State secessions

[Guest Boomhower]

Has anyone been following this topic? What are some of your opinions? I'm not up to date enough to offer one up at this time. Provide other links for reading material in your post if possible.

http://knoxnews.com/news/2007/oct/04/chattanooga-hosting-convention-of-secession/

[fury2neon]

It would be an interesting experiment to see if socialist Vermont survive without the inflow of tax dollars from the Federal government. Its the states surrounding Vermont that have the major industries and would Vermont be treated like Canada so the people could still work in the US. If not they would be SOL pretty quickly.

[Guest Ghostrider]

At least an embargo of Peoples republik of Vermontski would be pretty easy to enforce...

[The Rabbi]

States dont have the power to secede. That was settled by a little dispute we had c.1860-1865.

[towerclimber37]

I don't think they would last very long.

I think we're coming to a cusp though. a time when all SORTS of interesting things are going to start happening.

[fury2neon]

States dont have the power to secede. That was settled by a little dispute we had c.1860-1865.

The states have the power to secede per the Constitution, but they don't have the power to stay stay that way against overwhelming force... as proven by that little skirmish you were referring to.

[The Rabbi]

The states have the power to secede per the Constitution, but they don't have the power to stay stay that way against overwhelming force... as proven by that little skirmish you were referring to.

I dont think that is correct.

[fury2neon]

I dont think that is correct.

The article of the Constitution allowing/explaining session has not been repealed. If it not repealed/amended then it is still an option, just not a useful one.

[The Rabbi]

The article of the Constitution allowing/explaining session has not been repealed. If it not repealed/amended then it is still an option, just not a useful one.

Which article is that?

[Marswolf]

I wander into this topic with a lot of trepidation. I really don't have time to type in responses for the next couple of weeks. But I do know a lot about this matter and some of the current players in the neo-secessionist movement.

Nothing in the Constitution prevents secession. In fact, it if had a non-secession clause, the 1787 document would have never been ratified. A number of states specifically reserved the right to secede in their ratification proceedings. The "late unpleasantness" forced the states back into the union, but the Constitution was never changed to make secession unconstitutional.

So much for the legalities.

Now, I don't know about the Vermont folks, but do know a lot about the League of the South. For many years I was in a group called Sons of Confederate Veterans. Basically a group of Confederate descendants who think their ancestors had every right to secede. In 2000, the group passed a resolution condemning the KKK.

But some radicals in the group, and some in groups like the KKK and Aryan Nations, thought there should be a current secession movement. League of the South is not affiliated with these hate groups, but doesn't go out of its way to keep racist members out of the group either. So, it isn't a hate group, but is happy to rub elbows with folks who are racists. But neo-secessionism is idiotic. These people need a life. In short, these guys are a bunch of flakes.

Note that I said that I used to be in the SCV. A radical element took over that group and last I heard, they still had legal council with ties to the KKK and Aryan Nations. I value my good name and I quit. The group still has a lot of good people, but I don't want to be a member of a group that knowingly hires people like that.

[The Rabbi]

I

Nothing in the Constitution prevents secession. In fact, it if had a non-secession clause, the 1787 document would have never been ratified. A number of states specifically reserved the right to secede in their ratification proceedings. The "late unpleasantness" forced the states back into the union, but the Constitution was never changed to make secession unconstitutional.

So much for the legalities.

.

I have yet to see the citation.

[Marswolf]

Rabbi, there is no citation. Constitutions don't work that way.

The government is supposed to only be able to do that which is specifically permitted in the Constitution. If it doesn't say states may not withdraw from the Union then they may legitimately do so.

For some interesting reading, I suggest you study the state ratification documents.

That's one reason I think the Bill of Rights really confused what should be a simple issue of the right to bear arms. That could get into a long-winded discussion of correspondence between Madison and Jefferson. Think I'll pass on that.

[The Rabbi]

Rabbi, there is no citation. Constitutions don't work that way.

The government is supposed to only be able to do that which is specifically permitted in the Constitution. If it doesn't say states may not withdraw from the Union then they may legitimately do so.

For some interesting reading, I suggest you study the state ratification documents.

That's one reason I think the Bill of Rights really confused what should be a simple issue of the right to bear arms. That could get into a long-winded discussion of correspondence between Madison and Jefferson. Think I'll pass on that.

So you can provide no evidence that the Constitution permits states to withdraw?

I'd say that pretty well settles the argument.

But let's go further:

What would be the mechanism for a state to withdraw? Does it take a majority of its citizens voting? Does it take an act of its legislature? Does it take an act of Congress?

Unlike entry into the Union or amending the Constitution, there is no mechanism for states to withdraw. Therefore any action to do so takes place outside of the Constitutional framework.

Further, all officers of both the United States and the states themselves undertake an oath to uphold the Constitution (Art VI). How can they claim to uphold the Constitution when they take action which falls outside of it?

So the textual evidence is pretty clear.

Let's go to historical precedent.

As a result of the Civil War those taking sides against the Union were branded as rebels against the US, and stripped of every right of citizenship. There was, to my knowledge, to legal challenge to any of it, certainly none succesful. Had it been legally possible, there would have been. As it was, the leaders of the Confederacy suffered loss of property, freedom, and citizenship rights. Jefferson Davis did not regain his citizenship until the 1970s, and that by special act of Congress.

So the historical record is clear on this as well.

And those who support secession base their views on literally nothing. You can't beat something with nothing.

[Marswolf]

Sorry Rabbi, but your inability to understand doesn't somehow magically make you right.

I don't have time to debate nonsense.

[The Rabbi]

Sorry Rabbi, but your inability to understand doesn't somehow magically make you right.

I don't have time to debate nonsense.

Translation: you're right I have no case at all but I can't admit it.

Thanks, Mars.

[Marswolf]

Madison agrees with me.

[Im Neero]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people.

Our legal system requires there to be a law against something before it is illegal. Just because something isn't implicitly legal makes no difference, as long as there is no law against it. In addition to this fact, right is not determined by government. I would argue that the original colonies had every right to declare independance from England, but at the time England didn't recognize that right. That makes no difference on way or the other.

As for the mechanism for a state to withdraw? Unless they could get the rest of the country to agree, war. If you can win a war, you can withdraw, just as the south could have if they had won the war. Outside of that I suppose a constitutional amendment granting sovereignty to a state would work.

Remember, the Constitution does not serve to limit any rights that are not implicitly mentioned in the text of the constitution. If the Supreme Court rules that no state has the right to secede then that carries weight, but still not equal weight as the text of the constitution. It is much easier for the Supreme Court to overturn the ruling of a previous court than it is amend the Constitution.

If you want to prove that something is illegal, the burden of proof is on you. It's the same issue as open carry, it is neither allowed nor prohibited by Tennessee law, therefore it is considered legal until the state proves otherwise.

So I ask you, Rabbi, for a citation that will convince me that states don't have the right to secede. The legal right, that is, I do not care to get into a philosophical debate, my mind is made up on that one and that opinion is irrelevant to this discussion.

[The Rabbi]

Madison agrees with me.

He certainly comments on your arguments.

Principal: Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

[Marswolf]

Well, you got me there.

[Im Neero]

I forgot to cite the ninth amendment as well:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

That further proves that just because a right is not gauranteed by the Constitution that it is not necessarily prohibited. All that means is that it is not an issue addressed in the Constitution.

[The Rabbi]

So I ask you, Rabbi, for a citation that will convince me that states don't have the right to secede. The legal right, that is, I do not care to get into a philosophical debate, my mind is made up on that one and that opinion is irrelevant to this discussion.

Your argument is an argument from silence. Legal and illegal have nothing to do with this. I have already dealt extensively with the argument from silence. But honestly nothing will convince you. Therefore debate with you is fruitless.

[Im Neero]

Your argument is an argument from silence. Legal and illegal have nothing to do with this. I have already dealt extensively with the argument from silence. But honestly nothing will convince you. Therefore debate with you is fruitless.

Translation: you're right I have no case at all but I can't admit it.

Thanks, Rabbi.

[The Rabbi]

you're right I have no case at all but I can't admit it.

I knew we would agree.

[Smith]

The thing overlooked, which Rabbi pointed out, was that in absence of law precedent on previous "rulings" apply. Texas, California, New Mexico, and the South all set forth precedent in principal. Although I understand there are some differences in these examples, the principal has been upheld each and every time. In a court ruling or congressional hearing these would all set forth precedent as a major factor in a new law.

Is it expressly forbidden or allowed....actually yes, it is forbidden by legal precedent unless expressly allowed by sa clear and direct law.

(this is too much one sided)

[Marswolf]

So the DC gun law case should have been settled on the basis of prior precedent from the other circuits rather than what the Constitution says?