.

Now, what do the justifications of and objections to the Confederate War for Independence have to do with whether men maintain the right to self determination when the State declares them to be slaves?

Please, folks, go back and read what Proletarian left off because he could not argue against the points. (1) The south did not respect federal property. (2) The south did not respect and follow constitutional and electoral process. (3) The south waged aggressive war against the nation.

Because P can't argue those points clearly reveals that he has lost this discussion a long time ago.