Is Secession a Right? An American Civics Lesson

Thanks to Dr J Michel Hill for the inspiration and to KGCRider at the Texas Nationalist Movement for posting it.



On Secession and Southern Independence
[LOS] News and Updates, May 24, 2009

In light of the recent interest in secession, there are some fundamental points we need to understand in order to counter those who claim that this time-honoured remedy against tyranny is un-American and even treasonous.

The voluntary union (or confederacy) of States known as the United States was born of a secessionist movement against Great Britain, and our Declaration of Independence is, at base, a secessionist document. How, then, can secession legitimately be called un-American?

When our Founding Fathers broke the bonds of political association with the British Empire in 1776, the former colonies became free and independent States constituting thirteen separate communities, each asserting its sovereignty. This arrangement received confirmation in the Articles of Confederation (1778) and the Treaty of Paris (1783). Americans themselves, as well as their British foe, acknowledged that each State was a separate and sovereign entity.

The sovereignty of the separate States is an important issue in understanding how the United States was formed under its Constitution of 1787-88. When delegates met in Philadelphia in May 1787, they came as representatives selected by the people (i.e. citizens) of their respective States. The people of the States did not give their delegates any authority to make binding agreements; rather, they could only discuss proposed changes to the Articles of Confederation. Any changes to the Articles would become effective only if ratified in convention by the citizens of the separate States.

The result of the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 was, of course, the U.S. Constitution. However, the document was not binding until nine of the thirteen States ratified it for themselves. That happened in 1788, and those nine States entered into a compact (or contract) with each other and, by doing so, created the political union known as the United States (or, more accurately, the States United). Four States, for a time, remained outside of the union and thus were not bound by the compact. Eventually, though, all thirteen States ratified and united.

It is important to note that no State (or States) could answer for another State. Each State acceded to the compact by its own sovereign will. Moreover, all of them understood that they might secede from the compact by those same means-by a ratifying convention of their citizens or representatives.

Nowhere does the Constitution forbid a State from seceding from the union. In fact, the Tenth Amendment (contained in the Bill of Rights of 1791) expressly confirms "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The power to force a State against its will to remain in the union is absent among the powers delegated to the general (or federal) government; therefore, the right of secession is reserved to the States, or more precisely, to the people of the States.

Some of the New England States threatened to secede several times before 1860 (e.g. 1803, 1807, 1814, and 1844-45). At no time did the Southern States deny them this right. However, when a number of Southern States seceded in 1860-61, Lincoln and the Republican Party went to war to prevent them from exercising their Constitutional right. Simply put, Lincoln placed the forced "unity" of the States above the Constitution itself, and this action set him in opposition to the principles of the American Founders.

Northern victory in 1865 marked the end of true Constitutional government in America. In its place, the American Empire now defines the limits of its own power without serious regard to the Constitution. Formerly free and sovereign States have become little more than administrative provinces of an all-powerful central government in Washington, DC.

Without a serious challenge to its authority, which the acknowledged right of secession is, our government will not reform itself. We are not free people if we are not free to leave.

Our colonial ancestors acknowledged what our present government (and popular opinion) denies: that, at some time, dissolving our political bonds might be a necessary and proper course. That time came in 1860-61, and The League of the South believes it has come again.

Secession, as Thomas Jefferson acknowledged, is the assertion of the inalienable right of a people to change their form of government whenever it ceases to fulfill the purposes for which they created it. Under our Constitution, this should be a peaceful remedy. The decision of a State or States to withdraw peacefully from a political association is not revolutionary or rebellious. On the contrary, the government that is no longer responsive to its people, a government that denies its people their inalienable rights, is revolutionary. The right of secession is never more necessary than when it is denied.

Some say that secession is impractical and/or unattainable. It certainly is both as long as the people of the States remain ignorant of it as a remedy to tyranny handed down to them by earlier generations.

We, the people of the States, still have the weapon and the legitimate power of reform (sovereignty). The only thing we lack is the collective will to wield it.

Crap and Trade

by Darrel Mulloy

"This program is designed to give government the power and the mechanism to increase the cost of energy produced by fossil fuel to a price higher than the cost of energy produced by wind and solar sources. This agenda item will give government the power to essentially control the economy, by controlling the supply and price of energy that runs the economy. It will also give government the appearance of protecting the environment, which is a sop to environmental organizations and to the international community. And it will extract windfall taxes to allow government to redistribute America's wealth to achieve the social equity goals of the Democratic socialist majority."

Henry Lamb, from WND 6/27/09

We may see this monstrosity passed by the senate or maybe not. Senator Imhoff of Oklahoma says it doesn't have a chance, but with an almost bulletproof majority, especially if Al Franken gets the seat from Minnesota, it isn't likely that it doesn't have a chance, and if passed by the Senate, it will be signed into law by the usurper in chief, and unless we do our part, we will have to live by it.

Friday afternoon late, the House of Representatives voted 219-212 with three not voting, to pass the "American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009’’ or better known as Crap and Trade (Cap and Trade).

Conservatives around the country might like to know that there were eight Republicans who voted in favor of the measure, and two who did not vote. A swing of only five of those votes would have resulted in defeat instead of passing.

For your interest, those Republicans who voted for the "Crap and Trade" were:

1. Mary Bono Mack California 45th district
2. Michael Castle Deleware at large
3. Mark Kirk Illinois 10th district
4. Leonard Lance New Jersey 7th district
5. Frank LoBiando New Jersey 2nd district
6. John McHugh New York 23rd district
7. David Reichert Washington 8th district
8. Chris Smith New Jersey 4th district

And the two Republicans who did not take the time to vote were:

9. Jeff Flake Arizona 6th district
10. John Sullivan Oklahoma 1st district

If one of these congressmen (or woman) is yours, call, write, email or fax them and let them know how you feel.

There is NO constitutional authority for this kind of legislation and we have the right under the tenth amendment to refuse to allow it to be enforced.

"Powers not delegated to the United States (federal government) by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it (the Constitution) to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." (word in paremphasis mine)

America, it's time to say no more.

I have recently joined the Texas Nationalist Movement in their effort to secede from the U.S. government. I want to see the tenth amendment enforced before such a move is made, but lacking that move, secession seems to be the next step to take.

Those interested in finding out more about the Texas Nationalist Movement can see more about it here.

Come on Americans. Get off your lazy duffs and lets all do something to take this country back from the socialists who are trying to ruin it.

Whipping the wrong horse

Coming up on the Fourth of July, are going to be hundreds, maybe even thousands of TEA parties. Americans across the land will be voicing their concern over government abuses. They will be protesting the federal government and how it has taken on powers that are restricting the freedom of all Americans.

Started as a tax protest, the TEA parties have added other government abuses to their list, and that is a good thing; but are we addressing the right governments?

Everyone, well practically everyone, would agree that the federal government has overstepped its constitutional bounds, and taken on some powers that were not granted to them by the Constitution. We can't say we weren't warned. Alexander Hamilton as long ago as 1788 said in Federalist #78 "There is no position that depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people, are superior to the people themselves; that men, acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid."

Our founders were wise enough to allow the states a way out, when such as what Hamilton spoke of actually happened. It is a clever little piece called the tenth amendment, which allows the states to declare that the federal government has no business telling them that they have to do anything they say that is not authorized by the Constitution.

Americans across the land this Independence Day should be directing their attention to the state governments through their elected representatives and governors; telling them that we will no longer allow federal government to interfere in matters that belong only to the states. To date, there are thirty five states who have made some declaration that they will begin enforcing the tenth, to one degree or another. It is up to We the People to build a fire under those in our state governments to follow through. In the fifteen states that have not so declared, it is up to the citizens of those states to see to it that they too, make such a declaration.

We want freedom and liberty; freedom from burdensome taxes and liberty to run our lives the way we deem best, as long as it doesn't harm another individual. We want to be able to start a business if we want to without jumping through a bunch of government hoops, and we want to be free to fail if we don't run that business right; we want to be able to see to it that our children are given a proper education, one that we approve of; we want to stop seeing laws approved by the people overturned by judges who don't seem to be able to understand the Constitution. I could go on, but you get the point.

We're tired of a central government overstepping their authority by buying up businesses, propping up failing banks, and for that matter, telling those banks how and to who they must loan their money. We're fed up with a system where our "representatives" in congress allow their power to be usurped by the president by overreaching use of executive orders and presidential directives. We're tired of partisan politics, period.

We have seen enough of federal bureaucrats keeping us from using our own land as we choose to do, or to be able to build on that land because it might be home to some sort of "endangered" mouse or snail. We don't want appointed bureaucrats doing the job that we elected our representatives to do, and we don't want those representatives doing things they are not authorized by the Constitution to do.

In order to achieve that end, it is the responsibility of the people to see to it that those we elect on the most local levels are responsive to our voices. The states all have governments that are by design, independent from Washington DC, and it is about time that we held their feet to the fire and demanded that they assert their right under the tenth amendment to the Constitution.

One nation, divisible!

Like a lot of us here in cyberland, I just got an email from Dr. Ron Paul telling us about the upcoming Obama medical plan. This isn’t going to be a piece about “single payer” health insurance or for that matter any government run scheme of any kind.

What occurred to me as I was reading the email was that Dr. Paul has a bigger following than any one member of congress, either House or Senate, with followers from every state in the USA. His C4L, or Campaign for Liberty is growing in number each day under the stewardship of John Tate, and finally, congress is recognizing the importance of one of his pieces of proposed legislation, HR 1207 calling for an audit on the Federal Reserve, and has agreed with him, with over half of the House of Representatives signing on as co-sponsors. Other pieces of his proposed legislation have largely been ignored, however, finding as few as zero co-sponsors. Since his recent run for the nomination for president some in congress are noticing that the things he has been talking about are starting to happen, and are starting to listen to him. Unfortunately, there are too few members willing to pay attention.

America, that is the American voter, is a lot like those in congress. They hear but they don’t listen. Sometimes, like those in congress, they even refuse to hear.

The point I am trying to make is that throughout our country from Alaska to Texas, from Hawaii to Maine, there are Ron Paul fans. No other member of our government can make that statement, aside from the man who would be king himself, our pretender to the throne, Barry Soetero or Barack Obama, or what ever his real name is. His is more like a cult following than those who follow Ron Paul’s line of thinking.

In fact, cult may be the proper term for those who so admire Obama. Evan Thomas of Newsweek did recently say he was “sort of God”, and there are those who believe he is some sort of messiah.

Unfortunately, this country is divided now about 50/50, with one half leaning left and the other leaning right. Both have fringes or radical elements, with the radical left being led by Barack Obama and the radical right being led by no one in particular. In fact, the entire right seems to be led by no one in particular. Rush Limbaugh is considered by some to be the leader of the conservative movement today, but he is not on the fringe and he refuses to lead anyway.

Today’s Republican party is divided between the true conservatives and the neo-conservatives. The former wants to return to the ideals of Ronald Reagan and the latter want to open up the Republican tent for any and all ideals. One such is former Secretary of State Colin Powell, who endorsed Obama over John McCain and says that Republicans want to pay more taxes and get more government services. Yes, he says he is still a Republican. Draw your own conclusions. He gives a whole new meaning to RINO, a title that used to fit well on the likes of John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Arlen “the defector” Specter, Olympia Snowe, and Susan Collins to name a few. Powell has out RINO’ed the best of the RINOs.

In all candor, however, if Powell were to announce that he were a candidate in 2012, there is a god bet he could get elected by the ignorant apathetic voting public.

This leads me to believe that we as a nation are ripe for division into two distinct nations. I think that separation is the only bloodless solution to our current problems, and it may not be truly bloodless. It would be more bloodless than a revolution, which is the only other rational solution. I don’t think it would be hard to do, if those states that are now fighting government mandates made the move to declare their independence. If one state made the gesture, I am sure there would be others to follow, and I for one would move to one of those states in a heartbeat, as I am sure would many others. I am quite confident that if such a thing happens in the near future, that Texas would be among the first to declare. I still own property there and intend to build on that property with the hope to return to a free state. At last count, I think there are 35 states that are invoking the tenth amendment and telling the fed that those powers not granted to them by the Constitution were not going to be recognized in their states. My only question is;
what’s the matter with the other fifteen states?

Anyway, that’s my rant for now.

Bill of Rights does not apply to you

According to Sonya Sotomayor, Oboma's nominee to sit on the highest court in the land, you and I don't have rights under the Bill of Rights, at least if we are among the few who live in the fifty states, that is.

Sotomayor's court, arguing against the right of individuals to own a gun, stated that "It is settled law, however, that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose on this right,” said the opinion. Quoting Presser, the court said, “it is a limitation only upon the power of Congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state.” (read entire article from CNS here)

Following the logic of that court's decision, and by the way, Sotomayor's as well, none of those rights guaranteed to us in the Bill of Rights could be enforced by the federal government if an individual state declared to the contrary. If you live in California, for example, and they told you that you did not have the right to attend the church of your choice, I guess by Sotomayor's rule, you could not. If you live in Massachusetts, and you wanted to speak out against the liberal government of that state, and they said you can't.....you can't, according to Sotomayor and her court.

Think you have the right not to be searched without a warrant? Guess again if Sotomayor and her court had their way, and your state agreed. It's bad enough that we have all practically lost the freedom of the press, with most major news sources in the pocket of the Democrat party. By the way, isn't it the troublesone tenth amendment that says that "Powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectivly, or to the people."? Accordingly, the states only have the power to reject legislation or mandates that are not granted to the Fed as powers by the Constitution. The Bill of Rights is not among that list.

The Constitution is the law of the land, as written, not interpreted by some black robed jurists; especially when we cannot get two bodies of them to agree with one another. Sotomayor's Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is in disagreement with the liberal U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco, which stated that is is the individual's right to own and bear arms, not just the military or law enforcement.

Sotomayor is a dangerous threat to freedom in America, and although it can be argued that she is only replacing another liberal judge, she is in fact, much more liberal than David Souter, and will remain a judge long after some of the more conservative judges have been replaced with more liberals.

Conservatives in the senate, if there are any left, should filibuster her nomination and refuse to approve her. There are still a few judges out there that understand the meaning of the Constitution. The Senate should make Obama find one of them.