Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't think they are MOSTLY behind it although I do think a good bit are...I wouldn't even say half...take for example me and all my friends and family I have gotten to sign it. NONE of us voted for Romney nor wanted him president.
Lew should have stopped at his first argument since that is the only one that came close to making any sort of legitimate yet debatable.
The flip side of the 10th Amendment argument (one that is often neglected by 10thers) is that the Preamble of the Constitution clear points out is a compact not of the states but of the People.
As Daniel Webster so eloquently framed the issue:
This leads us to inquire into the origin of this government and the source of its power. Whose agent is it? Is it the creature of the State legislatures, or the creature of the people? If the government of the United States be the agent of the State governments, then they may control it, provided they can agree in the manner of controlling it; if it be the agent of the people, then the people alone can control it, restrain it, modify, or reform it. It is observable enough, that the doctrine for which the honorable gentleman contends leads him to the necessity of maintaining, not only that this general government is the creature of the States, but that it is the creature of each of the States severally, so that each may assert the power for itself of determining whether it acts whithin the limits of its authority. It is the servant of four-and-twenty masters, of different will and different purposes and yet bound to obey all. This absurdity (for it seems no less) arises from a misconception as to the origin of this government and its true character. It is, Sir, the people's Constitution, the people's government, made for the people, made by the people, and answerable to the people. The people of the United States have declared that the Constitution shall be the supreme law. We must either admit the proposition, or dispute their authority. The States are, unquestionably, sovereign, so far as their sovereignty is not affected by this supreme law. But the State legislatures, as political bodies, however sovereign, are yet not sovereign over the people. So far as the people have given the power to the general government, so far the grant is unquestionably good, and the government holds of the people, and not of the State governments. We are all agents of the same supreme power, the people. The general government and the State governments derive their authority from the same source. Neither can, in relation to the other, be called primary, thorugh one is definite and restricted, and the other general and residuary. The national government possesses those powers which it will be shown the people have conferred upon it, and no more. All the rest belongs to the State governments, or to the people themselves. So far as the people have restrained State sovereignty, by the expression of their will, in the Constitution of the United States, so far, it must be admitted. State sovereignty is effectually controlled.
Daniel Webster, Webster Hayne Debate 1830
There in lies the problem of those who rely on the 10th Amendment solely for the purpose of advancing the rights of states yet neglecting the rights of the people. So, if there were a mechanism for disunion, it is a matter for the People to decide, not any state or group of states but the People as a whole.
Websters position was further reenforced by Andrew Jackson who wrote:
The States “retained all the power they did not grant. But each State, having expressly parted with so many powers as to constitute, jointly with the other States, a single nation, can not, from that period, possess any right to secede, because such secession does not break a league, but destroys the unity of a nation.â€
Lastly, I give you what is now the law of the land
Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869)
The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to 'be perpetual.' And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained 'to form a more perfect Union.' It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?
PS - Antonin Scalia
"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.
Simple.... "people", 250 years ago, were culturally homogeneous...
Today they are not....
Why is this relevant? Easy because the government is now rent seeking to pit people from different cultures against each other... And THAT is in direct conflict with the individuals liberty and right to prosperity.
When the government becomes self serving it is no longer "for the people"
your argument is 250 years old... not relevant and quite stupid.
This succession talk is just getting silly. Some Republicans today sound about as dumb as some Democrats did in 2000 and 2004. Lots of talk, lots of whining, but it's going nowhere. We made it through the last 4 years, we'll make it through the next four. We may have alot more unemployed and homeless, but the country will survive.
This succession talk is just getting silly. Some Republicans today sound about as dumb as some Democrats did in 2000 and 2004.
I wasn't on this forum in 2000 and 2004 but on the forums that I did participate in I was as caustic with Democrats who made these arguments as I was with Democrats who called for Bush's impeachment.
For me stupid is as stupid does regardless of party or ideology.
Yea, the secession is absolutely not happening in the next 4 years... It might happen.. It PROBABLY will down the line.
But as for now.. it's whatever. Best hope to just let evolution take it's course. We'll all be gone by the time most of the stuff we whine about is resolved.
The premise of secession is still arguable though... there is nothing "unamerican" about it. When government becomes too invasive in ones life....then break off. It really is that simple.
No reason to cling to an antiquated document that has now been bastardized by arcane interpretations and rendered irrelevant in a modern society.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
