Is Secession Legal?

[Kirk Freeman]

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

How dare you interfere with my sacred right to own another human being! I say, I say.

 

[poptab]

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

What's your basis for this?

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

Sounds like "you will consent or be shot" so much for the consent of the governed.

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

If he got that out of a comic book I'd like a copy.

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

Did you sign the constitution?

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

So if a Supreme Court decision is controlling that makes it not judicial activism? You will have to explain that.

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

That's very grown up of you...

 

[poptab]

Abraham Lincoln did not cause the death of so many people from a mere love of slaughter, but only to bring about a state of consent that could not otherwise be secured for the government he had undertaken to administer. When a government has once reduced its people to a state of consent – that is, of submission to its will – it can put them to a much better use than to kill them; for it can then plunder them, enslave them, and use them as tools for plundering and enslaving others. And these are the uses to which most governments, our own among the rest, do put their people, whenever they have once reduced them to a state of consent to its will. Andrew Jackson said that those who did not consent to the government he attempted to administer upon them, for that reason, were traitors, and ought to be hanged. Like so many other so-called “heroes,” he thought the sword and the gallows excellent instrumentalities for securing the people’s consent to be governed. The idea that, although government should rest on the consent of the governed, yet so much force may nevertheless be employed as may be necessary to produce that consent, embodies everything that was ever exhibited in the shape of usurpation and tyranny in any country on earth. It has cost this country a million of lives, and the loss of everything that resembles political liberty. It can have no place except as a part in of a system of absolute military despotism. And it means nothing else either in this country, or in any other. There is no half-way house between a government depending wholly on voluntary support, and one depending wholly on military compulsion. And mankind have only to choose between these two classes – the class that governs, and the class that is governed or enslaved. In this case, the government rests wholly on the consent of the governors, and not at all on the consent of the governed. And whether the governors are more or less numerous than the governed, and whether they call themselves monarchists, aristocrats, or republicans, the principle is the same. The simple, and only material fact, in all cases, is, that one body of men are robbing and enslaving another. And it is only upon military compulsion that men will submit to be robbed and enslaved, it necessarily follows that any government, to which the governed, the weaker party, do not consent, must be (in regard to that weaker party), a merely military despotism. Such is the state of things now in this country, and in every other in which government does not depend wholly upon voluntary support. There never was and there never will be, a more gross, self-evident, and inexcusable violation of the principle that government should rest on the consent of the governed, than was the late war, as carried on by the North. There never was, and there never will be, a more palpable case of purely military despotism than is the government we now have.

-spooner

 

[rambone]

Kirk would shoot Spooner in the forehead.

 

[eric001]

Saying that the Supreme Court is always, has always been, and always will be 100% accurate in its ongoing interpretation of the Constitution makes no sense whatsoever. The SCOTUS is made up of individual people. People are prone to making mistakes, seeing the world through lenses colored by their own desires and agendas, and valuing their own logic over others. That these judges are supposed to be somehow immune from political games and political interpretation of the Constitution makes more sense in a perfect world than it ever could in the real one, where influences are present pretty much all the time.

To assert that the SCOTUS could/would never ignore the Constitution in favor of their own flavor of judicial activism is quite simply naive. Simply look at the most quoted phrase on INGO, "...shall not be infringed," and try to justify all the rulings the SCOTUS has passed down completely ignoring that rather pertinent phrase.

In a perfect world, the SCOTUS would stick strictly to the Constitution and what it says, not digress into what they can make it SEEM to say to support their changing positions over time. Obviously, this is no such world.

 

[Compatriot G]

There is an interesting twist in Texas vs. White. Part of the case involved the actions taken by the the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury in 1862. The Secretary of the Treasury in 1862 was Salmon P. Chase. The Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court in 1869 was Salmon P. Chase. Does anybody see a problem with this?

(I'm sure Kirk will see no problem as he hates everything about the South.)

 

[Denny347]

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

Damn Kirk, that was funny. Sadly, you have sullied the good folks at ComiCon

 

[Denny347]

Saying that the Supreme Court is always, has always been, and always will be 100% accurate in its ongoing interpretation of the Constitution makes no sense whatsoever. The SCOTUS is made up of individual people. People are prone to making mistakes, seeing the world through lenses colored by their own desires and agendas, and valuing their own logic over others. That these judges are supposed to be somehow immune from political games and political interpretation of the Constitution makes more sense in a perfect world than it ever could in the real one, where influences are present pretty much all the time.

To assert that the SCOTUS could/would never ignore the Constitution in favor of their own flavor of judicial activism is quite simply naive. Simply look at the most quoted phrase on INGO, "...shall not be infringed," and try to justify all the rulings the SCOTUS has passed down completely ignoring that rather pertinent phrase.

In a perfect world, the SCOTUS would stick strictly to the Constitution and what it says, not digress into what they can make it SEEM to say to support their changing positions over time. Obviously, this is no such world.

Ok, well that is the legal system we belong to.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

What's your basis for this?

Both are unserious intellectual pursuits.

Sounds like "you will consent or be shot" so much for the consent of the governed.

If you are bearing arms against the United States that is not political dissent, that is Treason.

Lysander was just a dissenter, entitled to full protection of his constitutional rights to speak and write. He was harmless.

Did you sign the constitution?

See, I told you. That's what they say.

So if a Supreme Court decision is controlling that makes it not judicial activism? You will have to explain that.

It can be controlling judicial activism.

I find no intellectual counterargument against White but have not run an all law reviews search yet. I would not anticipate a challenge to White, in the near or far future.

(I'm sure Kirk will see no problem as he hates everything about the South.)

No, I don't. That's just silly. Just because they have no right to leave the Union in order to save their slaves does not mean anyone hates anyone. There was talk of New England leaving the Union and I don't hate New England. Certainly the leaders of the CSA were vile racists but the modern South is far, far different than any of them.

Salmon Chase was born in New Hampshire, which is not in the South. He was Gov. of Ohio and founder of the Free Soil movement.

Chief Justice Chase had nothing to do with the South. As for any conflict over 150 years later, apparently it was not a problem for Texas who was a party to the litigation.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Damn Kirk, that was funny. Sadly, you have sullied the good folks at ComiCon

Is humor permitted here?

Sarcasm, dramatic irony, irony, inter alia.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fNvi6xG-5Y

 

[MisterChester]

 

[poptab]

Both are unserious intellectual pursuits.

anything with which you disagree is an unserious intellectual pursuit, I get it, you aren't up to matching wits.

If you are bearing arms against the United States that is not political dissent, that is Treason.

there is no treason, but feel free to call it whatever meaningless word you choose.

Lysander was just a dissenter, entitled to full protection of his constitutional rights to speak and write. He was harmless.

so long as he paid tribute to the king right?

See, I told you. That's what they say.

I asked you a question... And you never answered it.

It can be controlling judicial activism.

I find no intellectual counterargument against White but have not run an all law reviews search yet. I would not anticipate a challenge to White, in the near or far future.

So he was right.

 

[MisterChester]

there is no treason, but feel free to call it whatever meaningless word you choose.

...really? What dictionary did you read the definition of treason from?

 

[Compatriot G]

I think you missed my point, Kirk. The Chief Justice in 1869 was the Treasury Secretary in 1862. It has been a while since I read the whole decision, but IIRC, one of the elements of the case involved actions taken by the Treasury Secretary. Chief Justice Chase wrote the opinion in which he mentioned that secession wasn't legal. My point is that it seems that the Chief Justice should not have been deciding a case, and writing an opinion, in which he was involved. Had he excused himself from this case, the mention of secession being illegal may have never been written.

 

[eric001]

Ok, well that is the legal system we belong to.

Certainly true. Though I'd probably say "stuck with" instead--same difference. I was simply asserting that any part of a government run by human beings can and most likely will be flawed somehow, somewhere. To simply say that the Supreme Court made decision "X" and since they're the Supreme Court, "X" absolutely positively MUST be true Constitutionally speaking is ignoring the potential for human mistakes influenced by individual desires/agendas/feelings. I agree with SCOTUS decisions when I feel they are consistent with the Constitution, and disagree when I feel they're not. I refuse to blindly accept every single decision by the SCOTUS as legal gospel just because they have the "final word" on the matter. It irritates the marklar out of me when someone says that because the Supreme Court has made such and such a ruling, that the Constitution must be interpreted to agree with that ruling. That's just bass-ackwards. The SCOTUS is supposed to apply Constitutional meanings to modern day issues, not redefine those meanings to make them fit their modern day ideals.

As for getting back on track with the thread...

To be quite honest, I think the practical reality and legal reality of succession are miles apart. As discussed upthread, there is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that disallows succession from the US and this, to me, clearly indicates that succession is therefore a power absolutely reserved to the states and the people--and as such the federal .gov should have nothing to say about it, period. On the other hand, as the Civil War proved, history is written by the victors and might makes right. Due to the North winning that not so friendly little debate, the practical matter of succession is that it has to be illegal unless/until a state or states could pull it off and actually win militarily as well--which almost certainly just isn't going to happen.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

anything with which you disagree is an unserious intellectual pursuit, I get it, you aren't up to matching wits.

Yes, quite right, outwitted by a cartoon Detective Win Bear, how sad for me. Once again I wilt away in the face of the intellectual firepower of the Neo-Lost Causers with their comics and want-based tautologies.

 

[Denny347]

Certainly true. Though I'd probably say "stuck with" instead--same difference. I was simply asserting that any part of a government run by human beings can and most likely will be flawed somehow, somewhere. To simply say that the Supreme Court made decision "X" and since they're the Supreme Court, "X" absolutely positively MUST be true Constitutionally speaking is ignoring the potential for human mistakes influenced by individual desires/agendas/feelings. I agree with SCOTUS decisions when I feel they are consistent with the Constitution, and disagree when I feel they're not. I refuse to blindly accept every single decision by the SCOTUS as legal gospel just because they have the "final word" on the matter. It irritates the marklar out of me when someone says that because the Supreme Court has made such and such a ruling, that the Constitution must be interpreted to agree with that ruling. That's just bass-ackwards. The SCOTUS is supposed to apply Constitutional meanings to modern day issues, not redefine those meanings to make them fit their modern day ideals.

Stuck with? Au contraire, we are fortunate to live in a land where this is the legal system we have. While I may not agree with some decisions, I defend the system with my life if required. We are "stuck" with the greatest system of governance on the planet. Of course it is not perfect and not all the decisions will be great. You can disagree with their decisions all you want, you just have to abide by them. I have to.

 

[poptab]

Yes, quite right, outwitted by a cartoon Detective Win Bear, how sad for me. Once again I wilt away in the face of the intellectual firepower of the Neo-Lost Causers with their comics and want-based tautologies.

You repeat yourself

 

[Mr Evilwrench]

If I find that the .gov has violated the contract with me, as written in the form of the Constitution, to the extent that I feel the need to feed the tree of liberty, I would fully expect them to fire back at me, but am I a traitor, a revolutionary, or something else? Am I not within my rights as a human? Did my rights as a human disappear with the 14th amendment? I sure didn't get to vote on that. There are some things to which I shall not submit, and if it's the .gov enforcing them, there's gonna be trouble.

 

[Denny347]

If I find that the .gov has violated the contract with me, as written in the form of the Constitution, to the extent that I feel the need to feed the tree of liberty, I would fully expect them to fire back at me, but am I a traitor, a revolutionary, or something else? Am I not within my rights as a human? Did my rights as a human disappear with the 14th amendment? I sure didn't get to vote on that. There are some things to which I shall not submit, and if it's the .gov enforcing them, there's gonna be trouble.

There is the rub. You and I can look at the same law or legal decision and you can think it was unconstitutional and I think it was constitutional. Who is right? Who decides?