Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Antonin Scalia: No right to secede

By Robert Barnes
Is there a right to secede from the Union, or did the Civil War settle that?

Certain Tea Partiers have raised the possibility of getting out while the getting's good, setting off a round of debate on legal blogs. The more cerebral theorists at the smart legal blog The Volokh Conspiracy question whether such a right exists.

Enter a New York personal injury lawyer, and Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

The lawyer, Eric Turkewitz, says his brother Dan, a screenwriter, put just such a question to all of the Supreme Court justices in 2006 -- he was working on an idea about Maine leaving the U.S.and a big showdown at the Supreme Court -- and Scalia responded. His answer was no:

"I am afraid I cannot be of much help with your problem, principally because I cannot imagine that such a question could ever reach the Supreme Court. To begin with, the answer is clear. If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede. (Hence, in the Pledge of Allegiance, "one Nation, indivisible.") Secondly, I find it difficult to envision who the parties to this lawsuit might be. Is the State suing the United States for a declaratory judgment? But the United States cannot be sued without its consent, and it has not consented to this sort of suit.

I am sure that poetic license can overcome all that -- but you do not need legal advice for that. Good luck with your screenplay."

So that's one vote. But unlikely to end the debate.

By Web Politics Editor  |  February 17, 2010; 11:27 AM ET
Categories:  44 The Obama Presidency , Court , Court Watch , Supreme Court , The Courts  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: At the White House, a not-so-happy anniversary
Next: Biden defends stimulus, calls Washington "broken" (Video)

Comments

My point is - you overlook certain "human experiences" when you talk about how great the past was. For instance, without the "fed," who knows how long it would have taken for women and blacks to have a vote? When I see footage from Mississippi and Alabama of federal soldiers on the courthouse steps or university steps telling the states YOU LOSE and you cannot bar these folks from these institutions... I LOVE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I love it because states would have continued to carry out their "good ole" neanderthal brand of justice if it weren't for the feds.

Oh - some other victories recognized by those who don't live in trailers... EPA, FDA, CDC, FCC, SEC, Consumer Product Safety Commission, etc. All standing up for THE PEOPLE - NOT COMPANIES! And why? because companies are out for one thing - to make profit. They would do nothing for people or towns if it weren't for federal regulations and laws.

Keep dreaming about the good ole days... and put a pinch of skoal between yer cheek and gums while yer at it!

Posted by: ANTGA | February 22, 2010 1:42 PM | Report abuse

You're old enough to remember when it was great... interesting comment. When exactly was that? The 50s? The 40s? The 30s? LOL

I too remembah when horses were used - not these fancy schmancy auto-mo-biles. And we liked listenin' to radio - - that tel-ee-vis-ion junk has made us weak!

And remembah when women couldn't vote? Ahhhh Yes... We all were poor - there was very little of any of that elitist stuff like a middle class. Them were the good ole days!

Posted by: ANTGA | February 22, 2010 12:11 PM | Report abuse

We don't need to cut and run, we need to stand firm and work together to fix the mess we have allowed to be made. This is our country, and I am old enough to remember when it was once great. Our constitution calls for the federal government to tax only for the "common defense and general welfare of the United States". That is it! The states should be left alone to take care of their own problems. That is where, in my opinion, the whole process has become perverted. Welfare abuse is much more rampant than tax evasion/fraud in the US, but nothing is being said about that. Johnson, wanting a permanent voting block for the Democrats, created the foundation for this perversion of the American dream. That program said to the welfare recipients, "even though we have absolutely nothing for you to do that will contribute to our society, we will pay you to stay home, and will pay you even more if you have more children, and even more if the father is gone." I believe this has done more damage to the social fabric of this great nation than any other single action. The human experience needs purpose to thrive. Work is not a 4 letter word, it is what makes us all. Without it, we are nothing. Two generations back, my grandparents started keeping house in a dirt floor cabin, but they believed in the American dream. They worked hard to feed, clothe, and educate their children. They taught family values and a good work ethic. They stressed the importance of education. Their children and grandchildren went on to become college educators, doctors, pharmacists, scientists and engineers. My family has been here now for 13 generations, with the first arriving in the latter part of the 1600s. My ancestors sacrificed, worked, fought and died to make this country and keep it free. We must find common ground and change the system. We cannot give up and we cannot divide.

The United States is our country, not a bunch of politician’s, and certainly not a bunch of freeloaders and illegals. The problem is either the politicians are so out of touch that they don't realize most Americans feel this way, or they think they know better and just don't care what we think. Neither is acceptable...

Posted by: Fallguy1 | February 22, 2010 11:58 AM | Report abuse

Hey Fallguy - Healthcare reform is about a system that's broken - not about welfare! I have been employed all but two months over the past 20 years and I have seen my PRIVATE health insurance premiums go up almost 40%! This cannot go on at this rate - and there's no way insurance companies will suddenly change their ways to help out. MIDDLE CLASS being overburdened - NOT THE POOR - is what this is primarily about. There is absolutely nothing wrong or "unAmerican" or "socialist" about trying to change a system that IS already broken for the middle class. It's called being a big boy and addressing a real problem.

You conservatives can hide your heads all you want about IMPORTANT issues affecting this country... and go on waxing about how the free market takes care of everything... that's pure bullsh**. All companies have to do is make more money. Sometimes the government nudging corporations to get them to look at existing practices from different angles is perfectly fine and healthy.

PS - Enough already with the idea that states will somehow do it all and shed the yoke of the fed. States constantly look to the fed. to help them out of financial and other difficulties... You need to go with your fellow cavemen and live on ranches and enjoy your lives by yourselves. Go shoot yer guuuns, have multiple wives, wait for judgement day there - knock yourselves out. Just be sure to stay there when you have cancer or need advanced medical attention - - DO NOT COME BACK and seek treatment and have us foot the bill for you.

Posted by: ANTGA | February 22, 2010 11:20 AM | Report abuse

We don't need to cut and run, we need to stand firm and work together to fix the mess we have allowed to be made. This is our country, and I am old enough to remember when it was once great. Our constitution calls for the federal government to tax only for the "common defense and general welfare of the United States". That is it! The states should be left alone to take care of their own problems. That is where, in my opinion, the whole process has become perverted. Welfare abuse is much more rampant than tax evasion/fraud in the US, but nothing is being said about that. Johnson, wanting a permanent voting block for the Democrats, created the foundation for this perversion of the American dream. That program said to the welfare recipients, "even though we have absolutely nothing for you to do that will contribute to our society, we will pay you to stay home, and will pay you even more if you have more children, and even more if the father is gone." I believe this has done more damage to the social fabric of this great nation than any other single action. The human experience needs purpose to thrive. Work is not a 4 letter word, it is what makes us all. Without it, we are nothing. Two generations back, my grandparents started keeping house in a dirt floor cabin, but they believed in the American dream. They worked hard to feed, clothe, and educate their children. They taught family values and a good work ethic. They stressed the importance of education. Their children and grandchildren went on to become college educators, doctors, pharmacists, scientists and engineers. My family has been here now for 13 generations, with the first arriving in the latter part of the 1600s. My ancestors sacrificed, worked, fought and died to make this country and keep it free. We must find common ground and change the system. We cannot give up and we cannot divide.

The United States is our country, not a bunch of politician’s, and certainly not a bunch of freeloaders and illegals. The problem is either the politicians are so out of touch that they don't realize most Americans feel this way, or they think they know better and just don't care what we think. Neither is acceptable...

Posted by: Fallguy1 | February 22, 2010 9:34 AM | Report abuse

Censorship? No kiddin' (Palin-speak for "kidding") The good thing is it spares us from your hate and intolerance.

Do us all a favor and go to a site more commensurate with your thinking? Something like knuckle-dragggingneanderthal.net comes to mind!

Posted by: ANTGA | February 19, 2010 3:38 PM | Report abuse

Public school - now that really hurts, Juan!

Sounds to me like you really need to purge your hate in a more appropriate forum - perhaps on an angry radio show web site. You can do what comes natural - rant about others who are unlike you, define morals for the country and the world while you're at it, define the "truth," spread fear about issues you don't understand rather explore them and understand them.

Personally, I find it sad that some - like you - frown on more education and intelligence. What would your parents think about this, Juan?

Posted by: ANTGA | February 19, 2010 3:33 PM | Report abuse

You know, I'm getting really tired of having my posts censored by the blog owner.

Posted by: HighlanderJuan | February 19, 2010 3:11 PM | Report abuse


"No, Juan. It wasn't intended as a joke. I could also have asked: do you often attend white-power rallies?"

You probably aren't congratulated on keen people skills very often, are you?

Questions like 'How long has it been since you've stopped beating your wife?' are so sophomoric.

What is with you progressives who believe in the worst of your fellow Americans. Why do you think that way? Why are you so elitist and so divisive?

Was it your government school background? Or your liberal college education?

When do you wake up and see the world clearly?

Posted by: HighlanderJuan | February 19, 2010 2:50 PM | Report abuse

No, Juan. It wasn't intended as a joke. I could also have asked: do you often attend white-power rallies?

Posted by: ANTGA | February 19, 2010 2:16 PM | Report abuse


"Reading your posts I have to ask: Do you burn crosses and books, Juan?"

That's a joke, right? You made a joke! That's really funny.

What do you think is my answer?

Posted by: HighlanderJuan | February 19, 2010 2:08 PM | Report abuse

LOL - You completely missed my point. Nobody should HAVE to declare their "love" for anything - it's not a requirement. It has nothing to do with whether people love or do not love their country - much like their faith in god - it's private and should NEVER have to be stated or announced. Although I feel NO NEED WHATSOEVER to tell you that I too am a lover of this country, I will say this: I live here by choice. My preference is to be here. As a matter of fact, I am dedicated enough to it AND ITS PEOPLE that I am trying to improve it - no matter how much your side trues to halt it.

And no, I do not work for the ACLU, nor the Southern Poverty Law Center, but they do very good work for poor people, Juan. You know those people don't you? The ones so dear to Christ that are central to his teachings?? No Juan, I work for a large corporation.

Reading your posts I have to ask: Do you burn crosses and books, Juan?

Posted by: ANTGA | February 19, 2010 1:22 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: HighlanderJuan | February 19, 2010 1:20 PM | Report abuse

ANTGA,

For an attorney, you have the unusual talent of misunderstanding the written word, specifically my written word. I find that extremely confusing. You must work for the ACLU or the Southern Poverty Law Center, and were probably educated in New York. Am I close?

Once again you haven't said you love your country, and have treated the question with disdain. Nobody is trying to get you to reveal some inner secret - it's quite simple in concept. If you love your country, you work for the improvement of your country and its people. If you don't love your country, you work for 'change' or your country's destruction, and not for its improvement.

Additionally, if you are, indeed, an attorney, and if you do not abide by our rule of law, you are one of the worst kinds of outlaws. You are, in fact, a scofflaw.

And, if you believe our laws are bad, help change them and help improve our country - don't simply take cheap shots at your fellow Americans who DO believe in the rule of law and our Constitution and who are concerned with the lawlessness within our government.

For you, an officer of the court, to NOT support your fellow Americans who champion our nation and our laws is incomprehensible to me.

How did you go so wrong.

Posted by: HighlanderJuan | February 19, 2010 12:59 PM | Report abuse

BTW:
Aren't Tea Baggers naked men who dangle their scrotum over someone's face? Hmmmm ?
WHICH LEADS TO THE QUESTION:
"Just where do the women fit in this picture ?" Some party...AND....Some visual, huh ?Sounds NUTS to me !

Posted by: ventureforth | February 19, 2010 12:52 PM | Report abuse

Juan -

The beauty of living in this country is never having to prove to others - especially to the intolerant - that you love it or love anything else more than others. That is the beauty of freedom - different points of view. That is what makes America strong.

People have different perceptions of things. Some think everything is perfectly fine the way it is - no change required. That's fine and they are entitled to that opinion. But others who think America can do things better. Those who see issues that bother them and feel they want to CONSTRUCTIVELY bring about change are also entitled to their opinion. That's what separates us from many other countries - diverse opinion. And yes - I too have been abroad and have seen very different political and economic systems, some of which I wasn't fond of, others more so. And before you challenge where I have been, when I was there and why, I will divulge some places I have visited and even studied in: I learned German in Austria; I visited Ireland and England; I have been to Asia - visited my good friend who is an attorney (like me) in Japan and I visited China once (does this make me a commie, Juan?). I have also been to Canada and South America.

The sooner people like Ms. Palin and you learn that you don't have to say certain things about this country or act a specific ways to be a "good person" or a "good American" or a "real American" (bless their hearts) the sooner you will realize what makes this country great - - tolerance for diverse opinion.
It's remarkable to me that some equate the desire for change to something slanderous. Again, I ask you Juan: isn't god the only thing that is perfection?

The irony of it all is that hardcore conservatives who believe all Americans should all think alike and should not question or challenge existing American systems or approaches purely because they are - well - American are all acting like those in other places we know: China, the old Soviet Union, Cuba, countries with right-wing death squads.

Conservatives who rant and scream at those who DARE speak out against something that's American best be careful of what they ask for.

Posted by: ANTGA | February 19, 2010 11:54 AM | Report abuse

BTW:
Aren't Tea Baggers naked men who dangle their scrotum over someone's face? Hmmmm ?
WHICH LEADS TO THE QUESTION:
"Just where do the women fit in this picture ?" Some party...AND....Some visual, huh ?Sounds NUTS to me !

Posted by: ventureforth | February 19, 2010 11:22 AM | Report abuse

I have now attempted to make the same post twice, and both times I get the message that the post is being held by blog owner.

Perhaps someone can tell me why some posts get withheld and others get through. I don't believe I said anything unlawful, dishonest, or insulting to anyone's PC mentality.

Answer??

Posted by: HighlanderJuan | February 19, 2010 10:48 AM | Report abuse

It would appear that my second comment about The Fall of the Republic was never posted.

Censorship?

Posted by: HighlanderJuan | February 19, 2010 10:42 AM | Report abuse

ANTGA,

Interesting. We are in agreement about man’s imperfection, but we are not in agreement that some ‘intellectual elites,’ believe they are endowed with the responsibility of creating a utopia for the rest of us. I believe in individual freedom and liberty as defined by me – not by you. You aren’t that good.

Regarding improving one’s self, we are in agreement. After some years in the technical and legal industries, I am back in college working on another degree. Great opportunity for me as I believe that learning and personal growth never stop, or if they do stop, it is only because the person is dead. I read a lot. I study history and economics. I am NOT intellectually idle as you suggest.

Regarding the word ‘hate,’ you never contradicted my comment about your hating America. Having traveled extensively, I love America more each time I return – it is truly the best country on the face of the planet. Let me phrase my question another way: Do you love America above other countries?

My side? WTH, mate? This isn’t about sides or political viewpoints. The topic is about the rule of law, which was included in my second question for you. Which you chose not to answer.

Our country is in the death throws of life as a result of years of unlawful government from both sides of the aisle. See my other comments about The Fall of the Republic.

And finally, regarding your assessment of my mental abilities and intentions – we don’t know each other well enough for you to make that assessment. It seems pretty arrogant on your part to try and do it. I made no such comments about you and your mental capabilities – I merely asked about your philosophy and attitudes. I thought that was fair game.

Posted by: HighlanderJuan | February 19, 2010 10:40 AM | Report abuse

Juan, try to follow if you can. Progressives believe nothing is absolutely perfect (humans are fallible; only god is perfect - right?) So, if that's the case, there's always room ask yourself - can it be done better... can I improve something. This is done all the time by corporations and quite frankly, it should be done every day by individuals. How in the world can any adult honestly say that there's something "wrong" or "bad" about analyzing and proposing improvements??

And I love how you so quickly toss around the word "hate"... that somehow progressives "hate" whereas others do not. That's the most inane, childish comment you have mad in all of your posts - - and quite frankly, I feel ashamed for you as a "constitutionalist." There's a clear difference between "hating" and being critical or analytical and proposing change. Now, since you tossed the word "hate" around, allow me to direct your attention to those who... oh... let's say - bomb clinics, shoot up federal offices, promote armed struggles, intimidate, maim or even kill in the name of god, skinheads, KKK...

My dear friend Juan, do you realize what HATE truly is? The hatred that I have highlighted above is synonymous with people on YOUR SIDE OF THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM. Your side is the fearful, angry and intolerant. Here's a snapshot of two different pictures, Einstein: Do you recall rallies at town-hall meetings during the presidential campaign? Do you remember seeing people asking questions about important issues to this country? Now, do you remember those at rallies on the other side - - those fearful, screaming, less-than-educated people convinced that Obama was an actual terrorist (I presume because of their fear of his name)?

Think. Use your GOD GIVEN BRAIN before you toss out moronic comments. Last time I checked, the other side was trying to reform a system to "help" others and not for purposes of "harming" or "hating" them!

Posted by: ANTGA | February 19, 2010 10:16 AM | Report abuse

BTW:
Aren't Tea Baggers naked men who dangle their scrotum over someone's face? Hmmmm ?
WHICH LEADS TO THE QUESTION:
"Just where do the women fit in this picture ?" Some party...AND....Some visual, huh ?Sounds NUTS to me !

Posted by: ventureforth | February 19, 2010 9:52 AM | Report abuse

ANTGA,

Maybe you can help me with a couple of questions I have about progressives.

1. Why do progressives hate America?

2. Why don't progressives believe in the rule of law?

Is that something you can help me with?

Posted by: HighlanderJuan | February 18, 2010 5:10 PM | Report abuse

No kidding? And your conservative leanings are showing. And your point is....?

Posted by: ANTGA | February 18, 2010 3:35 PM | Report abuse

ANTGA,

Careful, your progressive leanings are showing.

For the record, I am a constitutionalist.

But you figured that out already, didn't you.

Posted by: HighlanderJuan | February 18, 2010 3:26 PM | Report abuse

Ah... Highlander Juan and his conspiracies! No, paranoid one, it's not that Obama is the "world savior" or that he is somehow relinquishing our sovereign rights (US rights, not states' rights, by the way) and is somwhow planning to cede power to the U.N. Rather, it's something called DIPLOMACY - yes - DIPLOMACY. It's more about leading and actually partnering with others for the benefit of gaining respect, prestige and ultimately protecting our interests.

But I can tell that you want a wild west approach to things. UNILATERALISM BABY! WE TELL EVERYONE ELSE WHAT WE WANT - THAT'S DIPLOMACY BABY! Ahh angry simpleton teabaggers... you betcha... whatcha gonna do with them, daw gonit?

Posted by: ANTGA | February 18, 2010 2:49 PM | Report abuse

Highlander Juan: My point is that we're worse off moving toward a weak country - or as you might call it a "strong confederation."

Posted by: ANTGA | February 18, 2010 2:33 PM | Report abuse

From my own studies and thoughts on world events and on shadow governments, I believe the film's points are well made and timely. The film linked below is fairly long, but compelling throughout.

You will likely find this to be one of the most interesting and valuable videos that you will have ever watched.

================

"Fall Of The Republic" documents how an offshore corporate cartel is bankrupting the US economy by design. Leaders are now declaring that world government has arrived and that the dollar will be replaced by a new global currency.

President Obama has brazenly violated Article 1 Section 9 of the US Constitution by seating himself at the head of United Nations’ Security Council, thus becoming the first US president to chair the world body.

A scientific dictatorship is in its final stages of completion, and laws protecting basic human rights are being abolished worldwide; an iron curtain of high-tech tyranny is now descending over the planet. A worldwide regime controlled by an unelected corporate elite is implementing a planetary carbon tax system that will dominate all human activity and establish a system of neo-feudal slavery.

The image makers have carefully packaged Obama as the world’s savior; he is the Trojan Horse manufactured to pacify the people just long enough for the globalists to complete their master plan.

This film reveals the architecture of the New World Order and what the power elite have in store for humanity. More importantly it communicates how We The People can retake control of our government, turn the criminal tide and bring the tyrants to justice.

Posted on: October 25, 2009

http://www.documentarywire.com/fall-of-the-republic-the-presidency-of-barack-obama

///

Posted by: HighlanderJuan | February 18, 2010 2:16 PM | Report abuse

So, ANTGA, from your comments about confederations, I suspect you believe the United States has been a dismal failure through the last 234 years. You must also believe we, as a people, have not accomplished any significance in the world, and for the world, during that time period.

That's a pretty sad commentary.

Posted by: HighlanderJuan | February 18, 2010 2:13 PM | Report abuse

Many confederations have been tried throughout world history, but none survive today. Frankly, that form of government is BACKWARDS.

Posted by: ANTGA | February 18, 2010 1:44 PM | Report abuse

Many confederations have been tried throughout world history, but none survive today. Frankly, they're BACKWARDS.

Posted by: ANTGA | February 18, 2010 1:43 PM | Report abuse

It would appear there are differing views on state sovereignty and on the right to secede.

I would suggest that we are NOT a nation at all, rather a confederation of states, and yes, I agree that the states have the right to nullify the federal government or to secede from the confederation.

See the following articles for additional historical and legal support of my position on this topic:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/27069623/James-Kilpatrick-The-Sovereign-States

http://www.scribd.com/doc/26576127/Timothy-Baldwin-A-Concurring-Opinion-for-Secession

http://www.scribd.com/doc/26117929/Derek-Sheriff-Nullification-It-s-Official

Abel Parker Upshur’s prediction of 1840 has been grimly fulfilled. The American people have lost sight of the old concept that the States, as such, form the balance wheel—in Upshur’s term, “the only effectual check upon Federal encroachments.” We have lived to see the truth of his prophecy, that the danger to constitutional separation of powers is “not that the States will interpose too often, but that they will rather submit to Federal usurpations, than incur the risk of embarrassing the government, by any attempts to check and control it.”

Posted by: HighlanderJuan | February 18, 2010 1:30 PM | Report abuse

Did politicaljules really end the comment with "nah na nah nah... hey heey good bye! ?

Again - it just shows you the level of smarts these half-wits have!

Posted by: ANTGA | February 18, 2010 12:48 PM | Report abuse

The United States is a "union" of "states", as in "head of state". The "states" are actually like independent countries. Unfortunately, at least as far back as James Marshall of the Supreme Court starting to "hijack" state power in the 1850s, states have become like "counties" or "parishes".

Since states are like countries and they DID NOT give up their sovereignty, YES they have the right to secede!

Posted by: stevor | February 18, 2010 10:47 AM | Report abuse

In case you silly liberal progressives have not noticed, your tea party IS leaving you. Running as fast and as far as we can away from the failure of liberalism. Leaving you to your broke down little welfare states like California and New Jersey. We are prosperous people and companies and we are moving in masse to conservative states like Texas. Make fun of them all you wan cause they got they hint. Sure did. You've pissed em off enough that they will happily spit on your grave. Those tea partiers used to have some compassion for your rite to hate them, but that has worn thin.

They could care less about any of your rants because your little stamp of approval is not needed.

Pretty soon your little dreams will all dry up and blow away as your tax revenue in those hateful liberal areas withers away and you are left with nothing but IOUs for social security checks, and tax refunds. Your essential services are going to vanish into thin air cause you cant pay them. Yup, you are driving away any hope of prosperity in favor of your racist, sexist, pornographic name calling and ideals at your own peril. And us tea partiers are laughing our way to the bank. nah na nah nah... hey heey good bye!!

Posted by: politicaljules | February 18, 2010 9:03 AM | Report abuse

America has been seperated by two parties. Remember we are Americans first and foremost! Do these two parties serve the American people today? What have these administrations been doing to America and it's people for the past several decades? They have virtually eliminated the middle class, that's what they have been doing!! While we Americans fight each other over party lines, the real culprit continues to march on. The Federal Reserve is not a branch of our government, but they are a self serving central bank that has been helping themselves to our country's riches for nearly 100 years now!! They control our monetary sytem, our economy, and they own our politicians!! Americans Wake Up!!!
www.AmericaWakeUpNow.net

Posted by: AMERICAWAKEUPNOW | February 17, 2010 9:48 PM | Report abuse

The original Tea Party of 1773 protested Taxation Without Representation. But the "new and improved" Tea Party participants have had plenty of representation. If memory serves me, the teabaggers voted in the last presidential election (and lost) and they have scores of Senators and Congressmen from their districts to represent their interests in Congress, they have the right to protest and they have Fox News...Taxation With Plenty of Representation. So get over it Teabaggers. In a Democracy there are always winners and losers, a majority and minority party, and the winner usually gets to set the political agenda. That's exactly what Bush had for eight years, now it's Obamas turn. To suggest otherwise, is to be Un-Democratic, and very Un-American.

Posted by: logcabin1836 | February 17, 2010 8:05 PM | Report abuse

The original Tea Party of 1773 protested Taxation Without Representation. But the "new and improved" Tea Party participants have had plenty of representation. If memory serves me, the teabaggers voted in the last presidential election (and lost) and they have scores of Senators and Congressmen from their districts to represent their interests in Congress, they have the right to protest and they have Fox News...Taxation With Plenty of Representation. So get over it Teabaggers. In a Democracy there are always winners and losers, a majority and minority party, and the winner usually gets to set the political agenda. That's exactly what Bush had for eight years, now it's Obamas turn. To suggest otherwise, is to be Un-Democratic, and very Un-American.

Posted by: logcabin1836 | February 17, 2010 8:04 PM | Report abuse

The progressive State of Oregon and the Lane County Board of Commissioners have found a loop-hole to deal with the question of how to secede. http://community.kmtr.com/forums/permalink/2487504/4303464/ShowThread.aspx#4303464 for more information

It has come to our attention that in July 2003 the Lane County Board
of Commissioners passed Order No. 03-7-2-1 (http://www.lanecounty.org/bcc_info/Meeting_Info/2003/OrderText/7-2/Passed/03-7-2-1.pdf ) where they state:

“WHEREAS, in our opinion, several new federal laws, regulations and
executive orders issued since September 11, 2001, including the
adoption of certain provisions of the U.S.A P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act (Public
Law 107-56, hereafter UPA) and the Homeland Security Act (Public Law
107-296) now threaten this local policy, as well as our constitutional
rights and liberties, including:…”

And, goes on to state:

“ 5. All county agencies are directed not to use county funds in
any manner which would violate the civil liberties of Lane County
residents, as outlined in this resolution. No contract agreement for
any service will be approved by the Board if the terms of the contract
or agreement is for the purpose of conducting any activities under the
provisions of Federal law mentioned in the body of this Order in a
manner that would violate the civil liberties of Lane County
residents.”

What this Order is stating is that the Lane County Board of County
Commissioners have decided what federal laws and executive orders they
will allow law enforcement in Lane County to enforce. They are doing
this by withholding funds from Lane County Law Enforcement entities.

As you know, Lane County law enforcement has been systematically
de-funded by the Lane County Board of County Commissioners. This
situation is similar to “the Mississippi Sovereignty Commission” that
was formed to deny the racial impure their constitutionally protected
rights.

Posted by: Foundation-Trilogy | February 17, 2010 7:45 PM | Report abuse

A 5th grade social studies teacher recently pointed out an obvious fact to me; i.e. Denmark - "the happiest people in the world" - well Denmark is about the size of Massachusetts and Rhode Island so figure it out for yourselves how difficult it might be to make that population "happy". I have always been a states' rights advocate, and maybe we should consider that to keep our union together. Our many millions would have the basic rights set forth in the Constitution, but States could reserve the rights of its citizens to live as they so choose under that document. I think we are too big geographically to satisfy a voter from Arizona and one from Maine. Allow us to regulate our own regions without federal mandates at every turn. We, the people, might surprise everyone at how able we are to take care of our own specific to our needs. I'm sure a rancher in Idaho can relate to a lobsterman in Maine in that we need less Federal interference; let the states do it.

Posted by: yankeei | February 17, 2010 6:58 PM | Report abuse

A 5th grade social studies teacher recently pointed out an obvious fact to me; i.e. Denmark - "the happiest people in the world" - well Denmark is about the size of Massachusetts and Rhode Island so figure it out for yourselves how difficult it might be to make that population "happy". I have always been a states' rights advocate, and maybe we should consider that to keep our union together. Our many millions would have the basic rights set forth in the Constitution, but States could reserve the rights of its citizens to live as they so choose under that document. I think we are too big geographically to satisfy a voter from Arizona and one from Maine. Allow us to regulate our own regions without federal mandates at every turn. We, the people, might surprise everyone at how able we are to take care of our own specific to our needs. I'm sure a rancher in Idaho can relate to a lobsterman in Maine in that we need less Federal interference; let the states do it.

Posted by: yankeei | February 17, 2010 6:57 PM | Report abuse

BushMustGo wrote:

"Funny....when Bush was outright ignoring the Constitution in his federal powergrab usurping state's rights I didn't hear any states clamoring about secession."

There is a secession movement in Vermont that was, I believe, much stronger during the Bush years. They are currently at:
http://www.vermontrepublic.org/

Posted by: nfh0012 | February 17, 2010 6:52 PM | Report abuse

Let's help the Tea Potters. We send them all to Texas! Then kick Texas out of the Union and put a big wall up around it.

Posted by: katman13 | February 17, 2010 5:13 PM | Report abuse

How true, Uncle Joe. These teawhackos would rebel again and threaten to secede from their own teabagger government as soon as they hear something they don't like. Seems to me the solution for each one of our hush-puppy lovin' teabagging friends is to purchase a nice piece of land in a lawless nation and live completely alone doing anything they want, how they want, when they want.

This is the perfect solution because our knuckle-dragging teabagging friends can go nuts... teabag sheep... get angry and shoot trees or themselves... They'd finally be free to do anything their lil hearts (bless their hearts - you betcha) desire!

Posted by: ANTGA | February 17, 2010 5:12 PM | Report abuse

To paraphrase the words of Andrew Jackson, the Supreme Court doesn't have an army, and any state that wishes to secede, better have one.

At this point, even in Texas & Alaska, there aren't enough secessionists who would back up their words with their lives. The hard core secessionists don't seem to be willing to recognize *any* government that would tax or regulate. Talk about dead-enders...

Posted by: Uncle_Joe | February 17, 2010 4:49 PM | Report abuse

sosueme1 : jobs and capital aren't truly fleeing for greater possibilities south... they're going abroad because of cheap/slave-like labor.

Posted by: ANTGA | February 17, 2010 4:34 PM | Report abuse

To bikes-everywhere:

Actually, trending demographic data compiled by a Professor at the University of Louisville shows the coming "brain drain" happening in the rust-belt states of the north-east and the ‘tax-'em-till-they-squeal-then-tax-‘em-some-more’ mid-west states such as the people’s republic of Illinois and my home state, that I happily deserted, Wisconsin. There are many reasons for this, not the least of which is a dwindling tax base as people, jobs and capital flee for greater possibilities south.

But I understand, you just couldn’t resist a jab in my direction – which is undoubtedly south – no matter how unwarranted.

To justin_timberwolf:

Bravo, Sir! Author! Author!

…and for the record, I’m a gun-toting, agnostic Libertarian...unless I’m in the back of an ambulance pleading to a divine concept for my life...then I’m a gun-toting, Roman Catholic Libertarian ;-) Also, my attention to NASCAR is limited to races with Danica Patrick as a participant.

Posted by: sosueme1 | February 17, 2010 4:24 PM | Report abuse

It seems to me that Clinton and the UN clearly established the right of seperation in the Serbia action. That nation had been one for over four hundred years when Clinton, Nato and the UN fought to establish the right of seperation. If the Supremes believe in the power of international precedents then it is clear a state can seperate form the union and certainly the UN would support that right. After all that is specifically why Russia and China opposed the NATO attack on Serbia in that they feared it would set a precedent for disidents in their countries.

Posted by: rayfil | February 17, 2010 4:15 PM | Report abuse

Supreme Court rulings, rants and the Civil War notwithstanding, one thing is absolutely clear. If anyone had stood up at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia and stated that a sovereign state that voluntarily joined the Union, could not later voluntarily leave it, THERE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN A CONSTITUTION.

Waa... poor docbrosk! I'll put it in terms Teabaggers understand - it just plum ain't gonna happen so start fixin' to shut up!

Posted by: ANTGA | February 17, 2010 4:01 PM | Report abuse

Supreme Court rulings, rants and the Civil War notwithstanding, one thing is absolutely clear. If anyone had stood up at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia and stated that a sovereign state that voluntarily joined the Union, could not later voluntarily leave it, THERE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN A CONSTITUTION.

None of the southern states would have signed on to that precept. Nor would many others - in 1814, several New England states also discussed secession (it was called the Hartford Convention), and they thought they had a right to secede, or they wouldn't have bothered considering it.

Overwhelming brute force made secession impossible in the Civil War, and subsequent court decisions simply affirmed the only principle applicable to it: might makes right, and wise judges don't cross victorious generals.

Posted by: docbrosk | February 17, 2010 3:43 PM | Report abuse

If and when Texas decides to leave the United States, we'll have to build a mighty big fence around that border to keep the residents legally in Texas. On the other hand, they might just join Mexico. (Out of the frying pan into the fire.)

Posted by: cturtle1 | February 17, 2010 3:34 PM | Report abuse

Much like Teabaggers, this thread needs to be terminated!

Posted by: ANTGA | February 17, 2010 3:27 PM | Report abuse

beeker25

Your's was an all-time low for the Post message boards, you silly little bear.

Of course those states attempted to secede from the Union--they failed. More importantly, the Union never recognized their right to do so LEGALLY, ergo the Civil War.

If you are going to be pompous and tell people to go read history books, you should probably have some sense of what is at stake in the conversation... and you should probably just keep quiet when it is so obviously occurring way above your head... I mean, I can not even begin to describe how far off you are.

p.s., nice work/research seve2yoo

Posted by: orgbluspider | February 17, 2010 3:19 PM | Report abuse

This is kind of funny actually. I am not advocating secession, but of COURSE Scalia is going to say that it is unlawful to secede!

What exactly did you expect him to say? Just THINK for a moment if Scalia said, 'Oh yeah, OF COURSE, States can leave any time they want...' That would be political suicide! He'd never work in DC or any other town again. The administration would tar and feather him and then hang him in effigy.

It is utterly ridiculous to even post this article as if it is some kind of big moment where all the excitement could be squashed.

Secession would only happen in the MOST EXTREME of circumstances, and if by the slim chance we have disintegrated into complete anarchy, then all bets are off. I would expect the most prosperous states to unite and to secede in the interest of self preservation.

I cannot help but roll my eyes on this one.

Posted by: politicaljules
----
Have you heard Roger Taney, the Chief SCOTUS? After the Dredd Scott decision, he and the Court was left irrelevant by the forces of political passions of both sides of the debate. Yet he remained Chief Justice.

Posted by: beeker25 | February 17, 2010 3:17 PM | Report abuse

This issue was directly decided by SCOTUS in Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1868), a case about the validity of the bearer bonds of the Confederate State of Texas issued during rebellion. Chief Justice Samuel Chase penned the majority opinion, stating:

"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."

Id., at 726.

Therefore, the Civil War did not settle the matter. The State could not secede ab initio and never did secede. All acts toward secession taken by Texas were declared legal nullities. But Mr. Chief Justice Chase did say that Texas could remove itself from the Union by: a)revolution; or, b) petition to be removed with the consent of all the other states.

And so, presumably, the answer to your question is, secession by unilateral declaration is constitutionally impossible. A State wishing out of the more perfect Union must successfully revolt by force, or in the alternative, gain the consent of the other States, to be removed.

Posted by: seve2yoo
-----
You left out the following states: South Carolina, Georgia, Virginia(WV was once part of VA but remained in the Union with the help of Lincoln), Alabama, Mississippi and to name a few that seceded from Union by resolutions and SC was the first state to fire on the US government at Ft Sumtner in order to force the Federals out of the state.
I think you need to read the history book about the Civil War and the events prior to it.

Posted by: beeker25 | February 17, 2010 3:08 PM | Report abuse

Don't secede... leave THE COUNTRY! I am!

France is World's Best Place to Live, U.S. Drops to #7, Says International Living!

9/11 was an inside job!
ae911truth.org

http://gangstergovernment.squarespace.com/blog/2010/2/13/paul-craig-roberts-the-us-is-a-police-state.html


US banks facing $1.4tn crisis over commercial property loans!!!!

White House projects long-term mass unemployment!!!

A Greek crisis is coming to America!!


Prepare for an apocalyptic anarchy ending Wall Street's toxic capitalism !!!

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-to-invest-for-the-debt-bomb-explosion-2010-02-09?pagenumber=1


Posted by: wpjunk | February 17, 2010 2:59 PM | Report abuse


To redsky28: > You're wrong... believe it or not, reading does actually make you smarter, not to mention make you more aware of the world around you and alternative ideas. But then again, you angry, intolerant types couldn't care less about such nonsense - right?

Also - I laugh when I think about all the anger associated with esoteric agendas... whether it's the money spent on bridges like you... or bridges to nowhere like in Palin's Alaska... if every single one of these groups of angry people decided to go off and form a country, there would be millions of new ones.

Now just shut up and take your meds! Oh and read once in a while (no - not the bible) and get a little more educated. Believe it or not, the more education you get the smarter you become and more wealthy you become.

Posted by: ANTGA | February 17, 2010 2:55 PM | Report abuse

Hey, if 'they' want to leave, I would be more than happy to hold open the door. As to where they would go, I understand Devil's Island is available.

Posted by: ctenwith | February 17, 2010 2:55 PM | Report abuse

If there are any liberals, particularly northern liberals, reading this who had wondered why they are so frequently derided and despised as elitist hypocrits in the "flyover states," particularly in the South, look no further than the ugly and uninformed stereotyping that is being posted in response to this article.

If you don't feel like wading through the comments, here's a Cliff's Notes: "Yay for me and for my way of thinking and my way of life. Anyone who thinks or lives differently is obviously a racist, redneck, gun- and Bible-crazed moron." (Never mind that this country was founded primarily by gun-toting Southerners or that the reasons for secession in the early 1860s were actually pretty well-articulated and sensible, however disastrous the results.)

The sad thing is that most of these commenters will never realize that they are just as guilty as the Palinites of driving the wedges of division into the heart of America. And neither side will realize how off-putting these things are to the sane majority of citizens.

Posted by: justin_timberwolf | February 17, 2010 2:43 PM | Report abuse

You are partly right but you forget to realize how the taliban like actions of the right wing neo christian lunatics look like they definitely have a my way or the highway menatlity, where as the more liberal approach is believe it, I can respect it, but don't force me to believe it and respect what I believe but that is not how it works.

Posted by: lildg54 | February 17, 2010 2:51 PM | Report abuse

If there are any liberals, particularly northern liberals, reading this who had wondered why they are so frequently derided and despised as elitist hypocrits in the "flyover states," particularly in the South, look no further than the ugly and uninformed stereotyping that is being posted in response to this article.

If you don't feel like wading through the comments, here's a Cliff's Notes: "Yay for me and for my way of thinking and my way of life. Anyone who thinks or lives differently is obviously a racist, redneck, gun- and Bible-crazed moron." (Never mind that this country was founded primarily by gun-toting Southerners or that the reasons for secession in the early 1860s were actually pretty well-articulated and sensible, however disastrous the results.)

The sad thing is that most of these commenters will never realize that they are just as guilty as the Palinites of driving the wedges of division into the heart of America. And neither side will realize how off-putting these things are to the sane majority of citizens.

Posted by: justin_timberwolf | February 17, 2010 2:43 PM | Report abuse

It's fun to read the America-hating leftist's remarks on here. Since the law abiding taxpayers have migrated en-mass out of California, New Jersey, New York, and Michigan, we see how they are on the verge of collapse. Hee!

Posted by: tjhall1 | February 17, 2010 2:36 PM | Report abuse

"That would be political suicide! He'd never work in DC or any other town again."
. . .
I cannot help but roll my eyes on this one.
_______________

Umm - you do know that his is a lifetime appointment, and he isn't the least bit concerned about "policical suicide," right? I cannot help but roll my eyes at you . . .

Posted by: dcd1 | February 17, 2010 2:33 PM | Report abuse

This issue was directly decided by SCOTUS in Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1868), a case about the validity of the bearer bonds of the Confederate State of Texas issued during rebellion. Chief Justice Samuel Chase penned the majority opinion, stating:

"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."

Id., at 726.

Therefore, the Civil War did not settle the matter. The State could not secede ab initio and never did secede. All acts toward secession taken by Texas were declared legal nullities. But Mr. Chief Justice Chase did say that Texas could remove itself from the Union by: a)revolution; or, b) petition to be removed with the consent of all the other states.

And so, presumably, the answer to your question is, secession by unilateral declaration is constitutionally impossible. A State wishing out of the more perfect Union must successfully revolt by force, or in the alternative, gain the consent of the other States, to be removed.

Posted by: seve2yoo | February 17, 2010 2:33 PM | Report abuse

Wait just a minute, everyone. Not all residents of Texas are ranting, racist, Republican, redneck, religious nuts. Some of us are stuck here to make a living. Please keep us in the Union until I can retire. Please?!

Posted by: ploof | February 17, 2010 2:25 PM | Report abuse

Amen me too I think the pickup trucks and beer have gone to their heads lol

Posted by: lildg54 | February 17, 2010 2:31 PM | Report abuse

Ask Ms. Palin; She and her husband were/are members of the Alaska Secessionist Party.

They don't like America either.

Posted by: vigor | February 17, 2010 1:56 PM | Report abuse

She hates that hopey feely stuff she likes stupid nothing stuff like she asks hows the hopey feeley stuff working out for ya ,I ask her how's that abstinence only working out for you as well as the family values when she trys to keep her grandson away from his father, she is a blowhard self righteous phony like the rest of them and on top of it really an idiot

Posted by: lildg54 | February 17, 2010 2:27 PM | Report abuse

I'm not ready to leave I'm ready to fight for my country.. I didn't work my fingers to the bone to make a salary that Obama now wants to tax even more to pay for people who sit around and pop out kids while on welfare. Why isn't that child endangerment or cruelty.. I also don't work my fingers to the bone to pay more in taxes so we can build 3.8m turtle bridges in FLA - hey Dummies.. who is telling the turtles to use the bridge - is there some turtle language out their I missed.. idiots. Reading books don't make you smart.. getting out there an living / falling getting up.. building character seems more like it. rolling eyes.. please. roll this!

Posted by: redsky28 | February 17, 2010 2:25 PM | Report abuse

Wait just a minute, everyone. Not all residents of Texas are ranting, racist, Republican, redneck, religious nuts. Some of us are stuck here to make a living. Please keep us in the Union until I can retire. Please?!

Posted by: ploof | February 17, 2010 2:25 PM | Report abuse

"Texas would, however, be totally capable of self-sufficiency with ample energy supplies, agriculture that can feed AND export, warm-water ports for international commerce and enough guns held by a civilian militia to ward off any dufus yankees that think they could successfully invade."

The problem with your model is that Texas would suffer from a brain-drain in successive generations. Schools would banish all mention of science (like the Texas Board of Education is already trying to do), and all laws would be revoked expect for the 10 commandments. Anyone smart would leave, because after awhile even the most ardent teabagger--who has half a brain--would realize that ideology is no substitute for governance.

Posted by: bikes-everywhere | February 17, 2010 2:23 PM | Report abuse

Tell you how the teabaggers can get out while the getting is good. Buy your dumb a**es one way plane tickets to some other country and get lost, m'kay? bye, now!

Posted by: LABC | February 17, 2010 2:21 PM | Report abuse

Do we have a right to kick some of these backwards christo-nazi southern states out of the union?

Posted by: ginabw | February 17, 2010 2:09 PM | Report abuse

From your mouth to G-d's ears
Uh-oh - Palin and Gov. Perry won't like this!
btw - Blue states have been subsidizing Red states for DECADES.

Posted by: angie12106 | February 17, 2010 2:03 PM | Report abuse

Yup they just don't be understanding that to complicated and liberal for them they got to go to church on Sunday, drink their beer, and slap their wife, then watch neckcar racing

Posted by: lildg54 | February 17, 2010 2:20 PM | Report abuse

People want to leave? For heavens sake encourage them. Just make sure..they will be taking nothing under BRAND America. Free to start over on an un-discovered place.. out there. Cannot think of such a land. But lets cheer them on to start the process.

Absolutely laughable! With the crib notes, this idea-- a patent stamped "SP". Value? ZERO! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOEQ8EAiXi4

Posted by: Victoria5 | February 17, 2010 2:20 PM | Report abuse

North Korea should be vacant soon........

Posted by: nonsensical2001 | February 17, 2010 2:18 PM | Report abuse

gmg is right that the Supreme Court ruled in Texas v. White (1869, not 1896) that Texas' secession was illegal. Ironically, they did so by ruling in favor of Texas' position, which allowed the post-civil War state to reclaim some U.S. bonds that the Confederate state government had sold.

Posted by: ricktd | February 17, 2010 2:16 PM | Report abuse

Do we have a right to kick some of these backwards christo-nazi southern states out of the union?

Posted by: ginabw | February 17, 2010 2:09 PM | Report abuse

Uh-oh - Palin and Gov. Perry won't like this!
btw - Blue states have been subsidizing Red states for DECADES.

Posted by: angie12106 | February 17, 2010 2:03 PM | Report abuse

I just picture a country with people wielding guns like the wild west... ministers, pastors, primitive baptist snake handlers, televangelists, preachers, branch dividians, people speaking in tongues, mormons, etc. on the streets and in front of stores and homes proselytizing... all fighting over the "true way to god." People b*tching when they have to pay a dime in taxes for infrastructure... people screaming about how science should be left behind with those HEATHENS because it runs contrary to "god." The Earth is again taught as being at the center of the universe... Book burnings every Friday night in the townhall square. And those cute skinhead kids who really mean well but sometimes have to break a few skulls of those who don't see things the same way... Palin and Hannity would be president and VP - making proclamations about who is a "good teabagger" and who's not...

Life in Teabag, Drooling Idiot Land would be a hoot!!

Posted by: ANTGA | February 17, 2010 1:59 PM | Report abuse

Since the chief conservative on the Supreme Court has already settled it so that the Teabaggers cannot just carve out a part of the US they want, I think the Teabaggers should just set off like every other group dissatisfied with the status quo has done and found their own country. While it is true they cannot do this within the United States, I am certain they could buy land somewhere--maybe from some cash strapped country and set up their own country, with their own laws. I think they would be happy, the people who are sick of listening to them complain about government while they collect their government checks and get their Medicare treatments would be happy. It would be a win/win and those are the best outcomes always!

Posted by: Prosperity2008 | February 17, 2010 1:57 PM | Report abuse

Ask Ms. Palin; She and her husband were/are members of the Alaska Secessionist Party.

They don't like America either.

Posted by: vigor | February 17, 2010 1:56 PM | Report abuse

I'm all for state's right to secede, with the notable exception that led to the War of Northern Aggression, since they wanted to retain their rights to own another human being (even the Taliban aren't that radical).

In absence of such a Constitutional right, I propose an amendment that would bar anyone living or born in Texas from becoming president. To garner conservative support, I'd toss in Massachusetts too.

Posted by: DesertLeap | February 17, 2010 1:53 PM | Report abuse

Funny....when Bush was outright ignoring the Constitution in his federal powergrab usurping state's rights I didn't hear any states clamoring about secession. And now they have a constitutional law professor for President who actually respects our laws. So what's their beef apart from just being unable to accept that Republicans being president is not part of natural order of things? Personally, I think we'd be better off without Texas, but that's another issue....

Posted by: BushMustGo | February 17, 2010 1:51 PM | Report abuse

Hmmm, Interesting. I was unaware that trial by combat could set a Constitutional precedent under our system. Nor that the Pledge had any effective legal standing (pluse one can rebut it on fact clause by clause). The Court has been very careful not to hear any case that would rule on any of the issues involved in the Civil War, presumably because of the fallout.

Posted by: pcgeorge | February 17, 2010 11:57 AM | Report abuse

-------

RIGHT?? I don't at all agree with how Scalia sees the world, but at least he normally sticks firmly to actual legal arguments, which he wields with peerless skill. This, on the other hand, is one of the lamest statements I've ever seen him make. The Civil War "resolved" the CONSTITUTIONAL issue of secession? As I think we all know from Civics 101, a constitutional issue can only be resolved in one of two ways: (1) a Supreme Court ruling or Congress or (2) the states passing an amendment. The war obviously forced the southern states back into the union, but it set no LEGAL precedent about whether they had a right to secede in the first place. For the record, the Supreme Court actually did rule on this issue after the war (Texas v. White, 1896). Of course, Scalia didn't bother to cite that in his response. I suppose he simply didn't take the question seriously, but still ... weak, Nino, very weak.

Posted by: gmg22 | February 17, 2010 1:44 PM | Report abuse

Hmmmm. Texas just might work. I lived there seven years. First we would kick out all the Mexicans we didn't want to enslave. Then we would kill all the gays and non-Bible thumpers in Houston and Dallas. Then we would put tolls on every highway to pay for repairs. Then we... you get the drift. Even Sam Houston, the first president of Texas (a Virginian by birth), opposed secession. But then the rabid locals marginalized him, and went on to lose the war.

Posted by: cmtastronomy | February 17, 2010 1:38 PM | Report abuse

Somalia would be the best choice...minimum government, maximum free market activity...

Posted by: frank675 | February 17, 2010 1:32 PM | Report abuse

Teabaggers should go to the middle east - find a piece of real estate there - buy it and set up shop right next to other fundaMENTAList countries. I mean - why not keep all of the uneducated nut cases all in one place where we - who left the dark ages long ago - can easily monitor their radical activities... all in the name of god - of course!

Posted by: ANTGA | February 17, 2010 1:30 PM | Report abuse

What's laughable is that most of the so-called red states receive far more in federal tax dollars than are collected from them. Wonder how long the teabaggers will enjoy being cut off from the very federal teat they claim to loathe?

Posted by: exerda | February 17, 2010 1:29 PM | Report abuse

I'm not sure there are any US states--Texas included--which could, in the long term, secede and stand alone successfully from the United States. For Texas, sure, they have agriculture--but what happens when they run out of usable water from the portions of the Ogallala they overlie? Would New Mexico be more likely to aggressively pursue water rights disputes with Texas? (As NM is obviously not going to settle for Texas pumping out "their" water from underneath them if Texas is another nation--it's strained enough with the two both being states with different concepts of water rights.) Would the US back NM and conduct air strikes on wells built near the border with the Republic of Texas? Yes, I'm hyperbolizing: but the point is still valid that notions of a state standing alone are pipe dreams in today's complex, interconnected economy and society.

Posted by: exerda | February 17, 2010 1:24 PM | Report abuse

LOL sosueme1, you know that you are free to go back anytime and bask in the sheer awesomeness that is Texas. Not sure what you're doing here if God's country lies just north of the Rio Grande. This country would just have to try to get by....somehow.

Posted by: SWB2 | February 17, 2010 1:24 PM | Report abuse

Give them the state of Texas. It already has both feet in the vile, despicable world of racists, gun lunatics, and rednecks. Should be big enough to hold the tea partiers and all the rest of the political and religious crazies infecting America like a plague. They can make the bible their new constitution and bring back the electric chair for their interminable executions. Then they can re-name Texas Baboonsassholia. Sarah Palin can be the first president of THAT country.

Posted by: irkulyen | February 17, 2010 1:16 PM | Report abuse

Several posters have confused secession with vacation. If Texas, for example, were to secede it wouldn’t be going ANYWHERE! It would, however, be totally capable of self-sufficiency with ample energy supplies, agriculture that can feed AND export, warm-water ports for international commerce and enough guns held by a civilian militia to ward off any dufus yankees that think they could successfully invade.

MORONS!

P.S. If they do secede I’ll be back there in a…well…a New York minute.

Posted by: sosueme1 | February 17, 2010 1:11 PM | Report abuse

re: politicaljules

>they want...' That would be political >suicide! He'd never work in DC or any other >town again. The administration would tar >and feather him and then hang him in effigy.

That Supreme Court gig is kind of a lifetime appointment. I don't think Scalia would be worrying too much about his future job prospects.

Posted by: FlyersFan27 | February 17, 2010 12:56 PM | Report abuse

If, say, Kentucky were chosen to be the new country, how would this work? Kentucky would be surrounded by the USA, without any port. Even its airplanes would need permission to fly over non-KY territory. How about the vast number of KY residents who don't want to secede? Will they be sent packing like the Hindus in India did to the Muslims? Theocracy? Aren't there dozens and dozens of fragmented "fundamentalist" Christian sects already. Which one will be the recognized sect? The mind boggles at all this waste of time and talent.

Posted by: cmtastronomy | February 17, 2010 12:53 PM | Report abuse

The Tea Party people name the President as their "common enemy" and then suggest succeeding from the union. They spend 100,000 on Palin who then says Obama should show he's "tough" by declaring war on Iran, something even Cheney thought was absurd. These people want to create a society like that in the movie "The Handmaiden's Tale". Their rhetoric sounds like treason but they somehow act like they are the true Americans.

Posted by: MysticMan | February 17, 2010 12:43 PM | Report abuse

SWB2; agreed. Perhaps such a state would see the reincarnation of the family feud that goes on for generations, a la the Hatfields and McCoys.

Other sources have pointed to the Tea Party Convention, with its squabbling and infighting and extremism, as an example of how the government of a Tea Party republic would function.

Posted by: marknesop | February 17, 2010 12:41 PM | Report abuse

Let the teabaggers secede to a state like Kentucky. And then lets bomb them till kingdom come.

Posted by: kenk3 | February 17, 2010 12:38 PM | Report abuse

don't mind if the teabaggers get out. In fact, I wholeheartedly support their right to leave. Please, Take Cheney and 43 with you.

May I suggest a few idyllic conservative countries - Indonesia, Kuwait, Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Posted by: BigTrees | February 17, 2010 12:18 PM | Report abuse
Amen LOL
They are nuts and need help what can ya do
they like Sarah Palin that says it all. BTW you forget to add a few countries as in all Muslim countries or they could move to Russia I hear that Palin can watch them from her backdoor

Posted by: lildg54 | February 17, 2010 12:36 PM | Report abuse

Its not the nation building that is the biggest issue, marknesop, its having a million maleducated, theocratic, unskilled malcontents with gun caches living in one confined place. Basically, a state full of teabaggers would look a lot like Afghanistan without the sunny weather. Its pretty fun to get the gang of teabag knuckleheads together for a weekend in DC, quite another when they have to rely on each other to function.

Posted by: SWB2 | February 17, 2010 12:35 PM | Report abuse

Big Trees; I wholeheartly agree w/you; the Tea Party members ought to buy a 1 way airfare to Saudi Arabia; the perfect Conservative state & take along w/them Sarah Palin, Tom Tancredo,JD Hayworth & other lunatic fringes.

Posted by: yog2541 | February 17, 2010 12:33 PM | Report abuse

I've often wondered, in retrospect, who lost the Civil War. Perhaps we should allow, even invite, certain states to secede.

Posted by: Jaggedadze | February 17, 2010 12:32 PM | Report abuse

Secession is wrong, but the states can eliminate the federal government.

Article Five allows two thirds of states to call a convention, much like the one in 1787, amend the constitution then have three quarters of states ratify those amendments. There are no limits on the amendments therefore if they wanted the states could create a new federal system.

Not quite secession but a constitutional way to show the feds who is boss.

Posted by: stunninglycommonsense | February 17, 2010 12:26 PM | Report abuse

I hope all the tea baggers move to TX and secede. Then we could invade them and take their oil!

Posted by: bjohnston024 | February 17, 2010 12:23 PM | Report abuse

I don't mind if the teabaggers get out. In fact, I wholeheartedly support their right to leave. Please, Take Cheney and 43 with you.

May I suggest a few idyllic conservative countries - Indonesia, Kuwait, Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Posted by: BigTrees | February 17, 2010 12:18 PM | Report abuse

Tea Party, your favorite judge spoke against secession before you came into play. Maybe now that you are "en vogue" and in the news everyday against a Black President, he will rule in your favor to prove his activism.

Posted by: hadelaide | February 17, 2010 12:14 PM | Report abuse

Let them, and Texas secede. It is their ilk that always says: if you don't like it, leave it. Bye.

Posted by: jckdoors | February 17, 2010 12:12 PM | Report abuse

This issue comes up from time to time, usually when a particular group wants it all its own way and is not interested in compromise. The simple way to deal with it would be to approach it as if it were a realistic option, but ensuring the would-be tearaways are aware of the complications that will ensue; such as (a) your new nation must float and support its own currency. If you want to continue using the U.S. dollar, it must be weighted for worth against your perceived solvency as a nation-state, and will consequently be worth less. (b) Start you own postal service as well; the U.S. postal service will not carry your mail inside your vown borders. You'll need your own postage, and mail sent outside your borders will have to carry postage at the foreign rate(c) Raise, equip and train your own armed forces for self-defense, because the United States will defend you only inasmuch as an attack on you threatens contiguous American territory. If you would like to purchase your military equipment from the United States, end-user agreements will apply and your access to technology may be restricted.

You could go on, but you can see where it's going. Generally states within a large country that aspire to secede from the union have a very unrealistic idea of what is involved in nation-building, and simply mean to do things their own way while continuing to share all the benefits of being a member. Shut off that possibility early, and a lot of the excitement will evaporate.

Posted by: marknesop | February 17, 2010 12:11 PM | Report abuse

So can we try Scott and Sarah Palin for treason? Scott was a member and Sarah a participant in the Alaskan Independence Party, which exists to exit AK from the union.

Treason I say, treason.
Hang em high. I hate people who hate America.

Posted by: gettingwarm | February 17, 2010 12:11 PM | Report abuse

Well, it's unlikely to end the complaints. The debate about this issue, as Justice Scalia points out, ended in 1865.

Posted by: jbritt3 | February 17, 2010 12:11 PM | Report abuse

This has already been done. A book entitled "The Power Exchange" by Frank Erwin, Jr. I think. Texas secedes when the U.S, tries to nationalize oil.

Posted by: Sloy | February 17, 2010 12:08 PM | Report abuse

ROLMAO!

Under NO circumstances whatsoever!

If the Tea Baggers want to leave, they're more than welcome to do so.

LOL!!!

Posted by: lindalovejones | February 17, 2010 12:04 PM | Report abuse

> If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede.

Hmmm, Interesting. I was unaware that trial by combat could set a Constitutional precedent under our system. Nor that the Pledge had any effective legal standing (pluse one can rebut it on fact clause by clause). The Court has been very careful not to hear any case that would rule on any of the issues involved in the Civil War, presumably because of the fallout.

Posted by: pcgeorge | February 17, 2010 11:57 AM | Report abuse

Please, please, please let the tea partiers secede. Ship them up to Alaska with Palin and let us be rid of them for ever.

Posted by: jmill502 | February 17, 2010 11:56 AM | Report abuse

This is kind of funny actually. I am not advocating secession, but of COURSE Scalia is going to say that it is unlawful to secede!

What exactly did you expect him to say? Just THINK for a moment if Scalia said, 'Oh yeah, OF COURSE, States can leave any time they want...' That would be political suicide! He'd never work in DC or any other town again. The administration would tar and feather him and then hang him in effigy.

It is utterly ridiculous to even post this article as if it is some kind of big moment where all the excitement could be squashed.

Secession would only happen in the MOST EXTREME of circumstances, and if by the slim chance we have disintegrated into complete anarchy, then all bets are off. I would expect the most prosperous states to unite and to secede in the interest of self preservation.

I cannot help but roll my eyes on this one.

Posted by: politicaljules | February 17, 2010 11:48 AM | Report abuse

So will the Tea Partiers now turn on Scalia for bursting their bubble of a separate Tea Party nation somewhere in the heartland?

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: parkerfl1 | February 17, 2010 11:32 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company