Do states have a right to secede ?
Submitted by kevinz on Thu, 12/17/2009 - 05:28
Hello,
from my understanding of the Constitution and the fact that States can nullify any federal laws, I thought States had a right to secede. That for example, during the American Revolution, States of the South had the right to secede.
Am I mistakening on this issue ?
I know the founding fathers thought that States had a right to secession..
Is there a document or something, that shows clearly that all States, when they joined the Union, had or had not a right to secede ?
Many thanks :}
thanks
this was truly an enlightening view for me to read, thank you
fortune favors the bold
Charlie Darwin, I ****ing love you!
You have the right to secede if you can shoot straighter than they can.
Honestly now, you know those psychopaths in DC won't let you go without a fight. They think you're a piece of property. They don't understand abstract concepts like freedom. They don't have the necessary genes.
It's us versus an inferior and failed species on the verge of extinction. When we evolve to the point where we no longer need to partake in their "economy", they will starve and die, and mother nature will cleanse the earth of their festering stench.
Obama needs me. I don't need Obama. Now which one of us has the genetic advantage?
I am out of touch with most Americans precisely because I am not out of touch with reality.
The 'American Revolution' like the 'Civil War', is misnamed.
Both were wars of Secession. One was successful; one was not.
I won't even argue the morals of the issue in relationship to the historical whitewash that's been applied to the second war. The facts are simple enough: If the first war had been a "revolution", King George III would have been hanged. If the second war had been a "civil war", there would have been no Confederate President, Constitution, diplomacy, or legal assertion of sovereignty.
Secession is "legal" to any person who beieves in freedom, and "illegal" to any person who does not.
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
All of us have whatever rights we decide to claim.
Of course with every action there's a reaction.
If a state seceded it could be bloody as the Fed's/MSM
have warned...
however if enough of us decide enough is enough...
then *anything is possible*
Power can be reclaimed without blood, *if* we are guided
by ideas and principals rather than emotion...
and *if* wake up and remember that *we* all hold the
power and the choice is ours each day as to how much of
that power we are willing to give away to the State, the
Corporations, or whatever or whoever else you deem as
greater than you.
A man who has hate in his heart is not a free man
Right to secede?
Is the Pope...German?
donvino
Thomas Jefferson : First
Thomas Jefferson : First Inaugural Address
Wednesday, March 4, 1801
...If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it. I know, indeed, that some honest men fear that a republican government can not be strong, that this Government is not strong enough; but would the honest patriot, in the full tide of successful experiment, abandon a government which has so far kept us free and firm on the theoretic and visionary fear that this Government, the world's best hope, may by possibility want energy to preserve itself? I trust not. I believe this, on the contrary, the strongest Government on earth. I believe it the only one where every man, at the call of the law, would fly to the standard of the law, and would meet invasions of the public order as his own personal concern. Sometimes it is said that man can not be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him?
About to enter, fellow-citizens, on the exercise of duties which comprehend everything dear and valuable to you, it is proper you should understand what I deem the essential principles of our Government, and consequently those which ought to shape its Administration. I will compress them within the narrowest compass they will bear, stating the general principle, but not all its limitations.
These principles form the bright constellation which has gone before us and guided our steps through an age of revolution and reformation. The wisdom of our sages and blood of our heroes have been devoted to their attainment. They should be the creed of our political faith, the text of civic instruction, the touchstone by which to try the services of those we trust; and should we wander from them in moments of error or of alarm, let us hasten to retrace our steps and to regain the road which alone leads to peace, liberty, and safety.
Again ...If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.
"A government of reason is better than one of force." --Thomas Jefferson to Richard Rush, 1820
Republicae
I stand corrected on the secession issue - I concede to your authority on the matter. However, there is still the following matter...
"We count among us plenty of orators capable of feigning enthusiasm and of persuading mobs. We shall spread them among the people to announce changes which should secure the happiness of the human race. By gold and by flattery we shall gain the proletariat which will charge itself with annihilating Christian capitalism. We shall promise workmen salaries of which they have never dared to dream, but we shall also raise the prices of necessities so that our profits will be greater still. (inflation)
11. In this manner we shall prepare Revolutions which the [citizens] will make themselves, and of which we shall reap the fruit.
19. At the wished for hour, fixed in advance, we shall let loose the
Revolution, which by ruining all classes of [citizenry], will definitely enslave the US to us. Thus will be accomplished the promise of God made to his people."
~ The Rothschild Money Trust, pp. 228-229
What say you on THIS matter?
. @ @ . Power to the People!
@ O @ -----> PEOPLE
. @ @ . NOT Corporate Entities!
I say that there have been
I say that there have been contrivances by many groups throughout the centuries to control various parts of the world, including the U.S. We have Socialists, Marxists, Communists, Fabian Socialists, Fascists and others who are attempting to gain control over this country, the fight before us is no less vital than that of our Forefathers.
That does not however, contradict the fact that the Right of Secession, which this thread is dedicated to, exists in this country. I’m therefore, not sure as to your attempt to make a connection between the two subjects.
http://militantjeffersonian.com
"Men do not willingly read unpalatable truths of themselves. The People like those best who fool them most, by pandering to their vices and flattering their foibles" Raphael Semmes
Secession = Revolution
11. In this manner we shall prepare Revolutions which the [citizens] will make themselves, and of which we shall reap the fruit.
. @ @ . Power to the People!
@ O @ -----> PEOPLE
. @ @ . NOT Corporate Entities!
The Framers sure seemed to
The Framers sure seemed to think the Union was voluntary.
Ron Paul 2012 - It's Almost Here!
Withdrawal from a voluntary
Withdrawal from a voluntary union requires no law nor precedent. If a state has the authority to govern itself, it has the authority to secede from the union.
"When, in the course of human
"When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to 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 shown 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. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. "
DOES NOT THAT SPEAK FOR ITSELF? HAS THE NATURAL LAW CHANGED BECAUSE THE FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES ACCEDED TO AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THEMSELVES TO CONSTITUTE A FEDERAL GOVERNMENT?
THIS IS, AFTER ALL, NOT A NATIONALIZED GOVERNMENT, BUT IT WAS CONCEIVED AS A FEDERATION OF FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES WHICH, IN THEIR SOVEREIGN CHARACTER, BASED SOLELY UPON THE SOVEREIGN POWER OF THE PEOPLE OF THOSE FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES, DELEGATED A LIMITED DEGREE OF AUTHORITY AND POWER TO A GENERAL GOVERNMENT FOR THEIR MUTUAL BENEFIT. THAT FEDERALIZED GOVERNMENT IS THE CREATION OF THE STATES, NOT THE CREATOR. As Justice John Marshall stated, that [the States] which created the government can destroy it.
"States RETAIN all rights NOT delegated to the federal government. The people RETAIN all rights not delegated to the state or to the federal governments."
Even the tyrant Lincoln declared, at least out of one side of his lying mouth:
"Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable and most sacred right - a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so many of the territory as they inhabit."
Again Lincoln stated: "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it."
http://militantjeffersonian.com
"Men do not willingly read unpalatable truths of themselves. The People like those best who fool them most, by pandering to their vices and flattering their foibles" Raphael Semmes
I was waiting for Republicae
Thank you for your beautiful response. I was watching and waiting for you :)
chinkadaro
There is a difference between
There is a difference between revolution - that is, the right to overthrow oppressive government, which the Founding Fathers articulated in the Declaration of Independence and secession - which is the alleged power of states to unilaterally and lawfully leave the federal union. The former was certainly the foundation of the American nation. The latter was never any part of it, and was never articulated during the original time of our country. As Akhil Amar has pointed out, one of the most telling pieces of evidence against the secessionist position is that nobody ever said at the time of the founding, Don't worry about the Constitutionif it doesnt work you can just secede! Had that been an option, you can bet it would have been put forward as an argument. It never was.
. @ @ . Power to the People!
@ O @ -----> PEOPLE
. @ @ . NOT Corporate Entities!
There is a difference between
There is a difference between revolution - that is, the right to overthrow oppressive government, which the Founding Fathers articulated in the Declaration of Independence and secession - which is the alleged power of states to unilaterally and lawfully leave the federal union. The former was certainly the foundation of the American nation. The latter was never any part of it, and was never articulated during the original time of our country. As Akhil Amar has pointed out, one of the most telling pieces of evidence against the secessionist position is that nobody ever said at the time of the founding, Don't worry about the Constitutionif it doesnt work you can just secede! Had that been an option, you can bet it would have been put forward as an argument. It never was.
. @ @ . Power to the People!
@ O @ -----> PEOPLE
. @ @ . NOT Corporate Entities!
OH? I suggest you read "New
OH? It was not argued? What about the Hartford Convention of1814? It was most certainly being argued, it was in fact, more than an argument, it was a fact that the concept of Secession was very real during the first few decades after the Ratification of the Constitution. To say that it was not argued simply ignored the most pertinent facts surrounding the Ratification of the Constitution and the subsequent actions taken by several of the States themselves.
I suggest you read "New Views of the Constitution of the United States" by John Taylor of Caroline [1823] or "A View of the Constitution" by William Rawle in 1829, which were both accepted as accurate commentary on the Right of the States to Secede from a Voluntary Union. In fact, "A View of the Constitution" was accepted text in all the Military schools and educational institutions in this country until around the 1860s.
I much prefer the writings of those who were actually there during that period to that of Akhil Amar, who was not!
Indeed, one need look no further than the Debates on the Constitution to see that the entire concept of the Constitution was based upon the Right of Free and Independent States to act in their Sovereign Character to voluntarily enter into a Compact of Agreement between themselves. The Constitution was not an agreement between the States and a federal or national government since none really existed, even under the Articles of Confederation, a much looser Compact of Agreement.
It is also very evident when reading the Articles of Ratification of several of the States that if the Compact was violated, in any way, that those States had the ABSOLUTE RIGHT to return to their former state as completely Free and Independent States outside of any union.
In Acceding to the union, the States did not relinquish their Free and Independent Character, nor did they relinquish their Sovereign Nature, that fact is quite evident for if that were the case then after the Ratification of the Constitution there would be no Sovereignty left to the People themselves. It is the People, acting in their Sovereign Character that allowed for both the States and later the federal government to be delegated authorities and powers on their behalf.
If there was no Right to Secede, then there would be no need for each State to even have a Constitution, they would simply be nationalized provinces. The very fact that each State does have a Constitution declares Sovereignty in and of itself, the act of the delegation of authority and power to a general or federal government did not nor could it nullify that Sovereignty nor could it nullify any Right or Power Retained by the People through the Agency of the States.
In fact, there is absolutely no Constitution, no Act, no Legislation which can nullify Sovereignty, it can be usurped, stripped away by force, but a voluntary union is just that voluntary.
THESE UNITED STATES, are just that States united by Voluntary Compact. This is not THE UNITED STATES singular, but plural. It is that plural nature that denotes the federation or even as Madison and others called it a Confederation of States. As the States Ratified the Constitution through assembled consent, so too can it be nullified through assembled consent.
As John C. Calhoun stated: "If a league between sovereign powers have no limitation as to the time of duration, and contain nothing making it perpetual, it subsists only during the good pleasure of the parties, although no violation be complained of. If the opinion of either party, it be violated, such party may say he will no longer fulfill his obligations on his part, but will consider the whole league or compact at an end, although it might be one of its stipulations that it should be perpetual"
Indeed, the whole Principle of Voluntary Contract, long and accepted, flies in the face of any question as to whether or not the States have a Right to Secede from a Compact entered into voluntarily.
Again, Calhoun stated the obvious when he said, speaking of Daniel Webster's feeble argument: "The first resolution" he [Webster] said, "declares that the people of the several States acceded to the Constitution." Calhoun then went on to say, in the most logical course of argument: "The natural converse of accession is secession".
Essentially, there could have been no Right to Accede if there was conversely no Right to Secede.
Even Daniel Webster, who, by the way, was a member of the Hartford Convention seeking Secession of New England in 1814, conceded that: "No man makes a question that the people are the source of all political power...there is no other doctrine of government here." Indeed, there can be no other conclusion but that the Constitution was created by the People of the Several States, each of those States acting for itself, by itself, and bound by no other action or nothing but its own decision. As such, each State, in Acceded, voluntarily, to enter into Compact with others, under the Style of a Democratic Federal Constitutional Republic. or a Republic of Republics, as such, since that act was solely voluntary in entrance to that Compact, the decision to voluntarily Secede from that Compact is just a valid as Accession was in the first place. If not then the States would have never Ratified the Constitution, indeed that was an understood fact and much declared during the various Conventions of the Several States during the Ratification process. Read those Conventions of the Several States to see what the opinion was concerning the Right of Secession, many of them declare that they Retain the Right to Secede from the Compact of the Constitution, in particular Virginia and New York make it very clear in their Articles of Ratification.
In the case of Virginia, the language of the Ordinance of Ratification can not be disputed:
"WE the Delegates of the People of Virginia, duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly, and now met in Convention, having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention, and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us, to decide thereon, DO in the name and in behalf of the People of Virginia, declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will: that therefore no right of any denomination, can be cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified, by the Congress, by the Senate or House of Representatives acting in any capacity, by the President or any department or officer of the United States, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes: and that among other essential rights, the liberty of conscience and of the press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified by any authority of the United States."
That language is clear, so clear in fact, that it should settle the question as to whether or not those who Ratified the Constitution thought of it as entering into a Compact that would perpetually restrain them from exercising their own Sovereign Character as Free and Independent States if the need ever presented itself.
http://militantjeffersonian.com
"Men do not willingly read unpalatable truths of themselves. The People like those best who fool them most, by pandering to their vices and flattering their foibles" Raphael Semmes
Furthermore - "I want
Furthermore -
"I want domestic happiness as well as general security. A General Government will never grant me this, as it cannot know my wants, nor relieve my distress. My State is only as one out of thirteen. Can they, the General Government, gratify my wishes? My happiness depends as much on the existence of my State Government as a new-born infant depends upon its mother for nourishment." - Chief Justice Ellsworth,of Connecticut in the Convention
"A consolidation of the States would subvert the new Constitution, and against which this article is our best security. Too much provision cannot be made against consolidation. The State Governments represent the wishes and feelings, and local interests of the people. They are the safeguard and ornament of the Constitution; they will protract the period of our liberties; they will afford a shelter against the abuse of power, and will be the natural avengers of our violated rights." - Fisher Ames, in the Convention of Massachusetts
"A government of reason is better than one of force." --Thomas Jefferson to Richard Rush, 1820
Secession is what the Constitutional Convention was about.
Don't worry about the Constitutionif it doesnt work you can just secede! Had that been an option, you can bet it would have been put forward as an argument. It never was. QUOTE
They were seceding(withdrawing) from the AOC because it didn't work out, or so they thought. What changed to make them think they couldn't get out of the union of the Constitution, after all they were getting out of the union of the AOC?
Where does it say the option is denied in the future?
The proponents of the constitution at the Virginia ratification used the argument if the constitution does not work out they could come back in convention and withdraw. When everyone agrees on a matter, the matter is little discussed.
Indeed it was well
Indeed it was well understood, that fact is quite evident. In fact, it was generally accepted that if the Several States had no Right of Secession then they had no Rights at all. There is no possible way for a People, who enter into a Voluntary Compact be constrained by that Compact as though it were not voluntary. That violates every single concept concerning Voluntary Contracts and the Constitution was a Voluntary Contract.
Indeed, had it not been Voluntary then Rhode Island and North Carolina would have not been allowed to remain outside the newly formed government, but they did not ratify the Constitution for a couple of years after all the other States entered into that Constitutional Agreement. If the Constitutional Compact had not been of a voluntary nature then they would have been forced by the ratification of the majority to enter into that Compact involuntarily.
http://militantjeffersonian.com
"Men do not willingly read unpalatable truths of themselves. The People like those best who fool them most, by pandering to their vices and flattering their foibles" Raphael Semmes
Individuals have rights
collective entities have powers. There's a difference.
You gotta love Jan Helfeld
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAY_hHGKL4M
"Can you properly delegate a right you do not have?" Bill Richardson owned by JH.
"United we stand, Divided we
"United we stand, Divided we fall" is a phrase that has been used in mottos, from nations and states to songs. The basic concept is that unless the people are united, it is easy to destroy them. This is a counter to the maxim divide and rule (also known as divide and conquer), which is a combination of political, military and economic strategy of gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into chunks that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy.
The first attributed use of "United we stand, Divided we fall" in modern times is to John Dickinson in his revolutionary war song, The Liberty Song. In the song, first published in the Boston Gazette in July 1768, he wrote: Then join hand in hand, brave Americans all! By uniting we stand, by dividing we fall! This was also said by George Washington at the time of the start of the Constitution.
. @ @ . Power to the People!
@ O @ -----> PEOPLE
. @ @ . NOT Corporate Entities!
We should be careful what we wish for.
The idea that we should all agree as in "united we stand, divided we fall" may sound inviting.
Those who believe that should have a home in Cuba. Since the late 1950's there's been unity. Those who disagree with Fidel found themselves in prison, dead, or heading for Miami.
Declaration of Independence -
Declaration of Independence - 1776 :
We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to
And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.
Paris Peace Treaty - 1783 :
Article 1:
His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof.
---
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.
"A government of reason is better than one of force." --Thomas Jefferson to Richard Rush, 1820
Yes They Do
To say otherwise is to deny the events which birthed our nation. America was born in secession!
Is Article VII of the Constitution a Secession Article?
Article. VII.
The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.
They were ready to abandon the "perpetual union" of the Articles of Confederation to form a "more perfect union" of the Constitution.
It was possible a union of thirteen could become a union of nine with four left out. Would the nine be seceding(withdrawing) from the four or would the four be seceding(withdrawing) from the nine? Either way a new union would be formed.
As it turned out when the new government of the Constitution was in session with Washington president, there were only eleven states. North Carolina and Rhode Island had not ratified.
Did the eleven secede from North Carolina and Rhode Island or was it the other way round? Either way a precedent was set that a state(s) could secede(withdraw).
Nowhere in the Constitution is this precedent denied in the future.
Agreed,despite the promotion
Agreed,despite the promotion of a mythical indivisible union.
"A government of reason is better than one of force." --Thomas Jefferson to Richard Rush, 1820
Mythical?
United we stand, Divided we fall" is a phrase that has been used in mottos, from nations and states to songs. The basic concept is that unless the people are united, it is easy to destroy them.
. @ @ . Power to the People!
@ O @ -----> PEOPLE
. @ @ . NOT Corporate Entities!
On the contrary, when the
On the contrary, when the people are united under a powerful central government, it is easy to control and enslave them.
Well,
they say that life is like a wheel (or a circle). America was born in secession, so perhaps she will die in secession, as well - for a house divided WILL fall.
. @ @ . Power to the People!
@ O @ -----> PEOPLE
. @ @ . NOT Corporate Entities!
America was born in secession.
Continue......
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality