Is Secession Legal?

[Henry]

They guy with the gun enforcing the law, be it constitutional or otherwise, and defending the system with his life?

 

[Denny347]

They guy with the gun enforcing the law, be it constitutional or otherwise, and defending the system with his life?

So, you give me a better system. If the USSC should not decide, if judges should not decide, who then? We vote for representatives. They create laws. The Judiciary interprets and applies the laws as well as dispute resolution. We defer to courts in lieu of armed conflict for resolution. We, as enforcers of the law, swore to uphold the Constitution. I've had too many friends die while doing just that on this department. While I think some of our laws are useless and defer to my "officer discretion" in enforcing them. Useless does NOT mean unconstitutional. Humans create the laws, humans enforce the laws, humans interpret the laws. Humans are flawed of course hence the need for judicial review. I hear a lot of *****ing with few applicable solutions.

 

[Mr Evilwrench]

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?

We each decide for ourselves, but the wording of the federal, as well as the state Constitutions, though somewhat archaic, is very clear. None of those 2000 page laws back then. All laws must proceed from the Constitution, though far too many have been allowed otherwise. We may debate the meaning, but whomever convinces the most with reasonable argument, shall determine the course of events. I can understand holding an opinion against debate, but not being so closed minded as to be immune to being convinced otherwise. Civil asset seizure, for example. It's happening, pretty frequently. Do you think it is constitutional? I absolutely do not, and I'm convinced that in a constitutional debate, it would be found not to be, and stopped. But that's just one example. There are many others.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Do you think it is constitutional? I absolutely do not, and I'm convinced that in a constitutional debate, it would be found not to be, and stopped

Ok, I'll bite, by what reasoning do you think it unconstitutional?

Is this not what the Left does in creating rights from wants? The transformation of policy into a "constitutional" matter?

 

[Denny347]

We each decide for ourselves, but the wording of the federal, as well as the state Constitutions, though somewhat archaic, is very clear. None of those 2000 page laws back then. All laws must proceed from the Constitution, though far too many have been allowed otherwise. We may debate the meaning, but whomever convinces the most with reasonable argument, shall determine the course of events. I can understand holding an opinion against debate, but not being so closed minded as to be immune to being convinced otherwise. Civil asset seizure, for example. It's happening, pretty frequently. Do you think it is constitutional? I absolutely do not, and I'm convinced that in a constitutional debate, it would be found not to be, and stopped. But that's just one example. There are many others.

You believe asset forfeiture is unconstitutional. Ok, that's fine. Can you please describe the current process of civil asset forfeiture that makes it unconstitutional? While some jurisdictions are over using it or flat lying to get results, that does not determine constitutionality.

 

[eric001]

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.

I was apparently a little unclear--I intended "stuck with" to refer more specifically to the presence of unconstitutional laws being apparently enshrined within our legal system by judicial activism, especially at the highest level. Since past decisions seem so important in determining present and future decisions, once a law violating clearly spelled out rights under the Constitution has managed to be upheld by the Supreme Court, that still unconstitutional law would seem to me to be for all intents and purposes permanent in nature...or at least highly unlikely to ever change without a new law being passed to change the situation. As a citizen, I am therefore stuck with a multitude of restrictions to my 2A right to keep and bear arms which change by state, locality, and even business/venue type. Do I have to abide by them? Well, only if I don't want to risk being prosecuted and have those very 2A rights stripped forever...so, yes. Do I have to respect them or the decisions that allowed such clearly unconstitutional garbage to be written into law? Not in the least. Do I expect that there will realistically ever be a "house-cleaning" of garbage laws at the federal level? Though I really wish this would happen, I figure finding a whole herd of rainbow colored unicorns grazing in my back yard would be more likely.

Don't get me wrong about respect or lack thereof for those who put their lives on the line to support our system of government though. I have a fervent and strong respect for and support of our military forces as well as for the men and women in law enforcement. My disagreements are with those who ultimately cause unconstitutional laws to become and remain a reality.

Though the design of our system is by far the most balanced and fair in theory, I do not believe our political system honestly serves the citizenry today. I have posted before that I believe our government is dominated by career politicians whose first loyalties are to their careers, their next loyalties are to their respective parties, and only as a distant third are their loyalties to the people who (re)elect them. The Supreme Court is supposed to provide a balance to these politicians' shenanigans by using the standard of the Constitution to determine whether or not something is consistent with the Constitution and therefore legal. With this in mind, I find it lamentable when those who compose the highest court of the land allow personal/political agendas to override their duty to decide in favor of the Constitution rather than in favor of those personal/political agendas.

 

[Fred78]

I can't remember a more politically motivated supreme court as the one we have now, and what is even more ridiculous is the power these school boards some how have come up with. As far as secession goes I seem to remember reading somewhere that when the people decide the government is no longer responsible to the will of the people we can throw their butts out and start a new government that sounds like secession to me.

 

[Denny347]

I can't remember a more politically motivated supreme court as the one we have now, and what is even more ridiculous is the power these school boards some how have come up with. As far as secession goes I seem to remember reading somewhere that when the people decide the government is no longer responsible to the will of the people we can throw their butts out and start a new government that sounds like secession to me.

Well, we have nothing to worry about then. No secession will ever happen since we cannot even get people to vote.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

As far as secession goes I seem to remember reading somewhere that when the people decide the government is no longer responsible to the will of the people we can throw their butts out and start a new government that sounds like secession to me.

Fred, you just described November 4th.

 

[Denny347]

Fred, you just described November 4th.

Yeah, that too.

 

[Trigger Time]

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.

I agree with this. Get at the root of the problem first or at least try

 

[Henry]

So, you give me a better system. If the USSC should not decide, if judges should not decide, who then? We vote for representatives. They create laws. The Judiciary interprets and applies the laws as well as dispute resolution. We defer to courts in lieu of armed conflict for resolution. We, as enforcers of the law, swore to uphold the Constitution. I've had too many friends die while doing just that on this department. While I think some of our laws are useless and defer to my "officer discretion" in enforcing them. Useless does NOT mean unconstitutional. Humans create the laws, humans enforce the laws, humans interpret the laws. Humans are flawed of course hence the need for judicial review. I hear a lot of *****ing with few applicable solutions.

Humans are flawed of course, hence the need for judicial review? You do realize that humans are just humans as well, correct?

Regardless, here are a few suggestions.

Repeal the 14th
Repeal the 16th
Repeal the 17th
Repeal the 23rd

There is a good start, but back to the topic of the thread.

 

[Henry]

Secession is a natural right of man as much as is the right of defense of one's life and property.

 

[Fred78]

You bet your bippy, I have every intention of trying to right some wrongs!

 

[indiucky]

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 got a little P J O'Rourke wit in your writing Kirk...Well said and funny to boot....