“There Is No Right To Secede” at Pat Dollard

“There Is No Right To Secede”

February 17th, 2010 (42) Posted By Erik Wong.

You’ve got to love that Antonin Scalia answered a letter from a screenwriter asking for tips on a screenplay involving Maine seceding from the union:

I am afraid I cannot be of much help with your problem, principally because I cannot imagine that such a question could ever reach the Supreme Court. To begin with, the answer is clear. If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede. (Hence, in the Pledge of Allegiance, “one Nation, indivisible.”) Secondly, I find it difficult to envision who the parties to this lawsuit might be. Is the State suing the United States for a declaratory judgment? But the United States cannot be sued without its consent, and it has not consented to this sort of suit.

I am sure that poetic license can overcome all that â€” but you do not need legal advice for that. Good luck with your screenplay.

Your Ad Here

just posting

“If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede”

That is plain retarded…

Walt

Really? What evidence do you have besides dipping in the name calling gutter? This says more about you than about him.
Bobby E

Oh, so name calling is reserved for dimwit Dems? There’s a new day coming … sorry you aren’t prepared for it.
fingerpointer

Walt, you’re just as fucking stupid as the dumbshit who wrote the quote.

http://www.dirtydozensbunker.com Sanders

The only issue resolved by the Civil War was that the Northern states had more money and higher production capabilities which gave it a stronger military.

The issue of State’s Rights was never resolved.

DTOM

:beer: :gun:
mike3481

Sanders

Agreed.

And not to split hairs but I’ve been thinking about this for the last thirty minutes or so, wasn’t the Civil War actually a war between two countries? That being the United States of America and the Confederate States of America.

And if true, then the states were allowed to secede and then when they formed their own country the U.S. declared war on the C.S.A.. And therefore the Civil War was a war of conquest by the U.S. to reunite the U.S.

I understand that events were happening very quickly, but if I’m correct, the Civil War proves that States do, in fact, have the right to secede and Scalia is completely wrong.

Any opinions are welcome. Just keep it civil.
TerryTate

I think it’s clear by the civil war, that the right to secede from the Union is one that cannot be solved by the courts.

Rather it is a right that can only be enforced by the point of the gun.

I believe the founders said it best in the Declaration of Independence:

“That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object 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.”

I’m pretty sure they knew that could lead to the use of arms and result in open warfare, otherwise, what was the American Revolution?
TerryTate

Hey mike3481,

I think Scalia is just stating that the issue cannot be decided through the court system, which it cannot, as the courts must follow the law, which does not provide for a direct legal method of secession.

I can’t say whether or not Scalia recognizes the rights of the states to secede through the force of arms, but I would guess that he is erudite enough to distinguish the difference.

Not necessarily disagreeing with you, just trying to make a distinction as to why he may have answered the question the way he did.

He did say the kid could figure it out using “artistic license” right?

just posting

You talking to me Walt? The Civil War decided nothing about the constitutionality of seceding. Your telling me just because the Union won, that makes it unconstitutional? So then if the south had won, it is constitutional? See how that is…..RETARDED logic.

One army beat another, there was no fucking intellectual debate deciding if it was constitutional.

So Walt lick a fat nutsack you doushe.
mike3481

There are very lengthy legal contracts that were negotiated between the Federal Government and each of the U.S. Territories that became U.S. States.

These contracts are forever binding.

If these contracts were violated by the Federal Government that might be grounds to seek succession, but how a State would go about it, no one knows.

But the 10th Amendment pictured above implies that the Federal Government can’t stop a State seceding from the Union because the Constitution never mentions or implies that the Federal Government can do any such thing. I also think that’s why Eric posted it with the article.

I also think the the devil’s in the details of the contracts that were negotiated for Statehood.
dave m

When in the course of human events…

Almost everybody in the Union is behind Texas now

History offers us hints
but
history does not put us on steel rails.

Everybody gets it now.

Bill

God bless The Republic of Texas :gun: :gun:

mike3481

This is very good

Was the Union Armyâ€™s Invasion of the Confederate States a Lawful Act?

An Analysis of President Lincolnâ€™s Legal Arguments Against Secession

by James Ostrowski

http://www.lewrockwell.com/ostrowski/ostrowski31.html
Sully

Putting aside any argument over “right to secede”, there would be no NEED to secede from a Federal government which acknowledged and lived within Constitutionallly mandated limitations.

States and individuals have been surrendering sovereignty to central goverment for close to 200 years.
It’s past time to knock that the fuck off.

mike3481

:gun: :beer:
http://www.aquabacon.com/wp-content/main/2010_01/halloween-why-i-miss-it.jpg T-Bagg (Unapologetically American)

Past time to knock that the fuck off, indeed.
:beer:
Heres to you good sir.

The right to secede I do believe come from individual state constitutions and the agreements by which each State entered the Union. The first one to come to mind is Texas. Whom I believe their Constitution specifically grants them their right to secede and become a sovereign state if the Federal government abuses power. This is one of the terms under which they joined the union.
cold soldier

The South merely did what the “Declaration of Independence” charged them to do if you look at the political climate of the times (much like it is now).

Sully, spot on correct, which is why I no longer respect this country as MY government (the reason for my gravatar)

Tim Roesch – pseudo intellectual

I was unaware that the Pledge of Allegiance was a legal document.

And if it is then the wrong people are making the pledge since school children (the few that actually know the pledge anymore) are too young to enter into legally binding contracts.

Either Scalia blew off the correspondant or he was blowing something out of some other orifice of his body.

It would have been better, considering the tone and overall intellectual weight of the response, as posted, if Scalia hadn’t answered at all.

I would have thought being a Supreme Court Judge would have required something more…Constitutionally ‘hefty’ than that milquetoast response.
ji

The pledge of allegiance came after the civil war.
It was a pledge confederate soldiers had to give after the confederate side surrendered per general lee.
I think.
ji

The Pledge of Allegiance to the United States is an oath of loyalty to the republic of the United States of America, originally composed by Francis Bellamy in 1892. The Pledge has been modified four times since then, with the most recent change adding the words “under God” in 1953.
Sully

Well Tim, where’s Scalia wrong?
It’s obvious he was giving a “milquetoast” response to a screenwriter.
But whether or not the Pledge is a “legal document” is a strawman. So what…. Lots of folks recite it. Even Barry got shamed into it.

The primary purpose behind The Constitution was to replace the weak Articles of Confederation and PROVIDE a better means for uniting in defense, regulate common currency and interstate commerce and PROMOTE (NOT PROVIDE) ‘general welfare’.

Does California have the right to secede if it disagrees with the Afghanistan war?

Tim Roesch – pseudo intellectual

Justice Scalia was asked a question about states succeding from the union during a moment in time when that very topic is not being merely tossed about as a potential ‘story idea’ but is being openly and forcefully considered by states like Montana and Texas.

If you and I were good friends, hanging out by the pool, sipping our adult beveridge of choice, and I casually asked you how your fire insurance was doing we may more may not have a lighthearted, good natured discussion about fires and insurance.

On the other hand, I wake you up in the middle of the night, holding a box of matches in one hand and a can marked ‘gas’ in the other and ask about your fire insurance…you would, I bet, treat the question a whole lot differently. You wouldn’t roll over and tell me to talk to you in the morning.

Either Scalia is ignorant, scared, incompetent or blaise’ about an very urgent and ‘now’ issue.

There is more than casual talk amongst ‘screenwriters’ about succession and a casual answer to that question is much more than too casual and glib.
Tim Roesch – pseudo intellectual

As to your question about CA…

I don’t know. Apparently Scalia doesn’t either or his answer is wrong.

‘Where oh where is the US Supreme Court…oh where, oh where can it be?’

Tom in CO

If they can do it in Family Guy, they can do it in this guy’s movie.
Well

The way I see it there is no right to secede in the Constitution. It doesn’t mean states can’t secede. Since the power is not delegated to the US by the Constitution then the power lies within the States. Therefore it is up to State Constitutions to mention rights to secede. As someone mentioned above, Texas is a good example.
http://osmoothie.com sam, LA

Just because it would be illegal to secede wouldn’t make any difference

If there truly came a point where a state would want to break away, why would they care if they had a right to or not?

Sully

Umm…. The present day Army of the Potomac?
http://osmoothie.com sam, LA

we are talking extremes

you would have to consider the loyalty of the military in a situation like that, if they would be willing to engage the secessionists

at any rate, as others have been saying there is no reason for secession, Americans are beginning to open their eyes and will vote those cronies out of office
Tim Roesch – pseudo intellectual

You talk about the Army of the Potomac as if they’re aliens or Hessians.

They are Americans.
Americans who depend on other Americans to make the toys they use.
Americans who have American fathers and mothers.

I, for one, put my faith in the Army of the Potomac.

just posting

Sully, the scenario you bring up is asking 2 questions. Is it legal, is it a valid reason. No it is not a valid reason in the eyes of the founders to secede, but IF secession is deemed legal through the 10th amendment, I don’t believe you could say yay or nay depending on the cause.

^Just my opinion. Interesting discussion, keep it going people.
Sully

Er OK.
How about legally valid then?

I’m a strong supporter of State’s rights and individual sovereignty. I’m just not convinced it extends to secession.
Like I said earlier, there would be no NEED to consider it with a Federal government in its ‘proper place’.
That starts with conservatives getting involved at the State and Local levels again.
Have you been to a polling place for State Legislature lately?
Fucking M.T.

Tim Roesch – pseudo intellectual

Er, OK, here’s a question…

Did the Federal Government succede from the states or did the states succede from the US?

Looking at what’s going on, it would appear that the Federal Government has been stepping away from the US Constitution far longer and with more vigor than ‘states’ have been considering succeding…

Tim Roesch – pseudo intellectual

Interesting posts. Thought you all should see them:

http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/02/12/state-sovereignty-is-about-you/

and an interesting exchange involving Scalia…

http://blogs.sltrib.com/slcrawler/index.php?p=10913&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

Rep. Jason Chafettz tells the Utah Senate that he recently chatted with Supreme Court Justice Scalia. Chafettz asked the justice “what’s it going to take” for the feds to recognize states’ 10th Amendment rights?

Scalia said:

“Stop taking their money.”
Chafettz passed the bad news on:

“That carrot is going to be something you [state officials] are going to have to deal with.”

——

So,maybe a step before succession might be cutting off or reducing the flow of ‘Federal Money’ to the states…
Sully

Stop trying to have it both ways you pseudo-intellectual you.

Montana and Texas are considering secession?
Um no.
They are strengthening their Constitutions to be better positioned to *nullify* Federal legislation.

And I’m not sure what to make of your “matches” analogy. You set something on fire?

Scalia answered the question that you avoid.
The Constitution absolutely does provide the authority to raise an army to defend the Union from ‘enemies’.
If a State no longer wishes to participate, does it have the right to secede from its ‘obligation’ to the defense of the Union.
Scalia said no.

Tim Roesch – pseudo intellectual

Remember Sully, Intellectuals (read Sowell’s book Intellectuals and Society) just have to think. They don’t have to actually, you know, do anything.

But, back to your very good point. I would like you to explain what you mean by trying to have it both ways (seriously – I don’t get it).

And, yes, Montana and Texas aren’t actually threatening to succede BUT if the Fed tells them they can ‘t do what they think they can…then what? Mexican Stand off? Tijuana Two Step? One things, often, lead to another.

My main point, though, is that Scalia seems to treat very lightly a very topical question and throws up weak legal arguments (I can hear it now … the Pledge of Allegiance Defense – PAD)to suggest that the Civil War settled the issue (without mentioning legal cases by name that arose out of the war).

The issue of succession should not be taken lightly in this environment. That’s what I am saying.

Now, it’s possible Scalia was just brushing off an irritant or was busy (which begs the question why answer at all).

The mouth of a Supreme Court Judge should not be making glib, flip, off the cuff pronouncements like …. oh I dunno, we should use foriegn law to interupt American law or something weird like that.

Sully

But the point Tim is that Scalia did answer the question.
He said “no”.
Who cares about the Pledge…. sure it’s a ‘not helpful’ part of his remarks I guess… but it’s not germaine either.

I’d like Scalia to be wrong but where’s the evidence he IS wrong?

And there’s plenty of evidence that military force is ‘legal’.
Where did California come from?
Yet plenty of folks living there hold *American* titles to property in Cali.

Bobby E

Sully, I’ve read with great interest a lot of your comments over a broad range of issues and I am impressed with your range of knowledge. Have you thought about running for office? Seriously … I’m not being sarcastic or jacking with you.
Sully

lol… yeah details on my PAC are forthcoming.
Nah Bobby E…. politics is important and interesting but it’s not my passion…… i do work with some local and state candidates though.
LechWalesa

uh Bobby, Sully wouldn’t want to show that he is a fat man
Tim Roesch – pseudo intellectual

Somehow, Sully, we’re talking in different directions.

I disagree with NOTHING you have written here.

What I disagree with is the tone and vagueness of Scalia’s answer. His answer was vague, unsupported by solid fact, and lite on the research.

If he was some guy I met in a bar and we were shooting the shit then, yes, the answer was fine.

Scalia, though, is a Supreme Court Judge and I expect either a better answer or a no comment.

His reference to the Pledge of Allegiance was lame. Would he have accepted testimony like that from a lawyer arguing a case infront of him?

I hope not.

If the ‘writer’ wasn’t worth his effort then his comment only fuels unnecessary speculation and should, possibly, not have been made.

My pseudo Intellectual opinion? Succession is not ‘illegal’ only a potential cause of retribution.

Also, I think the Federal Govt. has already gone quite a ways to breaking the Contract called the US Constitution.

Sully

@mike3481
Thanks for your link to the Mises Institute article. I’m a fan of theirs and I finally finished that article.
The author discounts Fort Sumter completely and I don’t think you can do that legitimately.
South Carolina had ‘confidently’ taken that action after forging alliances with England to trade cotton for guns and other support. Lincoln viewed that as treason.
Robert E. Lee told Winfield Scott that he would decline the offer to command the Northern Army ‘despite the imprudent behaviors’ of other Southerners.
Lee understood that Lincoln was seriously pissed off about being shot at in Charleston and the subterfuge with England. And that the ‘Southern cause’ was in serious trouble as a result.