Montana to Secede? (earthquake, to live in, law)

[ElkHunter]

I really couldn't tell you about NH. When I took a course on Law History in College, they taught us that the only state that could succeed, was Texas.

[jimj]

One idea was raised today and that was if scotus decides that only a well regulated militia can bare arms then the govenor could designate all montana residents members of montana's militia therby bypassing the ruling.

[ElkHunter]

A well regulated militia doesn't have to be designated does it? I always thought, and read that it was every able bodied man from 17 to 45 years of age. Bring your own weapon. haha In the civil war, part of signing up was you had to have your own rifle, the army would furnish powder and ball.

That does need to be updated to every able bodied adult. Don't want to hold them women back. haha

[MamaBee]

What about those over 45 too? Can't have ageism here. In my state they'd most likely state that the NJ National Guard is the militia, thereby banning weapons for citizens

That's a pretty good idea that you guys have out in Montana though...

[ElkHunter]

Originally Posted by MamaBee

What about those over 45 too? Can't have ageism here. In my state they'd most likely state that the NJ National Guard is the militia, thereby banning weapons for citizens

That's a pretty good idea that you guys have out in Montana though...

That wouldn't work. The militia was written into our constitution over a hundred years before the National Guard was formed.

As to over 45. You could form up at 45, but could stay as long after you turned 45, as you wanted.

[Spot379th]

Originally Posted by ElkHunter

I really couldn't tell you about NH. When I took a course on Law History in College, they taught us that the only state that could succeed, was Texas.

My $0.02...

Article Four of the United States Constitution: Information and Much More from Answers.com


Section 3: New states and federal property

Clause 1: New states

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

Congress is empowered by Section Three to admit new states to the Union. No state, however, may be formed within the jurisdiction of another, or by the joining of different states or parts of different states, without the consent of all state legislatures concerned. The Constitution does not require that states be admitted on an "equal footing" with the original states. In fact, the Constitutional Convention rejected a proposal requiring the equality of the new states. Congress nevertheless included an equality clause in the acts of admission of states. Congressional restrictions on the equality of states, even when those limitations have been found in the acts of admission, have been held void by the Supreme Court. For instance, the Supreme Court struck down a provision which limited the jurisdiction of the state of Alabama over navigable waters within the state. The Court held, "Alabama is, therefore, entitled to the sovereignty and jurisdiction over all the territory within her limits ... to maintain any other doctrine, is to deny that Alabama has been admitted into the union on an equal footing with the original states ... to Alabama belong the navigable waters and soils under them." The doctrine, however, can also be applied to the detriment of states, as occurred with Texas. Prior to admission to the Union, Texas, an independent nation, controlled water within three miles of the coast, the normal limit for nations. Under the equal footing doctrine, however, Texas was found not to have control over the three-mile belt after admission into the Union, since the original states did not at the time of joining the union control such waters. Instead, Texas was found to have surrendered, by entering the Union, control over the water and the soil under it to Congress. Under the Submerged Lands Act of 1953, Congress returned maritime territory to some states, but not to others; the Act was sustained by the Supreme Court.

West Virginia formed a new state in 1863 and acquired Berkeley and Jefferson counties. The government of the state of Virginia was disputed, but in 1870 the Supreme Court decided in favor of West Virginia.[3]

The question of leaving the Union is not addressed by the Constitution. In Texas v. White (1869), however, the Supreme Court ruled that states could not unilaterally secede from the Union. The Court suggested that the Constitution ordained the "perpetuity and indissolubility of the Union." Even though a majority of the citizens of Texas voted to secede in a referendum, the secession ordinance passed by the state legislature during the Civil War was held void.


BTW, personally I hope that the US of A doesn't become subservient under "Big Brother" government.

[MontanaGuy]

This court decision is going to be very interesting because they're really addressing the fundamental issue of personal gun ownership versus guns in the military and there doesn't seem to be any middle ground. They also can't let the states decide because this is a federal matter involving the constitution. I also support the right of an individual to own a firearm and I have several handguns myself. There is such a strong tradition of personal ownership lasting a couple of centuries that I can't imagine an outright ban but observers on both sides of this issue are unsure what's going to happen. The wording in the constitution is very vague and could be looked at either way and has been the source of a never ending argument. I think we're going to get a difinitive answer this time due to the nature of legality or illegality of the DC ban.

[Gunluvver2]

According to this website:
< Gun-control case divides state AGs >
The Attorney Generals of 31 States have file the legal documents encouraging SCOTUS to up hold the right of the "Individual" to Keep and Bear Arms. The AG's of five states, NY, MA, NJ, HI and one other I forgot have filed in support of upholding the Washington, D.C. gun ban.

Most of the West Coast states like CA, OR, WA haven't weighed in yet. The 31 States AG's that have filed are right in the middle of the country from North to South. It is going to be interesting to see how this issue plays out.

GL2

[arctichomesteader]

Tenth Amendment: "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."

As secession is not prohibited anywhere in the Constitution, it's legal, though whether states or the people hold the power is uncertain. Best option would be to have both the people and the state vote on it, to be safe.

Salmon Chase's decision in Texas v White is in the same category as far as I'm concerned with Plessy v Ferguson, terrible decision by biased court, and worthless. Chief Justice Chase was about as radical a radical Republican as you could get during and after the Civil War, you weren't going to get an unbiased, accurate ruling from him on the issue. Secession is legal and always was, but it's not in the federal government's best interest to admit to that, so they don't.

Personally, I'd hope Alaska joins Montana in seceding.

[arctichomesteader]

The wording in the constitution is very vague and could be looked at either way and has been the source of a never ending argument.

It's only been muddied since FDR started playing with gun control and threatened to pack the Supreme Court if it ruled against him on his agenda in the 1930's. Prior to that it was always held to be an individual right. Multiple 19th century court decisions make references to it as an individual right, despite the fact few addressed it as a main issue (because essentially, there were few cases where it was in question as an individual right). The only, and the major, problem with all 19th century cases is that at the time the Bill of Rights was applied to limit the federal government rather than the states, but since then one by one most of the other amendments have been applied to the states.

Examples of court comments:

"It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went. And all of this would be done in the face of the subject race of the same color, both free and slaves, and inevitably producing discontent and insubordination among them, and endangering the peace and safety of the State."

-Dred Scott decision, 1857

"The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government"

-U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876)

"It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States; and, in view of this prerogative of the General Government, as well as of its general powers, the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question [the Second Amendment] out of view prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the General Government."

-Presser v. People of Illinois (1886)

Finally:

"'[T]he people' seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. The Preamble declares that the Constitution is ordained and established by 'the people of the United States.' The Second Amendment protects 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,' and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to 'the people.' See also U.S. Const., Amdt. 1 ('Congress shall make no law . . . abridging . . . the right of the people peaceably to assemble') (emphasis added); Art. I, 2, cl. 1 ('The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the people of the several States') (emphasis added). While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that 'the people' protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community. "

-U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990)