View Full Version : Scalia - States have no right to secede
erowe1
02-17-2010, 01:14 PM
http://www.newyorkpersonalinjuryattorneyblog.com/2010/02/scalia-there-is-no-right-to-secede.html
Dan is a screenwriter (whose screenplay Tranquility Base was just named a finalist at the Vail Film Festival, and previously took top honors elsewhere). Back in 2006 he started working on a political farce that had Maine seceding from the United States and joining Canada.
Bro was well ahead of the tea partiers in contemplating impending problems as we racked up massive debt. This doesn't get him an agent or a foot in the door of Hollywood to get his screenplays made into films -- it isn't what you write, but who you know -- but it does make him a prophet of sorts.
So, on a lark, he wrote to each of the 10 Supreme Court justices (including O'Connor) with this request:
I'm a screenwriter in New York City, and am writing to see if you might be willing to assist me in a project that involves a unique constitutional issue.
My latest screenplay is a comedy about Maine seceding from the United States and joining Canada. There are parts of the story that deal with the legality of such an event and, of course, a big showdown in the Supreme Court is part of the story.
At the moment my story is a 12 page treatment. As an architect turned screenwriter, it is fair to say that I come up a bit short in the art of Supreme Court advocacy. If you could spare a few moments on a serious subject that is treated in a comedic way, I would greatly appreciate your thoughts. I'm sure you'll find the story very entertaining.
I told Dan he was nuts. I told him his letter would be placed in the circular file. And then Scalia wrote back. Personally. Explicitly rejecting the right to secede:
I am afraid I cannot be of much help with your problem, 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, "one 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 -- but you do not need legal advice for that. Good luck with your screenplay.
Add this to your reasons why Clarence Thomas is better than Scalia.
FrankRep
02-17-2010, 01:17 PM
YouTube - Interposition, Nullification and Secession on Freedom Watch - Judge talks to Lew Rockwell (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgpbDFNAAbU)
LittleLightShining
02-17-2010, 01:28 PM
He did not really cite the pledge of allegiance. :confused:
Bruno
02-17-2010, 01:34 PM
He did not really cite the pledge of allegiance. :confused:
A pledge made up by a socialist trumps the Constitution. We all know that. :rolleyes:
fisharmor
02-17-2010, 01:35 PM
Seriously?
Is English really that difficult to grasp?
How can he go so far out on a limb and state that there was actually a constitutional question and that it got answered?
The only question that got answered was "can we resist federal tyranny this decade" and the answer was "no, and boy howdy do we have plans for what to do when we get done here!"
jmdrake
02-17-2010, 01:37 PM
http://www.newyorkpersonalinjuryattorneyblog.com/2010/02/scalia-there-is-no-right-to-secede.html
Add this to your reasons why Clarence Thomas is better than Scalia.
Has Clarence Thomas endorsed a right to secession or is that wishful thinking?
erowe1
02-17-2010, 01:46 PM
Has Clarence Thomas endorsed a right to secession or is that wishful thinking?
Wishful thinking. I don't actually know if he might well answer this the same way as Scalia. But in this case, I can say I know Scalia got it wrong, while there's at least still a chance that Thomas wouldn't.
My general preference to Thomas over Scalia is based on other things.
dannno
02-17-2010, 01:47 PM
He did not really cite the pledge of allegiance. :confused:
Apparently it is more important than the Constitution.
The constitutional question that was posed by the 1861 secession was this: "is the Union ruled by law, or is it ruled by men?" And the answer, as Justice Scalia implied, is that the Union is ruled by men, and those men do not approve of secession.
Toureg89
02-17-2010, 01:54 PM
I do like Scalia and Thomas, mostly because they are the most libertarian justices, which isnt hard to get when you have a bunch of "living" constitutionalists on the Court.
that being said, we COULD HAVE a lot better judges, if we could get them through the approval process.
fisharmor
02-17-2010, 02:05 PM
that being said, we COULD HAVE a lot better judges, if we could get them through the approval process.
This is just one of the many things that was hopelessly broken by the 17th Amendment.
So it's not going to happen.
Toureg89
02-17-2010, 02:08 PM
This is just one of the many things that was hopelessly broken by the 17th Amendment.
So it's not going to happen.
yeah. i never much liked how much this country moved towards direct democracy.
FrankRep
02-17-2010, 02:12 PM
yeah. i never much liked how much this country moved towards direct democracy.
Yes. Republic, not a Democracy.
YouTube - The American Form of Government (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DioQooFIcgE)
Uncle Emanuel Watkins
02-17-2010, 02:18 PM
http://www.newyorkpersonalinjuryattorneyblog.com/2010/02/scalia-there-is-no-right-to-secede.html
Add this to your reasons why Clarence Thomas is better than Scalia.
First off, when a court claims to represent the people, it is being in contempt of the people's Civil Purpose. A court does not represent the people; rather, it makes up a third of what our Founding Father's referred to as "a more perfect union (government)" and more succintly as "a necessary tyranny."
When a state decides it wants to leave, it isn't being unlawful but irrational. As our Founding Fathers led us to an ultimate political Truth based on a natural law, a state can't better itself any more by leaving.
The focus shouldn't be on the state ruling over the people; but, the focus should be on the people the state is serving.
Uncle Emanuel Watkins
02-17-2010, 02:24 PM
This is just one of the many things that was hopelessly broken by the 17th Amendment.
So it's not going to happen.
An ammendment for the sake of an ammendment is no better than having no bill of rights at all. If the focus is on the right, the legal precedent in itself, then the ammendment won't be revered as in carefully altered but held in contempt as in radically changed. However, if the focus is on the people's greater Civil-Purpose, then the spirit in the ammendments will never be lost.
1000-points-of-fright
02-17-2010, 02:44 PM
If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede.
I absolutely hate this argument. Bill Maher said the same thing... the Civil War settled the issue of secession. No it didn't. No amendment to the constitution or law was passed. All they did was kick the shit out of the opposition.
Winning a fight does not change facts. If I said 2+2=5, would I be right just because I beat up someone who disagrees?
JeNNiF00F00
02-17-2010, 02:52 PM
The constitutional question that was posed by the 1861 secession was this: "is the Union ruled by law, or is it ruled by men?" And the answer, as Justice Scalia implied, is that the Union is ruled by men, and those men do not approve of secession.
QFT! I see the "Union" as being communist in nature.
Dark_Horse_Rider
02-17-2010, 02:55 PM
Didn't the British say the same thing ?
InterestedParticipant
02-17-2010, 02:58 PM
My question/response....
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=231976
Dreamofunity
02-17-2010, 03:01 PM
Didn't the British say the same thing ?
This.
Scofield
02-17-2010, 03:10 PM
Didn't the British say the same thing ?
Nothing more needs to be said.
Pericles
02-17-2010, 03:18 PM
Didn't the British say the same thing ?
"There is only one international law - whoever has the best army."
GEN Patton
Galileo Galilei
02-17-2010, 03:21 PM
After a State secedes, the Supreme Court no longer has jurisdiction. What Scalia says is not relevant.
jmdrake
02-17-2010, 04:06 PM
This is all really funny but in a way rather moot. People praise Washington and decry Lincoln. I'm NOT going to go into another debate over the civil war. But has anybody besides me looking into who put down the Whiskey Rebellion?
http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/whiskey/
Note that the general that did Washington's dirty work was Robert E. Lee's dad. Oh sure, this wasn't a "state" seceding. It was just a bunch of farmers who were sick of a tax that took away all of their profits. But in reality, what's the difference?
Speaking of reality, asserting some rights under the 10th amendment is possible if we can A) get around the Interstate Commerce Clause and (possible after U.S. v Lopez (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lopez)) and B) pass legislation stripping the supreme court of jurisdiction over certain cases. But secession? You and who's army?
jmdrake
02-17-2010, 04:06 PM
delete
erowe1
02-17-2010, 04:16 PM
Speaking of reality, asserting some rights under the 10th amendment is possible if we can A) get around the Interstate Commerce Clause and (possible after U.S. v Lopez (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lopez)) and B) pass legislation stripping the supreme court of jurisdiction over certain cases. But secession? You and who's army?
I really think we could have a secession today without a war. Call me naive. But I don't think it's possible to quell communication today the way it was in any of those 18th-19th century episodes, which would be a prerequisite of keeping the population of the rest of the US willing to fight. I'm not saying I would necessarily want to do that, but I see it as possible. I also see (and would prefer) other options of eschewing federal control over the states that come short of full secession.
angelatc
02-17-2010, 04:23 PM
Libertarian-leaning lawyers weigh in here: http://volokh.com/2010/02/16/scalia-on-the-right-to-secede/ and here: http://volokh.com/2010/02/17/on-justice-scalias-letter-about-secession/
Galileo Galilei
02-17-2010, 04:24 PM
This is all really funny but in a way rather moot. People praise Washington and decry Lincoln. I'm NOT going to go into another debate over the civil war. But has anybody besides me looking into who put down the Whiskey Rebellion?
http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/whiskey/
Note that the general that did Washington's dirty work was Robert E. Lee's dad. Oh sure, this wasn't a "state" seceding. It was just a bunch of farmers who were sick of a tax that took away all of their profits. But in reality, what's the difference?
Speaking of reality, asserting some rights under the 10th amendment is possible if we can A) get around the Interstate Commerce Clause and (possible after U.S. v Lopez (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lopez)) and B) pass legislation stripping the supreme court of jurisdiction over certain cases. But secession? You and who's army?
While I'm not a fan of Washington's actions in the Whiskey Rebellion (nor was Madison or Jefferson), a few points should be made:
1) Washington pardoned most of the men in the rebellion.
2) the Constitution (as agreed to by the States) gives the authority to put down rebellions.
3) if you believe in State's rights, the State of Pennsylvania asked for federal help.
4) the argument of "no taxation without representation" does not apply as the rebels had representation.
I believe that William Findlay got his career jumpstarted by the Whiskey Rebellion. He was a long time and effective member of congress from western PA
He was the first man designated at the "Father of the House" and wrote a book on religious liberty.
torchbearer
02-17-2010, 04:33 PM
He just said: "yo niggas got your asses beat down in 1865, now shut the fuck up and pay your taxes- you still owe us for trying to leave the first time"
LibForestPaul
02-17-2010, 06:19 PM
Might makes right when talking succession.
Those with the biggest balls win.
haaaylee
02-17-2010, 07:58 PM
I've been wondering recently how Article VI and the Tenth Amendment work together. Any time i hear anyone say State's Rights under the 10th amendment someone else brings up Article VI, which says that all Federal Law trumps State Law.
This confuses me a bit. Although i think i get it, can someone lay it out for me better?
jmdrake
02-17-2010, 08:10 PM
I really think we could have a secession today without a war. Call me naive. But I don't think it's possible to quell communication today the way it was in any of those 18th-19th century episodes, which would be a prerequisite of keeping the population of the rest of the US willing to fight. I'm not saying I would necessarily want to do that, but I see it as possible. I also see (and would prefer) other options of eschewing federal control over the states that come short of full secession.
FEMA and the FCC can easily take the airwaves. The Interenet is indeed harder to control, but not impossible to shut down. Anyway those are tactical questions. When it comes to down to "rights" as defined by the court, pushing for secession is a bit redundant. The modern grievances are over violations of the constitution. If there were enough people on the court to recognize a "right" that has never been successfully exercised, then wouldn't those same court members uphold all of the rights that are now being violated? And if that happened there wouldn't be a reason to secede.
jmdrake
02-17-2010, 08:19 PM
Uh yeah. Everything you mentioned I had either already mentioned or was in the link I posted. And? Sure Washington was "nice" to these men he helped rob. And if you think rights only derive from being part of a "state" then the fact that they didn't get the whole state of PA to go along means something. But if states have a right to secede from the union then why do individuals not have a right to secede from their state and then from the union as a whole? And if the constitutional power exists to put down rebellion from a subset of a state exists, why does it not extend to the entire state? From a states rights point of view, why wasn't Washington required to ask the state of PA to enforce this draconian tax? Sure there are differences (there always are). Andrew Jackson, also held up in esteem among many in the "liberty movement" for killing the 2nd bank, totally rejected the right of state secession.
Anyway, these are interesting exercises. But the same federal government that won't even recognize the obvious limitations of the interstate commerce clause isn't about to say "Hey. Go ahead and secede. Have a nice life."
While I'm not a fan of Washington's actions in the Whiskey Rebellion (nor was Madison or Jefferson), a few points should be made:
1) Washington pardoned most of the men in the rebellion.
2) the Constitution (as agreed to by the States) gives the authority to put down rebellions.
3) if you believe in State's rights, the State of Pennsylvania asked for federal help.
4) the argument of "no taxation without representation" does not apply as the rebels had representation.
I believe that William Findlay got his career jumpstarted by the Whiskey Rebellion. He was a long time and effective member of congress from western PA
He was the first man designated at the "Father of the House" and wrote a book on religious liberty.
The Patriot
02-17-2010, 09:17 PM
Wishful thinking. I don't actually know if he might well answer this the same way as Scalia. But in this case, I can say I know Scalia got it wrong, while there's at least still a chance that Thomas wouldn't.
My general preference to Thomas over Scalia is based on other things.
I prefer Thomas on his views. I probably lean more toward his philosophy than Scalia, however Scalia is the more intellectual of the two. He rights better and more detailed decisions than Thomas does.
Austrian Econ Disciple
02-17-2010, 09:55 PM
It doesn't matter what he says. Secession wasn't "legal" for the Colonists. You have to fight to divorce. It'll always be this way, when you try to rid yourself of a parasitic monopoly.
Pericles
02-17-2010, 09:56 PM
I've been wondering recently how Article VI and the Tenth Amendment work together. Any time i hear anyone say State's Rights under the 10th amendment someone else brings up Article VI, which says that all Federal Law trumps State Law.
This confuses me a bit. Although i think i get it, can someone lay it out for me better?
Here is the operative language of Article VI:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwith-standing. "
Thus we learn the following - no state or local law can conflict with
(A) text of the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land
(B) treaties made in accordance with the Constitution with foreign countries, with the provision that nothing is such a treaty can supercede (A)
(C) laws made by the Congress in which a power delegated to the federal government is exercised, which may not supercede (A) or (B)
An example of (C) would be the Militia Act of 1792, which is pursuant to the following delegated power to the federal government:
"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"
Therefore, no state or local government may have a law or regulation that deviates from the requirements of the Militia Act, which specified composition, equipage, tax exemptions for said equipage, etc.
" An ACT more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States.
I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes."
and so forth
The Patriot
02-17-2010, 10:06 PM
It doesn't matter what he says. Secession wasn't "legal" for the Colonists. You have to fight to divorce. It'll always be this way, when you try to rid yourself of a parasitic monopoly.
Yea honestly it doesn't matter. Secession is a Natural Right, irrespective of it's Constitutional Legality. And regardless of whether it is Constitutional or not the Feds will not recognize the secession of states, they won't recognize the new nations that are formed.
erowe1
02-17-2010, 10:08 PM
It doesn't matter what he says. Secession wasn't "legal" for the Colonists. You have to fight to divorce. It'll always be this way, when you try to rid yourself of a parasitic monopoly.
That's true. In Scalia's defense I think that was part of his point. He was responding to a question some author posed to him about a hypothetical incident that he apparently considered absurd for basically the reason you give.
Brooklyn Red Leg
02-18-2010, 12:13 AM
A pledge made up by a socialist trumps the Constitution. We all know that. :rolleyes:
More important than The Declaration of Independence, which was adopted as The Law of the Land under The Constitution. Amazing that Scalia would be that ignorant. :mad:
Baptist
02-18-2010, 12:23 AM
I've been wondering recently how Article VI and the Tenth Amendment work together. Any time i hear anyone say State's Rights under the 10th amendment someone else brings up Article VI, which says that all Federal Law trumps State Law.
This confuses me a bit. Although i think i get it, can someone lay it out for me better?
Here is the way I read it.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance(Laws passed by Feds have to conform to Constitution) thereof;
and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States (treaties can only be made under authority of Fed Gov, which itself must conform to Constitution), shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwith-standing.
So federal law is only supreme law if it conforms to the Constitution. 95% of federal laws are not made in pursuance of the Constitution, therefore they are not the supreme law of the land. Not only that, but if federal laws are unconstitutional in my eyes the laws are illegitimate and people are free to disobey them. Federal laws that violate the Constitution are no different than mafia thugs shaking you down for money-- both use brute force to get what they want because they have no moral authority or legitimacy behind the shakedown.
Baptist
02-18-2010, 12:28 AM
I really think we could have a secession today without a war. Call me naive. But I don't think it's possible to quell communication today the way it was in any of those 18th-19th century episodes, which would be a prerequisite of keeping the population of the rest of the US willing to fight. I'm not saying I would necessarily want to do that, but I see it as possible. I also see (and would prefer) other options of eschewing federal control over the states that come short of full secession.
Jefferson said that people who don't read at all are smarter than people who only read newspapers.
All the communications we receive are for the most part propaganda. The recent Beck/Medina episode proves that. I believe that Americans 200 years ago had better discernment for the truth than we do today.
Bucjason
02-18-2010, 07:23 AM
He is right , technically.
No where in the constitution is there a right to secede...there is in Declaration , but not in the constitution. It doesn't mean secession is impossible , it just means it is not garanteed to the states. The Federalists would not have been foolish enough to make thier document so flimsy when they authored it.
I think alot of us confuse what we WANT the constitution to say with what it really says.
MelissaWV
02-18-2010, 08:07 AM
After a State secedes, the Supreme Court no longer has jurisdiction. What Scalia says is not relevant.
Winner. The movie would be idiotic simply because of this fact. Why would you split off from the USA, then run back to the Supreme Court? If you're your own country, or part of another one, it has no jurisdiction over you.
His "reasoning" was idiotic, though I'm a bit skeptical this was actually written by Scalia.
Stary Hickory
02-18-2010, 09:07 AM
He is right , technically.
No where in the constitution is there a right to secede...there is in Declaration , but not in the constitution. It doesn't mean secession is impossible , it just means it is not garanteed to the states. The Federalists would not have been foolish enough to make thier document so flimsy when they authored it.
I think alot of us confuse what we WANT the constitution to say with what it really says.
The constitution is not a document that limits states rights it's a document that limits the Federal Government. The states retain the power to secede because the government was never given the authority to stop such a thing from happening.
Let's be honest as much as the Feds disobey the constitution they have absolutely no right to refer to that document in defense of anything anymore. The states never agreed to form a union under a system of government that we have today.
AParadigmShift
02-18-2010, 11:14 AM
I understand that this is a matter of job security for The Nine, as the State keeps them all in fine stitches, and so, I would not have expected Scalia to say anything less.
However, if that was the best argument Scalia could muster against the Right of secession - and, I have to assume it was, what exactly does it portend for Leviathan when one of its renown jurists argues like an ass on a question of some import? I mean, his reasoning cannot even pass the giggle test, a low bar indeed.
Speaking of reality, asserting some rights under the 10th amendment is possible if we can A) get around the Interstate Commerce Clause and (possible after U.S. v Lopez (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lopez)) and B) pass legislation stripping the supreme court of jurisdiction over certain cases. But secession? You and who's army?
What did Lopez do exactly that deflated the Commerce Clause back to its original confines? Lopez did nothing to upset Wickard - it barely nibbled at the edge of it.
purplechoe
02-19-2010, 02:10 AM
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/50720.html
Scalia: ‘No Right To Secede’
Posted by Lew Rockwell on February 17, 2010 09:24 AM
So many official conservatives fall into the category of double agents for the regime: Sarah Palin, Dick Armey, Glenn Beck, and so on. And here Antonin Scalia denies secession. He is replying to a screenwriter’s query about a possible court case on secession:
I am afraid I cannot be of much help with your problem, 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, “one 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 — but you do not need legal advice for that. Good luck with your screenplay.
Scalia is a reliable supporter of presidential dictatorship, the police state, the torture-warfare state, and the empire. He’s also a close friend and ally of Dick Cheney’s, whom he elected vice president. Now, Scalia says some good things. That is essential to being an effective double agent. But not on the core issues of state power. However, I do appreciate his clarity here, and his correct description of the purpose of the socialist pledge. (Thanks to Bret Moore)
purplechoe
02-19-2010, 02:12 AM
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/50734.html
re: Scalia: ‘No Right To Secede’
Posted by Thomas DiLorenzo on February 17, 2010 10:10 AM
So Antonin Scalia believes that constitutional issues like secession are “resolved” by war as opposed to civilized means. This is Lincoln’s theory of the Constitution, namely, that the founding fathers believed that it would be perfectly legitimate for the central government that they created for their own protection to raise an army of conscripts and mercenaries to invade any state that seceded, burn its cities to the ground, murder its citizens by the hundreds of thousands, plunder its private wealth, rape its women, and then rule over it with a military dictatorship. In reality, as opposed to Lincoln’s bizarre and, frankly, insane, theory, the Constitution would never have been ratified by a single state if that was the understanding of the founders.
As Judge Andrew Napolitano wrote in his book, The Constitution in Exile (p. 63), “During the Constitutional Convention, a provision was proposed that would have permitted the federal government to use force against a state that did not comply with congressional mandates. Edmund Randolph, a delegate to the Constitutional Convention from Virginia, presented his “Virginia Plan,” which provided that the government could use force against states of the union that neglected to fulfill their obligations. Much of the Virginia Plan was adopted into the Constitution, but the provision allowing for the use of force by the government against the states was conspicuously omitted. ”
What the “Civil War” resolved, Mr. Scalia, is that the government of the United States is no longer voluntary and consensual. The voluntary union of the founders was destroyed, and American citizens became servants rather than masters of “their” government.
purplechoe
02-19-2010, 02:17 AM
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/50744.html
More on the ‘Right’ To Secede
Posted by Butler Shaffer on February 17, 2010 10:36 AM
Lew and Tom: I’ve never understood the anti-secessionist reasoning that says the Civil War settled the secession question as a matter of law. This is not a legal issue — anymore than the Revolutionary War was — but a philosophic question; a principled inquiry into the moral rightness of allowing some to rule others by institutionalized violence. Those who believe secession to be unlawful ought, in good conscience, undertake a plan to (a) terminate the present constitutional system, and (b) return America to its colonial status with Great Britain (and begging forgiveness for having undertaken such an illegal act more than two centuries ago).
Legal arguments against secession are as absurd as the suggestion that, once an employee has contracted to work for an employer, he is thereafter prohibited from terminating the arrangement. The government uses this argument in the hiring of soldiers, but would such an opinion be respectable among decent men and women? That such a position would be tantamount to endorsing slavery is as evident in private contract law as it is in politics!
Of course Scalia — and all other federal government officials — would be opposed to secession: should the present system become dismantled, he and his colleagues would have to seek employment elsewhere. Outside of the realm of politics, where do any of these career politicos have any experience that would be valuable in a marketplace?
Bucjason
02-19-2010, 07:42 AM
The constitution is not a document that limits states rights it's a document that limits the Federal Government. The states retain the power to secede because the government was never given the authority to stop such a thing from happening.
Let's be honest as much as the Feds disobey the constitution they have absolutely no right to refer to that document in defense of anything anymore. The states never agreed to form a union under a system of government that we have today.
I agree with you , in theory.
That's what it is SUPPOSED to mean, but not what it really means.
This is why the federalists like James Madison screwed up and left the constitution flawed. They assumed rights not clearly enumerated to the feds , would automatically be assumed to be a power they did not have.
Anyone who understands the nature of government knows this is laughable.
Those who fought so hard for a bill of rights were CORRECT! The bill of rights we got through amendendents after the ratification is too vague and not specific enough. It could have been much better if done before hand. Actually, I think this was sort of the plan( of some, not Madison, who was simply naive) to begin with. If you listen to the arguments of the federal convention , and people like Alexander Hamilton , limiting the central government was never thier goal...growing it was.
Galileo Galilei
02-19-2010, 03:04 PM
Winner. The movie would be idiotic simply because of this fact. Why would you split off from the USA, then run back to the Supreme Court? If you're your own country, or part of another one, it has no jurisdiction over you.
His "reasoning" was idiotic, though I'm a bit skeptical this was actually written by Scalia.
Scalia outta take a look at what the Constitution says about jurisdiction.
Galileo Galilei
02-19-2010, 03:07 PM
This is why the federalists like James Madison screwed up and left the constitution flawed. They assumed rights not clearly enumerated to the feds , would automatically be assumed to be a power they did not have.
The Articles of Confederation did not allow secession. James Madison saw to it that secession was made legal in the Constitution. Scalia seems like the type that prefers the Articles of Confederation.
Stary Hickory
02-19-2010, 03:21 PM
The Articles of Confederation did not allow secession. James Madison saw to it that secession was made legal in the Constitution. Scalia seems like the type that prefers the Articles of Confederation.
Well Scalia will not determine whether I live free or not, that is for sure. If he can disrespect the Constitution I can easily disrespect him.
Anti Federalist
02-19-2010, 04:10 PM
There is a natural right to rebellion that trumps any constitution or law.
nate895
02-19-2010, 04:16 PM
The Articles of Confederation did not allow secession. James Madison saw to it that secession was made legal in the Constitution. Scalia seems like the type that prefers the Articles of Confederation.
What? Articles of Confederation, Article III:
Article III. The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever.
If that doesn't allow secession by written law, I don't know what would.
erowe1
02-19-2010, 05:31 PM
What? Articles of Confederation, Article III:
If that doesn't allow secession by written law, I don't know what would.
He might have been referring to the use of the word "perpetual" in Article XIII.
If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede.
So now constitutional issues are decided by war? Which just means a second civil war is required to override the outcome of the first one. Thanks, Scalia, for taking a peaceful process for secession off the table :rolleyes:
Stary Hickory
02-19-2010, 07:04 PM
So now constitutional issues are decided by war? Which just means a second civil war is required to override the outcome of the first one. Thanks, Scalia, for taking a peaceful process for secession off the table :rolleyes:
Exactly Scalia is an idiot, so that was what the civil war was about was oppressing states rights? I always hear the propaganda that it was to end slavery...of course we all know the truth. So many lies.
So FORCE = Justice for Scalia? He is a hack then, he should not be wearing the robes of a SC Judge.
AParadigmShift
02-19-2010, 07:34 PM
So FORCE = Justice for Scalia? He is a hack then, he should not be wearing the robes of a SC Judge.
No, Scalia's not a hack, he's jurist in the employ of the State. He is a creature of the Constitution. And the Constitution is a [written] document which, for better or worse, is not a servant to Natural Law Rights - it is its own Master.
No, setting aside his moronic argument, no one should be surprised by what Scalia said.
Stary Hickory
02-19-2010, 09:00 PM
No, Scalia's not a hack, he's jurist in the employ of the State. He is a creature of the Constitution. And the Constitution is a [written] document which, for better or worse, is not a servant to Natural Law Rights - it is its own Master.
No, setting aside his moronic argument, no one should be surprised by what Scalia said.
As a servant of the constitution he ought to know that no where in the constitution does it say a state cannot secede. And he ought to know that Jefferson himself held the view that states have these rights.
The Constitution is not that long, Scalia's job is not that hard, read it...and apply it. He seems incapable of being honest with Americans on this issue.
Matt Collins
02-20-2010, 06:49 PM
This.
Yes, thankfully the Founders were much more intelligent than this guy! :)
.
Matt Collins
02-20-2010, 06:50 PM
He just said: "yo niggas Come on dude, couldn't you find another word that might be just slightly less offensive? I'm not offended by it but there are others who might easily be. :confused:
.
Bucjason
02-22-2010, 08:04 AM
The Articles of Confederation did not allow secession. James Madison saw to it that secession was made legal in the Constitution. Scalia seems like the type that prefers the Articles of Confederation.
James Madison saw to it ??
Bwahahaha , tell that to Rhode Island, who didn't even attend the Federal convention, or hold a ratifying convention while the other states were holding thiers...
(i won't even bring up the Civil War)
They were basically strong-armed into the Union , because it only took 9 states to ratify.
He saw to nothing of the sort, as history shows us...
Galileo Galilei
02-22-2010, 08:23 AM
James Madison saw to it ??
Bwahahaha , tell that to Rhode Island, who didn't even attend the Federal convention, or hold a ratifying convention while the other states were holding thiers...
(i won't even bring up the Civil War)
They were basically strong-armed into the Union , because it only took 9 states to ratify.
He saw to nothing of the sort, as history shows us...
Rhode Island. They should have been left to fend for themselves. But we were nice and let them have 2 senators.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.