Monday, October 13, 2008

The Importance of Secessionism

Anyone who has been around this blog for some time knows that I was a die-hard Huckabee supporter, not because of his religious beliefs, but because of his commitment to State's Rights. Unfortunately, the Republican Party selected a candidate who could care less about the constitution in general, especially the 9th and 10th amendments. Luckily he selected a VP candidate who fully respects a state's right to vote on their status with the union. Sarah Palin has reached out to legitimize the struggle of a group of "10th amendmenters", called the Alaskan Independence Party, simply requesting the vote which Alaskans were never granted - on whether or not they wanted to join the union.

In the light of the new powers granted to an un-elected official, the Secretary of Treasury, which are unbound and unchecked allowing this individual with no responsibility to the voters to exercise unconstitutional force on the free market, we have to ask ourselves what rights we still retain.

When our founding fathers constructed the proposed union, they established the rules for an inefficient government to avoid tyranny, and followed up their governmental structure to ensure that the government understood that it's existence was at the pleasure of the citizens of the individual states... not the other way around.

The Bill of Rights was 10 of 12 proposed amendments, guaranteeing that certain rights were specifically cited as being "off limits" to the functioning of the supposed small federal government.

First, there was a protection of speech, press, practice of religion, protest, and protest against government for grievances.

Second, there was a protection of the individual's right to self preservation, by way of arming the self.

Third, there was a protection of private land - namely against occupying federal forces.

Fourth, there was a protection of the self against search and seizure.

Fifth, there was a protection of the self against self-incrimination, unreasonable trials, and protection of private property against governmental growth.

Sixth and Seventh, there was a protection of the self via jury of peers, and reasonable due process of law.

Eight, there was a protection of the self against unreasonable punishment and torture by the government.

Finally - the ninth and tenth amendments stated clearly that rights not explicitly called out did not mean that those rights were not rights of the people, and that any power not explicitly given to the federal government in the constitution was therefor a power retained by the STATES and the PEOPLE of the states.

These last two points are the most powerful of the entire constitution - declaring that the power of the states is superior to the power of the federal government. This includes the power of secession from the union, a right not discussed in the constitution, thus retained by the states and the people to decide.

Unfortunately, our country went to war over the right of secession once before... though history would indicate that it was a war over slavery, the truth being told, the war was over the right of a state to opt out of a union that fails to represent or operate on behalf of the people of that state.
As I was saying, in light of the recent NEW POWERS, unchecked powers, that the federal government has just granted itself over the people, the markets, and the states... we have to ask ourselves what rights we still retain, and what power we still have over the federal government... Truth be told, those rights and powers are gone. The answer in plain sight is none. But let's discuss technicalities, and the strength that they have.

Technically we have the right to secede from the union, to cast off a form of government that no longer represents the will of the people or the states. It is the last right of the people to keep the federal government in check - stating loud and clear that it is the people who retain the power, not the government. If the people of this nation, of these collection of states, understands that they are not subjects of the federal government but rather the power behind a once "more perfect union", we can better understand our rights and our purpose for living in this nation.

I would propose a show of force across the nation - a ratification of the collective state constitutions, citing the rights retained by the 9th and 10th amendments to the US Constitution, explicitly stating that the right of the state does, in fact, include the right to secede from the Federal Union of the United States. This is not a proposition that any governor is going to propose - it has to be a grassroots effort of the people of the collective states.

Once this effort comes to a head, the Supreme Court decision of Texas v. White (in which the 1869 SCOTUS ruling indicated that the Constitution did not permit states to secede from the Union - the decision was 5-3), will come into question. Fortunately for the argument of future state's rights of secession, the decision of the court included a statement:

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.
This indicates that if the multitude of the states, and the people of the states, indicated that the right of secession was a right retained by the states by the 9th and 10th amendment, then secession could be voted on by any given state and enacted against the federal government's rule.

The right to secession benefits each state, and the people of the United States, as a protection against an overbearing federal government. Unfortunately, the people of this great nation feel defenseless in the current state of the economy and the strict authoritarian federal government that has sprung up in the name of freedom. What freedom does a caged dog have?

Am I advocating a civil war? I would argue that we are in the midst of a "cold" civil war - a class war, a war of values, a war of power over the people... and the people are losing. I am not advocating violence.

What I am advocating is that the People of the United States understand their rights... understand that we do not have to live in a country of corruption and tyranny at the upper echelons. And we do not have to sit idly by as we watch the powers of a KING granted to an unelected Cabinet Member of the Executive Branch.

I am advocating that We the People of the United States of America take back this country - take back our personal rights, and stop living under constant supervision, regulation, and fear of our government!

I am advocating for the freedom of the people of the several states/regions to decide whether or not the Federal Government has grown beyond its usefulness.

Secession is not a resolution that should come lightly. It is a decision that brings into question the very existence of the United States, and the ties that have bound our people together. It is necessary, from time to time, to have the option to pressure the Federal Government into submission on behalf of the people.

Our politicians swear to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America - but I wonder if any have read it lately or understand what it actually says, or what it MEANS!?!


11 comments:

  1. I'mohn sit back 'n see if'n Ben DeGrow or Josh Sharf has anythin' t' say in response t' this.

    'N thin chime in accordin'ly.

    You know where *I* stand, Steven.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The full text of the SCOTUS decision regarding the ide of secessionism:

    The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and [74 U.S. 700, 725] arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form, and character, and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these the Union was solemnly declared to 'be perpetual.' And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained 'to form a more perfect Union.' It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?

    But the perpetuity and indissolubility of the Union, by no means implies the loss of distinct and individual existence, or of the right of self-government by the States. Under the Articles of Confederation each State retained its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right not expressly delegated to the United States. Under the Constitution, though the powers of the States were much restricted, still, all powers not delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. And we have already had occasion to remark at this term, that cthe people of each State compose a State, having its own government, and endowed with all the functions essential to separate and independent existence,' and that 'without the States in union, there could be no such political body as the United States.' 12 Not only, therefore, can there be no loss of separate and independent autonomy to the States, through their union under the Constitution, but it may be not unreasonably said that 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 Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States. [74 U.S. 700, 726] When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. 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.

    Considered therefore as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union, and of every citizen of the State, as a citizen of the United States, remained perfect and unimpaired. It certainly follows that the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union. If this were otherwise, the State must have become foreign, and her citizens foreigners. The war must have ceased to be a war for the suppression of rebellion, and must have become a war for conquest and subjugation.


    The SCOTUS indicated that so long as the Federal Government was working within the restrictions of the Constitution, allowing States to retain soveriengty and all powers not given in the Constitution to the Federal Government, understanding that the Constitution assumed perpetuality in Union of the States, and that the states held a right to secede only if the multitude of the sates agreed that secession was a right - or in the case of revolution.

    The basis for this decision is summed up in this line from the decision:
    The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union, and of every citizen of the State, as a citizen of the United States, remained perfect and unimpaired. It certainly follows that the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union. If this were otherwise, the State must have become foreign, and her citizens foreigners. The war must have ceased to be a war for the suppression of rebellion, and must have become a war for conquest and subjugation.

    It shows that the decision of the court, had it determined that secession was, in fact, a right retained by the states and the people, then the war which had ended just four years prior would have been deemed unconstitutional, illegal, and for purpose of conquest and subjugation. Therefore, neutrality in the case failed to exist regarding the question of the right to secession. The SCOTUS justices would have been obligated to protect the actions of the Union in forcing this war, and would subsequently need this decision to uphold the validity of the reconstruction acts.

    One thing that is mentioned is the assumption that the states remain sovereign, and that the Federal government works within the bounds of the Constitution. So would the ruling be different today, where the Federal Government intrudes on issues of marriage, education, transportation, business, banks, housing, etc, etc... the lsit goes on. The federal government is functioning as a state government/business, but retains the ability to continually make laws granting themselves more power and more money. I would argue that they are operating WAY outside the bounds of the constitution, and as such, the states have the right to break allegiance to a federal government, though a general allegiance to the continued protection of the sister states is sufficient under the original articles of confederation.

    ReplyDelete
  3. One black feller agrees with ye:

    http://townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2008/07/16/oklahoma_rebellion&Comments=true

    ReplyDelete
  4. Link above tinyurl'd:

    http://tinyurl.com/4qu3z4

    ReplyDelete
  5. Jonesie - Thanks for the link. I read the article and I will look into what came of this Oklahoma Resolution. It is a start.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Yes, it is a start, 'long with th' "Sagebrush Rebellion", state opposition t' certain provisions of th' "Patriot" Act, 'n any other modern form of resistance 'ginst Federal tyranny ohn th' part of th' states.

    This ol' thang ain't dead yet, Texas v. White notwithstandin'. Just as abolition wusn't dead when SCOTUS handed down Dred v. Scott.

    As fir Texas v. White, well, what wuz th' court gonna say, anyhow? Written by that execrable Lincolnist Samuel Chase in th' thick of Reconstruction - somehow they gonna conclude th' South wuz right?

    But th' majority's argumint wuz sophistical, as even that Wiki article hints at. Per th' Middlebury Institute's Kirkpatrick Sale, is wuz a "decision, rendered in the heat of the time just after the war, that totally ignored history and precedent, and could be overturned by any halfway skillful argument, if the justices were allowed to vote honestly.)"

    http://middleburyinstitute.org/thelogicofsecession.html

    Th' time fir such "honesty" is now upohn us, 'n more n' more people are ohn to "the logic of secession."

    ReplyDelete
  7. Jonesie -

    Zogby poll in July indicates that 22% of Americans support the right to peaceful secession. Interesting read about the demographics of support.

    I agree with the assessment regarding the impartiality of the SCOTUS during Texas v. White. A similar revisit of that case today, particularly that portion of the decision, may render a different decision?!?

    What are your thoughts on the previous posts I have given regarding the Lakotah Sioux? There is a struggle in their reservation for a push against the US, citing broken treaties of Laramie - demanding their federally recognized lands of 1848 back. Interesting struggle we find ourselves in - especially if Means wins in the Pine Ridge election in South Dakota, he has the political authority to officially withdraw from the treaties, and the international support of the UN to reclaim their territory... your thoughts?

    ReplyDelete
  8. I'm familiar with-att Zogby poll. It's garnered a fair 'mount-a attenshun, even from librul commentators who ain't necessarily fir th' idear of secesh. But it's a very interstin poll, espeshully whin one considers th' effective brainwashin' job 'ginst th' Southern secession done by Hollywood, publik edurcashun 'n "conservative" folks 'ssociated with th' Jaffa-ites.

    I agree with the assessment regarding the impartiality of the SCOTUS during Texas v. White. A similar revisit of that case today, particularly that portion of the decision, may render a different decision?!?

    Not likely in-iss day of even mo' Federal consolidashun of power. Naw, if secession is t' occur, it'll akin t' th' Feenix arisin' from th' aishes. 'Att's my opinion anyhow.

    T' yir laist question, I ain't real up ohn th' secession of 'em Lakota folk. My understaindin' is-att it's ohnly some of 'em anyhow, and relates to certain terms 'n provisions of they treaty with the Federals-att really dohn't apply t' th' situration 'txist th' states 'n th' Federal entity. But 'twould appear-att most modern secesh orginizations thank it's significant. I ain't heard whut th' Federal response has heard. Last I heard, it wuz nuthin'.

    You mighta heard that there wuz sum threatenin' comin' from certain officials in the State of Montana over th' now resolved handgun case before SCOTUS, DC v. Heller. The MT Sec. of State 'n others were a-threatenin' t' launch a secesh movement there if'n th' court did rule in favor of the individual rights construction of th' Second Amendment. Moot now, a-course, but, again, significant in terms of demonstratin' anti-Federal sentiment.

    I say, keep it up, Federals. Y'all're ohnly stokin' th' fires of th' "Cause of th' South", which, as Alexander Stephens sed, is th' "Cause of Us All".

    By the way, Steven: I notified ol' Ben 'n Josh 'bout yir blog entry here. Be interstin t' see if they'll have any.

    ReplyDelete
  9. 'L, I giss-att's it, Steven. Ol' Ben 'n Josh gohn mute.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Jonesie - I have never heard them comment on anything regarding secession or state's rights. Do you have links for a back-story so I can better understand y'alls dispute?

    To discuss secession or actual state's rights has been a faux pas for 150 years... Now that it is becoming a topic, it is hard for Nationalists to admit that the government works best when under the power of the people, not the other way around... and in doing so, it requires some of the air to be let out of the tires of a national/federal governemnt, and returned to the states and the people, respectively.

    ReplyDelete