Constitutional Question: Can states secede? Ron Paul's view?

[freedominnumbers]

Secession is a natural right. It's not granted by the constitution.

Like all natural rights, in exercising it you run the risk of a hostile opponent.

 

[mconder]

Secession is a natural right. It's not granted by the constitution.

Like all natural rights, in exercising it you run the risk of a hostile opponent.

Exactly.

 

[torchbearer]

They should have made an escape clause in the constitution...

 

[David Merrill]

secede indeed

The emergency of secession right is what I maintain to be the primary event. For instance on July 4, 1861, after 90 days adjourned Lincoln convened Congress under the extraordinary occasion clause. Without formal termination of the emergency, that extraordinary occasion, states having the right to secede but being forbidden to by martial law, is ongoing - technically.

There is an interesting interpretation, the beginning of the sophistry exposed above by DaveforLiberty in "America's Constitution" by Akhil Reed Amar. That the "more perfect union" clause in the Preamble binds states from secession? And there is a comment there also by Erowe1 finding the right of secession inherent to the 10th Amendment... All good points so I am going outside the Constitution to say the will of the People of any state to join the Union is inherently accompanied by the will to secede being sound - ergo, back to an ongoing declaration that right is cause for emergency.

I can go on and on and have trouble deciding where to start and which points to include. My point is that once inside the constraints of the Constitution the inalienable does actually become hobbled. Benjamin FRANKLIN (French) Esquire (Crown Templars) formed the Post Office for posting ... among other things of course - the Constitution. It is in the Notice and Grace that the Constitution got its power in law - the Posting. When power is instilled unilaterally like God in the Holy Bible does to the Israelites (Exodus 24:7) or the Children of Noach (Genesis 9) the authoritative power simply declares "I made you and delivered you... therefore I am in Power to Say." More on enacting clauses in a couple paragraphs.

In 1991 Congress went outside of the Constitution and declared/recognized the Seven Noachide Laws as the foundation of civilization:

Whereas Congress recognizes the historical tradition of ethical values and principles which are the basis of civilized society and upon which our great Nation was founded;

Whereas these ethical values and principles have been the bedrock of society from the dawn of civilization, when they were known as the Seven Noahide Laws;

and The Sanhedrin was asked to hear the Republic of Texas' right to secede in 1997:

This Court, therefore, urges the Attorney General of the United States of America, Janet Reno, currently under the Political Leadership of President Bill Clinton to answer to the charge of failure to hear a grievance that is brought before its duly appointed Courts, and it has 90 working days in which to show cause as to why this case should not be heard before this Court and to submit documents showing that it has conformed with all treaties, conventions and wishes of the native peoples and with states accepted or annexed under the Constitutional principles and Noahide law, which was adopted as Law in the United States by Congress.

It shall be so ordered that Plaintiffs must bear Court, costs. As the Republic of Texas is the Plaintiff in this matter the deposit of its share of the costs into a certified bank insured by Lloyds of London and to be drawn upon by The Supreme Rabbinic Court of America by signature of two of its officers, shall initiate the case...

That alone should pique your interest but my point is that when you look at the proceedings on the Senate Floor in the Congressional Records:

Mr. Speaker. I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service be discharged from further consideration of the joint resolution...

Now for enacting clauses of man. Being sanctified from unilateral enacting clauses by a creating authority like Creator God...

Section 18. Enacting clause. The style of the laws of this state shall
be: "Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Colorado".

In simplicity that means if a policeman charges me for breaking the law, when I look for that law the first thing I read about is the authority that created that law... "Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Colorado"

Instead we find the term necessity - derived from emergency - a Safety Clause:

http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_Safety_Clause_1.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_Safety_Clause_2.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_Safety_Clause_3.jpg

And that started with FDR in 1933. We find all the states incorporated effectively through Uniform Administrative Acts in the late '60's...

All in all, we can find a multitude of symptoms and it is easy to try saying like Aunty Ep did, that it is just corruption. So I will leave you with an image of that approach... the Right to Address Government with a Grievance:

http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_Let_Freedom_Ring.jpg

I was on that National Grand Jury. Mark apologized to me because he had already passed out all his copies of the final draft to the Press. I still find his apology for giving me the rough draft amusing!

The joindering from territory to state is ratification of a binding contract, even after 1861 therefore it is inherent that if the US fails to perform according to paragraph 2 for example, then Colorado may easily secede from the Union and again function as a republic or territory. In final summary of this post, read carefully through to the bottom of Page 4:

...shall be liberally construed.

http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_Proclamation_1.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_Proclamation_2.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_Proclamation_3.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_Proclamation_4.jpg




Regards,

David Merrill.

 

[american.swan]

Didn't one of the founders say when a Government has become too oppressive it is the right of people to break from the chains of oppression and form a new Government?

It's in the Declaration of Independence.

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 of 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.

I just don't see a state doing this. I think the only state that this might work would be like California where a mass of people can bring up a vote on anything they want. So a bunch of Californians get the needed signatures on the petition and see if the people would vote to leave. Texas...not a chance. It would have to be a public uprising. Interestingly, if some "governor" wasn't happy being just "governor" and wanted more power, this might be a way to do it. Logistically, it's a nightmare.

 

[american.swan]

The US military would invade your state

Hehe, well that's one way to get them out of Iraq.

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Hehe, well that's one way to get them out of Iraq.

heh, maybe. Although, Bush is very stubborn.

 

[american.swan]

No matter what state your in, if your being harassed by federal agents under the order of a president and congress overrun by fascist from other states, your telling me that one state should have to just put up with it, rather then leave. I think each state has to be able to leave and leaving might wake up the nation to what is going on.

I don't deny that the President would attack said state to make it conform, but I don't like the idea that said state has no recourse under harassment.

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

No matter what state your in, if your being harassed by federal agents under the order of a president and congress overrun by fascist from other states, your telling me that one state should have to just put up with it, rather then leave. I think each state has to be able to leave and leaving might wake up the nation to what is going on.

I don't deny that the President would attack said state to make it conform, but I don't like the idea that said state has no recourse under harassment.

Actually, I'm not telling you anything. I'm just saying; It's highly probable that your state will be invaded. Unless, maybe you take control of some nukes, then you would have a leg to stand on.

 

[mconder]

My point is that once inside the constraints of the Constitution the inalienable does actually become hobbled.

Hobbled only in as much as there is not enough support to resist a Federal response to succession.

 

[robatsu]

Secession is still fairly strong in the popular imagination in the South, at least in the Deep South among the white population, especially the ones whose families have lived in the South for some generations. But it is also understood to be the Lost Cause, although if there ever seemed to be any real hope for it, my guess is that it would gain traction rapidly.

 

[freedominnumbers]

I think, if not going as far as secession, a successful free state project could render the popular support to opt-out of the federal government plans.

Of course the free state must be a coastal state.
My problem with NH is that it's more expensive than most areas people would move from, making relocation impossible.

We ought to send a strong message by buying up a poor coastal region and turning it into an economic powerhouse.

 

[RP4ME]

The US military would invade your state

Exactamundo - how do you secede without a strong military - have you heard of trade embargos and sanctions - in theory it sound idyllic but how to translate taht into reality? If anyone knows please post...food shelter and saftey woudl be seriously comprimised....


i worry a bit about Switzerland maintining its ability to withstand the EU - its surrounded! Eventually when teh EU becomes what it wants to be - it will be really hard to not succumb....

 

[Razmear]

There is a secession movement in South Carolina by the Christian Exodus folks, only difference here is that they are moving into the state from around the country with the intent of then pushing for secession.
Their website is:
http://christianexodus.org/
And if they weren't so, well, 'Right Wing Christian', I might agree with their movement.

Some quotes from their site:
ChristianExodus.org will continue to move Christians into South Carolina until constitutionalists possess a representative majority in both houses of the General Assembly. Such a strategy will make the sovereignty debate public, and the influence of our membership will tip the scales in favor of constitutionally limited government founded upon Christian principles.

---

Interests of minority in South Carolina:

If secession is effected in South Carolina, there will be a minority of unionists in the state. The under girding principle in a representative form of government is that majority rules. It then becomes the responsibility of the minority to relocate or change the policies of the state through the ballot box. It would be a great injustice to suggest that the preference of the minority ought to prevail over that of the majority.

 

[David Merrill]

My point is that once inside the constraints of the Constitution the inalienable does actually become hobbled.

Hobbled only in as much as there is not enough support to resist a Federal response to succession.

You may be right but I believe the federal assistance is always requested and a state in secession might simply do so by cutting off requests. That from a man with no DOB, SSN or birth certificate. So you might better know where I am coming from.

The "hobbling" of the Constitution remark comes from Nehemiah 10; the first formation of a constitution. This really defines the need for any constitution at all. There had to be a binding of the Babylonian invasion by Jew. The Jews had just formed over the last 70 years or so and Darius appointing them to rebuild the Temple wall was a terrible affront that set the Israelites fighting with the Jews in a civil war. Therefore a man-made ordinance was in order; a constitution albeit it was a simple written restatement of promises to adhere to the Laws of Moses.

Neh 9:38 And because of all this we make a sure covenant, and write it; and our princes, Levites, and priests, seal unto it.

Neh 10:1 Now those that sealed were, Nehemiah, the Tirshatha, the son of Hachaliah, and Zidkijah,
Neh 10:2 Seraiah, Azariah, Jeremiah,...
...

Neh 10:8 Maaziah, Bilgai, Shemaiah: these were the priests.

Neh 10:9 And the Levites: both Jeshua the son of Azaniah, Binnui of the sons of Henadad, Kadmiel;
Neh 10:10 And their brethren, Shebaniah, Hodijah, Kelita, Pelaiah, Hanan,...
...

Neh 10:27 Malluch, Harim, Baanah.
Neh 10:28 And the rest of the people, the priests, the Levites, the porters, the singers, the Nethinims, and all they that had separated themselves from the people of the lands unto the law of God, their wives, their sons, and their daughters, every one having knowledge, and having understanding;

Neh 10:29 They clave to their brethren, their nobles, and entered into a curse, and into an oath, to walk in God's law, which was given by Moses the servant of God, and to observe and do all the commandments of the LORD our Lord, and his judgments and his statutes;

Ergo the Jews could finally be at peace with the Israelites and come into the civil community again. By constitution.


Regards,

David Merrill.

 

[klamath]

Sorry guys but this issue has already been appealed to the War Gods and they ruled on the side of no secession. The only way to revisit this is through the War Gods and believe me that is the last thing you and I would want. Another civil war would be a horrible horrible thing.

 

[WCR]

No, states have no right to secede. The President takes an oath to defend and preserve the constitution, no matter who the enemy.

 

[prexis44]

I think the constitution is generally against the balkanization of the country. Is the Vermont thing really serious?

 

[freedominnumbers]

No, states have no right to secede. The President takes an oath to defend and preserve the constitution, no matter who the enemy.

The right to create and abolish government, including secession, rests with sovereign men. The right to throw off a poor government is a natural right. No man can control you unless you let him.

Failure to understand that is failure to know why you should have "freedom" at all.
Your freedom cannot be granted or denied by anyone but you.

If secession is the goal of a sovereign man only an undeserving fool would let a bad government "convince" him to believe it's not allowed.

If we wanted we could remove any block of land from the union/state it is currently part of.