Secession

Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by Kevin_Kennedy, Nov 27, 2008.

?

Do you believe secession is legal under the Constitution?

  1. Yes

    77.8%
  2. No

    22.2%
  1. Kevin_Kennedy
    Offline

    Kevin_Kennedy Defend Liberty

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2008
    Messages:
    17,590
    Thanks Received:
    1,581
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +2,027
    The question is, do you think states have the right to secede from the union, if they so choose to?

    I believe this topic is often dismissed because of it's assumed association with the issue of slavery due to the Confederate States of America allowing slavery, while the northern states did not allow it. However, the truth is that there was also slavery permitted in the Union during the time of the Civil War, and Lincoln had no intention of ending slavery when he began the Civil War.

    Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, and West Virginia referred to as "border states," and they were part of the Union and allowed slavery. Lincoln confessed many times that he did not believe black people equal to white people, and that he was not adverse to them being slaves. He merely wanted to "save" the Union. His Emancipation Proclamation didn't free every slave in America, it merely freed the slaves in the Confederate States. Or more accurately, Lincoln "freed" only the slaves that he didn't actually have any authority to free. His intentions were clear, because the war was not, at the time, going in his favor, he wanted Confederate slaves to rise up and kill their masters.

    However, secession and slavery are two different topics, I am merely trying to point out that they don't have to go hand in hand. More importantly, not all people who believe secession is legal believe that slavery was good or just or anything of the sort. Onto the topic at hand.

    "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government..." - Declaration of Independence 1776

    It is my opinion that secession is legal, and that the federal government has no authority to stop any state that wishes to secede for any reason. If the benefits of seceding outweigh the negatives, then that state should be free and clear to leave the Union without incident.

    Those that will argue that the Supreme Court has decided that secession is illegal are correct, they certainly did decide that in White v. Texas. However, I ask those that believe in this decision to find for me where in the Constitution the federal government is given the authority to stop states from leaving the Union. The Constitution was meant to restrain the power of the federal government, not that of the citizens or the states. So where in the world did the Supreme Court find this authority for the federal government to stop states from seceding?

    The truth is that they made it up. Therefore, their decision that secession is illegal is unconstitutional and should not be enforced.

    "...whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and no force; that to this compact each state acceded as a state, and is an integral party; that this government, created by this compact, was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself, since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers..." - Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolve of 1798

    The part of Jefferson's quote that says, "that this government, created by this compact, was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself, since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers," is especially telling. The Supreme Court is part of the federal government, and it has basically been assumed that it has the final say in matters of "constitutional law." However, this quote shows that Jefferson did not believe this to be so.

    Since the Supreme Court is part of the federal government, Jefferson says that it is not the final word on all things Constitutional, because they will obviously decide that the Constitution gives them unlimited power. This certainly merits some reflection on our parts. Do we really want a government that gets to decide the limit of it's own powers, or would we rather have the Constitutional Republic the founders' created for us?
     
  2. William Joyce
    Offline

    William Joyce Chemotherapy for PC

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2004
    Messages:
    9,693
    Thanks Received:
    1,135
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Location:
    Caucasiastan
    Ratings:
    +1,349
    A question like this is not really subject to legal analysis (though that's fun) because if it came to head, it would be through force of overwhelming will, or, actual force. That is, war. Debates about states' rights or what the founders said and meant would be trampled under the feet of soldiers and rebels.

    The U.S. is going to break up, no question about it. Question is when and how.

    I have always consider the Declaration of Independence to be good precedent. If the motherfuckers are fucking with us too much, fuck 'em.

    I agree with David Duke that we should stop calling this 'our country'. It's THEIR country now... and we need to move on.
     
    Last edited: Nov 27, 2008
  3. Kevin_Kennedy
    Offline

    Kevin_Kennedy Defend Liberty

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2008
    Messages:
    17,590
    Thanks Received:
    1,581
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +2,027
    Well the question is, would they be right to send the troops in to stop a state from seceding, and why?
     
  4. RetiredGySgt
    Online

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,574
    Thanks Received:
    5,902
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,989
    If the Other States agreed to allow the state to leave it is legal. However a State can not unilaterally decide to leave.
     
  5. Kevin_Kennedy
    Offline

    Kevin_Kennedy Defend Liberty

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2008
    Messages:
    17,590
    Thanks Received:
    1,581
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +2,027
    Lincoln basically said the same thing. I disagree, but I'd like to hear why you think one state needs the permission of the other states to leave.
     
  6. RetiredGySgt
    Online

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,574
    Thanks Received:
    5,902
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,989
    The States are not independent entities. Except for the first 13 colonies every State was created from Federal Land, the Government allowed it to form as a territory and allowed it to petition to join as a State. The same process that allows a territory to join is needed to allow a State to leave the Union.

    The Civil War set the standard. The 1869 Supreme Court decision sealed the deal. The claim that each State was free to join and so free to leave is simply not true. The only exception being perhaps the first 13 colonies. Every other State was not "free" to not become property of the US. They started out as property of the Federal Government. ( well Texas was a separate entity but owed the US tons of money).
     
  7. Kevin_Kennedy
    Offline

    Kevin_Kennedy Defend Liberty

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2008
    Messages:
    17,590
    Thanks Received:
    1,581
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +2,027
    Your reasoning implies that different states have different rights, which is not the case. The Constitution protects each state in the exact same way. By allowing these territories to become states protected under the Constitution the federal government gave up any and all claims of ownership over the land.

    The only standard set by the Civil War was that the government would do whatever was necessary to force an unwilling state to remain in the union. As I stated before, Texas v. White is unconstitutional and therefore, to quote Thomas Jefferson, "unauthoritative, void, and no force..."
     
  8. strollingbones
    Offline

    strollingbones Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2008
    Messages:
    65,657
    Thanks Received:
    15,626
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    chicken farm
    Ratings:
    +31,971
    a state would have to form its own defense...its own montary system....etc...too complex...is nc going to raise an army and print there own money....i just do not see it happening....

    i do however think it is a right of the state and approved under certian guidelines by the constitution....
     
  9. editec
    Offline

    editec Mr. Forgot-it-All

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    41,427
    Thanks Received:
    5,598
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +5,618
    Legality has NOTHING to do with an issue like this.

    POWER is the key issue.

    FWIW, breaking up the USA would be a very very stupid thing to do.

    Why?

    Because the whole is worth more than the sum of its parts, folks.

    Now I do not entirely doubt that the USA won't break up sometime in the future, because that sort of thing does happen.

    But as to whether I think it would be a good thing?

    Absolutely not.

    No region is this nation would do as well as is does now, if it stood alone.
     
  10. William Joyce
    Offline

    William Joyce Chemotherapy for PC

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2004
    Messages:
    9,693
    Thanks Received:
    1,135
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Location:
    Caucasiastan
    Ratings:
    +1,349
    I don't know what "1869 Supreme Court decision" you're talking about, but you could not be more wrong that states aren't independent entities. And states being "property of the Federal Government" would not be recognized by the most liberal legal scholar alive! (Seriously, what does that mean? If your state is "property" of the federal government, why's it got its own constitution, government, etc.?)

    To say that the "Civil War set the standard" is right as a practical matter, but not a legal one. "Victory in war" is only one kind of precedent, easily overturned by...

    another victory in war!
     

Share This Page