Time Ragazine: Secession ain't legal.

[Anti Federalist]

LOL.


Can Texas Really Secede from the Union? Not Legally

By Adam CohenNov. 19, 20120

http://ideas.time.com/2012/11/19/can-texas-really-secede-from-the-union-not-legally/?xid=gonewsedit&google_editors_picks=true

It’s beginning to feel a lot like the 1860s — and not just because Steven Spielberg’s Lincoln opened nationwide this past weekend. There is a secessionist movement afoot: hundreds of thousands of Americans from all 50 states have signed petitions to secede. Texas is in the lead — no great surprise, perhaps — with ABC reporting last week that the Lone Star State’s petition was the first to get more than 25,000 signatures. It now has more than 100,000.


That 25,000 mark, which at least seven states have hit, is significant. The petitions were shrewdly placed on a White House website called We the People, which invites members of the public to appeal directly to the federal government. The site promises that petitions that garner more than 25,000 signatures within 30 days — subject to some exceptions — will get a response from the White House.

What exactly are the states’ grounds for seceding? The answers are a bit scattershot. The Texas petition complains that the U.S. is suffering economically “from the federal government’s neglect to reform domestic and foreign spending” and throws in alleged abuses imposed by the Transportation Security Administration, which could be summarized with the phrase “Don’t touch my junk.” Virginia’s petition cites, with somewhat arbitrary punctuation and capitalization, “Corruption,Lies,and Cover-Ups.Including potential Voter Fraud.”

(MORE: Why We Need a Voters’ Bill of Rights)

Scoff if you will, but it is clear that the neo-secessionist movement is having a moment. The Drudge Report, that calibrator of the far-right zeitgeist, exulted in a headline on Nov. 14: “Secession Movement Explodes.” And articles have been appearing elsewhere online with headlines like “Is Secession the Answer for Utah?” (If it is, what exactly is the question?)

Of course, anti-secessionists are gleefully responding. Chuck Thompson, the author of Better Off Without ’Em: A Northern Manifesto for Southern Secession, has written a piece titled “Go Ahead and Secede, Texas. I Dare You.” In it, he argues that the small-government utopia that Texas secessionists are dreaming off — a country with weak trade unions, negligible taxes and no guaranteed health care — “already exists. It’s called the Democratic Republic of the Congo.”

As the petitioning and flame wars continue, though, it’s worth stepping back and asking a basic question: Is any of this legal? Can a state actually secede from the union?

It’s a question that law professors sometimes like to ponder, but the answer certainly must be no. The Constitution, which provides processes for new states to enter the union and for current states to divide or reconfigure, does not have a provision for states to leave the union. A state would have to leave by force — something Abraham Lincoln knew a lot about — since there is no legal basis it could point to for breaking away.

(MORE: Why We Are Still Fighting the Civil War)

It is often said the Civil War answered this question: that when the South surrendered at Appomattox, the idea of secession was also defeated. In fact, no lesser authority than Justice Antonin Scalia — who would probably rank No. 1 or 2 in a parlor-game bet over which Justice is most likely to sign a secession petition — has said precisely this. In response to a letter from a citizen asking if there is a legal basis for secession — a letter that it is remarkable for being answered by a sitting Justice — Scalia wrote in 2006, “[The] answer is clear. If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede.”

Of course, it is highly unlikely that any of these legal questions will have to be re-examined, because for all the secessionists’ petitions, they remain a perversely small minority. Even in the states that are racking up the most signatures, governors have been quick to distance themselves from secession talk. The conservative Republican governors of Alabama and Texas have come out publicly against secession, and the governor of Louisiana — whose state’s signature total was second only to Texas’ on Nov. 14 — called the idea “silly.”

(MORE: Should a Person Be Jailed for Swearing in Court?)

In fact, just like 150 years ago, pro-union forces are starting to respond with vigor. A petition recently went up on We the People titled “Deport Everyone That Signed A Petition To Withdraw Their State From The United States Of America.” It has gotten more than 24,000 signatures, and counting.

[Anti Federalist]

Piss up a rope.

Natural right.

The only problem is, nobody has the stones to exercise that right.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, 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, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. 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.

[Acala]

There are plenty of arguments for why secession is implied in the Constitution. But the only real importance of this article is as evidence that the idea of secession has entered the public sphere and is gaining traction.

[AFPVet]

Yup... right to abolish seems to fit the constitutionality of succession.

[Acala]

Piss up a rope.

Natural right.

The only problem is, nobody has the stones to exercise that right.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, 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, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. 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.

Yup. The right to secession flows as a matter of logical necessity from the idea of government by consent of the governed.

[Origanalist]

Beatcha

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?396183-Can-Texas-Really-Secede-from-the-Union-Not-Legally-so-says-the-New-York-Times

:D

[fisharmor]

Scalia? Yawn.
Tell me what Thomas has to say on the matter.

[Anti Federalist]

Beatcha

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?396183-Can-Texas-Really-Secede-from-the-Union-Not-Legally-so-says-the-New-York-Times

:D

LOL

The regime's mouthpieces are all saying the same thing?

Imagine my shock and surprise.

[Origanalist]

LOL

The regime's mouthpieces are all saying the same thing?

Imagine my shock and surprise.

Who'da thunk it? :eek:

[specsaregood]

Piss up a rope.
Natural right.


I wonder how many of these people would say that divorce should be illegal. Not many? Its ok to breakup a family but not a govt.

[Sola_Fide]

I guess we're being called "neo secessionists" now? Cool.

[Anti Federalist]

I wonder how many of these people would say that divorce should be illegal. Not many? Its ok to breakup a family but not a govt.

Especially divorce from a drunken, violent, abusive, psychopath of a spouse!

[Origanalist]

LOL

The regime's mouthpieces are all saying the same thing?

Imagine my shock and surprise.

Actually I got that wrong, it was Time Magazine. Need to work on my multi tasking skills.

[Ninja Homer]

I'd say its legality is implied just by the name of the country... United States of America, not Forced Compliance States of America.

When a majority of the people are against half the shit that the federal government does, then it's probably just better to break up into individual states. The federal government can have DC, along with its debt. If states want to re-unite, then they can, but we don't need another DC. If the founders were creating the US with today's technology, would they set it up the same, or would they just have the state leaders and representatives communicate via conference calls & email?

[jay_dub]

.....It is often said the Civil War answered this question: that when the South surrendered at Appomattox, the idea of secession was also defeated. In fact, no lesser authority than Justice Antonin Scalia — who would probably rank No. 1 or 2 in a parlor-game bet over which Justice is most likely to sign a secession petition — has said precisely this. In response to a letter from a citizen asking if there is a legal basis for secession — a letter that it is remarkable for being answered by a sitting Justice — Scalia wrote in 2006, “[The] answer is clear. If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede.”.......


Instead of Scalia, why not see what the Chief Justice that would have presided over Jefferson Davis' trial (had he not been released) had to say?

"If you bring these [Confederate] leaders to trial it will condemn the North, for by the Constitution secession is not rebellion. Lincoln wanted Davis to escape, and he was right. His capture was a mistake. His trial will be a greater one."

--Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, July 1867 (Foote, The Civil War, Vol. 3, p. 765)

[Kotin]

lol these are all concepts and ideas.. secession and "law" both.. if economic collapse happens, then the reality will be secession. law will not mean a god damn thing because once the treasury cannot get a loan etc., the federal government falls apart and everyone goes home.. then the "Idea" of a federal government is pretty much gone.. and secession is just the aftermath. it will not have to be settled in any court, it will just happen.

(though I would say "fuck you" to scalia since he should have more sense than to say that because the north won a battle, that sets legitimate law..)

[truelies]

Hmmmmmm, a few years back in the USSR attempting secession was a Capital Crime. Look at Russia now.

[jay_dub]

Hmmmmmm, a few years back in the USSR attempting secession was a Capital Crime. Look at Russia now.

USSR Constitution of 1977:

Article 70. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is an integral, federal, multinational state formed on the principle of socialist federalism as a result of the free self-determination of nations and the voluntary association of equal Soviet Socialist Republics.
The USSR embodies the state unity of the Soviet people and draws all its nations and nationalities together for the purpose of jointly building communism.

Article 71. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics unites:
the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic
the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic,
the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic,
the Uzbek Soviet Socialist Republic,
the Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic,
the Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic,
the Azerbeijan Soviet Socialist Republic,
the Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic,
the Moldovian Soviet Socialist Republic,
the Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic,
the Kirghiz Soviet Socialist Republic,
the Tajik Soviet Socialist Republic,
the Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic,
the Turkmen Soviet Socialist Republic,
the Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic.

Article 72. Each Union Republic shall retain the right freely to secede from the USSR.

[Demigod]

I must say I always laugh when I read how Europeans are weak and soft,and then look at threads like this or stories on my local news or on some other mayor site.The other thing that always makes me laugh is when someone writes "From my cold dead hands" ( and that is almost always on any topic about liberty,government,guns or whatever actually ) .I must say that I totally agree with him.One day the government will take the weapons from your dead cold hands because you as all man before you will die,and you will die without ever once challenging the "man" directly.

Always piling up guns,munition,food and "preparing" for the big "showdown" .Newsflash there will be no showdown if you spend your entire life`s preparing instead of fighting.


The original text I wrote was a lot longer but I did not want to get banned again for "activism that this forum does not support" so I erased almost all in the end.Keep up with the struggle from within the system ,one day it may work ( for the first time in history that is ).At this point in history we may be lead by the wrong ideals ,and wrong people ( as many times trough history ) but not a single time in history were we afraid to fight for our beliefs.

[Origanalist]

USSR Constitution of 1977:

Article 70. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is an integral, federal, multinational state formed on the principle of socialist federalism as a result of the free self-determination of nations and the voluntary association of equal Soviet Socialist Republics.
The USSR embodies the state unity of the Soviet people and draws all its nations and nationalities together for the purpose of jointly building communism.

Article 71. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics unites:
the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic
the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic,
the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic,
the Uzbek Soviet Socialist Republic,
the Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic,
the Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic,
the Azerbeijan Soviet Socialist Republic,
the Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic,
the Moldovian Soviet Socialist Republic,
the Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic,
the Kirghiz Soviet Socialist Republic,
the Tajik Soviet Socialist Republic,
the Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic,
the Turkmen Soviet Socialist Republic,
the Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic.

Article 72. Each Union Republic shall retain the right freely to secede from the USSR.

That sounds one hell of a lot like the double speak coming out of our government.


]Each Union Republic shall retain the right freely to secede from the USSR.


Um, ya, sure they did.

[tremendoustie]

The federal government says we shouldn't secede? Golly gee, I guess it'd be wrong then.

I wonder if secession by the colonists was "legal" according to King George?

[Demigod]

That sounds one hell of a lot like the double speak coming out of our government.




Um, ya, sure they did.

Well they did ,it is called the Perestroika.Except in the case of Chechnya ( which is a very complicated case ) almost everyone else split more or less peacefully,the same thing happened in Czehoslovakia .There was only one case of a truly violent breakup and that was Yugoslavia which would have never been as bloody as it was if NATO did not interfere.

In any case the people in Croatia,Slovenia,Bosnia.Macedonia stood up and rebelled against what was the 5th army in Europe.Give me a call when Texans put their money where there mouth is and rise up.

[jay_dub]

Um, ya, sure they did.

Reality is that, 14 years after the drafting of the Constitution of 1977, the Soviet Union ceased to exist.

The mechanism they used was secession.

From Wiki:

The increasing political unrest led the conservative establishment of the Soviet military and the Communist Party to attempt a coup d'état to oust Gorbachev and re-establish an authoritarian and strong central regime in August 1991.[11] Although foiled by popular resistance led by Boris Yeltsin[12], then the president of the Russian SFSR, the coup attempt led to heightened fears that the reforms would be reversed, and most of the constituent republics began declaring outright independence.[13] On December 8, 1991 the presidents of the Soviet republics of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus met secretly and signed the Belavezha Accords agreeing to dissolve the Soviet Union, and replace it with a loose, voluntary union, the Commonwealth of Independent States.[14]

Two weeks later, 11 of the remaining 12 republics signed the Alma-Ata Protocol formally establishing the CIS and declaring that the Soviet Union had ceased to exist.[15] Increasingly powerless in the face of events, Gorbachev resigned from his office on December 25, and the Soviet Union formally ended its existence the next day

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_of_the_Soviet_Union

[Origanalist]

Well they did ,it is called the Perestroika.Except in the case of Chechnya ( which is a very complicated case ) almost everyone else split more or less peacefully,the same thing happened in Czehoslovakia .There was only one case of a truly violent breakup and that was Yugoslavia which would have never been as bloody as it was if NATO did not interfere.

In any case the people in Croatia,Slovenia,Bosnia.Macedonia stood up and rebelled against what was the 5th army in Europe.Give me a call when Texans put their money where there mouth is and rise up.

True, but in 1977 when that was written, nobody was getting out alive.

[mad cow]

"It’s a question that law professors sometimes like to ponder, but the answer certainly must be no. The Constitution, which provides processes for new states to enter the union and for current states to divide or reconfigure, does not have a provision for states to leave the union. A state would have to leave by force — something Abraham Lincoln knew a lot about — since there is no legal basis it could point to for breaking away." --Time Mag

The Constitution has a provision for secession;Read the 10th amendment,then read the entire Constitution,then read the 10th amendment again.This is something anybody can do in less than an hour.

There's your legal basis right there.

[awake]

That's how you know you are a slave. You can join freely but you can never leave.

[libertygrl]

I guess we're being called "neo secessionists" now? Cool.

I think the term Dr. Edwin Vieria used is more accurate - Restorationists. It should be called a Restorationist Movement. And I believe THAT term should be adopted so that it's the supporters who write the narrative rather than the media. As Ron Paul noted, it isn't about physically seceeding, but rather the principle of secession being recognized.

As A. Jones pointed out as well, the government has been hijacked by foreign bankers. So it's not about wanting to seceed and create a new government but rather to restore it to the Republic it once was, based on the founding documents - The Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights and The Constitution. Supporters just want to seceed from the Central Bank. That's why it's important that the public is made aware of the abuses going on. Provide the evidence - whether it's to your family, friends, or to local state leaders.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDBgile_OEk&feature=related


Dr. Edwin Vieira:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyJYpI71h20

[Demigod]

True, but in 1977 when that was written, nobody was getting out alive.

I don't know what you mean but from the sixties to the seventies,in most of the socialist republics things seemed to be improving ( till this day those generations that were born in that period are the most brainwashed with the communistic ideal ) ,unlike their parents born in the 40ies and 50ies who saw the ugly side of communism in its creation or their kids in the 80ies and 90ies who saw its ugly side when it was collapsing.

And it would have collapsed a lot faster if there would not have been WW II which was basically a massive blood drain for Eastern Europe especially on the male population.Most of the people fighting against the communist died fighting with the nazis or against them.It took a lot of time until they could regroup.

[DamianTV]

Its also illegal to disobey any orders from your shadowy overlords.

The thing about Rights is that people now think they need PERMISSION to have a Right, when in fact the very essence of what a Right is stems from never asking someone else for permission. Rights and Permissions are the Polar Opposite of each other, yet, most people can not seem to figure that out.

[Origanalist]

Well they did ,it is called the Perestroika.Except in the case of Chechnya ( which is a very complicated case ) almost everyone else split more or less peacefully,the same thing happened in Czehoslovakia .There was only one case of a truly violent breakup and that was Yugoslavia which would have never been as bloody as it was if NATO did not interfere.

In any case the people in Croatia,Slovenia,Bosnia.Macedonia stood up and rebelled against what was the 5th army in Europe.Give me a call when Texans put their money where there mouth is and rise up.


Reality is that, 14 years after the drafting of the Constitution of 1977, the Soviet Union ceased to exist.

The mechanism they used was secession.

From Wiki:

The increasing political unrest led the conservative establishment of the Soviet military and the Communist Party to attempt a coup d'état to oust Gorbachev and re-establish an authoritarian and strong central regime in August 1991.[11] Although foiled by popular resistance led by Boris Yeltsin[12], then the president of the Russian SFSR, the coup attempt led to heightened fears that the reforms would be reversed, and most of the constituent republics began declaring outright independence.[13] On December 8, 1991 the presidents of the Soviet republics of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus met secretly and signed the Belavezha Accords agreeing to dissolve the Soviet Union, and replace it with a loose, voluntary union, the Commonwealth of Independent States.[14]

Two weeks later, 11 of the remaining 12 republics signed the Alma-Ata Protocol formally establishing the CIS and declaring that the Soviet Union had ceased to exist.[15] Increasingly powerless in the face of events, Gorbachev resigned from his office on December 25, and the Soviet Union formally ended its existence the next day

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_of_the_Soviet_Union

You are both right. I've been sitting in front of this screen too long due to lack of work these last couple of weeks. I think I'm getting rumdum, time to give it a break.

[donnay]

I wonder how many of these people would say that divorce should be illegal. Not many? Its ok to breakup a family but not a govt.


Better to think like the Amish on this one. Shun the Federal government through the states--10th amendment nullification.

http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012/11/14/nullification-in-one-lesson/

[ghengis86]

That's how you know you are a slave. You can join freely but you can never leave.

When did I 'join freely'?

[Demigod]

When did I 'join freely'?

The moment you bowed before the authority after you became an adult.

[matt0611]

LOL, and I'm sure every lawyer in Great Britain would have told you secession was absolutely illegal in the late 1700s too.


How can a nation that was *formed* by secession and actually acknowledges the right of man every where to be self governed in its Declaration of Independents say that secession is not legal?

[Anti Federalist]

LOL, and I'm sure every lawyer in Great Britain would have told you secession was absolutely illegal in the late 1700s too.


How can a nation that was *formed* by secession and actually acknowledges the right of man every where to be self governed in its Declaration of Independents say that secession is not legal?

LOL - Bernie Sanders, Angus King and Joe Lieberman issued a manifesto?