I looked at the organic Act of Congress passed May 26, 1864 which formed the territory of Montana and the Congress said that it could further divide the territory and change the boundaries of the Montana territory as Congress so decided. This does not sound like the exercise of a sovereign Montana. Then Congress said Montana cannot impair any treaty with the Indians and in fact denied to Montana any treaty power with the Indians. Congress prohibited slavery in Montana. This too does not sound like Montana had much sovereignty. Moreover, the Montana governor, secretary, chief justice, and associate justices, attorney, and marshal were appointed by the President of the United States, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. How can a sovereign states be dependent on the President of another government for his office? These officials had to take an oath to uphold the United States Constitution. Is this the act of a sovereign, to pledge fidelity to a foreign government’s laws?

Then I looked at the enabling Act–the Act passed by the United States Congress that permitted the people of the Montana Territory to be admitted to the Union upon the adoption and ratification of a new state constitution. The Enabling Act, 25 Stat. 676, was passed on February 22, 1889. Here is something worthy of note–Congress stated that the people of the territory should have an election to choose delegates to attend a constitutional convention. At the convention the delegates elected by the people shall declare “on behalf of the people of said proposed States, that they adopt the Constitution of the United States; where upon the said conventions shall be, and are hereby, authorized to form constitutions and States governments for said States; respectively.”

It was not the legislature of Montana that approved adoption of the national Constitution. I ask, how then can the act of the state legislature of Montana unmake that adoption? No the adoption was made by the people of Montana acting through their elected delegates in a convention specifically called for that purpose (not the legislature). As a matter of fact, the convention itself was authorized to form a State government “for the proposed state of Montana.” Yes the proposed State–a state formed by the people in a convention of delegates called and elected by the people for that purpose.

Is this the exercise of a sovereign state power . . . to have delegates in convention, bypassing the territorial legislature and governor and adopting the US constitution and then the delegates forming a state government and state constitution?

Moreover, the state constitution had to be republican in form, make no distinction in civil or political rights on account of race or color; not be repugnant to the Constitution of the United States or the principles of the Declaration of Independence. These are all limits on state power and state sovereignty. Not the complete and total elimination of same. But limitations none the less.

Even then Montana was no state. Not until the people by a general election accepted or rejected the proposed state constitution. President Harrison finally recognized all this was accomplished and Montana became a state admitted to the union. The document in which the President acknowledged that the citizens of Montana met all of the requirements set in the Enabling Act and that completed admission of the State of Montana into the Union is the Proclamation, 26 Stat. 1551, Proc. No. 7, and was signed on November 8, 1889.

The Constitution of Montana’s preamble stated that Montana is a sovereign state. This is to be understood in light of all that has gone before. Your readers must understand that or else they will be simply left with parroting the preambles and have no understanding of what it cost the state to get there or the real and actual limits on its sovereignty.

Look at all the limitations on this sovereign state. Got its start by an Act of Congress, bound to the Constitution, republican in form, no discrimination, no slavery, no treaty power, bound to the principles of the Declaration, bound by oath to the US constitution, all approved by the people, not the legislature. So Montana is not this great sovereign entity. Do you still maintain all the states are sovereign and can get out of the union at will, even Montana?

And of course all the above actions are unconstitutional. In order to maintain equality of status in the Union, EVERY state had to be admitted on EXACTLY the same grounds as th original 13. Additionally, no where in the Constitution is Congress empowered to “form States” and place requirements on those state for membership in the Union.

The power “to make all rules and regulations for the territory” ceases when the territory is “disposed of”.

So one would have to say that Montana and all the other states are not states as per standard of the Union set up on the original ratification.

Power corrupts and it began with the first congress.

Does yo mama know you be on da net?

I do think there a few weaknesses in your discussion:

1. You wrote, “Vieira’s first point, he refers to the secessionist’ position that the US Constitution is a “contract,” thereby giving the state a right to break the contract upon a breach.”

Actually, Dr. Vieira said that the Constitution is “… a political charter with different and more force than a typical ‘contract’ “. That is it is more complex and requires careful thought since it does not fall under the usual rules guiding the performance of contracts.

2. I am not a legal scholar (not even close), but your use of “detrimental reliance” versus Vieira’s “reliance interest” seems like a straw man argument. At any rate, your “detrimental reliance” argument breaks down when you extend it to apply to the “contract” between the federal government, the States, and “We the People”. As previous mentioned, we are not talking about a simple contract, but a specially defined compact.

3. Yes the “colonies had a right to secede from Great Britain which was a bond connected by a monarchy” but that was a completely different arrangement, not even qualifying as a contract.

4. You have a very valid point with New York and any other colony who used a similar conditional ratification clause. They may have a claim for secession based on these clauses. However, this does not necessarily extend then to all the other states. And what about states that joined the “union” later?

5. You wrote, “If detrimental reliance is the pad-lock holding the states together, then it most certainly is the key to unlock the states’ part in the union where the system of the union itself causes detriment to the states, such that a state’s very survival and freedom’s perpetuation is best accomplished through secession from the existing union.”

If this were a simple two party contract, I’d agree. But again this ignores the more complicated relationship between the states and also “We the People”.

Thank you for your reply to Dr. Vieira. I think these discussions and debates about secession send the message that we are serious about governmental tyranny and usurpation. States must draw the line in the sand, but they must also physically and actively back up up their stance or they will not be taken seriously by Washington D.C. No matter what position one takes, Dr. Vieira is correct in pointing out that States have to prepare and act now. Unless they are have their ducks in a row with the “power of the purse” and the “power of the sword” nothing of merit can be accomplished. And if they do, I don’t think secession will ever become necessary.

I looked at the organic Act of Congress passed May 26, 1864 which formed the territory of Montana and the Congress said that it could further divide the territory and change the boundaries of the Montana territory as Congress so decided. This does not sound like the exercise of a sovereign Montana. Then Congress said Montana cannot impair any treaty with the Indians and in fact denied to Montana any treaty power with the Indians. Congress prohibited slavery in Montana. This too does not sound like Montana had much sovereignty. Moreover, the Montana governor, secretary, chief justice, and associate justices, attorney, and marshal were appointed by the President of the United States, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. How can a sovereign states be dependent on the President of another government for his office? These officials had to take an oath to uphold the United States Constitution. Is this the act of a sovereign, to pledge fidelity to a foreign government’s laws?

Then I looked at the enabling Act–the Act passed by the United States Congress that permitted the people of the Montana Territory to be admitted to the Union upon the adoption and ratification of a new state constitution. The Enabling Act, 25 Stat. 676, was passed on February 22, 1889. Here is something worthy of note–Congress stated that the people of the territory should have an election to choose delegates to attend a constitutional convention. At the convention the delegates elected by the people shall declare “on behalf of the people of said proposed States, that they adopt the Constitution of the United States; where upon the said conventions shall be, and are hereby, authorized to form constitutions and States governments for said States; respectively.”

It was not the legislature of Montana that approved adoption of the national Constitution. I ask, how then can the act of the state legislature of Montana unmake that adoption? No the adoption was made by the people of Montana acting through their elected delegates in a convention specifically called for that purpose (not the legislature). As a matter of fact, the convention itself was authorized to form a State government “for the proposed state of Montana.” Yes the proposed State–a state formed by the people in a convention of delegates called and elected by the people for that purpose.

Is this the exercise of a sovereign state power . . . to have delegates in convention, bypassing the territorial legislature and governor and adopting the US constitution and then the delegates forming a state government and state constitution?

Moreover, the state constitution had to be republican in form, make no distinction in civil or political rights on account of race or color; not be repugnant to the Constitution of the United States or the principles of the Declaration of Independence. These are all limits on state power and state sovereignty. Not the complete and total elimination of same. But limitations none the less.

Even then Montana was no state. Not until the people by a general election accepted or rejected the proposed state constitution. President Harrison finally recognized all this was accomplished and Montana became a state admitted to the union. The document in which the President acknowledged that the citizens of Montana met all of the requirements set in the Enabling Act and that completed admission of the State of Montana into the Union is the Proclamation, 26 Stat. 1551, Proc. No. 7, and was signed on November 8, 1889.

The Constitution of Montana’s preamble stated that Montana is a sovereign state. This is to be understood in light of all that has gone before. Your readers must understand that or else they will be simply left with parroting the preambles and have no understanding of what it cost the state to get there or the real and actual limits on its sovereignty.

Look at all the limitations on this sovereign state. Got its start by an Act of Congress, bound to the Constitution, republican in form, no discrimination, no slavery, no treaty power, bound to the principles of the Declaration, bound by oath to the US constitution, all approved by the people, not the legislature. So Montana is not this great sovereign entity. Do you still maintain all the states are sovereign and can get out of the union at will, even Montana?

As to Mom, she hosts my website. She can set one up for you too when you decide to come out from hiding underground. I bet you live in Louisiana and learned your history in the government schools. Am I close?

And of course all the above actions are unconstitutional. In order to maintain equality of status in the Union, EVERY state had to be admitted on EXACTLY the same grounds as th original 13. Additionally, no where in the Constitution is Congress empowered to “form States” and place requirements on those state for membership in the Union.

The power “to make all rules and regulations for the territory” ceases when the territory is “disposed of”.

So one would have to say that Montana and all the other states are not states as per standard of the Union set up on the original ratification.

Power corrupts and it began with the first congress.

Does yo mama know you be on da net?

I looked at the organic Act of Congress passed May 26, 1864 which formed the territory of Montana and the Congress said that it could further divide the territory and change the boundaries of the Montana territory as Congress so decided. This does not sound like the exercise of a sovereign Montana. Then Congress said Montana cannot impair any treaty with the Indians and in fact denied to Montana any treaty power with the Indians. Congress prohibited slavery in Montana. This too does not sound like Montana had much sovereignty. Moreover, the Montana governor, secretary, chief justice, and associate justices, attorney, and marshal were appointed by the President of the United States, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. How can a sovereign states be dependent on the President of another government for his office? These officials had to take an oath to uphold the United States Constitution. Is this the act of a sovereign, to pledge fidelity to a foreign government’s laws?

Then I looked at the enabling Act–the Act passed by the United States Congress that permitted the people of the Montana Territory to be admitted to the Union upon the adoption and ratification of a new state constitution. The Enabling Act, 25 Stat. 676, was passed on February 22, 1889. Here is something worthy of note–Congress stated that the people of the territory should have an election to choose delegates to attend a constitutional convention. At the convention the delegates elected by the people shall declare “on behalf of the people of said proposed States, that they adopt the Constitution of the United States; where upon the said conventions shall be, and are hereby, authorized to form constitutions and States governments for said States; respectively.”

It was not the legislature of Montana that approved adoption of the national Constitution. I ask, how then can the act of the state legislature of Montana unmake that adoption? No the adoption was made by the people of Montana acting through their elected delegates in a convention specifically called for that purpose (not the legislature). As a matter of fact, the convention itself was authorized to form a State government “for the proposed state of Montana.” Yes the proposed State–a state formed by the people in a convention of delegates called and elected by the people for that purpose.

Is this the exercise of a sovereign state power . . . to have delegates in convention, bypassing the territorial legislature and governor and adopting the US constitution and then the delegates forming a state government and state constitution?

Moreover, the state constitution had to be republican in form, make no distinction in civil or political rights on account of race or color; not be repugnant to the Constitution of the United States or the principles of the Declaration of Independence. These are all limits on state power and state sovereignty. Not the complete and total elimination of same. But limitations none the less.

Even then Montana was no state. Not until the people by a general election accepted or rejected the proposed state constitution. President Harrison finally recognized all this was accomplished and Montana became a state admitted to the union. The document in which the President acknowledged that the citizens of Montana met all of the requirements set in the Enabling Act and that completed admission of the State of Montana into the Union is the Proclamation, 26 Stat. 1551, Proc. No. 7, and was signed on November 8, 1889.

The Constitution of Montana’s preamble stated that Montana is a sovereign state. This is to be understood in light of all that has gone before. Your readers must understand that or else they will be simply left with parroting the preambles and have no understanding of what it cost the state to get there or the real and actual limits on its sovereignty.

Look at all the limitations on this sovereign state. Got its start by an Act of Congress, bound to the Constitution, republican in form, no discrimination, no slavery, no treaty power, bound to the principles of the Declaration, bound by oath to the US constitution, all approved by the people, not the legislature. So Montana is not this great sovereign entity. Do you still maintain all the states are sovereign and can get out of the union at will, even Montana?

Thank you for reading my articles thus released on secession. I know you have questions, and have a certain impression right now, but quite honestly, the real issue has yet to be addressed in my articles. The first one was a prelude. The second addressed the “detrimental reliance” theory by Vieira, which is quite honestly, very incorrect and off-base, as I will address in my other articles.

The fact is, the detrimental reliance subject has never even been used by those unionist spokesman in the 1800s who debated these issues, arguing that the states did not have the right to secede from the union. The fact that Vieira used that argument against secession was such a stretch that rebutting that position created a red-herring on the matter for the readers. I was afraid it would lead astray some readers, but I had to address it b/c it was one of Vieira’s main arguments against secession. My upcoming articles will clear this up.

The fact that you bring up, “if this were a simple two party contract, I’d agree”, shows that even addressing the matter from a “detrimental reliance” theory does not address the actual issue because, as you say yourself, “secession is a last resort;” but the issue is not, when does secession become necessary. The issue is, do the states have the right at all. Either they do or they do not. This answer requires a knowledge of the TRUE issue, which is not wrapped up in a detrimental reliance theory or the amendment clause or the supremacy clause in the US Constitution.

Instead, as will be seen in my forthcoming articles, the issue has been has everything to do with whether the US Constitution is a federal compact assented to by the states. If so, secession was most certainly retained. If not, then we do not have a Federal Republic, but rather a consolidated nation.

More to come…

I do think there a few weaknesses in your discussion:

1. You wrote, “Vieira’s first point, he refers to the secessionist’ position that the US Constitution is a “contract,” thereby giving the state a right to break the contract upon a breach.”

Actually, Dr. Vieira said that the Constitution is “… a political charter with different and more force than a typical ‘contract’ “. That is it is more complex and requires careful thought since it does not fall under the usual rules guiding the performance of contracts.

2. I am not a legal scholar (not even close), but your use of “detrimental reliance” versus Vieira’s “reliance interest” seems like a straw man argument. At any rate, your “detrimental reliance” argument breaks down when you extend it to apply to the “contract” between the federal government, the States, and “We the People”. As previous mentioned, we are not talking about a simple contract, but a specially defined compact.

3. Yes the “colonies had a right to secede from Great Britain which was a bond connected by a monarchy” but that was a completely different arrangement, not even qualifying as a contract.

4. You have a very valid point with New York and any other colony who used a similar conditional ratification clause. They may have a claim for secession based on these clauses. However, this does not necessarily extend then to all the other states. And what about states that joined the “union” later?

5. You wrote, “If detrimental reliance is the pad-lock holding the states together, then it most certainly is the key to unlock the states’ part in the union where the system of the union itself causes detriment to the states, such that a state’s very survival and freedom’s perpetuation is best accomplished through secession from the existing union.”

If this were a simple two party contract, I’d agree. But again this ignores the more complicated relationship between the states and also “We the People”.

Thank you for your reply to Dr. Vieira. I think these discussions and debates about secession send the message that we are serious about governmental tyranny and usurpation. States must draw the line in the sand, but they must also physically and actively back up up their stance or they will not be taken seriously by Washington D.C. No matter what position one takes, Dr. Vieira is correct in pointing out that States have to prepare and act now. Unless they are have their ducks in a row with the “power of the purse” and the “power of the sword” nothing of merit can be accomplished. And if they do, I don’t think secession will ever become necessary.