I kinda thought the Civil War (or the War of Northern Agression if you prefer) and the lives of over 600,000 Americans had pretty much settled this question.
On Apr 28, 11:38 am, 1 <[email protected]> wrote: > Secession Is in Our FuturebyClifford F. Thies > Posted on 4/28/2009 > > Can states secede? There are three levels on which this question can be > answered:theinalienable right of secession,theinternational law of secession, > andtheUS law of secession.All three say yes.The Inalienable Right of > SecessionThe Declaration of Independence of the United States of America > invokes the self-evident truths that all men are created equal and are > endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that governments > are formed to protect these rights and gain their just powers from the > consent of the governed, and that when a government becomes abusive of these > rights, it is the right no, it is thedutyof the people to alter or abolish > that government. > To say governments were formed to protect the rights of men would be > historically incorrect. Almost all governments were formed by ruthless men > exerting their will over others through the use of force. Some governments, > over time, evolved toward the rule of law, perhaps only because their rulers > saw that this would sanction their own continued enjoyment of the wealth that > they possessed. In some instances, this evolution involved one or more > "revolutions" in which those who were governed were able to better establish > the rule of law. > The language of the Declaration should not be construed as an argument about > the historical origins of government but, rather, as what would be true and > just to an enlightened person, namely, that as persons and as communities of > persons, we have the right and the duty to alter or abolish governments that > become abusive of our rights. As Benjamin Franklin once put it, "Rebellion to > tyrants is obedience to God." > The concept of an inalienable right of secession was not original to the > American Revolution. It can be traced to the scholastics, to Reformation > politics, and to the most ancient Greek and Hebrew writings. Without going > into a dissertation on the subject, let me simply point to the flag of the > state of Virginia, which was designed by Thomas Jefferson. It depicts a > female warrior (Athena) standing atop a slain tyrant (Zeus). > According to legend, Zeus, the greatest and most terrible of the gods, was > supposed to be the god of law, yet he was himself lawless. When he heard that > he would sire a child who would destroy him, he swallowed his wife whole to > prevent it. But the child grew within him and then burst from him fully > grown. This child was Athena, the goddess of victory, liberty, and peace. > And, she did indeed slay her father. It should be easy to see, in this > legend, how the rule of law might be established from a government formed > through the use of force. > Now, does a massive increase in taxes, in spending, and in the federal > deficit constitute such an abuse of the rights of men as to justify secession > under the doctrine of an inherent right to secede? I don't think so. Ask me > about the inherent right to secede when the government starts to restrict our > freedom of speech, to shut down the independent media, to confiscate our > guns, and to take away our children.The International Law of SecessionThe > international law of secession is in the process of emerging at this very > time. The U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights indicates that all > people have the right to a country. A corollary of this is that no people > should long be kept in nationless status, e.g., the Palestinians. A further > corollary of this is that no people should long be kept in any subjugated > status, such as by being citizens or subjects of a country from which they > are alienated. > Now, as a practical matter, consideration has to be given to whether an > identifiable people exist in an identifiable place. At least, this is the > current thinking. But, if these several elements come together: an > identifiable people in an identifiable place that grouse under the > subjugation of the larger nation, there is a growing consensus that this > people and place can be severed from the larger nation, even by rebellion and > with support from outside the larger nation. East Timor, Eritrea, and the > devolutions of the former Soviet Union and Yugoslavia (including the ongoing > situation in Kosovo) illustrate the development of the international law of > secession. > Turning to the United States, it is now well established that the country > consists of so many "red" (Republican) and "blue" (Democrat) states, along > with a few "purple" (battleground) states. Even in a so-called landslide, > like 2008, only a few states "flip" from Republican to Democrat, and these > states go from close Republican to close Democrat. Furthermore, the whole > purpose of elections has become to decide whether Democrats get to raise > taxes on Republicans while adjusting the Alternative Minimum Tax so as to > minimize the impact on themselves, and whether Democrats get to force > acceptance of gay marriage onto Republicans or whether Republicans get to > force unwanted pregnancies onto Democrats. In other words, there no longer is > any pretense of federalism in which domestic policy is left to the states of > the Union. > Under these conditions, it can be argued that, were either party to fall into > permanent minority status, and the other party to establish hegemonic control > over the so-called federal government, the people in the other party could be > said to be an alienated, identifiable people in an identifiable place, and > could assert a right to secede under emerging international law. > The argument for secession under emerging international law might be > strongest for Alaska. Geographically, the place is disjoint from the other > states of the Union, making it an identifiable place. Furthermore, under > their state constitution's explicit right of privacy, possession of small > amounts of marijuana is a right; yet, the so-called federal government > imposes the costs of its war on drugs onto the citizens of Alaska. > Furthermore, the people of Alaska have been long frustrated in developing > their natural resources because of the opposition by majorities in the "lower > 48." Indeed, as a separate nation, Alaska might be the freest place in the > world, with zero taxes because of its wealth in natural resources, > well-established civil liberties, and a socially tolerant, live-and-let-live > attitude among its people. > Following Alaska, states such as Florida and Texas would have the next best > arguments for secession under international law, since they are themselves on > a seacoast and their secession would not much disrupt the road, transmission > wire, pipeline or other infrastructure networks of the other states. > States such as Utah and Kentucky, being landlocked "enclaves," would have a > relatively weak argument. On the other hand, it would be relatively easy for > these states to join with other states that have already seceded or are in > the process of seceding, and form a patchwork of independent republics that > develop compacts to facilitate interstate travel, commerce, water flow, > transmission of electricity, and so forth. > "The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, > composed of indestructible States." > – Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase speaking for the U.S. Supreme Court inWhite > v. TexasUS Law of SecessionThe US law of secession is thought to have been > decided by the US Supreme Court inWhite v. Texas, following the Civil War. > The actual matter to be decided was relatively insignificant. The Court used > the occasion to issue a very broad decision. Chief Justice Chase, speaking > for the Court, said,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.Notice that the second sentence > appears to totally contradict the first sentence. > The first sentence I just quoted invokes words such as "perpetual," and in so > doing may create the impression that the Supreme Court decreed that no state > could ever secede from the Union. But, on careful reading, the relationship > between Texas and the other states of the Union is merely "as indissoluble as > the union between the original States." In other words, Texas, having been a > nonoriginal state, has no greater right of secession than do the original > states. As to how states might secede, the second sentence says, "through > revolution or through consent of the States." > As to why a state might secede, either through revolution or through consent, > Chief Justice Chase presciently discusses the 9th and 10th Amendments to the > US Constitution, which reserve to the states and to the people thereof all > powers not expressly granted to the federal government, and that the design > of the Union, implicit in the very name "United States," is the preservation > of the states as well as of the Union:the preservation of the States, and the > maintenance of their governments, are as much within the design and care of > the Constitution as the preservation of the Union and the maintenance of the > National government.The ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
