|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 1:38 PM
Posts: 86,
Visits: 68
|
|
| Isn't the idea that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what is and isn't constitional actually enshrined in the Constitution? =============== No ... the Supreme Court's constitutional authority is to enforce the US Constitution and other laws ... not to make policy decisions. But as other's have pointed out ... they haven't let that stop them from over stepping their authority.
|
|
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 1:41 PM
Posts: 57,
Visits: 78
|
|
Chris Burd (10/15/2009)
There are no states that have a right from succession period. No territories, no states nothing. It is stated in the declaration of independence as pointed out, that we have a right to create a new government, it does not state that we have a right to succession.
The Declaration of Independence was a document declaring that the colonies were breaking off from England; that's a form of secession.
You have no right to succession that would be considered an act of war and under Article 3 Section 3 and The 14th Amendment of the Constitution you would be considered treasonous.
Wrong. Article III treason requires either an act of war or assisting the enemies of the United States; peaceful secession is neither, and therefore cannot be considered treason.
Also, the 14th amendment was likely never lawfully ratified. See http://www.constitution.org/14ll/no14th.htm and http://www.constitution.org/14ll/truth_14th.htm
" In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Government, while I shall have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect, and defend it." -- Abraham Lincoln
I don't recommend that you quote the tyrant Abe Lincoln to support your case. Before he became president, he was actually a staunch supporter of secession: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Kuvj6FIefo
You may also want to watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1KBMnj4BJY
|
|
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, February 18, 2010 9:03 PM
Posts: 55,
Visits: 103
|
|
| The Declaration of Independence was written before the Constitution...so I fail to see what your point is bringing that up...
|
|
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, October 16, 2009 9:24 AM
Posts: 12,
Visits: 9
|
|
aside from the musings of amateur scholars, what's the point of this thread? do republicans advocate secession from the union when they disagree with the policies of their government? is that patriotism?
right minded americans suffered through Bush's prosecution of an unjustified war. despite their unhappiness with their government, did they call for secession? some on the fringes perhaps. but it certainly wasn't the position of the democratic party.
is secession how republicans advocate responding to policies that they disagree with? is that an accurate measure of how much truly love America? or do they only love an America that conforms exactly to their design?
|
|
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 1:41 PM
Posts: 57,
Visits: 78
|
|
Dana Watts (10/14/2009)
I'm not saying I agree with it. I'm simply stating that the Supreme Court has ruled it to be unconstitutional. Whether or not I fell its a just decision or not is another matter. I disagree with all sorts of SCOTUS rulings. That doesn't mean as a private citizen I can choose to ignore their rulings to fit whatever view of America I want.
The nullification and/or secession discussion is primarily about state government and/or governmental actions by the people of a state collectively (like a secession convention) in relation to persons or groups within the federal government (such as the Supreme Court). It is not really about actions by private citizens. Private citizens do have the right of jury nullification --- see http://fija.org/ as well as the PDF download files at http://fija.org/download/37/ and http://fija.org/download/42/ --- but that is a different discussion than this one.
What I'm saying is that if the Supreme Court's ruling itself was unconstitutional, then it is without force and can constitutionally be checked by other branches of the federal government, or by the states.
Imagine if the government of Mexico started giving the United States federal government orders and demanding that they follow their legal processes. A proper response would be to say: the government of Mexico has no jurisdiction over the United States to demand any such thing. It's the same thing if a federal court gives an unconstitutional order to the states.
When the Supreme Court --- or any governmental entity in the United States (state or federal) --- goes outside of its constitutional authority, its demands are equally as invalid as if they had come from a foreign government. For example, even the Supreme Court itself said in Marbury v. Madison that laws contrary to the Constitution are void. The Supreme Court also acknowledged the dual sovereignty of state and federal governments, and their ability to check one another, in Printz/Mack v. United States. The principles of constitutional supremacy and dual sovereignty lead us to conclude that because the Supreme Court usurped its constitutional authority and ruled that secession was unconstitutional, the states have the lawful authority to check that usurpation, as they do any time the federal government usurps its authority (and just like the federal government has the authority to check state usurpation).
Also, keep in mind once again that I am talking about state governments and, in (at least some) cases of secession, lawfully-assembled popular conventions; I am not talking about any private citizens.
|
|
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, October 16, 2009 9:24 AM
Posts: 12,
Visits: 9
|
|
| Wow, great analysis Professor Wrong. You would have a lot of time to write a more detailed analysis of your view from your jail cell after you are convicted of sedition.
|
|
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 1:41 PM
Posts: 57,
Visits: 78
|
|
Dana Watts (10/15/2009)
The Declaration of Independence was written before the Constitution...so I fail to see what your point is bringing that up...
The Declaration of Independence affirms the principle that secession is a legitimate course of action if a government becomes tyrannical, whether it is legal under the technical letter of the law or not. Was the American revolution technically legal under the colonial charters and the laws of England? Probably not. The Declaration of Independence shows that recognition of the ability to secede from tyranny was a principle accepted by the founders. They did not prohibit secession in the Constitution; it is legal in the United States.
Furthermore, when the states declared independence, they declared it as states which were united, not as a single government known as the United States. The states are the principle institutions of government in the United States. The people of the several states formed the federal government by ratification of the Constitution. The states pre-exist the federal government and are ultimately superior to it.
|
|
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 1:41 PM
Posts: 57,
Visits: 78
|
|
Ben Capraro (10/15/2009)
Wow, great analysis Professor Wrong. You would have a lot of time to write a more detailed analysis of your view from your jail cell after you are convicted of sedition.
Since when is discussing historical facts 'sedition?' I'm not encouraging violence in any way whatsoever, nor am I even encouraging peaceful secession (though even if I were encouraging peaceful secession, doing so is not unlawful. For example, I posted a video earlier from Fox News with Lew Rockwell talking favorably about secession). I'm talking about history and legal facts; that's all. What do you think this is: the Soviet Union? Nazi Germany? Such totalitarian garbage is inconsistent with conservative principles.
|
|
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, October 15, 2009 6:53 PM
Posts: 1,
Visits: 2
|
|
| Bottom line: The North won because it had more money and guns than the South. No matter what the law says it will either be ignored by the powerful or they will just change them to be in their favor. We are headed for bondage. Seccesion is not a real option.
|
|
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Monday, November 16, 2009 7:13 PM
Posts: 71,
Visits: 77
|
|
Larrie McCue (10/15/2009)
Bottom line: The North won because it had more money and guns than the South. No matter what the law says it will either be ignored by the powerful or they will just change them to be in their favor. We are headed for bondage. Seccesion is not a real option.
Wrong. The South lost at the battle of Gettysburg by being monumentally stupid and attacking an enemy with a fortified position who has the high ground. Look up "Pickett's Charge." -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pickett%27s_Charge
|
|
|
|
