There are a lot of factors that go into the decision, but the decision is one to be made by the individual body-politic. Some people hope for reconciliation; others think it is too far past the point of “winning back” the federal government.

The fact is, there is more than one problem with the “automobile”. At some point, the cost of repairing the automobile is greater than the cost of “totaling” it.

Look at a map of Europe from 1910. Borders are everywhere. Machinating diplomats are double-crossing their allies and sending their young men into countless wars. Customs duties every 500 kilometers and money changers converting between a dozen currencies. Smaller countries, such as Serbia, are dominated, manipulated, and “protected” by larger countries such as Russia. How can we guarantee that the secession solution doesn’t result in this continental nightmare?

There is no denying that in many ways the federal government has overstepped its bounds. Nevertheless, there are plenty of civil disobedience tactics available that must be tried before anyone plays the secession card. Elections, marches, boycotts, and noisy town hall meetings have an impressive impact. One charismatic orator can capture the hearts and minds of millions. I for one have the patience to exhaust all those avenues before dooming my fellow citizens to the misery of a North American Balkans. Let’s re-energize the country, not destroy it from within.

Going back to my car, it turns out that the problem was the turbocharger, and it was replaced. The mechanic’s drastic measure, taken as a last resort, made the entire vehicle work perfectly. After secession, there is no Union to work perfectly.

And yes my mother DOES KNOW I am online. She approves whole heartedly.

Comprehension of the written word is often difficult for some. Many seem to have “crystal” balls with which they deduce, induce, and reduce. Nothing in the articles came close to making secession unlawful. The word “perpetual” applied to the union. That union still exists. It just has no members. Any State that wishes could rejoin under the articles should the members of that state so desire.

Perpetual in no way implies those who join cannot leave the association except under convoluted thought processes.

I care not about the historical dead documents. I did not bring up the Articles. I attempted to blockquote previous statements and the system did not recognize blockquote html. There are two documents of interest, the Dec of Ind and the Constitution, neither of which support the concept of a one way association in the Union known as the United States of America.

Can a “nation” quit the United Nations? Is that not secession from the body-politic? The US of A is nothing more than an early form of the UN. The USA was never formed as a nation. Mr. Ellsworth forced the removal of the words nation and national from the Constitution during the convention because as he stated “We are not forming a nation.” The US is a voluntary union of free and indpendent states. The term state was/is synonymous with nation. Proof of that fact lies in the Decl. of Ind.

Why is it that some of you wish to force your view on others by forcing them to stay within some governmental body that was created for the betterment of ALL but which certain members no longer believe applies?

The freedom to choose, freedom of association, liberty, etc all go against such a position. We are each free to make our own choices. We can leave the US and take membership in another society should we so wish.

Please, oh, please provide ANY evidence, not court cases as those are just opinions such as everyone has, that proves secession is not allowed under the Constitution. Can you quote any part of the Constitution as absolute proof that once a state joins the union, that state may not leave of its own volition?

Yes, very clever, my views are based on my “ASSumptions” as you put it. You even threw in a “damm” for good effect. Good logic. Very persuasive.

Now, I asked that if the states conceded their right to secede in the Articles of Confederation, when and where did they get it back.

Your response is illuminating. You respond that the Articles only lasted ten years, the framers went back to square one in the Declaration, and the Constitution which was a result of that re-visitation did not prohibit secession.

OK, you get us back to this: the Declaration warrants a state to secede, and the Constitution does not prohibit it. After thinking about this I have to ask why you even care about the Articles, Constitution or history? At root, Secessionist are relying on the individual right to resist tyrants, which they transform from an individual God-given right, into a right of the state against other states and the general government when tyrannical.

In fact, why even bother with the Declaration of Independence? Baldwin has already let the horse out of the barn. He maintains that the purported right of a state to opt out stands ultimately on the natural law, the law of nature and nations. It can be invoked at any time by any state in this union when in its sole determination it decides that tyranny is present. Isn’t that your position too? Sure you want to convince others that the Declaration, Constitution and history are on your side, but even if they were not, you would still fall back on God said so in his law. Right?

Rather than admit that no facts, argument or evidence could change your mind, you justify your convictions with an appeal to God Himself to raise up prophets, who we may presume can be recognized to the degree they confirm your view that secession is legal and clear.

As you seem to be on intimate terms with the Almighty, did God decide at the end of the war of Northern aggression that secession itself was the reason He withheld His blessing on the southern campaign, as secession was and is contrary to His laws of nature? Mr. Baldwin cannot and will not take that position.

Or did God refuse to sanction the rationale for secession, to protect the institution of slavery as it was Constitutionally guaranteed? You do admit sir that the South was destroyed by the war? Was this the work of God or did He sit on the sidelines and take no part?

Please tell all the ill-informed here me how you see the hand of God at work the last time secession was tried, so that we can recognize how He might approach it this time around.

This concept violates the Creator/created relationship of our system of government. This same concept was refered to as fundamental law theory by Hamilton.

The concept: Who’s the boss? Who is superior and who is subordinate? The Creator or the created? Of course the Creator is superior, the created subordinate.

We the People created the Constitution through our representative States and thus We the People are superior to the Constitution, the Constitution is subordinate to us. Blackstone:

For, whenever a question arises between the society at large and any magistrate vested with powers originally delegated by that society, it must be decided by the voice of the society itself: there is not upon earth any other tribunal to resort to.

Sir William Blackstone, Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, Book I, Chp3, pg.205/6</blockquote)

On the next level, the Constitution becomes the creator and the government, ALL THREE branches, are the created. Every part of the federal government is subordinate to the Constitution. The subordinate cannot define the superior. EVEN the SC cannot decide what the Constitution means because the Constitution creates the SC and all the rest of the government. Next time you go to work, try telling your boss what his/her job is.

The Constitution is OUR set of rules for the government to follow. Not once in the document is secession mentioned, either as being allowed or being prohibited. There are specific prohibitions on individual states enumerated in the Constitution. Thus one would expect that had the Framers so desired a prohibition on secession would have been included.

The legal teaching texts of the time, in specific A View of the Constitution by William Rawle, LLD stated explicitly that secession was not prohibited. Rawle also noted that the Bill of Rights bound both the federal government and the states, a position later destroyed by the SC in one of their lunatic drug induced fantasy sessions.

This Article suggests the states conceded the unchallengeably of their confederation, made it perpetual and conditioned leaving it on the consent of Congress and every state. No unilateral right of each state to leave upon its sole determination in this document. Thus, if the states had this right, as you claim, it had to be recovered at some point after the Articles of Confederation. What year and event accomplished this?

ASSumptions – the union is perpetual. It does not state that members could not come and go. It does say that so long as a state is a member the Articles would be observed in that state and that the articles could not be changed without a specific process being followed. But that “perpetual” union lasted a mere decade.

Funny how the Framers just threw this one out when they wrote the Constitution. The Framers were sent to “fix” the problems and then totally eliminated the Articles. Thus, the Articles of Confederation were repudiated by the act of the Constitutional Convention. So just how could the Framers do such a thing.

They didn’t ignore the Declaration of Independence which states:

“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.”

The same driving force that caused THE revolution hiberates in every state. Do not look for implied statements in the Constitution, they are not there. The document is explicit and complete in and of itself. If secession were prohibited the statement must be explicit otherwise as is explained through the tenth amendment, the power resides with the States or with the People, the REAL boss of the government.

Prior to the 1850/60s the States regularly stood up to the federal government and decided whether or not legislation conformed to the Constitution. Even the SC never claimed to be able to interpret the Constitution in those days. Marbury DOES NOT state such.

Have you ever wondered why the federal government has no authority to punish “crimes” except in approx 5 very specific areas? The Police Power was left to the States. Thus Congress passes the laws and the States decide whether or not to enforce the laws because Congress has no authority to enforece tax laws, commerce laws, etc. Read the damn thing. The power is not granted but the 5 mentioned are explicitly noted. Separation of powers was between the fed and the states NOT just within the fed.

There is much in the Constitution that many miss. And there is more not in the Constitution that many try to insert through machinations.

wildbill
Police Ofcr. ret.

“independent and are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do.”

Then, each colony signed for itself on behalf of that colony. As a result, historians and jurists acknowledged that each state separated itself from each other as an independent nation, having the right to do what all nations have the right to do under the Law of Nations, including the right to form unions and to unmake them as each sovereign determines promotes its interest for its body-politic.

More to come in forthcoming articles…

Your quote presupposes that the States had a power and right to secede, at least prior to 1787. Yet in 1791 in Article XIII of the Articles of
Confederation the states explicitly provided that:

“the Articles of this confederation shall be inviolably observed by every state, and the union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a congress of the united states, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every state.”

This Article suggests the states conceded the unchallengeably of their confederation, made it perpetual and conditioned leaving it on the consent of Congress and every state. No unilateral right of each state to leave upon its sole determination in this document. Thus, if the states had this right, as you claim, it had to be recovered at some point after the Articles of Confederation. What year and event accomplished this?

Perhaps you could address this in a follow up article.

For those readers that actually want to read Vieira’s article see here:

http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin203.htm

…by the way, I have many more articles forthcoming…Part 1 was just a prelude.

The CSA nation of states do NOT have to secede again – all they have to do is RE-CLAIM their nation back from the illegal Federal OCCUPAITON they have been forced under for the past 150 years !

THE CSA NATION AND CSA GOVERNMENT NEVER SURRENDERED as the DC Federalists have lied to everyone about and had writen as their invented ‘history’ all these years ! What everyone has been force-taught all their lives in the Un-Constitutional Federal government schools has all been invented lies.
To read TRUE history you will never see in any DC apporved text books -
http://home1.gte.net/carriet/TruthCivilWar.htm

Did the Colonists have a right to secede from the British Crown or should we then still be under British authority?

Is it the same argument as the South had?

Son of Liberty
Corporal
USMC Reserves-Retired

I agree with secession, but have not yet read Dr. Vieira’s dissenting opinion.

Having no other legal basis than some basic knowledge of our founding documents, it is my arguable belief that this is a nation of mostly sovereign individuals with unalienable rights from their Creator who once constituted their servant state governments (from the set of civil powers they themselves socially possessed) and later constituted the servant United States government from a limited share of those governmental powers, retaining all other powers for the states and for themselves.

All of this was preceded by terms of the Declaration of Independence that essentially limit the lifetime of any of our governments to our consent: “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 so forth.

It would seem any agreement that prevents the breakup of the United States, as by secession, would simply mean that the people would have to abolish the entire federal government to accomplish the result, in either event the then sovereign states would have survived intact, free to form new alliances if they so choose, ergo secession.

It is my belief “That whenever any Form of Government (read federal)becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter (secede from it) or to abolish it” and so forth, in other words the Right for the people to navigate their own ship of state.