Luis Miguel #wingnut #dunning-kruger #crackpot

Luis Miguel #wingnut #dunning-kruger #crackpot thenewamerican.com

[From "Yes, Secession Is Constitutional. The 10th Amendment Proves It."]

E pluribus unum

The principle behind that short Latin phrase is just as controversial now as it was at two of the most important junctures in American history: the War for Independence and the Civil War

As division continues to grow between left and right and between Democrat and Republican, ideas such as secession and “national divorce” are increasingly raised and debated

While the political establishment has long claimed that the secession question was definitively settled by the North’s victory during the Civil War, recent developments have proven the universal truth that in politics, nothing is ever truly settled[…]
Secession can appear an enticing option. Why should leftist and conservative states continue together when our politics are so abhorrent to one another?[…]
The Constitution may not have a “secession clause” in it; but then, it’s common sense that no government ever plants within itself the framework for its own demise

But that does not mean secession is unconstitutional, illegal, treasonous, or insurrectionist[…]
The constitutionality of secession is simple to prove:

First, it is crucial to establish that[…]the Founders believed in a natural right of secession, which they articulated very explicitly in the Declaration of Independence[…]
Constitution has no provision prohibiting a state from seceding. Therefore, the logical conclusion, based on the 10th Amendment, is that the states do have that right[…]
So while there are many valid questions and arguments, including whether secession is the right solution at all or whether nullification and a return to true federalism are more viable answers to current federal overreach, the fact remains that secession is moral, legal, and constitutional

8 comments

The Constitution may not have a “secession clause” in it; but then, it’s common sense that no government ever plants within itself the framework for its own demise
But that does not mean secession is unconstitutional, illegal, treasonous, or insurrectionist

Yes it does…?

If you’re interpreting the Constitution’s lack of a secession clause as a deliberate choice to avoid “planting the seed” for the government’s demise, then you implicitly acknowledge that:

* Secession is something the Constitution intentionally does not allow, making it unconstitutional (and illegal)

* Secession is likely to lead to the demise of the US GOV, making secession a form of treason (if one secedes to join another existing country) or insurrection (if one secedes to form their own country)

“But that does not mean secession is unconstitutional, illegal, treasonous, or insurrectionist”

I’m afraid you’re incorrect, there. There’s no way any state or group of states will secede from the Union without armed resistance. And taking up arms against the government IS the definition of Treason in the Constitution. Making it also unconstitutional. And it’s pretty much the definition of ‘insurrection,’ too.
The Founding Fathers were pretty honest about the fact that they were committing treason when they wrote the Declaration. They just thought they could win, or at least make it too expensive for Britain to find it worth winning.

And, really, you watch someone like Sarah Huckabee swear she’s going to end all ‘socialism’ in her state, then turn around and demand 100% federal restitution for the tornadoes they just had? Do you think any red state can really afford to secede?

E pluribus Unum

...and have you ever wondered why it doesn't mean 'From Many, Two'?!

someone like Sarah Huckabee swear she’s going to end all ‘socialism’ in her state

What does she mean by socialism anyway? “Nobody must be wealthier than 1950s Middle Class level”?

@Malingspann #161428
What she means by ‘socialism’ is a dogwhistle to get the dain-bread voters to cheer.
She means ‘punish welfare queens and teachers’ while not touching any of their subsidies. Like FEMA funds, road maintenance, military equipment for cops, stuff like that there.

Hey, wait, why would a secesionist CARE about the laws of a country they want to leave?
Isn’t that WHY you want to leave, because all the wrong people get a vote under our constitution. Among other things?
So, just, you know, GO! Announce a date, chase out the federal agents, the military bases, any federal contractors, border patrol, national guard, (and their paychecks), any FEMA funds or unspent subsidies, all that socialist shit keeping your state afloat;
advertise for like-minded citizens, deny any of their requests for help moving, issue guns at the border, and see what happens.

The 9th and 10th Amendments basically say “the core Constitution and the 1st through 8th amendments are not intended to be an exhaustive list of personal rights and government powers. More can be defined by congress and the courts, without necessarily needing an amendment.” I mean that’s not exactly what they say, but what they have been interpreted to mean ever since the Bill of Rights was written.

The Confederacy actually used the interpretation that because the Constitution isn’t exhaustive and doesn’t mention secession, they had every right to secede, and because it doesn’t give any particular path to secession, they could do it however they wanted to. But the US Supreme Court was like “LOL, nope, actually create a law or amendment which gives a path to secession and we’ll talk” and the Confederacy was like “fuck you, WAR”.

They don’t bother to try, of course, because when Republicans are in power, they’re mostly concerned with forcing liberal states under the heel of an eternal one-party nation like China (if not an outright theocracy), and when they’re not in power, they don’t have the numbers to make it happen.

Sounds like part of a war accelerationism plan to me...