Scalia: "There Is No Right to Secede"

I didn't read the article, but this is how I would determine if there is actually a right to secede:

Given that the Constitution is a list of what the federal government is authorized to do, with all else forbidden to it...

Is there specific wording within the Constitution which authorizes the Federal Government to prevent, by force if necessary, any States from seceding?

I do not recall any such wording in the Constitution, but at this point I'm going to skip reading it again to make sure.

Being that there is no such authorization in the Constitution and with respect to both the 9th and 10th Amendments, the right to decide on this issue lies in the hands of The States and in the hands of The People.

That seems logical to me and seems to be in line with the Constitution.

...but considering the 9th and 10th amendments to the constitution all powers not given to the federal government are reserved to the people and the states, so Scalia, you can be a douche-bag, and conversely any state that doesn't want to be part of the voluntary union because there is too many douche-bags in the courts will go on and its own and to hell with you!

All attorneys are idiots and understand nothing about law; only procedure, turbulence and contention. The pledge of allegiance is not the supreme Law of the land, the Constitution is. The supremacy clause designates state powers over federal. If one is unclear as to the establishment of those powers a cursory glance at the Declaration of Independence eloquently establishes why a nation/state may secede from the mother country. This is the recognition doctrine that the mother country may rebut in privy council.

Breach of Contract.

I like Scalia, but who is he kidding.

The only thing the Civil War resolved was who could enforce it's will on who..

The states formed the union not the other way around.

Thank God for the awakened people on this forum.

Scalia's comment on this issue has been nailed by the intelligent comments and informed responses in this forum, and rightfully so.

This is a prime example why the Daily Paul is so highly regarded. Intelligent, informed people correcting mistakes of those few who serve us. There is strength in numbers.

However, Scalia for the most part remains one of us. Let's get him back on the Constitutional reservation. We need all the help we can get.

It is common knowledge amongst historians that the North financial and industrial centers wanted cheap labor for their factories and the taxation policies were beneficial to the elite financial powers of the North, as a result the agrarian South struggled. Targeted taxation policies detrimental to the southern States hampered their economic growth, and helped labor migration northward. The concerns of the south had been ignored for over forty years.

Peaceful Secession from England was fought for and won in the Revolutionary War culminating in the 1783 Treaty of Paris.

1783 Treaty of Paris: Atricle 1: His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Virgina, North Carolina, South Carolina, 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.

Notice the individual states?

How about the first Amendment...right of the people to peaceably assemble...

Ninth Amendment, tenth Amendment, fifth Amendment, fourth amendment, thirteenth Amendment.

This is not hard.

We have the right to secede, We the People are sovereign, start acting like one.

Is simply a branch of government, and the tenth amendment would certainly go along with the Declaration of Independence when it says:

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it.

In this instance Scalia would really have no say. It is almost like the anti gunners saying that it is onmly the militia that the 2nd amendment covers. So the government controls the militia, but it is the militia under government rule that will stop government abuse with arms? Makes about as much sense. When the 10th is invoked, it will certainly mean that the Supreme Court has shown itself to be a part of the problem, not the solution and Scalias words will mean even less.

Without the right to succession, then there would be mass blood shed. With the U.S. military's new weapons of destruction it would not be a pretty sight, and anyone with any sense would not wish a bloody revolution, for no one can imagine the cost.

Here: http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1543

And Here: http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=5508

In peace & liberty,
Treg

...all other powers are retained by the states and the people

There's an interesting dialogue on this subject going on over at Lew Rockwell's blog today.

Only be force of US Government keeps a state(s) from Seceding.

When did the pledge of allegiance become the basis for law in America?

... to Delaware, Rhode Island and Maine! If you want to say that to Texans, you need to come and say it here, on our hallowed soil. Fat chance. Vote Medina and restore our Freedom. You ain't seen nothing yet.

So, what the judge is saying is that might makes right? F*ck him, he's not a law man.

Oh, and the pledge of allegiance isn't a law, it's an indoctrination litany.

-jcr

He is a traitor like the other 8! No prayer on public ground?,deciding the elections,kick-back incarcerations,just about every decision is contrary to the spirit of the CONstitution of the uSA.

The American colonists won their natural right and therefore our natural right to peacefully secede from English Rule.

Our 50 States independence was based on peaceable secession.

The overly impressed with himself George III with the usual British linguistically puffed up with importance suspects, got their collective asses kicked and had to sign the 1783 Treaty of Paris to recognize this right to peaceable secession.

Will someone volunteer to paste the Treaty of Paris on Scalia's forehead, please.

We the People have the right to judge the law and the facts, yes even the Supreme Court is below us.

Don't look for someone else to take charge.

We the People are Sovereign, start acting like one.

The federal government cannot be party to the suit, because they would be the judge as well.

The only way to secede is to just do it. Then when the Feds decide to create the next civil war, the state would have to take the non-violent route. Fighting would just solidify the people in the remaining states. Only by seeing the brutality of the federal government, would they be swayed to let one of the states secede.

I also don't like Scalia's answer that the one thing that was settled during the civil war was that there is not right to secede. That basically says whoever uses violence best decides rights, which may be true but doesn't speak well for our future. Also, his example of the Pledge of Allegiance is just silly.

Read the ninth and tenth amendments. The constitution does not forbid succession therefore it is completely lawful as it is left up to the states and the people. There is no question about it lincoln had no authority to subjugate the south by force of arms, it didn't settle any question about succession it just proved Lincoln a criminal. Scalia is an Idiot