'Is Secession Legal?'

[NYcarbineer]

It is only Legal if everyone agrees. Already established by the Civil War and a Supreme Court ruling, if you want to leave the Union it takes an act of Congress to do so.

If the Seceding Southern States had not committed acts of war against the Union, it is not 100% clear that President Lincoln would have sought to fight them.

Having done so and gotten that reaction, however, from the Union, the Civil War got fought and the South lost.

History is written by the victors to a large extent.

This does not mean that the basic premise of secession as a reaction to the willful violation of the precepts of the Constitution by the Federal government is invalid.

And one test would be: if (I'll pick on Texas again) Texas were to decide at some point in the not too distant future that they had had enough of the "Union," and were terminating the relationship, does ANYBODY really think this Nation would again choose to go to war over it?

Personally, I doubt it.

I do not advocate for Secession. I think we need to keep up the struggle to improve the Union -- all the time. But it seems dangerously naive to just assume Secession can't happen -- or that it won't. The rumblings have begun. The rumblings are valid in my opinion to the extent that the complaint is that the Constitution is not being honored BY the Federal government.

I have never accepted the response that "there's nothing that can be done about it." In my view, the Federal government had best get its shit together PDQ. What is the point of ignoring warnings?

Not to, in a sideways manner, lend credibility to any of this nonsense, but it's at least worth mentioning that most US states are composed of U.S. possessions. They weren't granted independence when they were granted statehood.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Yeah, it would, as judicial power is invested in the Supreme Court and lower tribunals as created by Congress, not to the states.

There is NOTHING in Article III that says the Supreme Court is the final arbiter on what is Constitutional. That is simply how it has been since Jefferson let Marshall pull that stunt.

Ever notice that in every one of these sorts of threads, you eventually, inevitably, get someone who declares the Constitution unconstitutional?

lol

Here we go...

Article III
Section 1.

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
Section 2.

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.
Section 3.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

Article III | LII / Legal Information Institute

I have provided the complete Article III from the Constitution. Be so kind as to point out where in these provisions it STATES the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what is and is not Constitutional.

 

[NYcarbineer]

There is NOTHING in Article III that says the Supreme Court is the final arbiter on what is Constitutional. That is simply how it has been since Jefferson let Marshall pull that stunt.

Ever notice that in every one of these sorts of threads, you eventually, inevitably, get someone who declares the Constitution unconstitutional?

lol

Go ahead cite the sentences in article III that give the Supreme Court the sole right to adjudicate what is and is not Constitutional.

lol, cite the sentence that gives anyone else that authority, then lacking that, go look up what the term constitutional LAW means.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Ever notice that in every one of these sorts of threads, you eventually, inevitably, get someone who declares the Constitution unconstitutional?

lol

Go ahead cite the sentences in article III that give the Supreme Court the sole right to adjudicate what is and is not Constitutional.

lol, cite the sentence that gives anyone else that authority, then lacking that, go look up what the term constitutional LAW means.

Prior to Marshall ruling on the Jefferson matter both the President and the Congress had asserted that THEY were the final arbiter on THEIR respective Branches actions via the Constitution. Once again dumb ass, provide the sentence or sentences that grant this power to the Judiciary. It does not exist. We accept it because Jefferson accepted it.

It is nothing more then precedent. I gave you the entire article go ahead provide us the reference.

 

[rikules]

Not since the civil war.

That was pretty much decided in the 1860's.

But hell, I'd love it if the Red states seceded peacefully from the Union... The US would be so much better for it. LOL.

although I personally believe that any state should have a right to secede I would vote against it just for my own self interests;

if all red states seceded...
they would take with them MOST of the military
who would take MOST of the weapons
and they would start a Conservative CHRISTIAN we-hate-liberals America
and at night.....
they would have trouble sleeping.....
thinking about all those northern liberals and california liberals "getting away" with UNAmerican acts (like having sex, or thinking non-conservative thoughts)
so they would HAVE to INVADE us
kill most of us (twill be our own fault....we will deserve it)
rape our women
and then bring the old states back into the fold with the new

and then
they would WIN WIN WIN

they would have taken over America
MADE it a christian nation, complete with 10 commandments and the bible
and they would have had the GREAT FUN of killing liberals!

so though I support secession in theory
in practice I'm against it

 

[Polk]

No. It wouldn't.

Yeah, it would, as judicial power is invested in the Supreme Court and lower tribunals as created by Congress, not to the states.

There is NOTHING in Article III that says the Supreme Court is the final arbiter on what is Constitutional. That is simply how it has been since Jefferson let Marshall pull that stunt.

Marbury v Madison wasn't a "stunt". It's a plain text reading of the document.

 

[Polk]

There is NOTHING in Article III that says the Supreme Court is the final arbiter on what is Constitutional. That is simply how it has been since Jefferson let Marshall pull that stunt.

Ever notice that in every one of these sorts of threads, you eventually, inevitably, get someone who declares the Constitution unconstitutional?

lol

Go ahead cite the sentences in article III that give the Supreme Court the sole right to adjudicate what is and is not Constitutional.

"The judicial Power of the United States". Not "some of the judicial power". The definite judicial power. All the judicial power.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Ever notice that in every one of these sorts of threads, you eventually, inevitably, get someone who declares the Constitution unconstitutional?

lol

Go ahead cite the sentences in article III that give the Supreme Court the sole right to adjudicate what is and is not Constitutional.

"The judicial Power of the United States". Not "some of the judicial power". The definite judicial power. All the judicial power.

That does not even IMPLY that Constitutional decisions were the sole purview of the Judiciary. In fact Congress and the Executive argued FORCEFULLY for 10 years that was NOT the case.

 

[Polk]

Go ahead cite the sentences in article III that give the Supreme Court the sole right to adjudicate what is and is not Constitutional.

"The judicial Power of the United States". Not "some of the judicial power". The definite judicial power. All the judicial power.

That does not even IMPLY that Constitutional decisions were the sole purview of the Judiciary. In fact Congress and the Executive argued FORCEFULLY for 10 years that was NOT the case.

Without that power, the judiciary doesn't even have a purpose.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

"The judicial Power of the United States". Not "some of the judicial power". The definite judicial power. All the judicial power.

That does not even IMPLY that Constitutional decisions were the sole purview of the Judiciary. In fact Congress and the Executive argued FORCEFULLY for 10 years that was NOT the case.

Without that power, the judiciary doesn't even have a purpose.

Yes it does. That you claim otherwise is disingenuous at best. But have no fear no one is going to challenge the accepted norm. The Supreme Court has over 200 years of Precedent to stand on.

 

[Polk]

That does not even IMPLY that Constitutional decisions were the sole purview of the Judiciary. In fact Congress and the Executive argued FORCEFULLY for 10 years that was NOT the case.

Without that power, the judiciary doesn't even have a purpose.

Yes it does. That you claim otherwise is disingenuous at best. But have no fear no one is going to challenge the accepted norm. The Supreme Court has over 200 years of Precedent to stand on.

It's impossible to deliver a just decision without the ability to point out when a law is fundamentally flawed.

 

[Vanquish]

Wow. I leave for a bit and more pages appear. Funny how that happens.

It's amazing to me that certain whackadoos in this thread have no idea what the purpose of the judiciary is. Polk, you and I might be the only sane people in this thread.

 

[Liability]

Yeah, it would, as judicial power is invested in the Supreme Court and lower tribunals as created by Congress, not to the states.

There is NOTHING in Article III that says the Supreme Court is the final arbiter on what is Constitutional. That is simply how it has been since Jefferson let Marshall pull that stunt.

Marbury v Madison wasn't a "stunt". It's a plain text reading of the document.

No. It isn't. It's actually very contrived.

I am willing to concede that the authority of the Judicial Branch (most particularly the SCOTUS) to declare an Act of Congress to be a violation of the Constitution is, to some extent, a necessary implication of the Judicial Power granted to the Judicial Branch by the Constitution.

But it is not a power granted explicitly to the Judicial Branch.

Furthermore, it is plainly obvious that if it is not a grant of explicit power given to the Judicial Branch, then there is no reason to say that ONLY the Judicial Branch has that power.

Once again, if Congress passes an Act that violates the Constitution in terms of (for example) limited powers, the CLAIM by some folks that ONLY the SCOTUS can make the final call on whether that Act is Constitutional makes no sense. An invalid power grab BY the FEDERAL Government cannot validly be given the imprimatur of law BY the very same FEDERAL Government.

Judicial review is an implicit power, perhaps, and thus qualifies as one of the checks and balances. But Federalism was also built into the system AS a check and balance. The STATES created the Federal Government, granted it LIMITED powers and that was the only way the STATES would agree to ratify the Constitution which created the United States.

Under those conditions, it is absurd, now, to presume that the States have thereby denied to themselves the ability to nullify Federal Acts which violate the very terms of the ratifications by the States (or that the people have either.)

How meaningless would it have been for the States and the People to permit a Federal Sovereign to be created -- if but only if that Federal Sovereign's powers were limited and checked -- but then passively accept the proposition that there's nothing that the States or the people can do about a violation of those limitations by the Federal Sovereign.

 

[Charles Stucker]

Not since the civil war.

That was pretty much decided in the 1860's.

But hell, I'd love it if the Red states seceded peacefully from the Union... The US would be so much better for it. LOL.

although I personally believe that any state should have a right to secede I would vote against it just for my own self interests

Wow, an honest liberal, who woulda thunk it.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution itself that prohibits secession. There is nothing in the supporting founding documents that denotes any such thing. In fact the very notion goes against the very beliefs of the founding fathers and the primary reason they rebelled.

The Supremacy clause requires the states to follow federal law. You cannot secede with violating that requirement. Therefore the Constitution DOES prohibit secession. Explicitly.

I assert once again, that there is nothing in the Constitution that forces a state to stay within the union of the United States of America. There is nothing in the Supremacy Clause that prevents it. You need to read the Constitution more carefully. It does not state what you claim it does.

 

[NYcarbineer]

There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution itself that prohibits secession. There is nothing in the supporting founding documents that denotes any such thing. In fact the very notion goes against the very beliefs of the founding fathers and the primary reason they rebelled.

The Supremacy clause requires the states to follow federal law. You cannot secede with violating that requirement. Therefore the Constitution DOES prohibit secession. Explicitly.

A assert once again, that there is nothing in the Constitution that forces a state to stay within the union of the United States of America. There is nothing in the Supremacy Clause that prevents it. You need to read the Constitution more carefully. It does not state what you claim it does.

You cannot arbitrarily exempt yourself from state laws, states and their citizens cannot arbitrarily exempt themselves from federal laws. The income tax for example is a constitutional obligation. A state cannot arbitrarily exempt its citizens from paying federal income tax.

The Constitution does not have to say 'you can't secede!!!' in order for secession to be illegal, since the mere act of secession would entail so many other illegalities.

 

[Charles Stucker]

The Constitution does not have to say 'you can't secede!!!' in order for secession to be illegal,.

Actually it DOES have to say that. Part of that pesky bill of rights that certain groups continually seek to circumvent.

 

[Liability]

DID the States ratify the Constitution creating the Federal Government only upon condition that the Constitution carefully limit the powers thereby granted to the Federal government?

I could add, "yes or no?" -- but that "question" would be a false dilemma. The ANSWER is, "yes."

Now IF that's the case (and it is), then what do those of you who claim that secession is flatly illegal say can be done about it if and when the Federal Government transgresses those clearly delimited boundaries?

SOME of you stake out the position that there can be resort to thje Court system. Ultimately, that means the SCOTUS. But if the highest FEDERAL Court "sides" with those who are trampling Constitutional limits on Federal power in the first place, THEN what do you say can be done about it?

Is your "answer" REALLY that there's nothing that can properly and legally be done?

You guys give up too easily.

 

[Charles Stucker]

Is your "answer" REALLY that there's nothing that can properly and legally be done?

Wait I know this one. They DO want us to give up; even to admit that we need an amendment which allows states to secede. Since Amendments have to go through congress that means congress gets to control everything. Go congress; which we all know is the opposite of Progress.

 

[NYcarbineer]

DID the States ratify the Constitution creating the Federal Government only upon condition that the Constitution carefully limit the powers thereby granted to the Federal government?

I could add, "yes or no?" -- but that "question" would be a false dilemma. The ANSWER is, "yes."

Now IF that's the case and it is), then what do those of you who claim that secession is flatly illegal say can be done about it if and when the Federal Government transgresses those clearly delimited boundaries?

SOME of you stake out the position that there can be resort to thje Court system. Ultimately, that means the SCOTUS. But if the highest FEDERAL Court "sides" with those who are trampling Constitutional limits on Federal power in the first place, THEN what do you say can be done about it?

Is your "answer" REALLY that there's nothing that can properly and legally be done?

You guys give up too easily.

Legal is only legal if the legal authority to determine legality says its legal. Even you know that.

The residents of states have rights as US citizens. That is inarguable. Secession would inevitably violate those rights. Explain how outright violations of the rights of US citizens could be legal under the Constitution.