Author Topic: A Right To Secede?  (Read 16579 times)

Trip

  • Guest
A Right To Secede?
« on: August 01, 2013, 11:04:13 PM »
Do the Sovereign States have any right to secede from the Union?

Introduction:

Without doubt the subject of Secession results in strong opinions, with the Civil War itself being a strong (and violent)  claim that there is no right to secede. Many cite the post-war case of Texas v White as the final word that Secession is not possible, however this was not exactly any sort of legitimate exercise of our constitutional government and jurisprudence.

It seems The Declaration of Independence itself is emphatic on the matter by asserting, not once, but twice, the right and duty of the people to overthrow a tyrannous government:

  • 1) "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 ... "

    2) "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."

However it should be pointed out that the Declaration also emphasizes that this right to institute a new government is only for significant cause:

  • "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes ... "

The only power afforded the federal government in the Constitution, in this regard, is Article 1, Section 8 , to suppress insurrection.  However "insurrection" actually presupposes that the federal government itself is operating within the terms of the Constitution, and legitimate government.

"insurrection" involves resistance to legitimate government and is not necessarily to be applied to the states themselves, as States are legitimate and even sovereign government,  but rather insurrection applies to the general populace in a state of insurrection in conflict with the legitimate governance and the Constitution.

The Constitution is founded on the principle that the states are sovereign entities, and only by the compact among the several States do those sovereign states bring the fiction of the federal government into existence, under express limited terms. The states did not forfeit there sovereignty overall, and only ceded certain authority under specific enumerated issues.

My own position is that the claim that the states have no right to secede is contrary to every principle of this country.

At what point do our grievances go beyond "light and transient causes"?

Do those grievances become significant when the government usurps ownership of citizen's bodies to dictate their care and maintenance, without any enumerated power to do so? Do they become insignificant when the government believes it can infringe the right to keep and bear arms by means of only a Presidential Directive?  Do they become no longer insignificant when the federal government deliberately maintains open borders, and then forces a mass amnesty upon the citizenry?

Given that the right to bear arms is not "a grant" made by the Second Amendment itself, but rather only a "bill" or "listing of particulars in that Bill of Rights, can such an unalienable right even be removed by any amendment to the Constitution?  Or does the government have the authority to limit the Freedom of the Press by limiting what is "a journalist" to those who are paid, and those who work full-time as a journalist?

All of these, and more, are important questions in this Republic, and the issue of whether states have the authority to secede from the Union.






Trip

  • Guest
Re: A Right To Secede?
« Reply #1 on: August 01, 2013, 11:08:37 PM »
The Civil War
&
Texas vs White


Texas vs White was a U.S. Supreme Court case about the sale of bonds by the duly elected Texas State Legislature during the Civil War.

The U.S Treasury gave notice that it would not honor any bonds sold by the state unless they had the signature of a pre-war governor Sam Houston, but this notice occurred after the sale, but before that sale was registered. This Treasury notice was in no way a legitimate authority of the federal government to do, much less the Treasury, secession or not. The divestiture of those bonds was a state issue, and fully covered under state rights, having no federal authority governing it. The Texas legislature would have been fully lawful in selling the bonds in the manner it did were not the state in secession, thereby making the Courts verdict nothing but circular logic and a foregone conclusion.


The suit was brought by the post-war Texas government, which was nothing but a puppet government appointed by the federal government under the Military Reconstruction Act (MRA). The MRA involved the creation of five military districts in the South, each commanded by a general, which would serve as the acting government for the region. Texas was in the Fifth Military District under Gen. Philip Henry Sheridan, who replaced duly-elected Texas governor James W. Throckmorton with Elisha Marshall Pease, who only recently had founded the state's (Radical) Republican party - a banana republic puppet.

Under Radical Reconstruction, for readmission to the Union under the congressional plan, each unreconstructed state was required to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment, and elect by universal manhood suffrage. No, no conflict here, demanding universal sufferage (for men) but demanding they cast a vote for an Amendment to give the appearance of Constitutionality. Furthermore, each state had to write a constitution acceptable to the Congress. Well, I think we just threw out the idea of state sovereignty, not by judgment, not by amendment, but by force. Yet this country was in no way founded under the principle of "might makes right".

Under Lincoln's vision, each state was considered to never have left the Union, but this is not what transpired under Radical Reconstruction. Under Radical Reconstruction, each state was treated as a conquered territory, having no sovereignty at all, and having the terms of its existence dictated. Yet this position was not convenient for the judgment in Texas vs White, which reversed the reconstruction position, back to the position of Lincoln, but did so with a puppet government appointed by the military, suing private individuals for return of bonds without compensation, and being adjudged by the federal government itself, yet pretending that Texas was a sovereign state for benefit of the suit!

Texas vs White was essentially a kangaroo court in league with a puppet government, and acting entirely extra-constititutionally, outside the bounds of the Constitution, and in disregard of its most fundamental tenets, and far more in conflict with the Constitution than those seceding states ever could have been.


Trip

  • Guest
Re: A Right To Secede?
« Reply #2 on: August 01, 2013, 11:19:20 PM »
What was the Founder's View Regarding Secession?

Many who deny the right of secession have made a similar claim to that below:

  • "There is no established, legal mechanism for secession. There is no Constitutional mechanism for secession. When Virginia and New York attempted to make the right to secede conditional to joining the Union, they were rebuffed by the author of the Constitution himself. It was explicitly denied. Perpetual union has been the precedent from day one. The Union is not legally dissoluble."

The above claims are false and inaccurate, particularly about Virginia and New York's ratifications of the Constitution, as well as the union being "perpetual" in so far as dissoluble, by the Articles of Confederation.

The only reference of any "perpetual" union, was in the Articles of Confederation, and that was to indicate that the union was intended to be formed as a permanent institution, and not temporary as a response to war with Britain. There is no indication anywhere in the AOC, nor the Constitution, that individual states are prohibited from withdrawal from the union. It does not exist, and is only the more contemporary fabrication of a tyrannous federal government.

VIRGINIA

Virginia engaged its convention to ratify the Constitution with a clause by clause anyalysis of that compact. The convention then appointed a committee of five to prepare the form of ratification. On June 26, 1788m, the Form of Ratification was read again, signed by President Edmund Pendleton, and transmitted to the Confederation Congress. The opening indicates:


  •     We the Delegates of the People of Virginia duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly and now met in Convention having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us to decide thereon Do in the name and in behalf of the People of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will: that therefore no right of any denomination can be cancelled abridged restrained or modified by the Congress by the Senate or House of Representatives acting in any Capacity by the President or any Department or Officer of the United States except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes ...


The bolded portion, above, is the clear declaration of Virginia's right to secede at its will, given cause, and recognition of the fact that sovereignty resides with Virgina, nothing but a restatement of the terms of the Constitution, thereby Virgnia imposing no sort of conditions on Virginia's ratification.

Virgina's committee of five that wrote the ratification consisted of Edmund Randolph, George Nicholas, James Madison, John Marshall, and Francis Corbin -- all of whom were Federalists, with Madison and Randolph obviously being members of the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia.

Virginia's ratification was accepted without comment, caveat, or exception, and this is reasonable given that the statements were only a reiteration of the terms inherent to the Constitution itself. In fact the right to secession under breach of its terms by the federal government, is inherent to the Constitution.

NEW YORK

Meanwhile New York opened the ratification convention with an initiative led by Anti-federalist John Lansing Jr. moving that a resolution be adopted giving New York the right to secede from the Union if certain amendments were not adopted within a certain number of years.

Alexander Hamilton, anticipating such a proposal, had written to James Madison several days earlier and posed the question to him. Madison replied, indicating that Congress would not consider such a conditional ratification to be valid.

However, Madison, to whom the initial quote, above, was evidently referring to by the irrelevant inaccuracy "author of the Constitution", was only responding in his capacity as a retired delegate to the Congress of the Confederation from Virginia (not New York), with Madison's term ending on Nov 1, 1783. At that point Madison had already supported Virginia's right to secede in their ratification statement! Madison's comment to Hamilton was only indicting that such a conditional ratification was invalid, and not that secession itself was invalid! Even then Madison's statement had no authority to it, given his lack of political office.

Madison's letter only indicated that ratification statements could not involve "conditions" of future amendments to the Constitution, and such statements would only be rejected. Other conditions listed as presumed in the preamble to the Virginia ratification, in addition to the right to secede, include the inability of the federal government to interfere in free exercise of religion and the press -- were agreed by all, and not rejected by the federal government. Therefore the right to secede can only be viewed in the same light as these other statements.

"Perpetual Union" ... Indissoluble

The claim that, "The Union is not legally dissoluble" is not anywhere indicated in the Articles of Confederation, nor more importantly, in the Constitution itself. The only reference to the union as "perpetual", addresses the fact that the union was not merely a temporary formation solely to resolve the war with Britain, and does not indicate the compulsion of any state to remain therein, not "legally" or otherwise. This is supported by Article II of the Articles of Confederation, which indicates, "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction and right which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled." There is no power indicated anywhere in the AOC that prohibits any state from leaving that union.

It should be recognized that any state seceding from the union is not attempti9ng to "dissolve" the union, legally or otherwise, but rather only severing its own membership therein.

CONCLUSION:

George Washington's "Farewell Address" involved a prayer for the country:

  • "... that your union and brotherly affection may be perpetual; that the free Constitution, which is the work of your hands, may be sacredly maintained."

The phrase "may be" is not a recognition of any sort of compulsion in regard to the perpetuity of the union, and is tied to the fact that the "free Constitution" must be maintained by the "work of your hands", thereby making any longevity of the voluntary union the result of adherence to the Constitution's terms, and not any sort of compulsory membership in that union.

The Supreme Court has ruled that all states admitted to the Union are admitted on the same footing, with no state having lesser authority and rights. In Pollard's Lessee, the Supreme Court ruled that, "no compact that might be made between her and the United States could diminish or enlarge these rights." As a function of that ruling the Court also indicated that each and every state that joined subsequent to the Revolution, has the same rights as the original states. No state could have rights recognized that are not shared equally with other states.

Given the fact that Virginia did stipulate, and was accepted into the union, declaring its right to secession, then each and every state must have that unilateral authority as well, without exception.


Trip

  • Guest
Re: A Right To Secede?
« Reply #3 on: August 02, 2013, 02:06:03 AM »
Pollard's Lessee v Hagan (1845)

The Supreme Court itself has repeatedly affirmed the sovereignty of states, whether they are brought into the union initially, or after the fact.

The Court case Pollard's Lessee involved conflicting claims by the United States and Alabama to ownership of certain partially inundated lands on the shore of the Gulf of Mexico in Alabama.

The enabling act for Alabama had contained both a declaration of equal footing and a reservation to the United States of these lands. Rather than an issue of mere land ownership, the Court saw the question as one concerning sovereignty and jurisdiction of the States.

As the original 13 States retained sovereignty and jurisdiction over the navigable waters and the soil beneath them within their boundaries, retention by the United States of either title to or jurisdiction over common lands in the new States would bring those States into the Union on less than an equal footing with the original States.

The Court resolved:

  • "To Alabama belong the navigable waters and soils under them, in controversy in this case, subject to the rights surrendered by the Constitution to the United States; and no compact that might be made between her and the United States could diminish or enlarge these rights."

    "Alabama is, therefore, entitled to the sovereignty and jurisdiction over all the territory within her limits ... to maintain any other doctrine, is to deny that Alabama has been admitted into the union on an equal footing with the original states ... to Alabama belong the navigable waters and soils under them."

Notice the first cited paragraph involves not only a recognition of Alabama's sovereignty, but as with "unalienable" rights, that state sovereignty is also unalienable, and cannot by changed even by agreement ("compact") by the state itself! This is undiminished by the fact that Alabama was originally a territory, entirely subject to congressional control.

"No compact that might be made between [any state] and the United States could diminish these rights", .... which would include ability to secede from the union.

In regard to the claim that "most states don't have such a  provision" to secede from the union similar to Virginia, as a function of the Pollard's Lessee holding, the Court also indicated that each and every state that joined subsequent to the Revolution, has the same rights as the original states.... and that No state could have rights recognized that are not shared equally with other states.

Therefore, given the fact that Virginia did stipulate, and was accepted into the union declaring its right to secession, then each and every state has that unilateral right as well, without exception.

*** NOTE:  The above also applies to territory within a state which the federal government may have purchased.   While the Federal government may have constitutional authority to write laws applicable to forts, and federal parks, the territory is still the Sovereign territory of each state, with the federal government's ownership of a portion thereof being only as a sort of elevated tenant.   "No Compact that might be made ... can alter these rights <State sovereignty>"

This puts new light on the federal government's act of supplying and  fortifying  Fort Sumter upon the secession of the South, with this fortification of Sumter at the mouth of Charleston bay actually itself being the original act of war, and not the South's resultant  firing upon Fort Sumter.

« Last Edit: August 02, 2013, 02:24:29 AM by Trip »

Offline kramarat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5192
  • Gender: Male
Re: A Right To Secede?
« Reply #4 on: August 02, 2013, 04:33:31 AM »
Very interesting read.

Based on that, I would agree that every state has the right to secede.

One major thing that Obama has accomplished, is shining a spotlight on the illegal and unconstitutional behavior of the federal government. Like most Americans, I spent most of my life believing that the supreme court always had our backs, in regard to the constitution. Boy, was I ever wrong!

While the depth of my knowledge is still limited, I actually took an interest and started reading, with the passing of the patriot act, and the formation of the DHS and TSA. I knew in my gut that the patriot act was really bad.

The more I learn, the scarier and more depressing it gets.

Constitutionally, this should be an open and shut case, but it is being ignored, and once again demonstrates how far away from the constitution the federal government has strayed...largely unchallenged. :sad:

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/032912-606068-new-sagebrush-rebellion-brews-in-western-states.htm

We are living in some interesting and historically significant times. With a fully treasonous administration in place, one can only guess at what will come.

Thanks for another great thread.

Trip

  • Guest
Re: A Right To Secede?
« Reply #5 on: August 02, 2013, 10:28:43 AM »
Conservative Orginalist Antonin Scalia's Response to Secession

In 2006 Antonin Scalia responded to a letter questioning the right to State secession.  To no surprise (at least for me),  Scalia indicated "there's no right to secede".

Scalia's  response (jpg):

  •     I am afraid I cannot be of much help with your problem <screenplay>, principally because I cannot imagine that such a question could ever reach the Supreme Court. To begin with, the answer is clear. If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede. (Hence, in the Pledge of Allegiance, β€œone Nation, indivisible.”) Secondly, I find it difficult to envision who the parties to this lawsuit might be. Is the State suing the United States for a declaratory judgment? But the United States cannot be sued without its consent, and it has not consented to this sort of suit.

        I am sure that poetic license can overcome all that β€” but you do not need legal advice for that. Good luck with your screenplay.

Imagine that, a "constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War"!

This letter from Scalia is not one of his more stellar responses. First, the idea that a "constitutional issue" might have been resolved by the Civil War itself, the exercise of force, is asinine and absent any sort of constitutional thought, not to mention reference.

Then to compound this error, Scalia attempts to support his reference to the Civil War results with reference to, of all the asinine things, the Pledge of Allegiance, which has no foundation in law, or founding principle, much less Constitutional rationale, only further demonstrating the fallacy of his reasoning.

The Pledge of Allegiance was only recognized in 1942, one-hundred-fifty-five years after this nation's founding, and seventy-seven years after the Civil War, and was written by Francis Bellamy, not even any sort of scholar, but a progressive Christian Socialist! One should also be aware that Bellamy did not support universal suffrage stating, "a democracy like ours cannot afford to throw itself open to the world where every man is a lawmaker, every dull-witted or fanatical immigrant admitted to our citizenship is a bane to the commonwealth.” Scalia himself is demonstrating a rather dull wit in referencing the Pledge as any sort of authoritative source!

Beyond that, the reference in the Pledge of Allegiance to "one nation,  indivisible", as with the Articles of Confederation reference to "perpetual union", is the positive expression for the hoped longevity of the union. It is ridiculous, even absurd, to cite the Pledge (or the AOC) as trying to indicate that the union is compulsory.

Nowhere in Scalia's rationale is there even any pretense of Constitutional thought, which should be scary to free Americans!

Then Scalia goes on to address this hypothetical "suit" for secession against the federal government, stating that he cannot imagine who would bring this suit. This comment alone supports the idea that no state would have to sue the government, nor get the approval of other states, to secede.

Scalia then demonstrates the very same ideology that would cause a state to need to secede in the first place, by indicating that the federal government cannot be sued without its consent, which is a gross corruption that has been used by this administration, allowing law suits of various groups, in order for the administration to do what it intended to do all along <ie climate change, and environmental issues>, and then claim it has no choice! Yet Scalia's response ignores the constitutional guarantee in the 1st Amendment of the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances, something further resisted by the corruption of the Court with "standing".

Finally, Scalia wrote this letter in 2006, two years before Obama's election, and before Justice Roberts flipped his vote at the last minute, after having even written 70% of the opinion rejecting ObamaCare as entirely unconstitutional (Was Chief Justice John Roberts Blackmailed To Support ObamaCare?), and resulting in the de facto ownership by the federal government of individual citizens, profoundly changing the relationship between citizen and government, all without even an Amendment to the Constitution! The real cause to secede did not exist in 2006.

It is very possible, perhaps even likely,  that Scalia's more-considered Constitutional opinion now is nothing like the opinion applicable to a screenplay, written in this response.   

However,  beyond that, neither Scalia's opinion, nor that of the Court as a whole, do not much matter, as the states themselves are individually sovereign and not needing government permission.

« Last Edit: August 02, 2013, 10:37:59 AM by Trip »

Offline Shooterman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2813
  • Gender: Male
  • Draft Jan Morgan for President
Re: A Right To Secede?
« Reply #6 on: August 02, 2013, 12:34:26 PM »
May I suggest 'one nation, indivisible', would only be true if, as Lincoln preached, the union was created by the Continental Congress in 1774, and subsequently created the states.

It might also be suggested that not only was Bellamy a socialists, but was trying to sell flags to schools. The original pledge said 'my flag', and the original salute was very similar to the NAZI salute and was also changed in '42.
There's no ticks like Polyticks-bloodsuckers all Davy Crockett 1786-1836

Yankees are like castor oil. Even a small dose is bad.
[IMG]

Trip

  • Guest
Re: A Right To Secede?
« Reply #7 on: August 03, 2013, 04:12:55 AM »
From: Thomas Jefferson
Monticello
To:  William B. Giles
Date: December 26, 1825.

  • I see, as you do, and with the deepest affliction, the rapid strides with which the federal branch of our government is advancing towards the usurpation of all the rights reserved to the States, and the consolidation in itself of all powers, foreign and domestic, and that, too, by constructions which, if legitimate, leave no limits to their power.   Take together the decisions of the Federal Court, the doctrines of the President, and the misconstructions of the constitutional compact acted on by the legislature of the federal branch, and it is but too evident that the three ruling branches of that department are in combination to strip their colleagues, the State authorities, of the powers reserved by them, and to exercise themselves all functions foreign and domestic. Under the power to regulate commerce they assume indefinitely that also over agriculture and manufactures and call it regulation to take the earnings of one of these branches of industry, and that, too, the most depressed, and put them into the pockets of the other, the most flourishing of all. Under the authority to establish post roads, they claim that of cutting down mountains for the construction of roads, of digging canals, and, aided by a little sophistry on the words "general welfare," a right to do not only the acts to effect that which are specifically enumerated and permitted, but whatsoever they shall think or pretend will be for the general welfare. And what is our resource for the preservation of the constitution? Reason and argument? You might as well reason and argue with the marble columns encircling them. The representatives chosen by ourselves? They are joined in the combination, some from incorrect views of government, some from corrupt ones, sufficient voting together to outnumber the sound parts; and with majorities only of one, two, or three, bold enough to go forward in defiance. Are we then to stand to our arms ... ?

    No! That must be the last resource, not to be thought of until much longer and greater sufferings. If every infraction of a compact of so many parties is to be resisted at once as a dissolution of it, none can ever be formed which would last one year. We must have patience and longer endurance then with our brethren while under delusion; give them time for reflection and experience of consequences; keep ourselves in a situation to profit by the chapter of accidents; and separate from our companions only when the sole alternatives left are the dissolution of our Union with them or submission to a government without limitation of powers. Between these two evils, when we must make a choice, there can be no hesitation. But, in the meanwhile, the States should be watchful to note every material usurpation on their rights, to denounce them as they occur in the most peremptory terms, to protest against them as wrongs to which our present submission shall be considered, not as acknowledgments or precedents of right but as a temporary yielding to the lesser evil, until their accumulation shall overweigh that of separation. I would go still further and give to the federal member, by a regular amendment of the constitution, a right to make roads and canals of intercommunication between the States, providing sufficiently against corrupt practices in Congress (log-rolling, etc.) by declaring that the federal proportion of each State of the moneys so employed shall be in works within the State, or elsewhere with its consent, and with a due salvo of jurisdiction. This is the course which I think safest and best as yet.

The above reference to  corrupt practices in Congress, specifically "log-rolling", is the exchanging of political favors, especially the trading of influence or votes among legislators to achieve passage of projects. 

It is clear that even Jefferson supported secession when there was no other recourse, and it was clear that Congress, and the people at large, had no intention of remedying their transgressions.   

In fact what we witness today is the intention to further those transgressions to even greater extremes, with those attempting to curtail these expansion of illegitimate government themselves being called "extremists", such as the Tea Partiers.



Offline kramarat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5192
  • Gender: Male
Re: A Right To Secede?
« Reply #8 on: August 03, 2013, 04:37:17 AM »
From: Thomas Jefferson
Monticello
To:  William B. Giles
Date: December 26, 1825.

  • I see, as you do, and with the deepest affliction, the rapid strides with which the federal branch of our government is advancing towards the usurpation of all the rights reserved to the States, and the consolidation in itself of all powers, foreign and domestic, and that, too, by constructions which, if legitimate, leave no limits to their power.   Take together the decisions of the Federal Court, the doctrines of the President, and the misconstructions of the constitutional compact acted on by the legislature of the federal branch, and it is but too evident that the three ruling branches of that department are in combination to strip their colleagues, the State authorities, of the powers reserved by them, and to exercise themselves all functions foreign and domestic. Under the power to regulate commerce they assume indefinitely that also over agriculture and manufactures and call it regulation to take the earnings of one of these branches of industry, and that, too, the most depressed, and put them into the pockets of the other, the most flourishing of all. Under the authority to establish post roads, they claim that of cutting down mountains for the construction of roads, of digging canals, and, aided by a little sophistry on the words "general welfare," a right to do not only the acts to effect that which are specifically enumerated and permitted, but whatsoever they shall think or pretend will be for the general welfare. And what is our resource for the preservation of the constitution? Reason and argument? You might as well reason and argue with the marble columns encircling them. The representatives chosen by ourselves? They are joined in the combination, some from incorrect views of government, some from corrupt ones, sufficient voting together to outnumber the sound parts; and with majorities only of one, two, or three, bold enough to go forward in defiance. Are we then to stand to our arms ... ?

    No! That must be the last resource, not to be thought of until much longer and greater sufferings. If every infraction of a compact of so many parties is to be resisted at once as a dissolution of it, none can ever be formed which would last one year. We must have patience and longer endurance then with our brethren while under delusion; give them time for reflection and experience of consequences; keep ourselves in a situation to profit by the chapter of accidents; and separate from our companions only when the sole alternatives left are the dissolution of our Union with them or submission to a government without limitation of powers. Between these two evils, when we must make a choice, there can be no hesitation. But, in the meanwhile, the States should be watchful to note every material usurpation on their rights, to denounce them as they occur in the most peremptory terms, to protest against them as wrongs to which our present submission shall be considered, not as acknowledgments or precedents of right but as a temporary yielding to the lesser evil, until their accumulation shall overweigh that of separation. I would go still further and give to the federal member, by a regular amendment of the constitution, a right to make roads and canals of intercommunication between the States, providing sufficiently against corrupt practices in Congress (log-rolling, etc.) by declaring that the federal proportion of each State of the moneys so employed shall be in works within the State, or elsewhere with its consent, and with a due salvo of jurisdiction. This is the course which I think safest and best as yet.

The above reference to  corrupt practices in Congress, specifically "log-rolling", is the exchanging of political favors, especially the trading of influence or votes among legislators to achieve passage of projects. 

It is clear that even Jefferson supported secession when there was no other recourse, and it was clear that Congress, and the people at large, had no intention of remedying their transgressions.   

In fact what we witness today is the intention to further those transgressions to even greater extremes, with those attempting to curtail these expansion of illegitimate government themselves being called "extremists", such as the Tea Partiers.

Wow!

While I was lamenting my lack of constitutional knowledge, at work yesterday, I had a little epiphany...it was almost like a voice.

I realized that I am not lacking an understanding of the constitution; I've read it quite a few times. It was specifically written, so that any literate person of average intelligence could understand it. Not difficult.

It has slowly been bled by thousands upon thousands of tiny cuts, and I don't think that any one person has a full grasp of every one of those little cuts. I think what has awakened so many people fom their slumber, is that, those tiny cuts have now become slicing gashes that leave ugly open wounds. It's imposible to ignore.

Trip

  • Guest
Re: A Right To Secede?
« Reply #9 on: August 03, 2013, 04:53:58 AM »
Wow!

While I was lamenting my lack of constitutional knowledge, at work yesterday, I had a little epiphany...it was almost like a voice.

I realized that I am not lacking an understanding of the constitution; I've read it quite a few times. It was specifically written, so that any literate person of average intelligence could understand it. Not difficult.

It has slowly been bled by thousands upon thousands of tiny cuts, and I don't think that any one person has a full grasp of every one of those little cuts. I think what has awakened so many people fom their slumber, is that, those tiny cuts have now become slicing gashes that leave ugly open wounds. It's imposible to ignore.

One funny thing about having a full grasp of the Constitution, is paying attention not only to what it indicates directly, but also to recognize what it does NOT indicate.

This is an important factor in recognizing so many things

It applies to my realization that the federal government, literally, has no authority to write legislation that impacts on the territory that is the several States themselves.  But one can only come to this realization by piecing together a number of the specific powers of Congress, and recognizing what's absent from them, and that those enumerated powers only and areas to legislate, do not actually involve the state territories at all.    Then extrapolate this to the things like the "regulation of interstate commerce"  and you realize that Congress is precluded and excluded from applying "interstate commerce" as some plenary power, to provide license  to engage in legislation in the states.


Offline kramarat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5192
  • Gender: Male
Re: A Right To Secede?
« Reply #10 on: August 03, 2013, 05:12:08 AM »
One funny thing about having a full grasp of the Constitution, is paying attention not only to what it indicates directly, but also to recognize what it does NOT indicate.

This is an important factor in recognizing so many things

It applies to my realization that the federal government, literally, has no authority to write legislation that impacts on the territory that is the several States themselves.  But one can only come to this realization by piecing together a number of the specific powers of Congress, and recognizing what's absent from them, and that those enumerated powers only and areas to legislate, do not actually involve the state territories at all.    Then extrapolate this to the things like the "regulation of interstate commerce"  and you realize that Congress is precluded and excluded from applying "interstate commerce" as some plenary power, to provide license  to engage in legislation in the states.

I've always thought that everything that was NOT specifically written, went to the states by default.
Regardless, it's looking like more and more of a pipe dream, to think that all of this crap can be undone. Elections are being won by people that are fully dependent on the federal government; which includes the unionized federal work force. :sad:

Online Solar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 62334
  • Gender: Male
Re: A Right To Secede?
« Reply #11 on: August 03, 2013, 06:07:31 AM »
Wow!

While I was lamenting my lack of constitutional knowledge, at work yesterday, I had a little epiphany...it was almost like a voice.

I realized that I am not lacking an understanding of the constitution; I've read it quite a few times. It was specifically written, so that any literate person of average intelligence could understand it. Not difficult.

It has slowly been bled by thousands upon thousands of tiny cuts, and I don't think that any one person has a full grasp of every one of those little cuts. I think what has awakened so many people fom their slumber, is that, those tiny cuts have now become slicing gashes that leave ugly open wounds. It's imposible to ignore.
Good description, it reminds me of the Star Trek episode where Kirk finds a people worshiping the American flag, but the words they chant are so bastardized, they are hardly recognizable as to that of the pledge of allegiance.

Today, the Constitution has been so bastardized and abused, that reading it like the book it was written to be, no longer makes sense because so much is wrong with our country for not following and abusing the meaning the Constitution.

If not for the brilliance of the bill of Rights, we would probably not have an original Constitution today.
#WWG1WGA

Offline kramarat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5192
  • Gender: Male
Re: A Right To Secede?
« Reply #12 on: August 03, 2013, 06:11:14 AM »
Good description, it reminds me of the Star Trek episode where Kirk finds a people worshiping the American flag, but the words they chant are so bastardized, they are hardly recognizable as to that of the pledge of allegiance.

Today, the Constitution has been so bastardized and abused, that reading it like the book it was written to be, no longer makes sense because so much is wrong with our country for not following and abusing the meaning the Constitution.

If not for the brilliance of the bill of Rights, we would probably not have an original Constitution today.

Man, I loved that original Star Trek series.

Remember the one where the entire society was set up like Nazi Germany?

Trip

  • Guest
Re: A Right To Secede?
« Reply #13 on: August 03, 2013, 06:54:27 AM »
Good description, it reminds me of the Star Trek episode where Kirk finds a people worshiping the American flag, but the words they chant are so bastardized, they are hardly recognizable as to that of the pledge of allegiance.

Today, the Constitution has been so bastardized and abused, that reading it like the book it was written to be, no longer makes sense because so much is wrong with our country for not following and abusing the meaning the Constitution.

If not for the brilliance of the bill of Rights, we would probably not have an original Constitution today.

The "E Plebnista" episode, titled Omega Glory!


Online Solar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 62334
  • Gender: Male
Re: A Right To Secede?
« Reply #14 on: August 03, 2013, 07:05:15 AM »
The "E Plebnista" episode, titled Omega Glory!


Yes, that's the one, and it was most likely why Roddenberry wrote it, as a warning, that if we don't keep and understanding of it's principles, we will fail to understand it's meaning and it just becomes words, meaningless words.
#WWG1WGA

 

Powered by EzPortal