Leaving The Sacred United States Is Horrible, Citizen

[Aloysius]

i don't accept that as true.  i accept that it is likely the fed might violently oppose secession, but i am not aware of any law against it. 

[Lilllabettt]

.......... sigh ............................................................................................

 

The minority of legal questions are decided by an actual written law. It's called precedence. I think Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War are more fundamental to how America understands herself today than George Washington and the Revolution. Do you really believe that a society that fought and won the Civil War and built a temple to the Savior of the Union has not decided the question of legal secession?

[Socrates]

You think secession should be legal. Fine. Secession has been illegal for 150 years. If you want it to be legal you will have to change that. That's your problem.

 

 

.......... sigh ............................................................................................

 

The minority of legal questions are decided by an actual written law. It's called precedence. I think Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War are more fundamental to how America understands herself today than George Washington and the Revolution. Do you really believe that a society that fought and won the Civil War and built a temple to the Savior of the Union has not decided the question of legal secession?

 

The question of the right to secession was in reality not settled legally at all (by courts of law), but rather by bullets and mortar shells.

 

It's as if I claimed somebody has no legal right to their car (or fill in the blank) because I can beat him up.  "Might makes right" is the opposite of true law.

 

 

I agree with you that it is beyond unlikely that our dictatorial and ever power-hungry federal government will allow secession anytime in the foreseeable future, but that does not mean we cannot argue about whether their is any true constitutional basis to the idea that states have no right to secede.  

 

I sincerely doubt that Roe v. Wade will be overturned anytime in my lifetime, but that does not mean it was an absolutely shyte legal decision with no actual constitutional basis, and should be overturned - or that we must not argue thus.

[Lilllabettt]

Are you denying that abortion is legal in this country? If you are then that is also a fantasy.

[Aloysius]

Sigh yourself,lol, I know what precedent is, its one of the tools used in the interpretation and enforcement of the law. but that doesn't mean something is legal or illegal, you can't be arrested for breaking a precedent, and every one of us can look at the decision of a court and decide.whether it was a good or bad decision, whether the law has been correctly or incorrectly administered.

I recognize no law against secession, I don't think that there is one nor do I think there could be one validly or morally. just because the people with the guns might act like something is llegal doesn't meant that it is, it just means that you need to be prepared to accept the violent response if you go against their personal wishes.

So yeah, I do not recognize it as illegal because there is no law against it, the precedent of the civil war.doesn't change that one iota.

Edited February 2, 2013 by Aloysius

[Lilllabettt]

 I know what precedent is  but that doesn't mean something is legal or illegal, you can't be arrested for breaking a precedent,

 

No you don't, because yes it does, and yes you can, and people are,  like 24/7.

 

 

and every one of us can look at the decision of a court and decide.whether it was a good or bad decision, whether the law has been correctly or incorrectly administered.

 

when discussion changes actual legal interpretation, that is called "reversing precedent."  Requires a fundamental shift in legal culture. Where secession is concerned, a herculean task. Good luck.

[4588686]

The question of the right to secession was in reality not settled legally at all (by courts of law),

 

 

Yes, it`was.  Texas v. White.

[KnightofChrist]

Yes, it`was. Texas v. White.

Perhaps not.

On Secession: An Analysis of Texas v. White
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/01/m-on_secssion.html

[Socrates]

Are you denying that abortion is legal in this country? If you are then that is also a fantasy.

 

Yes, the Supreme Court ruled (in a particularly flagrant example of judicial activism) that abortion is legal in all circumstances.  

 

What I am arguing is that it is a bogus "interpretation" of the Constitution with no actual basis in what is actually written in the Constitution, but is in essence justices creating new law from the bench, and that it should be overturned.

 

Whether it actually will be overturned is a different matter, but it does mean we have no right to argue that it should be overturned, or that it is not in fact entirely contrary to the Constitution.

 

No you don't, because yes it does, and yes you can, and people are,  like 24/7.

 

Can you give an example?  Someone has to be arrested for breaking a law.  I've yet to hear of anyone arrested for breaking a precedent.  Precedent only affects legal rulings, but is not necessarily binding.  For example, Dred Scott was overruled.

 

when discussion changes actual legal interpretation, that is called "reversing precedent."  Requires a fundamental shift in legal culture. Where secession is concerned, a herculean task. Good luck.

 

Herculean task or no, I think it should still be argued and pressed for.  

No one said doing the right thing would always be easy or successful.

 

I think having the government actually beholden to rule of constitutional law is a worthy cause.

 

Otherwise, we have lawless government ruling on the basis of "because we said so."

[4588686]

Yes, the Supreme Court ruled (in a particularly flagrant example of judicial activism) that abortion is legal in all circumstances.  

 

 

That's actually not what Roe said.  Not that one would expect you to actually have read the case which you surely denounce as 'flagrant judicial activism'

Perhaps not.

On Secession: An Analysis of Texas v. White
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/01/m-on_secssion.html

 

 

No, that is what it decided.  Maybe it was poorly reasoned.  Citizens United was was horribly reasoned.  It's still precedent.  

[KnightofChrist]

No, that is what it decided.

Perhaps, perhaps not.

[4588686]

The law is the product of a society.  That society is often irrational or beholden to powerful interests which compel the main actors in codifying law to engage in blatant sophism to justify their actions.  The constitution has a lot of gaping holes in it.  I think that anyone who has had to read case law can attest to that.  There are plenty of instances where both sides have reasonable interpretations of what the constitution might be saying.  There is enough ambiguity in the constitution that had different actors been involved states may have been granted the unilateral right to secede.  But that's not how the chips fell.  As my ex would say 'sorry bout it'

Perhaps, perhaps not.

 

 

No, that is what the opinion said:

 

 

When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.

 

You can read the whole opinion for yourself.  It's not super long.  Maybe that conclusion, as your article is trying to argue, was poorly reasoned.  Maybe tomorrow the courts will reverse themselves.  But right now that is the legal precedent on this issue.  No maybe.  That's what it is.  Unless there is another court case dealing with the rights of states to secede that you have private access to.  

[Groo the Wanderer]

Judges do not have the right to make law.  That IS in the Constitution.  The OPINION rendered above carries less weight than the paper on which it was written. Also it was written pre-Chuck Norris. Had Chuck Norris already been in Texas it would have said "Texas is now the capitol of the USA by mutual surrender of the other states. All men must act like men and grow a pair, and all women must know how to shoot a rifle."

 

 

Besides, if and when we decide to go, I say...Come at me bro!

Edited February 2, 2013 by Groo the Wanderer

[Lilllabettt]

A lot of people get away with screwball behavior because there is no precedent establishing that what they've done has broken the law. A lot of people go down for screwball behavior because a prosecuting attorney is able to point to some obscure precedent establishing that in the past what they've done was considered illegal.

 

In this case the precedent is not obscure.  The precedent is emphatic: secession is treated as an illegal rebellion, secessionists are punished as traitors with imprisonment or death.

 

Precedent can be overturned. Dred was overturned because of the convulsions of the Civil War - the single most important event shaping how America sees herself and talks about herself today.  If you are going to change the legal precedent around secession - one established by the greatest blood sacrifice in the national history and championed by the greatest saint of the civic religion - lets just say you are going to need a bigger boat.

 

But by all means discuss the woulda coulda shoulda's till your blue in the face.

 

[Winchester]

A society with the historical memory of fighting and winning the Civil War will never accept secession as legal. To believe otherwise is to live in fantasy land.

You're arguing with members of that society.

Welcome to fantasy land--here's your unicorn,

You think secession should be legal. Fine. Secession has been illegal for 150 years. If you want it to be legal you will have to change that. That's your problem.

 

We also don't think women who leave their husbands should be murdered. Crazy, I know.

Forbidding secession would require an amendment. That's according to strict constitutionalism. No power to prevent secession was delegated to the states, and the states were never forbidden in the document from seceding. 10th amendment.

 

Of course, we have drug prohibition without an amendment, so we're clearly not dealing with a government that cares about its limits.

 

"Perpetual" means the agreement has no expiration date. It doesn't mean parties may never withdraw from the agreement.