Obama: Friend of America?

Discussion in 'Political Zone' started by ShiningStar, May 3, 2009.

  1. ShiningStar

    ShiningStar Well-Known Member

    7,833 Messages
    1,153 Likes Received
    [FONT=Palatino, Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=+2]Lawmakers in 20 states move to reclaim sovereignty[/SIZE][/FONT]
    [FONT=Palatino, Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=+1]Obama's $1 trillion deficit-spending 'stimulus plan' seen as last straw[/SIZE][/FONT]
    [SIZE=-1]Posted: February 06, 2009
    11:50 pm Eastern

    [/SIZE] [FONT=Palatino, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times, serif]By Jerome R. Corsi[/FONT]
    [SIZE=-1] © 2009 WorldNetDaily [/SIZE]

    Oklahoma Republican state Sen. Randy Brogdon

    – As the Obama administration attempts to push through Congress a nearly $1 trillion deficit spending plan that is weighted heavily toward advancing typically Democratic-supported social welfare programs, a rebellion against the growing dominance of federal control is beginning to spread at the state level.
    So far, eight states have introduced resolutions declaring state sovereignty under the Ninth and Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, including Arizona, Hawaii, Montana, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, Oklahoma and Washington.
    Analysts expect that in addition, another 20 states may see similar measures introduced this year, including Alaska, Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Nevada, Maine and Pennsylvania.
    "What we are trying to do is to get the U.S. Congress out of the state's business," Oklahoma Republican state Sen. Randy Brogdon told WND.

    "Congress is completely out of line spending trillions of dollars over the last 10 years putting the nation into a like we've never seen before," Brogdon said, arguing that the Obama stimulus plan is the last straw taxing state patience in the brewing sovereignty dispute.
    "This particular 111th Congress is the biggest bunch of over-reachers and underachievers we've ever had in Congress," he said.
    "A sixth-grader should realize you can't borrow money to pay off your debt, and that is the Obama administration's answer for a stimulus package," he added.
    The Ninth Amendment reads, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
    The Tenth Amendment specifically provides, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
    Brogdon, the lead sponsor of the Oklahoma state senate version of the sovereignty bill, has been a strong opponent of extending the plan to build a four-football-fields-wide Trans-Texas Corridor parallel to Interstate-35 to Oklahoma, as WND reported.
    Rollback federal authority
    The various sovereignty measures moving through state legislatures are designed to reassert state authority through a rollback of federal authority under the powers enumerated in the Constitution, with the states assuming the governance of the non-enumerated powers, as required by the Tenth Amendment.
    The state sovereignty measures, aimed largely at the perceived fiscal irresponsibility of Congress in the administrations of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, have gained momentum with the $1 trillion deficit-spending economic stimulus package the Obama administration is currently pushing through Congress.
    Particularly disturbing to many state legislators are the increasing number of "unfunded mandates" that have proliferated in social welfare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, in which bills passed by Congress dictate policy to the states without providing funding.
    In addition, the various state resolutions include discussion of a wide range of policy areas, including the regulation of firearms sales (Montana) and the demand to issue drivers licenses with technology to embed under the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative and the Real ID Act (Michigan).
    Hawaii's measure calls for a new state constitutional convention to return self-governance, a complaint that traces back to the days it was a U.S. territory, prior to achieving statehood in 1959.
    "We are trying to send a message to the federal government that the states are trying to reclaim their sovereignty," Republican Rep. Matt Shea, the lead sponsor of sovereignty resolution told WND.
    "State sovereignty has been eroded in so many areas, it's hard to know where to start," he said. "There are a ton of federal mandates imposed on states, for instance, on education spending and welfare spending."
    Shea said the Obama administration's economic stimulus package moving through Congress is a "perfect example."
    "In the state of Washington, we have increased state spending 33 percent in the last three years and hired 6,000 new state often using federal mandates as an excuse to grow state government," he said. "We need to return government back down to the people, to keep government as close to the local people as possible."
    Shea is a private attorney who serves with the Alliance Defense Fund, a nationwide network of about 1,000 attorneys who work pro-bono. As a counter to the ACLU, the alliance seeks to protect and defend religious liberty, the sanctity of life and traditional family values.
    Republican state Rep. Judy Burges, the primary sponsor of the sovereignty resolution in the Arizona House, told WND the federal government "has been trouncing on our constitutional rights."
    "The real turning point for me was the Real ID act, which involved both a violation of the Fourth Amendments rights against the illegal searches and seizures and the Tenth Amendment," she said.
    Burges told WND she is concerned that the overreaching of federal powers could lead to new legislation aimed at confiscating weapons from citizens or encoding ammunition.
    "The Real ID Act was so broadly written that we are afraid that it involves the potential for "mission-creep," that could easily involve confiscation of firearms and violations of the Second Amendment," she said.
    Burges said she has been surprised at the number of e-mails she has received in support of the sovereignty measure.
    "We are a sovereign state in Arizona, not a branch of the federal government, and we need to be treated as such, she insisted.
  2. BrAinPaiNt

    BrAinPaiNt Hunka Hunka Burning BP Staff Member

    66,162 Messages
    11,462 Likes Received
    By Jerome R. Corsi

    I see the name and pretty much remove any credibility from the article and dismiss it. I have no time nor patience for 9/11 truthers.
  3. ShiningStar

    ShiningStar Well-Known Member

    7,833 Messages
    1,153 Likes Received

    So you doubt these states want to secede from the US or just one article and regardless of anything, hes just making it up?
  4. DIAF

    DIAF DivaLover159

    4,042 Messages
    29 Likes Received
    These states want to secede from the US? That's news to me.

    Seriously, you might as well have just posted an infowars link or some such.
  5. ShiningStar

    ShiningStar Well-Known Member

    7,833 Messages
    1,153 Likes Received

    They are displaying their displeasure at the government.
  6. Rogah

    Rogah Benched

    6,473 Messages
    793 Likes Received
    This is one of those things that is just too ridiculous to address. I am no expert student of history, but I believe we fought a war roughly 150 years ago that pretty much established, once and for all, that ya just can't do that.

    Plus I don't think the "movement" is remotely as widespread as the writer of the article seems to want us to believe.
  7. ShiningStar

    ShiningStar Well-Known Member

    7,833 Messages
    1,153 Likes Received

  8. Rogah

    Rogah Benched

    6,473 Messages
    793 Likes Received
    Yes, really. Although I have to admit I only skimmed the article so maybe there is some elaboration in there beyond the typical nonsense we have already heard on this matter.
  9. ShiningStar

    ShiningStar Well-Known Member

    7,833 Messages
    1,153 Likes Received

    Read up on the constitution some time okay?
  10. Rogah

    Rogah Benched

    6,473 Messages
    793 Likes Received
    I have read the Constitution several times, thank you very much. If you have a relevant point to make, then please feel free to make it because I stand behind my statement 100%.
  11. ShiningStar

    ShiningStar Well-Known Member

    7,833 Messages
    1,153 Likes Received

    Show me. I stand by that its in the Constitution that states may secede. President Lincolns war to preserve the Union had no constitutional backing, the only excuse he had was when the fort got fired on. This was the start of a war. Did the Unions victory declare that states cant do it? No.
  12. Rogah

    Rogah Benched

    6,473 Messages
    793 Likes Received
    Um, if you're claiming "The Constitution says states such-and-such" and I claim it doesn't, then the burden of proof falls on you to support your claim. It is not reasonable to ask someone to prove a negative.
    The North's victory pretty much established that states cannot withdraw their ratification of the Constitution and their agreements to uphold that document. I am not going to get into a discussion on the technical righteousness or wrongfulness of Lincoln's actions.

    I am just going to return to my original point... we fought a pretty big war roughly 150 years ago that established that states cannot do what the writer of this article seems to want them to.
  13. jrumann59

    jrumann59 Well-Known Member

    6,445 Messages
    1,371 Likes Received
    I don't know I don't READ that the states want to secede more than invoking their constitutional right to sovereignty where the Federal gov't uses strong arm tactics of Federal funding for things to get them to bow down to Washington DC pressure. This game has been played for a long time whether it has been federal highway money to get states to institute speed limits or No Child Left Behind, I think the states like the people in those states are tired of the whole Unrepresentative Democracy the federal gov't has been cramming down their throats masked in "Its Good for You" intentions.
  14. DIAF

    DIAF DivaLover159

    4,042 Messages
    29 Likes Received
    Oh, and that means they want to secede. Okay, i see now.

  15. Viper

    Viper Active Member

    2,191 Messages
    1 Likes Received
    I think you nailed it:hammer:
  16. BrAinPaiNt

    BrAinPaiNt Hunka Hunka Burning BP Staff Member

    66,162 Messages
    11,462 Likes Received
    I doubt everything a 9/11 truther says.
  17. jimnabby

    jimnabby Well-Known Member Zone Supporter

    5,134 Messages
    1,868 Likes Received
    The Supreme Court settled this issue in 1868, finding that unilateral secession (or expulsion) is unconstitutional. The question of secession by mutual agreement has not been settled, to my knowledge.
  18. DIAF

    DIAF DivaLover159

    4,042 Messages
    29 Likes Received
  19. Guli

    Guli New Member

    49 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    The Question is “Does Texas have the right to leave the union”.
    The short answer is yes.
    I looked , While there are instructions for the admitting of a state to the Union there is No (NONE ZIP NADA) text concerning the exiting of a state or states from the union. How is that for mind blowing!
    Amendment IX

    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
    Amendment X

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

    Since the constitution ( You may have heard of it) does not specify the power to “preserve the Union” That power resides with the states or the people. Read amendment 10 till your eyes glaze over it will not change.
    Lincoln was WRONG The north was WRONG this is heady stuff for a good northern boy like me.

    Davis (That is Jefferson Davis) asserted that “the government of the United States broke through all the limits fixed for the exercise of the powers with which it had been endowed, and, to accomplish its own will, assumed, under the pleas of necessity, powers unwritten and unknown in the Constitution, that it might thereby proceed to the extremity of subjugation.”

    The Supreme Court judgment referenced above is Texas vs. White 74 U.S. 700 (1869)
    The majority opinion by Salmon Chase a former Lincoln cabinet member was that the bonds in question had been sold illegally. Consequently, he ordered that the state of Texas still retained ownership of the bonds and were entitled to either the return of the bonds or the payment of cash equivalent from those parties who had successfully redeemed the bonds. His OPINION was that the state of Texas had never left the Union. Two years later Texas was admitted to the Union. So much for Mr. Chases OPINION.

    Begin quote from wikipedia
    Dissenting opinion
    Justice Robert Grier wrote a dissent in which he stated that he disagreed "on all points raised and decided" by the majority. Grier relied on the case Hepburn v. Ellzey [1] in which Chief Justice John Marshall had defined a state as an entity entitled to representatives in both Congress and the Electoral College. Thus, her status had become more analogous to an Indian tribe than to a state. He also believed that the issue of Texas statehood was a matter for congressional rather than judicial determination, and he was "not disposed to join in any essay to prove Texas to be a State of the Union when Congress had decided that she is not." Justice Grier likened Texas' claim that she was not a state during the Civil War was the equivalent of making a "plea of insanity" and asking the court to now overrule all her acts "made during the disease". Justices Noah Swayne and Samuel F. Miller also dissented.[28]
    The dissenting justices rejected the majority opinion for different reasons. Grier, a doughface from Pennsylvania, was opposed to Radical Reconstruction and was primarily concerned with the bondholders. He felt that the Treasury lost any control over the bonds immediately after they were issued. Miller and Swain were more sympathetic than Chase to the radical position. In a separate dissent they agreed with the majority that the bonds had been sold illegally by the secessionist government, but agreed with Grier that the current state of Texas was not a state within the meaning of the Constitution (snagged from wikipedia)
    Moving along I found a very good point (I wish I had thought of it first)
    Well this summer I got into it with a West Pointer about The War for Southern Independence after he asked me who I thought the worst president in American history was. I told him I felt that Lincoln was the most destructive president, not only in life and treasure, but essentially brought an end to the Republic – that a strong argument could be made that any rights we appear to have are an illusion, with abundant evidence that "constitutional rights" come and go at the pleasure of the federal government.
    Then I asked the question I love to ask, especially of those that consider themselves American patriots, "So you don’t believe the original thirteen colonies should have seceded? If one doesn't believe that the southern states had the right to secede from their voluntary union, one certainly shouldn’t believe that the colonies had a right to secede from the British Empire, with the egregiousness of taxation by the Northern Empire far, far outweighing that of the British?" Brian Dunaway
    I also found an interesting article by a lawyer who was against secession back when the democrats were talking about it He has a hard time trying to say no.

    Does the Constitution Permit the Blue States to Secede?
    With Permission, Perhaps; Unilaterally, No

    Wednesday, Nov. 24, 2004
    Still smarting from the results of the Presidential and Congressional elections, a number of Democrats and liberal pundits have opined that the "blue states" ought to secede from the Union. The electoral map looks amenable to the plan. By joining with culturally sympathetic Canada, the blue states of the East Coast, the West Coast and the upper Midwest could create a contiguous land mass, with only the islands of the blue state of Hawaii left at a distance.
    Talk of secession is not meant to be taken literally. Instead, those who raise the subject wish to underscore the degree to which cultural and political divisions track geographic ones. Appearances can be deceptive, however. Blue states contain many Republicans, just as red states contain many Democrats. Even the rhetorical point of contemporary secessionists is thus subject to question.
    But the legality of secession nonetheless warrants serious consideration. Understanding why it is not a realistic option will help us understand the sense in which the United States is--for all its divisions--a Union.
    As I will explain below, it is settled law that the Constitution does not permit unilateral secession: A state or group of states cannot simply leave the Union over the objections of the national government. However, the arguments that led to this settled understanding are hardly unassailable, and the Constitution is probably best read as permitting the mutually agreed upon departure of one or more states.
    Early Secessionist Movements
    Almost immediately upon entering the Union, with the ratification of the Constitution in 1789, states began threatening to secede. In 1790, the House of Representatives received a petition from a group of Pennsylvania abolitionists that included Benjamin Franklin. In response, members of the Georgia and South Carolina Congressional delegations intimated that if Congress attempted to manumit slaves, their states would leave the Union.
    The threat was taken seriously. Congress denied the Pennsylvanians the relief they sought, an immediate abolition of the slave trade. Moreover, in response to the petition, a House resolution was passed affirming that Congress lacked any power to abolish slavery.
    Secessionist sentiment in the early American Republic was not confined to Southern defenders of slavery. In 1804, members of the declining Federalist Party in New England and New York plotted secession from a country ruled by the Republican Thomas Jefferson. And again in 1815, at the Hartford Convention, New England Federalists considered (though they ultimately rejected) secession as a means of promoting the sectional interests that they thought President James Madison's prosecution of the War of 1812 was harming.
    For the rest of the pre-Civil War period, arguments for secession were typically made by Southerners such as John Calhoun whenever it appeared that national action to limit slavery was under contemplation.
    The Argument for a Right of Unilateral Secession: A Pact Among the States
    The U.S. Constitution does not expressly recognize or deny a right of secession. Accordingly, the argument for a right of unilateral secession begins (and pretty much ends) with a claim about the very nature of the Constitution.
    That document, by the terms of its Article VII, only obtained legal force through the ratification by nine states, and then only in the states so ratifying it. Because the Constitution derived its initial force from the voluntary act of consent by the sovereign states, secessionists argued, a state could voluntarily and unilaterally withdraw its consent from the Union.
    In this view, the Constitution is a kind of multilateral treaty, which derives its legal effect from the consent of the sovereign parties to it. Just as sovereign nations can withdraw from a treaty, so too can the sovereign states withdraw from the Union.
    The Arguments Against a Right of Unilateral Secession
    Most of the arguments against a right of unilateral secession can be found in President Abraham Lincoln's First Inaugural Address of March 1861. But as University of Texas Law Professor Sanford Levinson observes in a recent article in the Tulsa Law Review (and in condensed form in an April 2003 column on this site), Lincoln's case against a unilateral right of secession is hardly airtight.
    First, Lincoln asserted that the fundamental law in every national government rejects the idea of its own termination. And indeed, as of 1861, no national constitutions expressly provided for their own dissolution. But this argument does not respond to the secessionists' claim that the U.S. Constitution's Article VII impliedly provided for the possibility of dissolution.
    Second, Lincoln denied that the Union was a mere voluntary association--and claimed that even if it were, ordinary principles of contract law would bar unilateral secession. Lincoln noted that while one party can breach a contract, the consent of all parties is required to rescind a contract. But secessionists analogized the Constitution to a treaty, not a contract--on the ground that each state was more like a sovereign nation than a human being. And under treaty law, unilateral rescission is permissible.
    Third, Lincoln claimed that the Union was older than the Constitution. In his view, it dated as far back as the Articles of Association of 1774, when the signatory parties were all colonies of England. Lincoln's claim, however, does not respond to the secessionist argument rooted in Article VII; on the secessionists' view, the Constitution implicitly affirmed a right to secede from the Union, regardless of the pre-Constitution character of the Union.
    Moreover, experience in the very early days of the Constitution belies Lincoln's assertion. Nationalists frequently claim that the states were never sovereign: As colonies, they were under British dominion, and they declared and won their independence as the United States. Thus, the nationalists opine, there was no time during which any of the states exercised full sovereignty. Yet, as Professor Levinson has noted, that is not entirely true: North Carolina and Rhode Island, which did not ratify the Constitution until after President Washington was inaugurated, were treated by the new national government as essentially foreign sovereigns until they formally accepted the Constitution. That treatment, Levinson argues, and I tend to agree, indicates that all the states were in an important sense sovereign when they entered into the Constitution.
    Fourth and finally, Lincoln denied that the Constitution was silent with respect to secession. The immediate predecessor to the Constitution, the Articles of Confederation, purported to establish a "perpetual Union." By seeking to create what the Preamble calls "a more perfect Union"--in an echo of the Articles' language--the Constitution, Lincoln said, simply strengthened the already indissoluble bonds between the States.
    But the Constitution itself was established in blatant violation of the terms of the Articles--which required unanimous consent of the states for any amendment. Moreover, how do we know that the "perfection" of the Union required stronger rather than weaker bonds? To infer this point from the fact that, on the whole, the Constitution created a stronger national government than existed under the Articles is to acknowledge that the real work in this argument is not being done by the language of the Preamble.
    The Judgment of War and the Supreme Court: No Right of Unilateral Secession
    Perhaps the best argument for Lincoln's view is one that he did not make expressly, but that can fairly be inferred from his general approach: Whatever the status of the states when they entered the Union, they perpetually gave up important attributes of sovereignty in doing so. Among these was--and is--a right of unilateral secession.
    In this view, it is significant that Article VII sets out the provision for original ratification, and that Article IV empowers Congress to admit new States, but that no provision of the Constitution authorizes a state to leave the Union. The juxtaposition of what the Constitution says about states entering the Union and what it does not say about them leaving, indicates that the door to the Union swings in but not out.
    But this inference is only that, and there was considerable uncertainty about the legality of unilateral secession in the first seven decades following the Constitution's adoption. That uncertainty was put to rest not by the superior strength of the anti-secessionist argument, but by Lee's surrender to Grant at Appomattox.
    (My note here) beating someone into sumission does NOT resolve the issue it just makes you a bully or a tyrant.
    The military resolution of the secession question was then given legal force by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1868 case of Texas v. White. The Court ruled there that even Texas--an independent republic before it joined the Union in 1845--had no right to secede. "The Constitution," the Court said, "in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States."
    (My Note)The States are not indestructable and as noted above Texas v White resolved the bond sale issue not states rights. This decision if you care to read is the towering example of bad jurisprudence.
    Does the Constitution Permit Secession by Mutual Agreement?
    Texas v. White is settled law. It stands for the proposition that the Constitution prohibits unilateral secession. By implication, Texas v. White also prohibits expulsion of a state that wishes to remain part of the Union. (Expulsion, satirically advanced recently in a column by Mike Thompson, also would seem to run afoul of Article V of the Constitution, which provides "that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.") What does Texas v. White have to say about secession by mutual agreement?
    If the Union is truly indestructible, then states cannot secede even if the national government is willing to let them go. Can that be right? Are the states trapped in a permanent marriage that even an amicable divorce cannot end?
    There is reason to think that the Supreme Court's "indestructible" formulation in Texas v. White was hyperbole. After all, Article IV makes clear that the states are not indestructible. Congress can, with the approval of the state in question, shatter a state into fragments. That is how Massachusetts divided into what we now call Maine and Massachusetts and also how Virginia became present-day Virginia and West Virginia (although in the latter case, the original Virginia did not approve of the division because most of the state was, at the time, part of the Confederacy).
    So if the states are not really indestructible, as the Court in Texas v. White claimed, perhaps the Union isn't indestructible either.
    And indeed, the Supreme Court in Texas v. White recognized that secession by mutual agreement stands on a different footing from unilateral secession. After finding against a state's right of unilateral secession, the Court acknowledged an exception for secession "through revolution, or through consent of the States."
    Let us put aside the possibility of revolution, for a revolution is the repudiation of the existing legal regime. Presumably, any change at all could be authorized by a successful revolution--in the sense that after the revolution the legal rules that existed under the prior constitution have no further independent force. What about the reference to "consent of the States?"
    By What Mechanism Can States Secede Through Mutual Agreement?
    Despite their rhetoric about the permanence and indestructibility of the Union, both Lincoln in his First Inaugural, and the Supreme Court in Texas v. White, strongly implied that it would be possible for one or more states to leave the Union with the consent of the Union as a whole.
    By what legal mechanism would such secession through mutual agreement be accomplished? The most obvious answer is a statute enacted by Congress. Just as Congress can approve the admission of new states, the argument would go, so it can let old states leave.
    Yet lodging the power to approve secession in Congress presents at least two difficulties.
    If Congress Alone Approves a Secession Petition, What Counts as Approval?
    The first difficulty is a matter of arithmetic.
    Suppose that Congress simultaneously received secession petitions from all the blue states, and that the Congressional delegations of these states all supported these petitions. Suppose further that a minority of the Congressional representatives of the red states also supported the petitions. (Their reaction: "Good riddance.") Adding the votes of representatives from the blue states to the votes of representatives from the minority of red states would yield a pro-secession majority in the existing Congress.
    But notice what happens if Congress permits secession under these circumstances: Secession will have been allowed even though a majority of the representatives of one of the resulting pieces--the remaining red state rump United States--opposed it. That hardly seems consistent with the notion of secession by mutual agreement.
    One might thus conclude that Congress can only approve a secession petition if the controlling bill obtains a majority of the votes of representatives of non-seceding states in both houses of Congress.
    But while that solution makes some theoretical sense, it is also, from a constitutional perspective, arbitrary. Why this particular mechanism rather than some other mechanism--such as a national referendum, or a two-thirds (or three-quarters or three-fifths) vote in the existing Congress?
    Can Secession Only Be Approved by a Constitutional Amendment?
    Once we acknowledge the ad hoc character of any mechanism by which Congress would approve secession petitions, we must confront a deeper conceptual problem: Congress only has the powers enumerated in the Constitution. Yet as we saw in our discussion of unilateral secession, despite granting Congress the power to admit new states, the Constitution says nothing about secession. And under the Tenth Amendment, silence in such matters means there is no federal power: Powers not enumerated "are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
    How might the states respectively, or the people, act collectively to approve the secession of one or more states? The Constitution sets forth no mechanism to answer this question either, although the process of constitutional amendment would pretty clearly suffice.
    Although the Constitution sets forth a number of mechanisms for its own amendment, the same procedure has consistently been used: Proposal of amendments by a two-thirds vote in each house of Congress, followed by ratification by three-fourths of the state legislatures. This formula seems well designed to ensure that any secession petition has the backing of the nation as a whole.
    Recent Canadian experience is instructive on this last point. In 1998, in the Reference re Secession of Quebec, the Supreme Court of Canada held that neither the Constitution of Canada, nor international law, gives Quebec a right to secede unilaterally. Nevertheless, the Court also said that if a secession referendum were to be adopted by the people of Quebec, the national government of Canada would incur a duty to enter into good-faith negotiations toward a secession agreement that would then be adopted by constitutional amendment.
    But the notion that secession by mutual agreement in the United States requires a constitutional amendment itself creates conceptual difficulty. A plain reading of the U.S. Constitution makes clear that of course secession can be approved by amendment: The text of Article V purports to make only two provisions of the rest of the Constitution unamendable, and the absence of authority to approve secession is not one of these unamendable features. So if the Supreme Court in Texas v. White thought that secession could only be approved by constitutional amendment, why did the Justices distinguish between unilateral secession and secession by mutual agreement?
    In so doing, the Court must have meant to imply that under the existing Constitution, there is some mechanism for secession by mutual agreement. A constitutional amendment, once adopted, could authorize unilateral secession as well secession by mutual agreement. It only made sense for the White Court to distinguish between unilateral secession and secession by mutual agreement on the assumption that the Constitution we have already permits the latter--albeit through a wholly unspecified mechanism.
    A Political Question: Why No Court May Ever Rule on Secession
    With respect to the possibility of secession by mutual agreement, we are left in much the same position that Americans in the first seven decades of the Union occupied with respect to unilateral secession: We must struggle to interpret the sounds of the Constitution's silence.
    That conclusion in turn suggests that no court will likely answer the question--except perhaps in the way that the Supreme Court in Texas v. White gave its retroactive approval to the verdict of the Civil War battlefield.
    Fortunately, the prospect of a twenty-first century civil war that, like the Civil War of the nineteenth century, results in the deaths of over half a million Americans, still seems unthinkable. That should serve as a useful reminder that, whatever the real differences between Americans in blue states and red states are today, they are nothing like the differences that just a few generations ago divided citizens of the blue states and the gray states.
    Like I said the man sees the slippery slope and is what you might call conflicted.

    This is also a good article
    The Question Still Lives

    By Stephen Cain • May 1993 • Volume: 43 • Issue: 5
    The Freeman

    Stephen Cain is a free-lance historian and author who currently resides in Thailand.
    After the first battle of Bull Run in 1861, Confederate President Jefferson Davis rode out to find a young relative who had been wounded and was reportedly sinking fast. After traveling many miles and witnessing painful scenes, but seldom finding the Confederate troops in the positions where his guide thought .they would be, Davis decided to abandon his search.
    Just as night approached, he accidentally met an officer of the relative’s unit and was directed to the temporary hospital to which the wounded of that command had been removed. It was too late. The young relative had died just before Davis arrived. Only the boy’s corpse lay before the Confederate president.
    All around lay other young men suffering in different degrees from the wounds they had received at Bull Run. Davis tried to console them as best he could. He expressed sympathy to one bright, refined-looking youth from South Carolina, who appeared to be severely if not fatally wounded. The youth responded with what well might have been his last words: “It’s sweet to die for such a cause.”
    Today, 132 years later, historians still debate what exactly the “cause” was that the South Carolina boy died for.
    It is implausible that the boy so deeply believed that slavery was such a wonderful thing that he was proud to lay down his life for it. Confederate General Joseph E. Johnston wrote in his Narrative of Military Operations During the Civil War that the laboring “class, in the Confederacy as in all other countries, formed the body of the army.” Most Confederate soldiers were common people who did not own slaves or were too poor to have a vested interest in slavery. These men more likely fought and died for the reason given by the man most remembered for the burning of Atlanta, Union General William T. Sherman, in his Memoirs: “I always acted on the supposition that we were an invading army.”
    Abraham Lincoln himself denied repeatedly that slavery was the issue in the Civil War. In his 1861 inaugural address, Lincoln said “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”
    In any case, Confederate President Davis, who to his dying day long after the Civil War remained an “unreconstructed” rebel, insisted that the central issues under contention were limited federal government and the right of a free people to withdraw from a union they had voluntarily entered (“compact” as he called it) when it no longer served their purposes, much as the Soviet republics have done in recent times.
    Davis asserted that “the government of the United States broke through all the limits fixed for the exercise of the powers with which it had been endowed, and, to accomplish its own will, assumed, under the pleas of necessity, powers unwritten and unknown in the Constitution, that it might thereby proceed to the extremity of subjugation.” If Davis were alive today, he might pose some interesting questions by way of comparison with Civil War times: If Quebec votes to separate from Canada, would the rest of Canada be justified in making war on Quebec to force it to rejoin Canada? If Scotland secedes from Great Britain, which is entirely possible, should Scotland be invaded and forced at gunpoint to rejoin Britain on Britain’s terms?
    One of Davis’ favorite quotations was the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
    The Confederate president begrudgingly admitted losing the Civil War on the battlefields: “We have laid aside our swords; we have ceased our hostility; we have conceded the physical strength of the Northern states.”
    “But the question still lives,” wrote Davis after the war. “The contest is not over, the strife is not ended. It has only entered on a new and enlarged arena. The champions of constitutional liberty must spring to the struggle . . . until the government of the United States is brought back to its constitutional limits.”
    Constitution of the C.S.A.

    Although the Confederate government in practice ended up being far from a model of either efficient management or sound economic policy, the written basis of the alliance at least, the Confederate Constitution, embodied some ideas still relevant even today.
    The permanent Constitution of the Confederate States, adopted on March 11, 1861, was mostly taken verbatim from the U.S. Constitution, with the words “Confederate States” substituted for “United States.” The preambles to both use very similar language. The words “We the people of the United States,” in one, are replaced by “We, the people of the Confederate States,” in the other; another clause, “each State acting in its sovereign and independent character” is added in the Confederate preamble. Both Constitutions comprise seven Articles, but the Confederates incorporated within them the 12 Amendments that had been made to the U.S. Constitution as of 1861 (including the first ten that are known as the Bill of Rights).
    The New York Herald of March 19, 1861, wrote: “The new Constitution is the Constitution of the United States with various modifications and some very important and most desirable improvements. We are free to say that the invaluable reforms enumerated should be adopted by the United States, with or without a reunion of the seceded States, and as soon as possible.”
    The official term of the Confederate president was fixed at six instead of four years, as in the original draft of the U.S. Constitution of 1787. A one-term limit applied; he could not be re- elected.
    The Confederate Constitution promoted free trade by prohibiting protective duties levied for the benefit of any particular industry, which practice had previously been a source of trouble for the U.S. government. (Unfortunately, a free trade policy does one no good if one’s ports are blockaded. Lincoln ordered a blockade of Southern ports on April 19, 1861, and it became increasingly effective as the war wore on.)
    The cost overruns that have plagued U.S. government contracts in recent decades were simply outlawed in plain language in the Confederate Constitution: “Congress shall grant no extra compensation to any public contractor, officer, agent, or servant, after such contract shall have been made or such service rendered.” How much could those words have saved U.S. taxpayers had they been in effect since 18617
    The Confederate president was authorized to approve any one appropriation and disapprove any other in the same bill—what is today called the line-item veto which authority Presidents Reagan and Bush have strongly advocated.
    “To establish post offices” was written into both constitutions, but the Confederates added, “but the expenses of the Post-office Department, after the first day of March, in the year of our Lord, eighteen hundred and sixty-three, shall be paid out of its own revenues.”
    The importation of slaves was forbidden in the Confederate Constitution, except from the other states still belonging to the United States.
    Section Eight of the very first Article in the U.S. Constitution lists the powers delegated to Congress. Although the word “welfare” did not have the same connotation it often carries today—there were no “welfare payments” in 1861—it is curious to note that the Confederates eliminated the word from both Section Eight and the preamble. Instead of “To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,” the Confederates gave their Congress the power “To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, for revenue necessary to pay the debts, provide for the common defense, and carry on the Government of the Confederate States.”
    In the years before the Civil War, some Southern representatives in the U.S. Congress had argued that it was unconstitutional for Congress to make appropriations from the common treasury of the United States to pay for local improvements, which would commonly represent political gains for local politicians as well. The Southerners resented what they saw as the mass of such appropriations going to projects in Northern states. The framers of the Confederate Constitution thus sought to rule out “pork barrel” spending by stipulating that no “clause contained in the Constitution shall ever be construed to delegate the power to Congress to appropriate money for any internal improvement intended to facilitate commerce; except for the purpose of furnishing lights, beacons, and buoys, and other aid to navigation upon the coasts, andthe improvement of harbors, and the removing of obstructions in river navigation, in all which cases, such duties shall be laid on the navigation facilitated thereby, as may be necessary to pay the costs.”
    A Confederate provision that was ahead of its time is one that perhaps only law librarians and researchers could fully appreciate:
    “Every law, or resolution having the force of law, shall relate to but one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title.”
    While the Confederate Constitution has today become little more than a curiosity from a bygone age, the best news of all is that . . . .
    The U.S. Constitution Still Lives!

    Come election time, it is edifying to observe how many candidates for re-election seem to remember suddenly that there is such a thing as a U.S. Constitution. It’s a dead giveaway when a candidate begins using words that voters have not heard him or her use for the past two (or four or six) years: “reduced spending and taxes”; “free trade”; “justice”; “reduced federal interference in our lives”; “law and order”; “the American dream.”
    A U.S. president, as spelled out in the Constitution, takes an oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” But just as World War II General George Patton allegedly read his Bible every day, all elected representatives of the people might do well to “preserve, protect, defend, and read the Constitution of the United States” every day. After all, there are only seven original articles, plus the amendments.
    With an informed electorate committed to individual responsibility in a free society, it may yet one day be possible to have a president, senators, and representatives, who, to the best of their ability, work to establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, and nothing else.

    (This was part of a larger article)
    Secession Crisis

    U.S. Constitution "The Right To Secede" March 4, 1789

    The first union of the original 13 colonies was effected by the Articles of Confederation, adopted in 1781. The articles established a confederation of sovereign states in a permanent union. The "permanence" lasted only until 1788, when 11 states withdrew from the confederation and ratified the new Constitution, which became effective on March 4, 1789. The founding fathers recognized the defects in the Articles of Confederation, learned from these defects, and scrapped the articles in favor of the "more perfect union" found in the Constitution.

    Nowhere in the Constitution is there any mention of the union of the states being permanent. This was not an oversight by any means. Indeed, when New York, Rhode Island, and Virginia ratified the Constitution, they specifically stated that they reserved the right to resume the governmental powers granted to the United States. Their claim to the right of secession was understood and agreed to by the other ratifiers, including George Washington, who presided over the Constitutional Convention and was also a delegate from Virginia. In his book Life of Webster Sen. Henry Cabot Lodge writes, "It is safe to say that there was not a man in the country, from Washington and Hamilton to Clinton and Mason, who did not regard the new system as an experiment from which each and every State had a right to peaceably withdraw." A textbook used at West Point before the Civil War, A View of the Constitution, written by Judge William Rawle, states, "The secession of a State depends on the will of the people of such a State."

    Interesting tidbit if seceding from the Union is “Treason” why was it that not a single Confederate leader was brought up on charges of treason??
  20. arglebargle

    arglebargle Well-Known Member

    5,231 Messages
    274 Likes Received
    Perhaps because Lincoln was in favor of a very forgiving stance towards the South? And Andrew Johnson favored the southern states, even if he had opposed their succession?

    Also, my reading of the Texas Seccession for the Civil War, was that it was in no way legal. An unelected rump congress decreed it, iirc, and Sam Houston refused to accept it, and had to be bodily carried out of the Capitol, to be replaced with an un-elected governor.

Share This Page