Is Secession Legal?

[Kirk Freeman]

Depends on the type of secession.

While it is illegal for states to leave the Union, parts of state are permitted to leave a state.

To govern lands by force when they have withdrawn consent is tyranny. It is how an empire behaves.

It is how the republic that is the United States of America was designed. The explicity language of the Constitution contemplates exactly this scenario as it permits the federal government to put down rebellions and insurrections.

There is nothing tyrannical about shooting traitors.

 

[T.Lex]

There is nothing tyrannical about shooting traitors.

Which begs the question, are secessionists the same as traitors?

I think not. A secessionist works within the existing political framework to peacefully extricate an area from the union. It is unlikely to succeed, particularly here in the US, but we can all choose our own windmills to tilt at.

A traitor advocates or participates in the violent extrication of the piece from the whole. He only deserves to be shot if he doesn't succeed.

 

[OakRiver]

"Is Secession Legal?"

Only if you win

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Which begs the question, are secessionists the same as traitors?

No, not per se.

One could be a secessionist and not be bearing arms against the United States of America.

Big difference between having a political opinion and Treason.

 

[T.Lex]

Big difference between having a political opinion and Treason.

Hopefully!

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Indeed.

 

[HoughMade]

I don't think there is anything preventing a state from wanting to leave the Union and petitioning Congress to pass a law to allow it. However, leaving unilaterally? No, nothing vaguely legal about it. Nor is there anything vaguely "totalitarian" about it. States largely govern what happens in their borders, with too much federal interference, agreed, but the states have representation in Congress as well.

Personally, I'd be a fan of repealing the 17th Amendment so that state legislatures regained the proper amount of power in the federal government as designed.

 

[rambone]

I think there are other, more important, indicia of a tyranny. For the purposes of this thread, how do you measure consent? Only those that want to secede, or the entire population?

Passage of a Secession Act through the legislature and a governor's signature. This would more than satisfy any legal and/or moral measurement of consent.

The Federal Government had unmistakeably lost the "consent of the governed." And like the empire that it was, and is, it crushed the dissenters and forced unwilling populations to live under its rule.

There is nothing tyrannical about shooting traitors.

...said every tyrant, ever. When you view half the country as "traitors" you know you are definitely in the tyrant mentality.

I don't think there is anything preventing a state from wanting to leave the Union and petitioning Congress to pass a law to allow it. However, leaving unilaterally? No, nothing vaguely legal about it.

Please post the law so we can read how it is illegal.

 

[T.Lex]

Passage of a Secession Act through the legislature and a governor's signature. This would more than satisfy any legal and/or moral measurement of consent.

How does that reconcile with the Supreme Court case holding that unilateral secession is unconstitutional?

If you were to add a corresponding bill in Congress that is passed, I would agree.

Membership in the Union is not a one-way street. Benefits and responsibilities flow both ways. Peaceful secession would require mutuality.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

said every tyrant, ever. When you view half the country as "traitors" you know you are definitely in the tyrant mentality.

One chooses the due process world one lives in. Bearing arms against the United States of America merits a bullet in the head.

Writing silly comic books about wanting to leave the United States of America, gets eye rolls and chuckling and complete protection of their civil right to argue for secession.

Peaceful secession would require mutuality.

Analogous to the Constitutional provision involved in a piece of state leaving one of the states.

Please post the law so we can read how it is illegal.

Sure, if you insist:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2381

http://www.oyez.org/cases/1851-1900/1868/1868_0

 

[rambone]

If you were to add a corresponding bill in Congress that is passed, I would agree.

It is paradoxical to wait for the permission of an oppressive entity. There is no constitutional requirement that implies this in the USA, and it would rarely make sense when applied to real, historical cases.

Sure, if you insist:

18 U.S. Code § 2381 - Treason | LII / Legal Information Institute

I maintain that the person who sees half the country as traitors, deserving a "bullet in the head," is solidly a tyrant.

But let me humor you for a moment on the definition of treason.

"Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States...."

The first 7 words make it clear that a member of the CSA cannot be a traitor to the USA. The conscripted farmboys of the South were doing what they were told by the governments that had officially severed ties to the USA. They owed the USA nothing and their states had collectively decreed separation.

Furthermore, no free person "owes allegiance" to their government unless they voluntarily commit themselves in its service. Demanding allegiance from unwilling people is another hallmark of tyrants.

Texas v. White | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

Texas v. White is what we call judicial activism. Its not a law... and it definitely is not based in the constitution.

How does that reconcile with the Supreme Court case holding that unilateral secession is unconstitutional?

Ditto. The court was exhibiting lawless behavior, ignoring the constitution, further reinforcing the need to secede. A secessionist might say, "Let the USA deal with their own reckless Supreme Court."

The Texas v. White opinion stacks up well with dozens of other appalling, tyrannical opinions that it has handed down.

 

[T.Lex]

We've covered this ground before, but when individuals get to pick and choose which laws are "not tyrannical" the result is anarchy. And not the "good" kind.

By your own logic, there is currently no Bill of Secession that has been passed anywhere in the US (that I am aware of). Unless and until that happens, the feds ought not be considered tyrannical for not allowing secession by people that make up less than a majority of the voters in any given state.

 

[Mr Evilwrench]

I still go by what I said. To expand, our federal government operates by "the consent of the governed". CONSENT. This is stated explicitly in the founding documents. If that consent is lost, the .gov has become illegitimate, and no law it tries to enforce is valid, including a law against secession. The southern states were not actually in rebellion, they seceded peacefully (though maybe a little stridently) and the north attacked at Ft Sumter. Are we better off all together? Yeah, probably, but does that give some of us the right to dictate that to the rest?

 

[rambone]

We've covered this ground before, but when individuals get to pick and choose which laws are "not tyrannical" the result is anarchy. And not the "good" kind.

I would disagree. Every man has the ability and obligation to decide which laws are "tyrannical." The blood will be on his hands if he follows through with enforcing unjust laws.

Critically thinking from citizens provides a fundamental check and balance that may thwart tyranny. They must use their heads, not be mindless robots following orders.

By your own logic, there is currently no Bill of Secession that has been passed anywhere in the US (that I am aware of). Unless and until that happens, the feds ought not be considered tyrannical for not allowing secession by people that make up less than a majority of the voters in any given state.

Any geographical area that collectively declares secession by majority should be recognized. Not just states as a whole. For example, if the people of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan want to secede, and together voice their decision, they are within their rights and should be free to self-govern. To deny them is to rule by force, not by consent.

Earlier, I used the officially-declared Secession Acts of the 1860s because they were more than adequate. They were abundantly official, and clear to the world.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I maintain that the person who sees half the country as traitors, deserving a "bullet in the head," is solidly a tyrant.

All those who believe in secession are safely contained at a ComicCon.

Those who bear arms against the United States choose their due process and that due process is a bullet in the head.

Furthermore, no free person "owes allegiance" to their government unless they voluntarily commit themselves in its service. Demanding allegiance from unwilling people is another hallmark of tyrants.

Is this something you read in one of your comic books?

"I didn't sign the Constitution" or whatever is spouted at LibertarianFests.

Texas v. White is what we call judicial activism. Its not a law.

Another swing and a miss. It is controlling Supreme Court precedent.

By your own logic, there is currently no Bill of Secession that has been passed anywhere in the US (that I am aware of). Unless and until that happens, the feds ought not be considered tyrannical for not allowing secession by people that make up less than a majority of the voters in any given state.

There is no logic, but I think they believe one can state "I divorce thee" three times and not be bound by the law.

 

[T.Lex]

I would disagree. Every man has the ability and obligation to decide which laws are "tyrannical." The blood will be on his hands if he follows through with enforcing unjust laws.

What about following them? Maybe my disconnect with your position is in the execution of the principles.

Critically thinking from citizens provides a fundamental check and balance that may thwart tyranny. They must use their heads, not be mindless robots following orders.

Totally agree.

(See - I knew we could find common ground somewhere!)

Any geographical area that collectively declares secession by majority should be recognized. Not just states as a whole. For example, if the people of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan want to secede, and together voice their decision, they are within their rights and should be free to self-govern. To deny them is to rule by force, not by consent.

I have relatives up there. I think a majority of them think they already did secede and the rest of us just don't know it yet.

But, this is where the execution of your principle breaks down. What about a household? Is a .5 acre lot big enough to secede?

Because....

Earlier, I used the officially-declared Secession Acts of the 1860s because they were more than adequate. They were abundantly official, and clear to the world.

Here's where the "force" of law comes into play.

If a house in a neighborhood tries to secede (and a bunch have tried), then the force of .gov (the police) rains down upon them and says the act was "illegal." Similarly, when the Confederacy tried to do the same thing, on a bigger scale, a larger scale of force was used to declare their act illegal.

That's the way we stand today. Unilateral secession is illegal as a practical matter.

The moral righteousness (or lack thereof) of the Confederacy's action is irrelevant to the question of whether it was legal. They lost. If they had won, the answer would be different. At least for them.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

If they had won, the answer would be different. At least for them.

It was all a lie for the CSA anyway. No one could leave the CSA, and don't get me started about the "states' rye-eets" nonsense of the CSA.

The Free State of Jones.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Any geographical area that collectively declares secession by majority should be recognized.

Oh, you mean like Alabama? LOL.

How the South Alabama slavers outvoted the Nickajacks so they could leave to defend slavery? That worked out well.

 

[indiucky]

It was all a lie for the CSA anyway. No one could leave the CSA, and don't get me started about the "states' rye-eets" nonsense of the CSA.

The Free State of Jones.

How dare you Sir.........

[video=youtube;iMZfCar-Ks8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMZfCar-Ks8[/video]

 

[rambone]

What about following them? Maybe my disconnect with your position is in the execution of the principles.

There are definitely times to disobey unjust laws. It will boil down to how much oppression individuals are willing to endure; how much risk they are willing to take.

I have relatives up there. I think a majority of them think they already did secede and the rest of us just don't know it yet.

But, this is where the execution of your principle breaks down. What about a household? Is a .5 acre lot big enough to secede?

Because....

Here's where the "force" of law comes into play.

If a house in a neighborhood tries to secede (and a bunch have tried), then the force of .gov (the police) rains down upon them and says the act was "illegal." Similarly, when the Confederacy tried to do the same thing, on a bigger scale, a larger scale of force was used to declare their act illegal.

The main thing that changes is their chances of success. The smaller the secession movement, the more likely they are to be oppressed and killed. The principle behind it didn't change.

That's the way we stand today. Unilateral secession is illegal as a practical matter.

The moral righteousness (or lack thereof) of the Confederacy's action is irrelevant to the question of whether it was legal. They lost. If they had won, the answer would be different. At least for them.

If the Supreme Court's ruling is a reflection of which side won the war, that is indicative that the court is based on politics, not on the constitution.