Ron Paul: You know what’s “very American”? Secession
posted at 5:15 pm on April 20, 2009 by Allahpundit
You know what’s more American? Fighting wars to crush secessionism. Or better yet, winning an election, something the 3% rEVOLution tried last year and at which they failed dismally. Having had his agenda to remake government rejected by his countrymen, America’s Greatest Patriot wonders if they’re really his countrymen after all and points to an antebellum model of states’ rights to bring about Paultopia. And to think, I used to call him a Bircheresque crank.
Also, did you know that when your kid says the “pledge of allegiance,” he’s actually reciting socialist propaganda? True story.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
And by the laws of the union, I presume you mean the Constitution? Which brings us back to the question of where in the Constitution does it say the right to secede is delegated to the central, federal government? If its not delegated to them, it remains with the states.
As you probably know, some people opposed the bill of rights as redundant and unnecessary. Even without the 10th amendment, the only powers the federal government would have would be those delegated to it. It couldn’t, for instance, infringe on free speech. Some said because it already couldn’t, there was no need to explicitly note it as something it couldn’t do. But others felt that the things in the bill of rights were simply so important and vital that they deserved to be singled out. The 10th amendment among them.
Because the power to secede remains with the states (or the people,) whether a state could secede is up to that state’s laws and constitution. I don’t know much about state constitutions, but I don’t believe that any currently talk about methods of secession. But they could, legitimately, decide to because that is a power they continue to hold.
Rangeley on April 20, 2009 at 6:04 PM
Good to see that not much has changed with Ron Paul.
He is as much a moonbat loon now as he was back in the 2008 election.
pilamaye on April 20, 2009 at 6:05 PM
I thought it was a reasonable statement he was making.
AbaddonsReign on April 20, 2009 at 6:06 PM
oops, forgot mah link.
But……aren’t you ALL
bozosBirchers now?strangelet on April 20, 2009 at 6:06 PM
The principle of self determination is “moonbat?”
Rangeley on April 20, 2009 at 6:07 PM
The principle of self determination is “moonbat?”
Rangeley on April 20, 2009 at 6:08 PM
Here is an explanation of the Pledge of Allegiance by Mr. Red Skelton, a great American and a believer. God Rest his Gentle Soul.
kingsjester on April 20, 2009 at 6:10 PM
And if Uncle Sugar craps on the lyrics?
Limerick on April 20, 2009 at 6:12 PM
Am I in Bizarro World here? Where exactly is the crazy a lot of you are seeing?
The Federal Government has rejected Constitutional Law. They have put us tens of trillions of dollars in debt to foreign entities, with no realistic way to pay it back except through punitive taxation or destruction of the currency.
They’ve turned over their constitutionally-mandated power to print and coin money to a private banking conglomerate called the Federal Reserve, who manipulate the money supply through cycles of deflation and inflation.
They have wasted trillions of dollars on badly planned, unsustainable, unconstitutional government handout programs, then use these programs to rope their constituents into government dependency on those who keep the checks coming.
They have caused the artificial inflation, and the subsequent collapse of the real estate market through a policy of cheap money and social engineering of lending standards.
They have rejected representative government by keeping the house seat limit unchanged for eighty years, encouraging a new form of government controlled by lobbyists, crony capitalism, and incumbency protections.
The federal government has been allowed to grow too large, too powerful, and now we are seeing the beginnings of soft tyranny in this country. It is the federal government that has seceded itself from the original intent of the Constitution. Apart from a total economic collapse or a miraculous turnaround from the entitlement culture, I see little way out of the mess things have become.
Secession should not only be discussed, in the near future it may be a necessity for states to do so in order to protect itself from an irresponsible, overreaching, tyrannical federal government.
TheMightyMonarch on April 20, 2009 at 6:13 PM
I am sooo tired of Ron Paul. The guy is a loon. An honest to God loon.
Terrye on April 20, 2009 at 6:14 PM
Yes.
Your point about the Bill of Rights is well-received, which as I side note, I think is Madison’s highest character witness, he didn’t think it was necessary but he promised his constituencies and tirelessly worked for it. Hat’s off to him!
Because of the nature of the entrance, and the explicit authority given to put down insurrection, I don’t agree that secession is a reserved right. I do understand the argument, that as an action it is not in the Constitution, and thus must be considered a right, but I don’t believe that is a correct interpretation. When a state secedes it destroys the Union. The union is no longer a union of states. The act destroys the organization.
The view that a state can enter and exit at will would make the Union an alliance, really.
Moreover, the argument was really made in the first administration when Hamilton assumed the debts of the states. If the states were understood to have the ability to enter and exit at will, that would have had to have been rejected.
Spirit of 1776 on April 20, 2009 at 6:15 PM
TheMightyMonarch:
No state is going to leave the union. It is not going to happen. All this discussion does is make it look like maybe the Obama people were onto something in that DHS report about crazy rightie extremists. I think some people like to pretend they are conservative so that they say things that they know will make conservatives look crazy.
Terrye on April 20, 2009 at 6:17 PM
Ron Paul’s a nut in a lot of ways, but at least he likes his country.
notagool on April 20, 2009 at 6:18 PM
I didn’t know ole Red (one of America’s greatest comics, IMO) was a Constitutional scholar.
Pray tell.
CatsGodot on April 20, 2009 at 6:18 PM
More then 3, actually.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Even in this (the preamble) is speaks of moving further into Union.
Spirit of 1776 on April 20, 2009 at 6:18 PM
Wow, what a great argument!
/s
fossten on April 20, 2009 at 6:18 PM
Oh, and after watching the vid, I thought it was funny the anecdote about the Pledge of Allegiance being the work of a socialist.
True or not, the fact that “Under God” was added in the ’50s in response to the fight against Communism. (So self-loving Communist would ever make such a pledge! That’ll shake them Reds out!!) So pardon me if I don’t fall lock-step into the “it’s all a socialist mindtrap!” mentality when it comes to reciting our pledge.
CatsGodot on April 20, 2009 at 6:22 PM
The difference between a union and an alliance is ultimately the terms of the agreement. If the agreement was that states would have each others backs in war, then it would be an alliance. Obviously, the Constitution goes above and beyond that in forming a union that goes beyond just a military agreement.
The ability to leave a union doesn’t make it any less a union, any more than our ability to leave NATO makes it any less an alliance. Nations can leave NATO if they desire – they didn’t delegate that power over to some NATO executive committee, and similarly, states can still leave as that power was never delegated to the federal government.
I think we are pretty much at an impasse at this point. The ability to put down insurrections couldn’t be used to put down peaceful protests or other things that overstep the bounds of the federal government – it would be a power limited to putting down insurrections alone, which would inherently be armed and unlawful takeovers. A state exercising its rights is no more an insurrection than a person exercising their rights to free speech is an insurrection.
Rangeley on April 20, 2009 at 6:22 PM
Limerick on April 20, 2009 at 6:12 PM
Then you stand up for what it right. Like the dissent that is being shown through the Tea Parties. Our Founding Fathers caame here seeking freedom from tyranny. That ideal shall never die. The Judeo-Christians principle that this country was founded on remain as true as ever.
- Ronald Reagan
Most assuredly not in the present administration or any other misguided politician.
kingsjester on April 20, 2009 at 6:22 PM
Then how is this. Paul is a stone cold isolationist. By that I mean that Paul doesn’t believe that he should help if some monster is killing his friend. There is the line in the sand for me. Coward. Just that simple, the man puts his wallet ahead of his soul.
Limerick on April 20, 2009 at 6:24 PM
Actually, no, because the preamble of the Constitution is not a modifying clause. It simply sets out what the overall areas of concerns are for the signatories. It’s the actual document itself, wherein the various powers allotted to the Federal Government are codified, that you find the three areas where it (the Feds) are allowed to operate.
Anything else is nice to debate, but not germane to the law, which is in black and white.
AW1 Tim on April 20, 2009 at 6:26 PM
I find the older I get, the more I embrace Libertarian principles. I wish there was a better spokesperson.
When a person is forced to live under laws that are diametrically opposed to his own values and beliefs, that person lives in tyranny. That’s the battle, power struggle, between the left and right. Each side wants to force their beliefs on all. Man is not “one size fits all.”
I suspect that, at heart, Sarah Palin values lean heavily toward libertarian. If people starting reading more about libertarian principles, they more they’d embrace them.
SoldiersMom on April 20, 2009 at 6:26 PM
CatsGodot on April 20, 2009 at 6:18 PM
No, he wasn’t. I didn’t say he was. But he was a very good man and a American Patriot who was a skilled artist and wrote over 300 marches.
kingsjester on April 20, 2009 at 6:26 PM
That’s pretty much my point. In an alliance, you can come and go. But the Confederation, an alliance of states failed to serve the states’ needs. Thus they entered into a more binding and powerful organization – a Union.
Yes. The right of the people to petition their government for a redress of grievances shall not be abridged.
Yes, I agree. I don’t agree, however, that secession is a reserved right for the reasons expressed up-thread.
Alright, thanks for the dialogue.
Spirit of 1776 on April 20, 2009 at 6:30 PM
It, in my opinion, illustrates better then anything else the intentions of the document.
You may read it differently, but Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, and JQAdams did not. I stop at JQA because past that, you could discount that they affected the founding.
Spirit of 1776 on April 20, 2009 at 6:32 PM
The difference between a union and an alliance isn’t the ability to leave, its what they are working together on. A union is far broader in the things they agree to, for instance delving into economics, a legal system, etc. Only if they agree to delegate the ability to leave the union would that provision exist, which they never did.
And if its not delegated, its retained. Therefore, just as its lawful (and inherently not unlawful) to excercise the right to free speech which is retained, it is lawful to excercise other rights retained, including secession. Insurrection is an unlawful rebellion against the government – leaving in a lawful manner would not be unlawful.
Rangeley on April 20, 2009 at 6:34 PM
No, the federal government will just continue to usurp state power until they are no longer really states, just federal districts with a few unique local laws.
Those darned socialists, they just can’t stand it unless everything looks the same (or at least within their own defined groups they like to put people in).
We may not see state lines disappear from the map but what they once represented (namely a power check on the federal government) will no longer apply. Power checks annoy socialists, especially the one inhabiting the White House at the moment.
I certainly don’t want to see any state secede. Revolt and refuse to send money to Washington, and assert their state rights under the Tenth Amendment? Hell yes I do.
TheMightyMonarch on April 20, 2009 at 6:34 PM
He always makes sense, so why does he creep me out?
southsideironworks on April 20, 2009 at 6:35 PM
Ah, I get it. He was a closet socialist. That’s what you’re saying.
I mean, let’s be honest now. Red Skelton? I think we’re all starting to see the subtext now…
On a completely different note, did you know that these Easy Release Wrap Foils actually last longer than the non-easy release? It’s a bit more money, but it’s *so* worth it. I haven’t changed my hat in days.
CatsGodot on April 20, 2009 at 6:35 PM
Given the current economic climate, I think we can all appreciate Dr. Paul’s contributions to cheap entertainment.
TheUnrepentantGeek on April 20, 2009 at 6:39 PM
CatsGodot on April 20, 2009 at 6:35 PM
Are you on medication or in need of some? America was not Socialist then or now. Obama wants it desperately to be. But he didn’t count on the backbone of the American people.
I don’t know what kind of semantic game you’re playing,but go ahead and play it by yourself. I know you have experience.
kingsjester on April 20, 2009 at 6:39 PM
Ron Paul needs to go home and try doctoring again.
My Dad knocked heads with him many years ago, when he proved to be a backstabber and a political wannabe from the get go.
He actually tried to torpedo candidates for his own gain. I hope Paul will just grow veggies somewhere and quit screwing with us. He is no conservative and never will be. Unfit for service.
marcboyd on April 20, 2009 at 6:40 PM
I understand your argument. I suggest to you that the principle here (from the Articles) is assumed in the Constitution (referenced by the phrase more perfect Union).
Article XIII. Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.
That means, that to exit the Union, the Congress would have to vote that it leave and then it would have to be confirmed by every state.
I do not believe that the State reserves this “right”, since the Constitution was designed to strengthen what already existed.
Spirit of 1776 on April 20, 2009 at 6:41 PM
When I listen to his arguments I don’t hear that at all, I think he leans more towards Jefferson’s warnings about entering entangling alliances.
Not sure if this is attributed to Washington or not, but I hear in his arguments the concept that we should not have “friends” with regards to foreign entities, we should have interests.
Granted I vehemently disagree with Paul’s idea of not backing Israel, but I have more biased, personal reasons for that particular disagreement.
TheMightyMonarch on April 20, 2009 at 6:41 PM
Good grief! Guess I’m a Paulnut and didn’t know it.
I’ve long felt this way, but never found the words to explain it so well.
Once the dollar crashes is what the left is afraid of. Better we have more serious debate on secession now, rather than later.
petefrt on April 20, 2009 at 6:43 PM
It is Jefferson’s phrase, but the idea is rightly attributed to Washington because of his farewell address.
Spirit of 1776 on April 20, 2009 at 6:45 PM
Not “At Will” but certainly out of necessity!
RedLizard64 on April 20, 2009 at 6:46 PM
Yes, Texas should immediately seceed. They would no longer be using any government money for education or healthcare. Good luck with that. Meanwhile the Dems would be guaranteed an electoral college win everytime. I 100% support Texas packing up and getting the heck out of dodge.
dcwvu on April 20, 2009 at 6:48 PM
The Constitution created a new federal government, and with it a new set of agreements and ways of conducting business that replaced the articles of confederation. It didn’t “strengthen,” it remade entirely from the ground up – though initially they did intend to just amend the articles this idea was quickly deemed unfeasable. And obviously, the articles are no longer binding today.
I would have to look into it more myself, but I suspect that with the increased powers given to the federal government, the concept of having the former method of secession was no longer seen as acceptable by some, and while they would agree to a lesser “perpetual union,” they wanted more of an out with this stronger one. Just speculation, but it makes sense considering some of the other compromises made.
Additionally, I think the use of the word “insurrection” is telling. The federal government was given the power not to maintain the union, but to put down an unlawful rebellion. This word choice in itself implies that there would therefore be a lawful way out. So in fact the delegation of the power to put down insurrections would seem to support the idea that there is a legal way to go about it.
Rangeley on April 20, 2009 at 6:50 PM
The South shall rise again!
*rattles saber*
The Ugly American on April 20, 2009 at 6:50 PM
Let’s settle a few things here.
Sovereignty does not, nor has it ever, rested in the states, but rather in the people. Read the declaration, the people of the US are ultimately sovereign actors, and are thus free to behave as they will. There is no provision for a collective construction, like a state, as acting sovereignty; it does not have the same rights as an individual nor can it. It exists only insofar as people recognize its construction, an act that worked itself through a social contract. Once a state (or any other collective body) has deigned their own independence into a greater collective body, it loses its natural separtedness. It is subsumed into the whole of the greater body politic, and it cannot, after this act, repatriate. The very act of incorporation changes the relationship of the civic body to the greater political association, and its independence from that organization can only come about from the dissolution of the organic body politic. Hence, states rights, as a matter of principle, are a non starter philosophically, because a major component of Lockean contract theory (the political ideology that shaped our revolution and Constitution) is that the act of contract is binding ad infinitum with and within collective bodies. Individuals are always free to secede, and in fact are protected in that right by our own government. Collections of individuals are allowed to secede, but collective bodies are not capable of acting, in spite of what Rousseau and others may claim, with total foreknowledge and impunity. Furthermore, the provisions of the social contract that the stats have established within themselves and within the federal government are either all binding or not binding; the consensual dissolution of one undermines the very nature of contracts in general, and renders them feeble and facile. The act of secession by a collective body is necessarily dissolutionary because contracts are established with the only provisions for their removal being their absolute disregard.
One may ask how this doctrine allowed American revolt, when the actors their ostensibly behaved and rebelled in collective ways. The answer lies in the original contract with which the American colonies and the British crown were bound. The contract between a colony and a ruler is not a contract as rightly constructed, because, as Jefferson et al would point out, there was no attempt at political integration, no fundamental alteration to the political regime constituted by British rule; the American colonies were wholly subservient to and unaffected by British central rule, until the issues of taxation became apparent. It was not secession from one state, but rather an overthrowing of a tyrannical proxy government; a collective revolution which is the ultimate check against governmental abuses. As it was understood back then, the American Revolution was the overthrowing and replacement of one regime with another, not the segmentation of one collective state into multiple, independently acting commonwealths.
So, in sum, Ron Paul and his fellow travelers misunderstand basic principles of governance put forth by the very political philosophy they imagine they are championing. It’s not perniciously or intentionally wrong–in fact it is a common misunderstanding of the revolution–but it is based rather on a failure to comprehend the philosophical origins of our revolution.
No one should comment on this issue unless they’ve read Hobbes, Locke, Montesquieu, The Declaration, The Federalists, The Constitution, Burke, and Tocqueville. That’s the philosophical tradition we are talking about here, and to understand the language used in the Constitution, one must know the context. Those writers are the context.
jlerner on April 20, 2009 at 6:53 PM
Can any of you folks who are condemning talk about secession not imagine any possible future scenario where secession would be appropriate or are you just saying that it’s not appropriate today?
Would it have been appropriate for free states to secede from a nation where slavery was the norm? What if there hadn’t been enough free states to fight a war against the slave states and those free states chose to secede instead of fighting a losing war? I imagine in that case the slave states would be calling the free states treasonous.
Buddahpundit on April 20, 2009 at 6:55 PM
Secession discussions would not be necessary if the federal government would recognize that most of what it engages in is unconstitutional. That’s not even close to happening.
Hell, we can’t get anyone to seriously address the impending collapse of Social Security. We’re too busy writing bad checks to GM and Citigroup.
A dollar collapse most likely would cause even more usurpation of power by the federal government. They already have the ability to freeze assets, what’s to prevent them from “temporarily” seizing private companies in the name of “stabilizing” the economy? Obama’s new BFF Hugo Chavez is already showing him how to do it.
TheMightyMonarch on April 20, 2009 at 6:57 PM
The ability to secede was never delegated to the federal government. If people wanted their state to secede, and it was lawful in that state to secede (via their constitution,) what would be the problem?
Rangeley on April 20, 2009 at 6:58 PM
This is where a lot of the secessionist talk is coming from. Some people see an erosion of representative government over the last eighty or so years, combined with an increasingly homogenized, unchecked federal government abusing and exceeding its constitutionally-mandated powers.
In addition we have a majority party in Congress who is happily moving us towards a soft tyranny, and a sheepish minority party who is trying to negotiate the speed at which we’re moving towards it.
In short, our ancestors overthrew England for much less than what is being done to us today.
TheMightyMonarch on April 20, 2009 at 7:04 PM
Maine seceded from Mass. to become it’s own state once upon a time. I think we should do it again, and join with Quebec. I do not think it would matter to all my comrades up here which government teet we are attached to.
aceinstall on April 20, 2009 at 7:04 PM
If they had said unlawful before insurrection, ie an adjective to modify that noun, then you would have a case because it would imply there is a lawful way. It does not.
The Convention was convened with the authority to strengthen the Articles. That was the mandate, and the document submitted back to the states for ratification was under that authority.
I don’t know if I qualify, but I’m not saying at all that separation is a dead-end street. My point is really that it would be it’s own revolution (by state or states). The rightness of that could only be judged by the position put forth for it. It might even be possible that other states would not resist.
Spirit of 1776 on April 20, 2009 at 7:06 PM
Don’t be elitist. Take a page from CThomas, who expressly writes to be accessible. Our documents are accessible to all citizens, so if there are questions of language, then answer those.
Spirit of 1776 on April 20, 2009 at 7:07 PM
What they went there to do initially was not what they ended up doing. They didn’t strengthen the articles – they made an entirely new document which was in essence stronger than the articles in many respects. But it didn’t include that specific provision, and did not delegate the ability to secede to the federal government.
Saying unlawful insurrection would be like saying “unlawful robbery.” An insurrection is by definition a rebellion against the civil authority and government. If the civil authority and government determined to secede and did so by the laws of the land, this is not an insurrection – its legal secession.
Rangeley on April 20, 2009 at 7:09 PM
Ron Paul makes some good arguments at times. Various principles really make me think.
However, he’ll never be a mainstream leader with wide appeal as long as he continues throwing a handful of ideas into each speech that make most listeners say “wait, what did he just say?” Case in point: Wilson should not have gotten us into WWI (2:30).
cs89 on April 20, 2009 at 7:09 PM
Well, he shouldn’t have ;)
Rangeley on April 20, 2009 at 7:11 PM
I’m no fan of Ron Paul, but what he said is perfectly reasonable.
Daggett on April 20, 2009 at 7:11 PM
Ron Paul is on the money again as usual. I think he’s brilliant. The Republicans could use more people like Ron Paul. What makes him a loon? That he’s legitimately for small government unlike most of the Republicans we’ve had the last 8yrs? The Republicans dropped the ball. Now we have to suffer through god only knows how many years of the nuts who are in power now.
megak on April 20, 2009 at 7:16 PM
I think Paul is a nut (see his views re. 9/11) but as far as secession is concerned, he’s not a total moonbat.
Let’s not forget, over the past several years the Junior (Democrat) Senator from the state O’bama claims to have been born in has been trying to pass a bill that even he has admitted could possibly allow his State to secede.
That would be Daniel Akaka. When asked by NPR in 2005 about whether his bill would allow Hawai’i to secede, he said he would let his grandchildren and great-grandchildren use the bill to do that. After his remarks ignited controversy, he backed away slightly, but not completely.
Even though the Akaka Bill has been opposed by the US Civil Rights Commission and many others, both O’bama and Biden voted in favor of it. It only lost by 4 votes in the Senate.
Del Dolemonte on April 20, 2009 at 7:18 PM
The handwriting’s already on the wall, isn’t it. Clear for all to see, if they wish.
petefrt on April 20, 2009 at 7:19 PM
One of Ron Paul’s problems is that he’s always ten steps ahead in the argument. There’s a national discussion on whether we should be bailing out failing industries, and he’s railing against the Federal Reserve, hyperinflation, and fiat currency. Then he’ll throw in something about Austrian economics vs. the Keynesian School, and leaves most people scratching their heads.
Most people don’t even understand exactly what the Federal Reserve is, much less what’s wrong with it. Paul’s right to criticize these things, but the majority of people are rarely on the same page.
TheMightyMonarch on April 20, 2009 at 7:23 PM
jlerner
In short, bullshit.
Yes, the people hold sovereignty within themselves, and the states, and other governments are only articicial constructs designed to help get thigs done.
However, considering the natural rights of every man, any group of people, lets say, for example, a state, can leave any compact a5t any time for any reason that they deem valid, because they ALWAYS retain the right of self-determination.
That is the principle for which this nation has gone to war in the past, and for which states, counties, and even towns and cities have warred, or at least come to blows over. The right of the people to CHOOSE the form of government for themselves is inviolate, and no treaty, constitution, declaration, confederation or any other construct can permanently bind a free people.
The only way any people may be bound to any form of government is through either consent or force. I propose that it is the latter which has held this nation together since 1865, and by which this current Federal Administration seeks to further enslave our free peoples.
Laws are worthless when facing bayonets. It is the latter which compelled Southern States into submission, and that wrongly so. It is the threat of those same bayonets, either literally or figuratively wielded by Federal Agents that the present occupant of the White House hopes to affect his changes to our nation, and to the several states. Under such a scenario, free people are obliged to resist, and to form such new government as they may deem appropriate to the occasion.
You are a frikkin’ poseur, setting the,limits by which men might debate an issue. Your standards for debate are exactly the reasons why these original colonies left England. We got really tired of being lectured to by self-appointed guardians of our thoughts.
AW1 Tim on April 20, 2009 at 7:23 PM
That is an argument of semantics. They were sent with a mandate. They did that mandate. The document the states voted on, was voted on because of the original mandate. They took a skeleton and brought it to life. Instead of calling it skeleton 2.0, they called it a body.
Re: 2nd comment. Right, so all insurrection is unlawful. At whatever point a state refused to abide by the laws of the Union, it would be in insurrection. Regardless of whatever it voted for in it’s own legislative body.
Spirit of 1776 on April 20, 2009 at 7:24 PM
At a minimum, a state could only secede if the secession were approved by both houses of Congress and the President. Since the Civil War, the legal issue has been murky; it might actually require a Constitutional amendment now. Also the secession would have to be legal under the state’s law (either a vote of the legislature, or as in the case of the Texas Republic, a special state convention). Post-1865, not exactly a burning issue. Oh, and Ron Paul is a douchebag (the same goes for Rick Perry).
Travis Bickle on April 20, 2009 at 7:27 PM
Still a nut job!
KBird on April 20, 2009 at 7:29 PM
Well if secession is treason then we are guilty. Who’s going to surrender themselves to British first? I suggest Allahpundit since he feels so strongly about it.
Ars Moriendi on April 20, 2009 at 7:29 PM
I’ll take this ‘loon’ over the incompetent cronyist fatcats we have for a leadership any day of the week. The USA would be better off if someone had the power to replace current incumbents by randomly choosing people out of the phone book. We are THAT badly in need of reform.
Our country is blinded by the two-party mindset – either we break it, soon, or it breaks us.
Dark-Star on April 20, 2009 at 7:34 PM
Yo, Allah.
History. Get some.
I’m no “Paulite,” but Congresscritter Paul apparently knows a bit more about history than you do. Apparently, so does Governor Perry… 9th and 10th Amendments. Read ‘em again. Think.
Otherwise, you wouldn’t have sounded so ignorant.
Google: ‘online library of liberty’ and ‘liberty library of constitutional classics.’ The Founding Father’s own words. Letters, journals, books, broadsides…
Edumacate yerself, people.
Warren Bonesteel on April 20, 2009 at 7:34 PM
Even a stopped watch is right twice a day. Be careful that you don’t reject him out of hand even when he’s right.
Browncoatone on April 20, 2009 at 7:34 PM
Its not semantics. Or at least it shouldn’t be. They went there with a mandate to “make it better.” I guess you could say its semantics as to whether they made an entirely new document, or just greatly amended the old one. I have said my point of view on that, but in the end its irrelevent. What matters is what was contained in the document they walked away with and later ratified. Secession was not delegated to the federal government in this document, and therefore was left to the states.
At whatever point a state decided to stop abiding by the laws of the union, they would be committing insurrection. But legal secession isn’t a violation of the laws of the union, because that power was left to the states.
Rangeley on April 20, 2009 at 7:35 PM
Oh and we have all been driving on the wrong side of road. I shutter to think how many traffic tickets we are all going to have when the British regain control.
Ars Moriendi on April 20, 2009 at 7:36 PM
We simply do not agree.
Have a good evening.
Spirit of 1776 on April 20, 2009 at 7:40 PM
I agree. What he says, actually, is that it’s a reasonable proposition to discuss. And that we should look pretty carefully at our own history before condemning the idea out of hand. Whatever we think of Ron Paul otherwise, that much makes sense.
ManUFan on April 20, 2009 at 7:42 PM
I am guessing Paul and Perry (PP if you will) will not run for President .
getalife on April 20, 2009 at 7:50 PM
RP is right on that one too. We were supplying arms to one side and still trying to hide behind the guise of neutrality. Then when a U-boat sunk the Lusitania*, we went nationally nuts at the ‘murder’ and got ourselves involved in a war we had absolutely no business in. I would even go so far as to suggest WW1 would have come to a stalemate without our involvement (which was the tipping point for Germany) and WW2 wouldn’t have even happened. Both sides were already on the breaking point at that time.
*The ship is now known to have been smuggling weapons, making the torpedoing perfectly valid.
Dark-Star on April 20, 2009 at 7:51 PM
“Save the Union” = “Save the Crown”…..no difference!
DwnSouthJukin on April 20, 2009 at 7:52 PM
Just in case nobody’s used this yet: “If at first you don’t secede . . .”
The Other McCain on April 20, 2009 at 7:53 PM
Likewise, each of the united States is “united” with the others explicitly on the principle that “governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed” and “whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends [i.e., protecting life, liberty, and property], it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government” and “when a long train of abuses and usurpations…evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.” [3]
TXMomof3 on April 20, 2009 at 7:55 PM
Actually, that sounds just like the argument Al Sharpton gives when defending the welfare state… that conservatives put their wallets before their soul.
Is that you Al?
JohnGalt23 on April 20, 2009 at 7:57 PM
What country are you living in? In mine, the government tells us when & where & how we can say a simple prayer.
While you & Regan weren’t looking, they shipped half the 3rd world in here. A large percentage of whom care nothing about Judeo-Christian values, liberty or even freedom.
One’s even in the White House.
DwnSouthJukin on April 20, 2009 at 7:58 PM
Dark-Star on April 20, 2009 at 7:51 PM
That’s all well and good if RP wants to be a history professor, or write a book about early 20th century history.
If he seriously wants to lead the nation, though, it’s counterproductive to drop this kind of lead balloon into his speeches. Most Americans think WWI was a war we were justified in fighting, and it’s ancient history for most of us. He may be wrong (my opinion), he may be right, but either way this kind of stuff doesn’t make it more likely he will gain office and implement the reforms he thinks are necessary.
IMHO.
cs89 on April 20, 2009 at 8:00 PM
This thread helps me think it through. Some really super posts here.
As a libertarian conservative, I see it in a Lockean way. The ethics of secession are governed by the principles of Western contract law, starting with individual self-ownership, and hence that sovereignty vests soley in the individual. Individuals may contract with their designated reps — townships, counties, states and a national government — to do certain things, and to this end, give these ‘governments’ certain authorities over them, on terms defined by them. But always, it’s a matter of contract, and the source of power and authority is the individual, or acting collectively, the people. And the principles of Western contract law are the criteria, along with the Founding Documents, for debate over the ethics, legitimacy and patriotism of secession.
petefrt on April 20, 2009 at 8:02 PM
Oh man I hope you’re kidding. That’s disgusting. How can we be in the same party…
Jimmy Liberty on April 20, 2009 at 8:28 PM
Why is HotAir so anti-secession? If Texas went Galt, it would overtake the United States as an economic powerhouse within a generation. Of course there’s a danger that it could turn into a Banana Republic, but that’s for Texans to decide. Don’t mess with Texas.
bigbeas on April 20, 2009 at 8:33 PM
ditto
bigbeas on April 20, 2009 at 8:34 PM
The fact that so many people here despise Ron Paul reinforces my decision to leave the Republican party many years ago. What a worthless, unprincipled, and utilitarian party. I applaud Dr. Paul for showing the courage to speak out against tyranny. This country was founding by a revolt against much less tyranny than we experience today. If Texas secedes, I will resign from the U.S. Army and be packing up my family to move there as soon as possible.
King of the Britons on April 20, 2009 at 8:43 PM
I’ll take this ‘loon’ over the incompetent cronyist fatcats we have for a leadership any day of the week. The USA would be better off if someone had the power to replace current incumbents by randomly choosing people out of the phone book. We are THAT badly in need of reform.
You explain Herr Doktor to a tee.
He’s been in Congress going on 25 years. He is part and parcel of that same two party system you rail against and is one of those incumbents your complaining about as well. He hasn’t changed a damn thing for the whole two decades he’s been in Washington. Why? Because he’s part of the damn problem.
He won’t leave because he wouldn’t be able to get what he needed to stay in office otherwise. Such a principled man would have left the Republicans by now you would think IF he actually practiced what he preaches.
He never met an earmark he didn’t like. He’s addicted to spending other peoples money just like the rest of them.
catmman on April 20, 2009 at 8:47 PM
Although I wholeheartedly disagree with any notion of secession, Dr. Paul has made valid points. By the way, out of all the Republican candidates for 2008, Ron Paul stuck to the ideals of the Constitution and Ronald Reagan more than any other of the candidates. Although some neocons may disagree with some of his arguments, he has stuck to his belief system and has not flip flopped on issues like everyone else.
RON PAUL ’12!!
RightXBrigade on April 20, 2009 at 8:48 PM
Actually, Dr. Paul endorsed Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party for ’08.
RightXBrigade on April 20, 2009 at 8:51 PM
Also, from Texas Secede, some information on the Texas Constitution vis-a-vis secession.
Q: Doesn’t the Texas Constitution reserve the right of Texas to secede? [BACK TO TOP]
A:
No such provision is found in the current Texas Constitution[1](adopted in 1876) or the terms of annexation.[2] However, it does state (in Article 1, Section 1) that “Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States…” (note that it does not state “…subject to the President of the United States…” or “…subject to the Congress of the United States…” or “…subject to the collective will of one or more of the other States…”)
Neither the Texas Constitution, nor the Constitution of the united States, explicitly or implicitly disallows the secession of Texas (or any other “free and independent State”) from the United States. Joining the “Union” was ever and always voluntary, rendering voluntary withdrawal an equally lawful and viable option (regardless of what any self-appointed academic, media, or government “experts”—including Abraham Lincoln himself—may have ever said).
Both the original (1836) and the current (1876) Texas Constitutions also state that “All political power is inherent in the people … they have at all times the inalienable right to alter their government in such manner as they might think proper.”
Likewise, each of the united States is “united” with the others explicitly on the principle that “governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed” and “whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends [i.e., protecting life, liberty, and property], it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government” and “when a long train of abuses and usurpations…evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.” [3]
carbon_footprint on April 20, 2009 at 8:59 PM
RightXBrigade on April 20, 2009 at 8:51 PM
And?
Is he still a Republican?
catmman on April 20, 2009 at 8:59 PM
Yes, that’s it exactly.
petefrt on April 20, 2009 at 9:05 PM
Not according to MegMac’s evolving definition…
Upstater85 on April 20, 2009 at 9:06 PM
I dont agree with the man when it comes to his isolationism bit or, for that matter the bit about the pledge. However, he makes a good point about the topic on states seceeding. In the early days there was a lot of arguing about how much power the federal government should have and states were in fact afraid of it getting too much power. The US was orginally a bunch of loosely knitted states under a confederation. If I recall my history correctly this original constution of sorts was replaced with our current constitution. Anybody ever read the federalist papers? I think I’ll get them on my kindle and read through them. As I recall these papers were about forming a more powerful central federal government. They were written because some folks needed convicing that the early government really was not very effective. I also understand that there was much talk of states leaving the union even then. So, ya he seems to be right when he claims people seemed to assume that states had the right to leave the union.
boomer on April 20, 2009 at 9:12 PM
Disclaimer: I am in no way a fan of Ron Paul, am glad the slave-holding South was soundly beaten, and am *not* advocating secession.
*However* there’s something ironic (hypocritical?) about a people who overthrow their gov’t to form a new one (1776) deciding that this right of self-determination has ceased with them.
In other words:
Secession from Great Britain = patriotism.
Secession from US = treachery.
jazz_piano on April 20, 2009 at 9:13 PM
Whether or not succession is “legal” per the constitution should not be the arguement. The founding fathers answered the question themselves: you may have read this before… maybe?
or Jefferson:
So… I guess the question is not if it is authorized by the constitution. as said above by someone else, the PEOPLE are sovreign. We don’t need the government’s permission. Per our founding fathers, governments gain their power from OUR CONSENT. the only questions here are 1. when do we pass “light and transient causes”, 2. whether or not the people are willing to stand up for their rights (the unalienable ones we get from our creater… not the ones Reed/Pelosi deem us worthy to keep) or continue to trade them for a $400 stimulus check… If people choose to stand up (with their votes or otherwise) the question #3 is whether or not the government will listen or continue to tax/spend OUR money any way they darn well please.
BadBrad on April 20, 2009 at 9:37 PM
…if politics were purely regional, or if politics were everything to those who’d have to migrate to realign region and politics, secession would work. Failing that, it’s nothing but surrender. You’re taking your ball and stalking off home to pout.
Strictly speaking, even with the nasty spate of Reconstruction Era judgements against secession, equating secession with treason, etc. ad nauseum, secession is always an option…just the way, in most human affairs, that violence is always an option…can’t open that pickle jar, smash it….
…it’s just that grown-up people want to choose the option or options which address the problem the most favorably, while creating the fewest number of follow-on problems. Smash the pickle jar and you’ll have pickles, but you won’t be able to eat ‘em safely because they’ll be shot-through with shards of glass…so, you smash the jar and offer a gurkin to Rahm Emmanuel….
…like violence, secession is generally speaking among the the last viable choices for people of good will and good sense.
Don’t like how they’re screwing up California? Move. Can’t move? Work to thwart the the “them” who’re screwing things up by the numbers. Stubborn and don’t want the bad guys to win, but don’t want to stick your neck out? Live with it. You don’t carve up the map because California’s got “cooties”….
Conservatism isn’t any more regional than is the sewer politics we saw bubbling just under the surface during Mr. Bush’s tenure, now rising from the muck like a stinkweed masquerading as a lotus blossom.
While we might think that of New England or the Northeast or the Rust Belt areas or the wacky Left Coast as being more apt to reengineer society out of the reach of its citizens (gay marriage, gun confiscations, school indoctrinations, etc.), there’re good folks in Massachusetts and there’re some mighty loony people in Texas…especially in Austin. What do we do here in Texas, Mr. Texas Representative Paul? Texas seceeds and we disenfranchise the folks in Austin? That’s, in effect, silencing the Left by disenfranchising them…and it’s no more fair than the bilge those who wish to farm out our sovereignty are selling. We should be able to stand with ‘em toe to toe, even when they skew the playing field in the myriad ways they try to do it, and spit in their collective eye.
…besides, the Left isn’t any more monolithic than is the Right…sometimes they have good ideas. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Whatever happened to fighting the good fight? Whatever happened to standing up and sticking up for what’s right. Even when your opponents have subborned the courts and the media, have conquered academia, and are trying to end-run ’round voter sovereignty by court fiat and internationalizing civil rights issues, you should stand up and tell the truth.
…and, in this country, the truth of civil discourse is contained in the Constitution.
Do we take our ball home and sulk? Do we accuse them of not being “fair” and impoverish ourselves, both of gold and history, by disestablishing the union our forebearers crafted and giving the game to them? In short, do we think that they’re so powerful that we have to change the very shape of our nation by redrawing our national border, and then creep to the other side of it?
I think that America belongs to me. All of you out there are welcome to think the same. I was young once, and swore an oath (repeated each time I reenlisted) to protect the Constitution, meaning the current Constitution, meaning my Constitution, from all enemies, foreign and domestic. To my knowledge, the word “…until…” wasn’t in that oath. So, that’s me committed.
I don’t think secession is the right thing to do…largely because I don’t think that the Left deserves to be shed of us.
I live for nothing so delicious, aside from Divine Grace, as being a thorn in the side of the self-righteous and self-congratulatory Left. It’s so easy to do — they have an awfully brittle worldview and a very fragile self-esteem — and it’s easy to argue with them. Thirty seconds into it and you’re called a “racist”, and then you know that they’ve run out of ammunition…and there you are, fighting an unarmed man and you haven’t even broken a sweat.
The Left does not deserve to win by virtue of the means they’re prepared to use in order to win. With that in mind, I’m all for tripping, thwarting, and rubbing their dingy fur the wrong direction at every turn…from up close, not from across a spite-created border.
…besides, there’re a lot more of us than there are of them…as the last election shows, they’re only better at misleading the gullible, the uninformed and the greedy. Give ‘em a chance and a little time and the folks on the Left are the best salesment for the conservatism that there are anywhere. Just like with Carter and Johnson, let ‘em try to actually enact some of their agenda and even the gullible and uninformed wise up…for a while anyway.
…then, when “American Idol” goes into a new season, and they go back to sleep, we start all over again.
Fighting evil is an ongoing process. It’s fun. Just ask Batman.
Puritan1648 on April 20, 2009 at 9:41 PM
They had a lot of these arguments in 1861 with no clear cut answer forthcoming (might makes right). As I recall Virginia (for example) originally joined the union reserving the right to withdraw if desired (little good that did them). With the federal government assuming more and more powers that they do not possess under the constitution the question may become mute. A reasonable conclusion would be that powers not specified in the founding documents for the federal government would allow states to leave the union if they so desired.
duff65 on April 20, 2009 at 9:44 PM
true… but to argue that it is NOT an option at all is what I disagree with…
BadBrad on April 20, 2009 at 9:46 PM
…I’ve heard the man speak in a venue more intimate than a political rally, and am no fan of him, either. He’s a “purist”, and that’s both immature and unrealistic.
…I’m not the least bit glad that the pro-slavery South was defeated, however. I think that slavery was appallingly badly handled, especially given that the more economically and socially just example of Britain’s emancipation was available for the abolitionists, and yet they still financed armed terrorism (John Brown), advocated secession (!), and ripped up the Constitution in public for countenancing slavery. Again, purists.
The Late War had more causes than slavery, and seceeded for some of those very good reasons, but history proves that slavery was always the key and overriding issue. Alex Stephens said as much…so sorry, NeoCofederates.
But, I don’t support secession. We out her in “flyover country” aren’t nearly as put-upon as the South was in the 1850′s and ’60′s for one thing, and as I discussed (at nauseating length) above, it’s tantamount to surrender to the Left. But, I’d agree that it isn’t any species of “treason”.
It’s just silly. Why, as the majority, with force of history, with all the force of our founding documents, and with the force of general human right on your side, surrender? Why should the minority get that kind of a break?
If any state, if any county or parish, if any city or township or village or neighborhood want to seceed, let ‘em do so…so long as they’re willing to accept the consequences of marginalizing themselves.
…it’s not treason. It’s just not the savvy choice.
Puritan1648 on April 20, 2009 at 9:52 PM
…as well, I think, you should. Freedom means being able to make unwise choices. The catch is that proving that you’re free by making that unwise choice doesn’t make the consequences any softer. Unwise is as unwise does.
With the rise of the Internet and of the 24-hour news cycle, we seem to have developed one of human nature’s most unattractive and disagreeable facets to a fine art: the art of shutting other people up. This entails, among many other things, telling folks that they can’t say or do something…all the more a sin in a free country, even one, as ours, free within the limits of the rights of our neighbors.
Let folks talk all they want about secession. In my own personal experience, secessionists are even harder to herd than Democrats, who make herding cats look like the diamond lane on the freeway.
It’ll blow over. It’s a silly notion. The trick will be to not let the Left use this as a wedge to divide the Right.
Puritan1648 on April 20, 2009 at 9:58 PM
It’s just silly. Why, as the majority, with force of history, with all the force of our founding documents, and with the force of general human right on your side, surrender? Why should the minority get that kind of a break?
Puritan1648 on April 20, 2009 at 9:52 PM
You make a good point but I’m not sure that the “nutcases” aren’t the new majority. In addition, whenever a democracy went totally “populist” historically that was the beginning of the end. If “fly over country” doesn’t opt out soon it may be too late.
duff65 on April 20, 2009 at 10:10 PM
States are entities, not individuals. So it’s not the same argument.
Sure, all governments exist by the consent of the governed. But we are getting into different debates. The individual rejected citizenship is not the same as a state seceding. Though I see the temptation to make that argument.
I have never advocated, nor never will, that government should exist without the consent of the people. I am merely discussing the legality of secession as a state option.
Spirit of 1776 on April 20, 2009 at 10:11 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »