whats funny is that Alex Jones’ infowars website gets twice the traffic that hotair gets…

equanimous on April 21, 2009 at 8:01 AM

There are THAT many insane people in the U.S.?
DAMN, we ARE IN TROUBLE.

Allahpundit never did address the main point: secession is indeed american. Doesn’t mean it’s good, but it does mean you shouldn’t dismiss it as some sort of crazy notion.

When the Constitution was created, our founders had just gone through a very expensive, rather bloody war. They were on the edge of defeat numerous times. In order to address their experiences so that no tyrant may ever again hold sway over the people, a number of protections were written into the Constitution. Many of those were contemporaneously thought to be so obvious as to not merit inclusion, but were at the insistence of a number of state conventions.

Consider: the Second Amendment exists to preserve the ability of a free people to resist tyranny. The First Amendment protects the right of the people to speak out against tyranny. And so on.

With these protections against potential tyranny, and in the context of the long hard struggle for independence endured by the founders, I think it’s nearly nonsensical to suggest that they would have made peaceful seccession outright illegal. Indeed, in my opinion, based on a largeer view of the history at play at the time, I think the ability of a state to peacefully leave the union was one that went without saying. It’s actually very difficult to imagine a group of people fresh from defeating tyranny and so committed to keeping it from happening to us again being in favor of forcing a state to participate in a union against the will of the people.

Powers to put down insurrections are there to resist efforts to overthrow the US government, not to prevent states from leaving peacefully.

It’s also useful to remember that the Constitution is, fundamentally, a list of things the Federal Government *can* do. I see nothing in there that empowers it to prevent states from leaving the union.

To answer your question – I don’t know.

Herr Doktor is just as guilty of these things as the other pols in Washington.

I do know that by 2012, he will be 77 years old, and gets more shrill as time goes by. Contrary to the very few – VERY FEW – decent things he does say about economics, he is a crank.

Spirit of 1776 on April 21, 2009 at 9:43 AM

My argument is based entirely on the concept that powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved by the states or the people. If the states don’t take it either, it doesn’t necessarilly fall to the counties, unless their constitution has a similar clause where any powers not given to the states fall to the counties. It otherwise wouldn’t fall to the counties and then towns or cities, it would fall to the people.

What would this entail at the individual level? I’m not entirely sure, theres multiple ways you could take it. “Universal healthcare” is not a power given to the feds, its not given to states, so does “universal healthcare” fall to individuals? Or just the ability to individually determine your own healthcare plan? Obviously an individual can’t make a state secede or even a town, but could leave themselves. If they want to further give a state the power to leave the nation, in the same way they could give a state the ability to mandate some universal healthcare program onto everyone, they could. They could likewise have the state give counties or towns this ability if they wanted.

I’m not just talking about holding a vote to secede, and if it hasn’t been made clear yet, I don’t think anyone should be seceding. But in principle, if people of a state were to decide they wanted to secede, and changed the necessary laws at the state level to make it legal there, they do not have to answer to any higher authority. In principle, states can leave the union constitutionally because that power was not delegated to the feds, nor prohibited to the states.

Let’s put a shrill, 77 year old man with all his accompanying baggage up against Barack Obama.”

Who would you propose? It seems like with some of our other choices we would just get more of the same. More big gov, more entitlements, more stimulus, more rash foreign policy.

I supported Mitt Romney during the primaries, but given the chance to cast my vote again, I would cast it for Dr. Paul.

He was far and away the best of all candidates on both sides.

Hope he runs again in 2012

Borislav on April 21, 2009 at 10:00 AM

He was for sure the most honest as far as voiving his true opinions. And, there is no doubt he could clean up some of the government abuse.

I worry about welfare, and the addicts it produces. 36 million Americans are on foodstamps. Over 10% of the population. This liberal welfare is going to create a country full of Katrina victims with no gumption, initiative, or drive. And, not to mention,never experience the rewards of hard work and a job well done.

Welfare is juxtopposed to personal responsibility and self reliance, which is what made this country successful. Welfare addicted zombies are a poor substitution.

Borislav on April 21, 2009 at 10:00 AM

That’s smart thinking.

Let’s put a shrill, 77 year old man with all his accompanying baggage up against Barack Obama.

He was far and away the best of all candidates on both sides.

Hope he runs again in 2012

If there was a state constitution which said any power not delegated to the state government or prohibited to the county, fell to the county, then yes. But I don’t know of this being the case in any state. Counties are divisions of states that are granted powers, but don’t have any constitutional powers in the sense a state has.

If secession is a power, as you say, under our structure, any government that didn’t claim it, the structure under it could. That’s what I mean.

Your argument: So if secession = power, but not written about in Constitution, it falls to the state.

My negation: Per Amend 9 and 10, if secession were a power (I don’t think it is, I think it’s something else entirely), then when not written in a state Constitution, it would fall to the people. Hence, my comment that counties (or cities if you prefer) could secede from the state in the same way you suggest states can.

If it a power and the states don’t claim it (they don’t in their constitutions) then it would fall to the people.

But secession is not a power. States exist by approval of their peers. They entered on a vote of approval.

The sort of vote you are speaking of, would be an act that is not provided for in the state constitutions, which were approved. Therefore, it would be extra-legal by the state, seen as illegal by the federal government and other states. That’s what I mean, the contract would be different.

edshepp on April 21, 2009 at 2:16 AM

If it is a waste time, then I don’t understand how to interrupt your statement. Shall I then disregard all structure because the law has been abused?

And you didn’t ask for my best critique. I just made a comment or two.

When you are dealing with religious devotion, facts are meaningless.

MarkTheGreat on April 21, 2009 at 8:12 AM

It is not I that am unwilling to engage the facts. You, sir, are the one cursing the wind.

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.

Or maybe he puts the American people above the people of other countries. I am not an isolationist but believe Ron Paul was the best candidate last year. He is not isolationist because he has sympathies for the terrorists or rogue nations. He strictly follows the beliefs of the founders and is against nation building (which I thought was a strong conservative tenet at one time). Because of this he is a coward? Being a United States Marine who has served many combat tours already, I have no qualms about fighting for my country anywhere. However, it does make more sense to secure our borders first before we start going on a new island hopping campaign.

Sec. 4. Secession prohibited.
This State shall ever remain a member of the American Union; the people thereof are part of the
American nation; there is no right on the part of this State to secede; and all attempts, from whatever
source or upon whatever pretext, to dissolve this Union or to sever this Nation, shall be resisted with the
whole power of the State.

Sec. 5. Allegiance to the United States.
Every citizen of this State owes paramount allegiance to the Constitution and government of the
United States, and no law or ordinance of the State in contravention or subversion thereof can have any
binding force.

It’s not funny, it’s pathetic.

When you are dealing with religious devotion, facts are meaningless.

“Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign
body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own
voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if
established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution.”
James Madison
Source: Federalist No. 39, 1788

A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the
government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of
auxiliary precautions.
James Madison, Federalist No. 51, February 8, 1788

“Since the general civilization of mankind,
I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of freedoms
of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power
than by violent and sudden usurpations.”
James Madison 1788

What would James Madison think? He would probably think the U.S. is in a WHOLE lot of trouble.

Why project the faults of people (judges) on the document?

Of course the fault is in people (and not just judges) as it is in all things. What did you think I meant? That the letters had become blurred?
It is perfectly reasonable to speak of our constitutional system being broken. And the fault is deep. The Framers were great men but fallible as are we all. They created a system dependendent of the virtue of men and that is folly.
Is this semantic quibble your best critique to my point? Arguing about what the Constitution “really” means and whether secession is “legal” is a waste of time (unless passing time is your goal). It’s long past time when the Court decided anything of consequence on that basis. Rather they have a preferred policy and backfill the reasoning.
They will even lie. The recent Boumediene case is a prime example. If you have not read it, you should. Read what it says about the Eisentrager precedent then go read that decision too. You’ll find that Boumediene completely misrepresents Eisentrager. I guess it wasn’t convenient to explicitly reverse it.

Does a right to an abortion exist?

Does it? Yes, the Court has so ruled. And that is our broken constitutional system at work.

…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.

If two NFL teams are playing, and the referees willfully ignore the rule violations of one team while simultaneously changing the rules to benefit them, that is no longer a valid contest. There is no point in continuing the game.

It’s not as if states can appeal to a higher power against a federal government that refuses to behave within its constitutionally-mandated limits. How can they expect to stay in the union if the federal government won’t abide by its own laws?

Spirit of 1776 on April 21, 2009 at 12:33 AM

The thing already known was that the federal government only had the powers given to it. It couldn’t infringe on free speech, because it was never given the power to – that it was later explicitly prohibited from doing so was a redundant act of placing emphasis on something they felt was really important. Saying that the states entered into the Constitution with the understanding that they could not leave doesn’t flow with this – they entered in with the understanding that the powers not given to the federal government were retained by the states. They entered in knowing what the document was.

So counties could secede from states. Because your state constitution doesn’t specifically address it by name.

If there was a state constitution which said any power not delegated to the state government or prohibited to the county, fell to the county, then yes. But I don’t know of this being the case in any state. Counties are divisions of states that are granted powers, but don’t have any constitutional powers in the sense a state has.

If (if) they entered into with a state constitution specifically providing for secession, you would have an argument. The fact that there are none, tells us something. But sure, if the terms of the contract were different, then yeah the terms of the contract would be different.

This is my argument – that its not unconstitutional (national level) to secede. Its a state issue. Texas didn’t enter into the union with some provision that they could leave, but if people in a state today decide they do want to leave, they could change the laws, change their state constitution if necessary, and voila. It would be a lawful secession. Unlike if a county decided it wanted to leave in a state where no such power was left to them. It might be moral, it might be the right thing to secede, but it wouldn’t be legal. A state seceding, if consistent with its own laws, would be legal.