Posts
If we have the freedom of association, then the government cannot compel us to associate. Just as we have the freedom to associate, we have the freedom to disassociate.
Although most people agree with me, some people agree with Abraham Lincoln instead. Lincoln was openly willing to kill every man in a state, if necessary, to prevent secession. Lincoln willingly sacrificed three men in loyal states to kill each man in a seceded state. Certainly the communist leaders in Russia and the Chinese cited Lincoln as justification for their actions.
If you agree with me and disagree with Lincoln, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao … If you have the respect and compassion for individuals that I do … Then you should also agree with a Constitutional amendment to protect the right of the people to secede.
The right of the people to secede shall not be infringed.
The reality is that the Founders – the authors of the Constitution – accepted the right to secede. Secession is in fact the reason we call them our Founders! The reality is that the Founders felt the right to secession was so natural and obvious that enumerating the right to secession in the Constitution was unnecessary. The reality is that the ninth amendment explains that we have many other rights (freedoms) not enumerated in the Constitution.
The Promise of Reality is Freedom.
I am beginning to think that a codified right of secession might be more effective in creating a just and responsible country than any balanced budget or federalism amendment. The codification should define a rational process (perhaps /not/ vetoable by the president) which includes debt apportionment and a buy-out plan (bond conversion, etc.) I am not sure one can walk away from a part of the federal debt that one has already taken advantage of.
ReplyDeleteThe 10th Amendment to the US Constitution specifically states that the powers not delegated to the Congress (written into the Constitution) are reserved to the States or the People. The book titled "A View of the Contitution of the united States" by William Rawle (pub. 1829) was used as a textbook at West Point prior to and during the War of Northern Agression (officially known as the 'War Between the States' or by the misnomer 'American Civil War') and as such, taught the fact that the States inherently had the right of secession based on the fact that it was a right retained by the States. Nowhere in the Constitution does the right of secession appear ... meaning it was 'reserved by the States, or the People.'
ReplyDeleteI agree with nicelotedesco. I think you can't have a truly free federal society without having a means of secession, but a seceding state can't just take advantage of all the benefits of the Union and then walk away without taking on any of the responsibilities, such as assuming their per capita share of the national debt and either returning (at their own expense) or paying full price for any Federal property in the State.
ReplyDeleteAs for the Anon above me, I would like to point out that hostilities only started when the Confederacy seized Federal property without compensation and attacked a Federal outpost without provocation. Just because Fort Sumter was located in a state of the Confederacy didn't give them any rights over it (see the Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, towards the end. Forts are mentioned specifically, by name). Again, you can't take advantage of the Union when it helps you, then turn around and walk away without taking on your responsibilities. It was not a war of Northern aggression, it was a war of Southern aggression.
You forgot to mention that the US should return all the money that the seceding state had paid into Social Security - with interest. Also, as I explained in my article, "US Federal Debt - Problem Solved," the US federal debt is unconstitutional, fraudulent, and illegitimate anyway.
DeleteThe federal land in each state was forcibly taken from the state by the federal government, who should give it back now - regardless of secession.
The North had their military occupying the territory of another country against the will of that country, which is an act of aggression and an act of war. The South bent over backwards to avoid a confrontation; whereas, the North intentionally provoked confrontation. How would you like it if China had a fort right next to your house filled with troops and weapons and refused to leave? I suspect you might see things differently in that case.
The most fair approach as well as the most practical is thus to just let the state walkaway free and clear where neither government owes the other. Of course, any privately owned land or other asset would still belong to the person or organization that already owned it.