Comeback for states rights

[Mangudai]

States Rights is making a comeback in New Hampshire.

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2009/HCR0006.html

[Comtedemeighan]

Jeffersonian States rights

[soloswolf]

We don't say "Live free or die" for nothing!

[Major Tom]

Wow. I actually read that whole thing. Once you get past the archaic legalese of the language, it's a powerful declaration of founding principles.

I know politics is probably off limits on this forum, but this is pretty relevant considering the importance of the states' rights argument as the legal basis for secession.

I hope this passes and sets a trend.

[Franciscus]

Wow
Jefferson (Davis) would be proud

(managed to post before this thread gets closed... )

[tagwyn]

There is no, repeat NO, legal basis for secession!! Lincoln had that one right along with many others.

[Barker]

It is the right nay the obligation of every citizen to stand up to a government and say enough your done. It is our duty as Americans to rise and remove a government that is tyrannical in nature as well as in fact. I am a firm believer in states rights without the Feds intervening. Who knows their own the Governor and Reps of a State or a Figurehead who reads reports based on opinion? Our Decleration of Independance gives us this right but do we as a society have the will to carry it out? America has become a society of sheep.... we bleet and Baaaa when things are wrong but we lack the courage to band together and stampede the threat.

An interesting fact in April of 2011...big to do here in SC....rememberance of the firing on Ft. Sumter. We need to remember that the issue that was paramount at that time was the state to govern their own territory with a GUIDING hand.

Did you know Gun sales here in the south rose dramatically after Katrina, then rose again during the election. When Bush passed the law that federal troops can intercede in a state that has declared an emergencey that was the start of the downfall of states rights. This my opinion and not to slight anyone.

Marc

[Spharv2]

There is no, repeat NO, legal basis for secession!! Lincoln had that one right along with many others.

Quite wrong. Many of the states had clauses in their own state constitutions reserving the right to leave the union at any time that the state legislators decided that the Federal government overstepped their bounds. Of course, when the North won, they forced rewrites of the Southern state's constitutions eliminating these clauses. ALL legal rejections for the idea of secession came from the years following the Civil War. The Case of Texas v. White in '68 (Judged by a very biased Supreme Court) shot down the case for secession. Of course, all it takes is a different set of judges in a different mood to overturn that decision.

[lodilefty]

Well, if anyone succeeds at secession, please take New York City with you....

...and best luck with defense, your economy, and anything else that really matters....

[Major Tom]

The separate states formed a union voluntarily, and it's a certainty that none of the state legislatures thought they were signing a contract that could never be broken. The idea of secession was built into it from the start -- like marriage and divorce. Secession was not illegal. Lincoln's war of conquest against the SOVEREIGN southern states was illegal.

Am I sorry Lincoln embarked on this war of conquest? No. Do I wish the CSA had won? No. But regardless of the moral certainty of hindsight, the southern states had every right to secede, just like any member of the European Union can secede. Can anyone imagine the rest of the EU going to war to prevent Germany from seceding????

Just wait -- the central EU government is almost as powerful now as the central US government was at inception. Power has in its nature te requirement to grow. The puny power of the EU central government will attempt to grow, just as US federal power did. In 50 years, that power could be strong enough to forcibly prevent the secession of a member state.

[Major Tom]

Well, if anyone succeeds at secession, please take New York City with you....

...and best luck with defense, your economy, and anything else that really matters....

Can they take California while they're at it? Or at least San Francisco?

[Mangudai]

I don't like the term "States Rights" for a couple of reasons.

1) Individual rights are declared to be endowed by the creator and unalienable. Who is the creator of states? Just men. When we confuse individual rights with states rights, we risk cheapening individual rights.

2) Collective rights have been touted by Marxists as a basis for trampling on individual rights. The needs of the community sometimes trump and individual right to free speech, property, etc.

I'm more comfortable saying certain "Powers" were delegated to the federal government, and other "Powers" were reserved for the states.

[Barker]

Can they take California while they're at it? Or at least San Francisco?

Ahhhh California is a country within a country...It has already been taken...now they are issuing IOU's to people getting state income tax returns...

[Major Tom]

I don't like the term "States Rights" for a couple of reasons.

1) Individual rights are declared to be endowed by the creator and unalienable. Who is the creator of states? Just men. When we confuse individual rights with states rights, we risk cheapening individual rights.

2) Collective rights have been touted by Marxists as a basis for trampling on individual rights. The needs of the community sometimes trump and individual right to free speech, property, etc.

I'm more comfortable saying certain "Powers" were delegated to the federal government, and other "Powers" were reserved for the states.

Definitely with you on #2. For a somewhat trivial example, look at anti-smoking laws. They just passed a watered-down one in Virginia, prohibiting smoking in bars and restaurants, wth a few exceptions (private clubs; separate fully-enclosed smoking areas). The rights of individuals (and individual business owners) have been trampled in favor of "group rights." Not that I mind, as an ex-smoker who would just as soon not be around cigerette smoke, but I mind the principle.

[Mangudai]

Definitely with you on #2. For a somewhat trivial example, look at anti-smoking laws. They just passed a watered-down one in Virginia, prohibiting smoking in bars and restaurants, wth a few exceptions (private clubs; separate fully-enclosed smoking areas). The rights of individuals (and individual business owners) have been trampled in favor of "group rights." Not that I mind, as an ex-smoker who would just as soon not be around cigerette smoke, but I mind the principle.

The private club exception is key. There is a town in Texas with such a ban. Every bar has a sign on the outside saying "Memberships Available". You buy a membership card for $1 and get $1 off your first drink.

[Nial]

Ehhemm.....Southern California has been taken. We in the north have been trying to break the state in two for nigh on 100 years. We would have succeeded in the 40's if a little thing called WW2 hadn't come along. Oh and we in the North consider San Francisco as part of the South.

Nial

[AndrewKurtz]

SC Joins the club...

http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess118_2009-2010/bills/424.htm

As with many other states:

http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/

[Comtedemeighan]

According to the Glenn Beck clip on that site you linked Andrew there are currently 20 states passing some sort of tenth amendment sovereignty legislation. Very interesting links thanks

[TheDoctorKing]

The problem with the various "resolutions of sovereignty" is that, although their constitutional argument may have merit, it has been rejected by the courts over and over again. The "implied powers" doctrine that permits the federal government to act in the "penumbra" of the powers accorded it in Article 1 and 2 of the Constitution has been regularly reaffirmed. So when the federal government conditions educational assistance on compliance with No Child Left Behind, it doesn't make any difference that the Constitution says nothing about Congress having the right to legislate on matters of education. The power to regulate education is tied in some sort of convoluted way to one of the Constitutionally permitted goals of federal legislation (I'm not sure which one in this case but you could read the legislation to find out) and so the federal government has the power to act. If you don't like it, your remedy is to go to the federal courts and they will tell you that more than 200 years of precedent, going back to the Marshall court in the early 1800s, justifies what they are doing.

As Oliver Wendell Holmes said, "we are a government of laws, under the Constitution, but the laws and the Constitution are what the Supreme Court says they are."

Or, of course, you could amend the Constitution, which is terrifically difficult in the US - 2/3 votes in both houses of Congress or calls by 2/3 of the state legislatures, followed by the ratification of 3/4 of the states. It's intended to be nearly impossible. We got ten of our amendments right at the start, thanks to a compromise that permitted ratification of the Constitution at all. Three of the amendments were passed in the aftermath of the Civil War with ratification a condition of readmission for the defeated southern states. Fourteen others were passed by the "normal" method, most of which were quite non-controversial at the time. So almost half of the amendments were passed under special circumstances. It ain't easy.

[Coffee Sergeant]

[quote="US Constitution"]
Article I

...

Section 10 - Powers prohibited of States

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation]

Pretty compelling evidence that secession was illegal, especially the part I bolded. The states couldn't act as a sovereign power would.

[Barker]

This is exactly what kind of things occered prior to the civil war. At what point does a state lose itself to the federal state? I wonder how the military will fall into this? Will it abide by a government deemed tyrannical or will it side with their own people? Who represents the people in this age? It is not the senators that all they care for is political expediency...it is not the house that constantly fights to ensure their way of thinking is the way to go. Who will listen to the people? I think it will be the state governments, as in your district legislators, the governor....It is their right to say what happens within its boundaries...this is going to be a huge issue in the next few years and hopefully we will come out stronger if not wiser. I do not think it will brother against brother....I think it will be a coup to bring back the United States as it was prior to 911.

[Mangudai]

I doubt any of the states will declare independence. What they can do is defy the US government on specific issues. For example, California has essentially legalized marijuana.

[SkyWestNM]

Do we forget that The United States of America was formed as a rebellious act? A rebellion that ostensibly based itself not solely on documents, nor constitutions but on a higher belief, subscribing the existence of a "god-granted inalienable right" of every individual to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. THIS is the basis for our nation state. This is where our forefathers rebelled, at risk of death, to the aging rule of monarchists and royalists. And in our adherence to our modern interpretation of the intent and legality of the document created by the founding fathers we have again become bound to often ignore this, our guiding principal......that every man is entitled to choose their own form of self-rule. WE get lost in the labyrinth in interpretating the form of the document and lose the substance of this wondrous ideal.
I wrestle to this day whether the South or any community of people in our country have a continuing right to choose their own self rule or must continue their initial allegiance to a nation they helped create. For harmony and unity's path to a coherent and unified nation, the sanctity of the Union was preserved and I must say with beneficial outcome for the largest part. Yet I fully believe that any group of people or even an individual has the right to re-negotiate their pledge or their allegiance. To re-choose, hopefully, in an honorable manner. To render that ability to choose as impotent is clearly not liberty. The rising up of so many soverign state resolutions in this day and age is a indication that our people are waking up to that.

[soloswolf]

-snip- WE get lost in the labyrinth in interpretating the form of the document and lose the substance of this wondrous ideal. -snip-

(emphasis mine)

It never existed. This is an ideal to strive for, and one unlikely to ever be reached.

[Major Tom]

Pretty compelling evidence that secession was illegal, especially the part I bolded. The states couldn't act as a sovereign power would.

Yes, but through the act of secession the southern states each individually cancelled their "contract" with the United States, and hence were no longer bound by it.

They did not enter into a confederation until after the U.S. constitution no longer applied to them.

[Coffee Sergeant]

Yes, but through the act of secession the southern states each individually cancelled their "contract" with the United States, and hence were no longer bound by it.

They did not enter into a confederation until after the U.S. constitution no longer applied to them.

That argument would seem rather spurious. It would allow states to secede and say, rejoin Great Britain. I don't think the founders would have put up with that, not without a fight.

[77NY]

The Civil War was just contract litigation by other means.

[Major Tom]

The Civil War was just contract litigation by other means.

Yeah, that was my point, too, but I like your phrasing -- von Clausewitz would be proud.

[Nial]

That argument would seem rather spurious. It would allow states to secede and say, rejoin Great Britain. I don't think the founders would have put up with that, not without a fight.

I think that would depend on which group of founding fathers one chose.

The side of the Federalists led by Hamilton would certainly not put up with it.

Jeffersons camp on the other hand might not stand in the way based on their own principles of state self determination.

But for good or bad the Federalist camp emerged victorious and a strong central government we have.

Nial

[77NY]

It's very interesting to see how Lincoln and Stanton started the war somewhat tentatively asking the northern governors for assistance with the war effort and how that evolved into a sense of federal entitlement as time went on. See, for example, the lively exchanges between Lincoln/Stanton and Governor Salomon of Wisconsin.

From a legal standpoint, it was not until the "Civil War/Reconstruction Amendments" were adopted and subsequently interpreted by U.S. Supreme Court decisions that it became entrenched doctrine that the Bill of Rights even applied to state action and not just federal action. (I think that is a very telling historical fact in terms of understanding the scope of states' rights/autonomy in 1861.)

And still, it was not until 1965 that the federal government really went on the offensive against racial discrimination in the former Confederate states.

As a side note, it was the Fourteenth Amendment that recognized corporations as legal "persons." Sometimes I wonder whether that "little" change was more important in changing the course of U.S./world history than the civil rights aspects!