Internet Death Dealers
I really don’t know what to say. Daniel Kuehn isn’t sure, but he thinks he would suppress secessionists “by force” (his term):
The point is, it’s traitorous and unconstitutional and clearly does not carry a payoff that makes it worth committing treason and violating the Constitution over. A war over it would be terrible, but I think over the very long run it would be better than letting them go.
In the comments I asked if Daniel would allow me personally to leave the US physically without getting shot, and he had no problem with that. Then I asked if everyone in Texas could walk away without getting shot, and at this point someone else in the comment thread objected (to me!) saying that’s not what secession is like. No response yet from Daniel. In a follow-up post though, he did clarify that secession isn’t immoral and might not be illegal, either. So Daniel is willing to kill you for doing things that are neither immoral nor illegal, apparently.
But the real swell thought comes from a wise sage named “mike shupp” who commented:
My memory — which may be mistaken, since I’m real old and all that — is that the issue of whether states could secede from the Federal Union came up once before in American history. I don’t recall all the trifling details except that a President from Illinois was somehow involved.
Could all you experts enlighten me, please?
That is really a blood-curdling comment, which would be horrifying to any decent person if it were in a different context. I had toyed with making an OJ Simpson analogy, but decided that would be too crass. So how’s this Mr. Shupp?
Yes, I vaguely recall that event you’re talking about. But wasn’t this issue of whether it’s a good idea for a President to forcibly put down a secession movement, settled once and for all by John Wilkes Booth in a theater?
Bob, do you think states should leave the union, or just be able to?
Kospe the older I get (like I’m an old man now…) the more I think people should think in terms of their own actions, not what political units should or shouldn’t do. So obviously, if the people in Texas hold a referendum and say, “We are a free country now, screw DC” then I think it would be immoral for the Air Force to bomb them. But if I were in Texas, I don’t think I would sign such a referendum. I wouldn’t even cast a vote for Ron Paul if I were in his district.
Leaving is at the very least an amendment. There is no unilateral right, but there are ways to amend the constitution and separate peaceably. Skipping that process would be an attack on the country and e constitution.
>Leaving is at the very least an amendment.
Alright, let’s just make sure we get Parliament’s permission before we send the King this here Declaration….
Right. The revolution was contrary to British law. It was an attack on the system. But Canada achieved independence sans uprising. Nice to see you conced my point Matt.
It is amazing that this point has to be repeated so much.
I thought everyone agreed Washington was a traitor. I had no idea that this was such a tough point.
As I said, confusion about malum in se and malum prohibitum.
The United States has a very strict definition of treason. Check out article 3 section 3 of the US Constitution:
“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”
In declaring that one has seceded from the United States that would not seem to necessitate making war on the United States or giving enemies aid and comfort. If the government sends in agents or the military to deny your secession then who has declared war on whom?
You said there was no RIGHT. If anyone is confused over the distinction between malum in se and malum prohibitum, it is you.
Legal right.
“It is amazing that this point has to be repeated so much.” Indeed Daniel, indeed.
“But Canada achieved independence sans uprising.”
I suppose the years of 1837 and 1838 never occurred, then. I suppose further that imposing the British rule one Canada for another 150 years or so because they lost is just “part of the process”.
King’s rebellion was a trifle, and did not contribute to Canadian independence. It has no size able following.
I can’t even imagine where you got your imposing, your 150, or your British rule.
Kem who needs to actually know any Canadian history to spout off about Canadian history: this can all be worked out a priori.
Indeed Gene. But it’s fun watching sometimes!
Correct you are, Matt. The American Revolution was clearly an illegal action, and Britain had every right to send an army to try to stop it. They just happened to fail.
The Americans had every right to use armies to stop the illegal British armies.
Hey cool, all we have to do is call something illegal from some random arbitrary perspective, and then “every right to use violence” is magically created.
Leaving is at the very least an amendment. There is no unilateral right
Guess they never taught constitutional law at Gibberish U.
There is no expressed authority delegated to the federal government in the constitution that gives it the right to use force against seceding states. Lincoln violated the constitution when he started the war of northern aggression / civil war.
Any powers not expressly delegated to the federal government are, obviously, retained by the states. Thus, if a state wants to secede, there is no “amendment” required. The state can just exercise an authority it already has. Secession is indeed a “unilateral right”.
Some powers are prohibited to the states; the power to abolish republican government amongst them
What republican government is abolished by the secession of a state?
Read the claims made here. MF places *no limits* on what the seceded state may do. It can establish a monarchy. So what power is the guarnetee — made by the feds — if it can be overturned. Plus there is the clear principle inherent hewre that states are not completely autonomous.
I didn’t say there are no limits. I said there is a limit to what the feds can legally do, and preventing secession is overstepping their limit.
But that establishment of a monarchy would come after the secession, at which point the republic of texas would no longer be bound by the constitution.
Yes integral, thus vitiating the right. Say DK lives in Texas and does not want to secede. Suddenly the state secedes. Advocaters here deamnds instant unconditional secession after all. Then instantly a monarchy. DK’s rights have been suspended. Then DK is enslaved, instantly. What good were all his bill of rights rights? No good at all. That is why this instant unconditional secession is implicitly forbidden by the logic and structure of the constitution
. No-one here has even ADDRESSED such arguments much less answered them.
But again, such bills of rights only exist within the constitution, and once Texas seceded the constitution of the US would no longer apply to it, instead only the constitution of Texas would apply, unless that was removed.
(And the constitution of Texas makes explicit in it’s bill of rights section 2:
Sec. 2. INHERENT POLITICAL POWER; REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT.)
that texas is to have a republican form of government.
So unless Texas throws out it’s own constitution, such an instant transformation would be impossible.
Secession does not necessarily include abolition of republican government.
What are you, thirty three and a third RPM?
Ken B. you’d better say something really clever before you give the nod to the firing squad. You owe me that at least.
“Sic semper tyranis.”
Admit it — you’d laugh.
Blood in, blood out, just like it is with every other peaceful organization like the Mafia, Aryan Nation, or Crips. Lincoln understood what I’m talking about. I’m sure the founding fathers meant it to be this way too.
Peace out.
Volokh had an excellent post on this just a day or so ago. I agree with him completely and I think Bob would like the piece. DK not so much.
Which Matt should read.
Your John Wilkes Booth trumps my Normandy. You win!
If everybody left Texas I don’t see how that changes things. The concern comes in when a group of Texans declare that Texas is no longer part of the Union.
And I have nothing against the idea of that. My concern is how they do it. And I’m happy to defer to a constitutional law scholar on that point, but my suspicion is that since it was a federal act that got them into the Union legally it takes a federal act to get them out of it legally.
So I say it might be reasonable to use force in response to this violation of the law. I don’t see what’s so crazy about that. When murderers violate the law we hire men with guns to capture them and in a lot of cases kill them. We may think it’s right to defend ourselves against murderers (and in the process, kill them), but we legitimize hiring third parties to do it because they broke a law. It seems to be the same situation with secession. Obviously you start with sending a team into Austin (btw – recently Austin residents apparently petitioned to stay in the Union in the event that Texas secedes), arresting the leaders, and declaring the secession illegal (this sort of move was a little harder in the 1860s). You don’t just start the bombing. But if you take the capitol, and then they organize a force to fight back, of course you respond.
btw – no one who hates the fact of majoritarianism in the U.S. today should be comfortable with secession being imposed on a populace by a majority either. I would think all Lysander Spooner types should be completely indifferent on the issue of secession.
“Indifferent” is the wrong word – they shouldn’t like either side. They should not be arguing that secession is legitimate.
Why not?
They should be arguing secession is legitimate if the feds are oppressive in their judgments.
I don’t think they’re imposing anything on the populace in question. Rather it’s the statists who are imposing their forceful rule on the populace, i.e. forced extortion (taxation), police state fascism, …
That also applies if the new state tries similar statist rule.
Secession isn’t justified on the basis of majoritarianism.
“my suspicion is that since it was a federal act that got them into the Union legally it takes a federal act to get them out of it legally”
Why? You need the permission of the country club to join, but you don’t need their permission to quit. Obviously, the state is more coercive than this, but I don’t see why secession needs to be lawful to be legitimate. Historically, it tends to have NOT been.
The War of Secession From Great Britain in 1776 provides an excellent example, I think.
Additionally, the Declaration of Independence, with its affirmation of the right of secession, is part of the US Code, under the Organic Law section.
“That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
It seems to me that membership and partnership are different beasts.
I don’t think I’ve said secession needs to be lawful to be legitimate. “Legitimate” is a squishier word than “lawful”. If I used the word “legitimate” at any time I hope from the context of everything else I’ve written it’s clear I don’t think legality is required for legitimacy.
I’m glad you brought up our independence. That’s an example I’ve mentioned a couple times now as a case of treasonous secession that was a great idea.
If a government is destructive of these ends and if a state just decides it doesn’t want to be a part of a partnership it has been participating in are two quite different things.
I agree with your Spooner point, but besides that, what does the Union gain by potentially, if need be, killing Texans just to maintain the current Union? If the Pentagon thinks Iraq is a tough place to go, think about dealing with Texans. Good lord that could be disastrous.
Why was that such a great idea?
“If a government is destructive of these ends and if a state just decides it doesn’t want to be a part of a partnership it has been participating in are two quite different things”
How so? I’d bet they would say the reasons they don’t want to be part of the partnership are precisely those reasons – it no longer supports the ends listed there.
“I don’t think I’ve said secession needs to be lawful to be legitimate.”
Then why bring up the law at all?
And I have nothing against the idea of that. My concern is how they do it. And I’m happy to defer to a constitutional law scholar on that point, but my suspicion is that since it was a federal act that got them into the Union legally it takes a federal act to get them out of it legally.
So I say it might be reasonable to use force in response to this violation of the law. I don’t see what’s so crazy about that.
It’s crazy because according to that logic, it is reasonable to use force in response to a violation of ANY law. No matter what the law says, you are saying that it would be reasonable to use force against violators of said law.
You do know that morality trumps law, and it is because of morality trumping law that laws can be judged as good or bad, and enables bad laws to be eliminated and good laws to be introduced, instead of staying as they have been since, I don’t know, Hammurabi’s reign.
In short, just because X is a law, it doesn’t mean it is reasonable to use force against violators of said law. There needs to be an additional, rational component of one’s judgment. Or else we’re all slaves.
For the sake of argument, assuming the State as an institution is morally appropriate…
“If everybody left Texas I don’t see how that changes things.”
That’s not the point, you’re being obtuse.
“The concern comes in when a group of Texans declare that Texas is no longer part of the Union.”
What if the “group of Texans” happens to be a majority by popular vote? So you don’t support the independence of Palestine or Kosovo either then? Should India attack Bangladesh to punish it for seceding and attempt forcible repatriation? Maybe Columbia should invade Panama and reabsorb it.
“So I say it might be reasonable to use force in response to this violation of the law. I don’t see what’s so crazy about that.”
The lack of proportionality is crazy and so is the assumption that the law trumps basic morality and human decency. This mentality is at the heart of every despotism. This is the mentality of the gulag. Everyone who went to the gulag had violated the law. Every Jew who went to Auschwitz had violated the laws of Nazi Germany. The legal system of this Idiots Republic is so vast and incomprehensible that for all practical purposes we are all in violation of it at all times. Maybe we should all go to the Federal gulag as punishment for our scofflaw ways. Please don’t protest Daniel that you have never violated the law. Here’s a thought Daniel – when the law becomes an instrument of injustice or tyranny good people ought to violate it as a matter of conscience.
“When murderers violate the law we hire men with guns to capture them and in a lot of cases kill them.”
The implicit comparison of murder to peaceful secession by plebiscite is a ridiculous and shabby sophistry. Come on Daniel, you can do better than this.
“We may think it’s right to defend ourselves against murderers (and in the process, kill them), but we legitimize hiring third parties to do it because they broke a law. It seems to be the same situation with secession.”
This is merely a continuation of the previous invalid point. You still haven’t shown how murder is like secession from a moral perspective. How could a peaceful, popular and nonaggressive act of secession be the same as murder? They seem like moral opposites to me.
“Obviously you start with sending a team into Austin (btw – recently Austin residents apparently petitioned to stay in the Union in the event that Texas secedes), arresting the leaders, and declaring the secession illegal”
In other words it seems obvious to you that the first response to a peaceful and democratic secession is State aggression and violence. This is more craziness. Why is violence the first response? . Don’t you want to at least consider negotiation for a peaceful resolution?
“But if you take the capitol, and then they organize a force to fight back, of course you respond.”
So in other words, if your invasion team is resisted then all resistance is suppressed with mass murder to achieve compliance. How much “collateral damage” can you stomach Daniel? What if the invasion force ends up killing thousands of loyal Federal subjects and destroying their property by mistake? Surely you can imagine that happening. What if the alternative to this violent destruction was allowing those who wish to remain subjects of the Federal Regime to repatriate with appropriate compensation determined by some sort of negotiated arbitrator. Isn’t it at least worth pondering these alternatives rather than reacting with murderous aggression which could get lots of innocent people killed?
Ultimately the craziness comes from your immediate desire to wage war without even considering more peaceful alternatives. What scares me about statists is the unseemly and uncivilized desire for mass coercion and violence as a solution to problems.
DK wrote: “So I say it might be reasonable to use force in response to this violation of the law.”
Exactly which law are secessionists breaking?
That depends on what they do. Which is kinda our point. Declare independence now and enslave the blacks? Not such a silly example as it is allowed under MF’ls plan. Just look at his answer to my questions to Bob. ‘Secession’ covers a lot of ground.
Straw man. I never said slavery is justified under my plan.
Secesion does not necessarily imply slavery.
This all depends on the exact circumstances too, of course. If half the country seceded, as it did with the Confederacy, it would be a much harder call.
Because individual rights only arise when there are lots of individuals.
Bob, have you the unilateral right to violate contracts? Has the LVMI? Has Texaco? Has Texas?
I’m asking seriously. One might give different answers to each, but one would need to explain why.
States would not be violating any contracts by seceding. There is no expressed authority given to the Feds in the constitution that allows it to use lethal force against secession. Secession is a power retained by the states.
They have military authority. The Constitution is the law of the land and they have police authority to enforce the law of the land.
There is no “secession is illegal” law of the land in the constitution.
Try again.
States are in the Union by an act of Congress. They have the power to make states Union members.
Secession is a repeal of that act of Congress.
My understanding is that repealing acts of Congress is a power reserved for Congress and so not one that is relegated to the states or the people.
No, the states had, and have, the power to give to the feds the authority to enforce constitutional law, which does not contain “secession is illegal.”
Secession does not require a repeal of any act of Congress. The act consists of the states retaining the right to secede. Seceding would only be states enacting constitutionally permitted law.
Yes, repealing acts of Congress requires Congress, but no “repeal” is present in states exercising a right they always had via the constitution act of Congress.
The original states formed the Union as a compact, with the powers not granted to the Union reserved – including the power of secession.
The acts that formed newer states include the phrase “shall be admitted into the Union upon an equal footing with the original states in all respects whatsoever”, which would include the ability to secede.
DK,
your logic is circular. What you are saying amounts to “Congress has authority over states because congress has the authority to give itself authority over states.
By that token Congress could declare Canada a union member. And than you just tell the Canadians that only Congress can repeal acts of Congress.
The question is not what it takes to repeal an legitimate act of Congress but weather the act was legitimate in the first place.
“The land” is the land the states have granted the feds to enforce constitutionally authorized laws.
If “the land” is reduced by a secession state, then “the land” no longer includes that state.
@DK: watch now for an implicit argument that only malum in se matters not malum prohibitum. As if you could actually have a large civilized society without process.
Totally right. All those horrible, horrible people that wouldn’t go to the back of the bus in the 60s should have been shot. /sarcasm
When you can’t win the moral argument, then you only have the naked aggression (malum prohibitum) to fall back on. Quibble about that distinction and hope that the law of land assertion sticks. I mean, we can’t use malum in se too often…we just might improve things that cause some malum people to have their power reduced.
As I legal matter, I think it’s pretty clear that secession was illegal. When the New York ratification convention was deadlocked, for example, someone proposed that New York ratify with the explicit condition that they could withdraw from the Union later if they wished. This was rejected on the grounds that it would not be a real ratification if it were not permanent.
Of course the morality of secession is a separate question from its legality. Secession might be moral even if it’s not legal, and it could be immoral even if it were legal. In the case of the confederacy the reasons given for secession were not good. The southern states were not being oppressed by the federal government and in fact left the U.S. primarily because they wanted to continue oppressing others.
+1
Actually, +2
New York’s reasons are not universal.
Virginia’s ratifiers for example were promised by the federalists that if they wanted to secede, they could. There was nothing in the constitution that granted the feds to use force against states that want to secede.
Blackadder you’re still bitter that the colonists left the Crown.
Bob,
No, I’m bitter that Texas didn’t listen to Sam Houston when it came to joining the Confederacy.
I was making a Rowan Atkinson joke in case you didn’t see that. (I’m not saying you *didn’t*, just don’t want to chance it.)
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.”
In order to say that secession is not a right retained by the states it is necessary to find where the power to prohibit secession lies in the Constitution itself. In this regard it does not matter what any state legislature said if the power to limit secession is not in the Constitution. If you and I were signing a contract and I said to myself “hmmm this contract means Blackadder will owe me a million dollars” but no where in the contract actually says you owe me a million dollars, that would not actually bind you. My claim would be rightfully laughed out of court, even if the only reason I signed the contract in the first place was because I had fooled myself into thinking you would owe me a million dollars.
So, does the Constitution anywhere ban secession? Certainly not by name but Article 1 section 8 does say Congress has the right to:
“To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”
So what is an insurrection? Could insurrection be simply breaking away from the American government? If yes then an individual abandoning his citizenship is in an act of insurrection. But that is allowed so that can’t be the case. A better way of putting it would be an attempt to actually overthrow the federal government. Mere secession is not that, the Confederate states never challenged the right of the federal government to exist. Therefore, this clause is not talking about secession and that right must be protected under the 10th amendment regardless of what ANY state legislatures thought when passing the Constitution.
The interesting upshot is that the 10th amendment reserves the rights to the states or the people, which means the people should also retain the right to secede if they so choose.
In order to say that secession is not a right retained by the states it is necessary to find where the power to prohibit secession lies in the Constitution itself.
First, the folks who drafted and ratified the constitution and bill of rights didn’t see it that way.
Second, there are large chunks of the constitution that are meaningless if states can just secede whenever they wish. For example, the constitution requires the federal government to guarantee that the states retain a republican form of government. It can’t do that if states can leave at will. The constitution also guarantees that the citizens of each state are entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several states. Can’t do that if a state can just withdraw. The Supremacy Clause says that federal law is the supreme law of the land, and ” the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.”
And so on.
SO you’re saying that the states are slaves to the federal government?
Maintaining a republican form of government is a requirement for continued membership in the United States confederation.
If a state secedes, the general government no longer has jurisdiction over it.
This is what the states agreed to. The states are saying that they will grant privileges and immunities according to the compact between the states.
If a state no longer agrees to this, then they can secede, thus withdrawing their delegated authority.
The so-called “Supremacy Clause” says:
So, this so-called “Supremacy Clause” is actually affirming state sovereignty over the general government: Nothing that the states have not delegated through the Constitution (including supposedly lawful amendments to it, which violated the rule of law) can be lawful, is what it’s saying.
And the states may withdraw said delegated powers and leave the union, whenever they want.
Right on all counts. These are structural arguments. Marbury was purely structural argument, also sound.
How stare decisis Subverts the Law
http://constitution.org/col/0610staredrift.htm
The Federalist No. 83
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa83.htm
The Federalist No. 78
http://constitution.org/fed/federa78.htm
BTW, while a lot of the secession discussion has unsurprisingly focused on Texas, if you want to consider a secession scenario Texas is not the best example. Hawaii, Alaska, and Puerto Rico are all much more realistic. If you want to consider whether the U.S. would or could use force to stop secession, those are really the cases you should be thinking of.
Regarding Puerto Rico:
Glenn Beck: Puerto Rican Statehood Ahead?
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/39780/
…
…
…
…
…
To describe someone leaving a “union” that one has been involuntarily compelled to belong as “treasonous” and being a “traitor” really makes me toss my cookies. The real traitors are those schmucks and fascists in Washington whose constant new laws, regulations and executive orders violate the people’s persons and property, their lives and liberty.
And when those criminals in DC threaten to confiscate guns, an important means of self-defense, as well as impose NDAA which threatens to detain indefinitely innocent people (especially for their criticisms of those government bureaucrats – yes, that’s what that will come down to), this is the very essence of the Constitution’s Article III, Section 3 “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them…” i.e. the feds acting in ways as “levying war against the states” or the people of the states.
Someone please remind this Daniel Kuehn person that the people of the states created the federal government, the people of the states are the federal bureaucRATs’ boss (including the President!).
As with the American Revolutionaries’ seceding from British rule, the people have a right to secede from the federal Leviathan, and if Kuehn doesn’t agree with that, then he doesn’t agree with the Declaration of Independence and its proclamation that we are all endowed with unalienable rights, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
“he doesn’t agree with the Declaration of Independence and its proclamation that we are all endowed with unalienable rights, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
Heck, I’m for secession and I don’t even agree with it.
Hey Daniel, how many ways ARE you pro-death? For me:
Killing terrorists
Allowing abortion
Assisted suicide
Self defense when lives are threatened
Top that you bloodthirsty man!
Wow, all that violence against violent people, or people without the ability to feel pain.
If you’re for those, then if you don’t want to be a hypocrite, you should definitely be in favor of bloodbaths against peaceful people, including children, in secession states.
Let’s all avoid being hypocrites and call for genocide against employees quitting.
“or people without the ability to feel pain.”
Is pain what makes it murder?
So if I anesthetize you first, I can kill you?
I was being sarcastic.
To answer your question though, then no, because the initial anesthetization was unustified, and you never acquired my permission to touch my body.
Ken B. you forgot “contract violation.” Apparently you are cool with slaughtering millions of people for reneging on a contract. I hope defaulting homeowners are spared your wrath.
You keep acting like we’re proposing carpet bombing Dallas. That would be horrific.
The idea is probably to send a bunch of heavily armed guys into the capitol and declaring the secession illegal. If the secessionists want to make a fight out of it, that’s their business.
You keep acting like we’re proposing carpet bombing Dallas. That would be horrific.
The idea is probably to send a bunch of heavily armed guys into the capitol and declaring the secession illegal. If the secessionists want to make a fight out of it, that’s their business.
OK, so just to be clear though Daniel, if the secessionists DO want to make a fight of it, then you are proposing carbet bombing Dallas, right? Or at least, “all options are on the table”? I mean, we can’t have people in Texas imposing costs on Northern neighbors. If that’s not worthy of death, I’m not sure what would be.
I have a pretty solid prejudice against carpet bombing Bob, in any circumstance.
OK, how about “only” marines with machine guns?
Either way, it sounds like it would be a bad idea to get a divorce from Daniel.
Like secession, if it’s not done in a reasonable way (reasonable defined by social norms and legal processes), things might be disappointing but it would all go smoothly. If it happens less reasonably things would be more punitive.
It’s funny that you think this is some kind of mark against me. That’s how divorces work. If everything is above board all works peacefully. If it’s not, things get messy.
DK wrote:
It’s funny that you think this is some kind of mark against me. That’s how divorces work. If everything is above board all works peacefully. If it’s not, things get messy.
So if one’s wife just walks out without going through a lawyer/trial, you can kill her? That would be the analog here.
I really think this is the thing that’s tripping all of us up. You, Gene, Ken B., et al. are adamant that it’s not permissible / procedurally correct / being a responsible citizen to just walk away when you didn’t get your way in an election. OK, but even if you’re right, it doesn’t follow that it’s moral to use violence against those people.
re: “So if one’s wife just walks out without going through a lawyer/trial, you can kill her? That would be the analog here.”
That’s horrific. Why does your mind even go there? No, I can’t imagine why that’s the conclusion you would draw at all. Been reading Leviticus too much or something.
Bob wrote:
re: “So if one’s wife just walks out without going through a lawyer/trial, you can kill her? That would be the analog here.”
DK wrote: “That’s horrific. Why does your mind even go there? No, I can’t imagine why that’s the conclusion you would draw at all. Been reading Leviticus too much or something.”
You honestly don’t see why I said that? And why that was what prompted rayray (I think it was him?) to joke with you about divorce in the first place?
You are saying the fundamental reason that it’s acceptable to militarily occupy, and ultimately bomb into submission, Texas whereas you agree that it would be a war crime to do the same actions to Canada, is that the people (actually their ancestors) went through some type of formal process whereby they joined the Union, and now are not doing the proper process to dissolve that partnership. So that’s why it’s OK to do to them, what would be a war crime done to other types of people–according to you (and Ken B.).
Hence rayray’s joke.
You didn’t seem to get what he was saying, so I spelled it out for you, and now you are horrified that I could even conceive of using violence because a spouse wanted to walk away from her vows.
Right, just like I’m horrified that you want to use violence to keep people from walking away from vows that 51% of their white male grandparents made. (Blacks and women had nothing to do with the decision to join the Union right?)
One might use force to, say, collect funds or property. I don’t know why you seem to think “use of force” is some kind of undifferentiated thing.
DK:
Been reading Leviticus too much or something.
Ironic, since the reader of Leviticus is the one advocating for peaceful resolutions, while you, the non-reader of Leviticus, want to impose a Leviticus style response to secessionists.
One might use force to, say, collect funds or property. I don’t know why you seem to think “use of force” is some kind of undifferentiated thing.
Yeah, because the secessionists are the property of the government. Or maybe it’s the land you believe is the property of the government, because you favor feudalism.
The use of force does not have to be viewed as undifferentiated in order to treat all initiations of force as unjustified.
Remember it’s Bob’s messiah that thought even Moses was a softie on divorce.
Don’t recall Jesus saying 50 million people should be killed for wanting out of a contract that they never agreed to in the first place (as they were born 200 years later).
You advocate for old testament style social behavior.
Hey, Hey, Daniel K
How many kids did you kill today?
Kuehn posted, people got toasted.
Murphy tried, logic died.
We playing ‘couplets’ Bob?
Ken B. quipped, humility slipped.
Ken B’s fault isn’t his lack of humility. It’s his lack of argumentative rigor.
The idea is probably to send a bunch of heavily armed guys into the capitol and declaring the secession illegal.
It’s worth noting that when the south seceded, Lincoln did not even do this. He just said he didn’t recognize the validity of secession. It was only after the secessionists attacked Fort Sumter that he began to use force.
Those are matters that need to be worked out depending on the circumstance. Lincoln couldn’t exactly send SEAL Team 6 into Charleston.
Actually, my concern is more that Lincoln over-reacted and made things a lot worse than they needed to be. I’m not entirely uncritical of him.
DK wrote:
Actually, my concern is more that Lincoln over-reacted and made things a lot worse than they needed to be. I’m not entirely uncritical of him.
Can we all agree that this guy went a bit too far in punishing contract violations?
Depends. Was he “saving democracy” from teh evil!!11! people?
Maybe, maybe not.
No human was harmed, let alone killed, during the destruction of Fort Sumter.
Lincoln sent warships to Charleston Harbor, and provoked the South Carolinians to fire on the fort. Remind you of the Gulf of Tonkin?
Lincoln then wrote a thank you letter to his Navy Commander for helping him getting the war started.
South Carolinians thought the fort was their own property, paid for with their taxes, and constructed to protect them. It is historically inaccurate to claim the south started the hostilities.
Lincoln responded to Fort Sumter with a full-scale invasion of all the Southern states that ended up killing 350,000 Southerners.
Lincoln behaved like the way George Bush behaved. US military bases in the middle east, provoking and feigning, afterwords 12 Saudis attack a building, and in response Bush invades whole swaths of the middle east, killing far more people.
To be fair, Fort Sumter was on federal property not state property. As such the attack on Fort Sumter was arguably unjust. Now government property is either acquired through direct seizure or by using tax funds (aka stolen property). This means that arguably the Federal government had no right to Fort Sumter as they only possessed it because of stolen property. But in that case, South Carolina should have declared all state property unowned and thus let South Carolinians come live in the governor’s mansion.
By the logic of property that the South Carolina government followed their attack on Fort Sumter was illegitimate.
The fort was financed by southern taxpayers. The fort itself was not the legitimate property of the government. Neither was the land for that matter.
The attack on the Fort did not justify the feds’ army invading all southern states, and killing 350,000 people.
Aren’t I the one who suggested the Canadian way had virtues?
Sorry I think I have you beat if this is exhaustive.
Killing murderers is also fine.
And this is just dealing with our fellow species. I have much looser standards when it comes to death and those not in our species (proper death permits should probably be filed depending on where that killing is taking place, of course).
I meet ease back in that I would want to tightly regulate assisted suicide. I wouldn’t want that to come up because people who were dealt a hard hand were uninformed about options.
Killing murderers is also fine.
And this is just dealing with our fellow species. I have much looser standards when it comes to death and those not in our species
You mean the apes that don’t talk, right?
Somewhat tighter standards for them actually – for reasons completely related towards my orientation towards death.
I’m mostly thinking about those shifty quadrupeds.
*completely UNrelated to my orientation towards death
Not exhaustive, no. I go back and forth on the death penalty for murder, but mostly am for it as I believe the incentive evidence.
Why would those not in our species be killed with looser standards? From an evolutionary point of view, species are just arbitrary distinctions.
My guess, is that the terms of the separation need to be agreed to and arbitrated. How does Texas, for example reimburse the United states for roads, military bases, federal money put into the school system, etc. How to “give back” things that the federal government invested in? Otherwise, separation would be considered theft. Imagine if you and a partner owned a pizza place and suddenly your partner locked the doors and stopped paying your dividend…you’d send armed police to restore your rightful ownership, and if your partner resisted, there could be trouble…
“How does Texas, for example reimburse the United states for roads, military bases, federal money put into the school system, etc.”
The question should be how the Union reimburses Texas for littering its territory with bad and even unneeded roads, poor schools, and so forth.
Heh. +1
True, but what about the money that was taken from Texas to be spent in other states as well?
And much of what you are talking about was done before today’s taxpayers even came on the scene. Much of that is from previous generations.
Also, most of Texas’ citizens probably did not steal all that money to create all those roads and such. The guys in Washington DC and Austin decided to build all that stuff there. Perhaps the Texans should try to calculate how much of their money was spent to build those things, and how much was taken from other states, but all in all, it’s not their responsibility as to why it was built there.
Pick the right analogy. If you end your relationship with your cable provider there is no need for you to return the shows you watched because you were paying your bill all the while. Guess what: people and organizations living in Texas have been paying taxes while the federal government was building roads.
The Lincoln-Douglas Debates 4th Debate Part I
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=1048
First Inaugural Address of Abraham Lincoln
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/lincoln1.asp
There seems to be nothing in the Constitution that explicitly bars secession, which should mean that states retain the right to leave the union. Of course, a big gun and the willingness to use it can contravene that right.
Can people stop saying this? Look:
“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.”
I think “no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State” covers it. But even if you argue that “new State” here implies “new State of the Union”, the point is that a state is in the Union by the Congress. Removing a state from the Union would be repealing that act of Congress. Since when has repealing an act of Congress not been a right reserved to the Congress?
Let’s drop this line of argument, please.
It seems to me it takes a Congressional repeal of an act to make a new State for secession to be constitutional.
But even if you argue that “new State” here implies “new State of the Union”, the point is..
LOL, gotcha.
Let’s drop this line of argument, please.
It’s a valid argument, DK. It’s THE argument that, legally, sanctions secession.
There is no “repealing” of any act of Congress with secession. It is a right reserved to the states VIA the act of Congress that ratified the and signed into law the constitution.
If a portion of the state wants to secede from the union, they would simply create their own state with the blessing of the states concerned, and with that of the Congress; after which they would just secede from the union.
The prohibition is on violating state sovereignty: If the people of a state still choose to belong to a state in the union, then the idea is that you would need the states’ permission to partition it.
Of course, this assumes that the government can own land, which is ludicrous since there’s no such thing as a public good.
Here’s Thomas Jefferson on the right of secession:
Thomas Jefferson on Secession (1803)
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/8508.html
The above is not a quote from Jefferson, but someone introducing the quotes he will use to show that Jefferson understood that secession was a state’s right.
And it doesn’t deal with states at all, but with the inhabitants of a newly acquired *territory*!
Note: “a separation at some future day”, implying that the scenario imagined would be occuring after statehood.
Any distinction about states vs territories you can think of, in 1804, regarding west of the Mississippi?
Plus some of us have argued there is a process: amendment. So you quote is at best moot
More semantic contortions meant to support a flawed position. The authority being defined in these quotes is clearly that of preventing arbitrary reshuffling of existing states. It says NOTHING about secession. As someone else pointed out, secession was a right expressed during ratification to states that were skeptical. Additionally, the Constitution doesn’t say anything about it, as many other have pointed out, so it is clearly the right of the states per the Tenth Amendment and any general concept of limited government (like the one our country was founded on).
You are the one who needs to drop a line of argument if you don’t have anything else to say.
“As someone else pointed out, secession was a right expressed during ratification to states that were skeptical.”
Nope, no major pro-Constitution figure argued like this. (I’m not saying Joe Blow legislator from backwoods Georgia might not have said something like this at a state convention: “Hey, we can always leave later!”)
How about we look at The Federalist Papers, the most sustained pro-constitution case? Nowhere in all of those essays are skeptics “re-assured” by offering them a right to exit later.
These are excellent comments Gene. In the absence of provisions we must look to structure and indirect evidence, like understandings of the Ratifiers and framers. Instead we get proof-texting.
Oh, *now* Gene supports original intent. WTF.
God, Joe, try not to be a blockhead, OK? The *pro-secessionists* claim that the founders meant to allow secession. I note they certainly did not. That does not evidence “support” for original intent, WTF. Of course, the subsequent history of “living constitution” interpretation is far, far more unfavorable to secession than even the founders opinions were! I am just meeting the “states always had the right to secede” nitwits on their own ground.
Damn, Gene. I know that it doesn’t “support” original intent, I was just trying to ruffle your feathers a bit because the argumentation that you used, at root, is exactly the same.
Cerainly, you know this, because that is what you were purposefully doing.
The problem that I have is that this argumentation, even if done in opposition of similar argumentation, also plays into the monolithic “founders” argument, which is entirely ridiculous.
Obviously, there was no consensus of ideas, so pure that they were absolutely the same, in which we can say that “the ‘founders’ thought x on y matter”. That’s a dead argument, so why even do it?
However, it is also true that we do have a document, which represents an objective rule of law, that can answer the question. And, wouldn’t you know it, it is silent on the issue of secession. In fact, it is quite friendly to the idea by its own omission. The final amendment of the Bill of Rights was the final nail (so to speak) in my opinion.
So, you can use whatever argumentation you see fit, or call me names, but the fact remains that there is no process defined, and that all matters in which the processes and authorities aren’t explicitly defined and delegated, that such matters are reserved to the states or to the people, respectively.
Okay, so it’s “to the states respectively, or to the people” You know what I mean.
Nope, no major pro-Constitution figure argued like this. (I’m not saying Joe Blow legislator from backwoods Georgia might not have said something like this at a state convention: “Hey, we can always leave later!”)
That is historically inaccurate.
Upon ratification of the Constitution, Virginia declared that it reserved the right to secede from the Union. There is documented evidence from Virginia’s ratification convention that shows the delegates thought they were entering into a voluntary compact with the other states, rather than yielding their sovereignty to a federal state.
If you look at New York and Rhode Island’s ratification, they had similar clauses in their acts as Virginia. George Mason (hardly a “Joe Blow legislator”) made comments that suggests he firmly believed that just as states could ratify the Constitution when seeking to join the Union, that very same statutory power would allow the states to undo that ratification and secede from the Union if they so desired.
Citing Washington and Madison, two federalists, is not evidence of what the STATE delegates thought of the Constitution’s legality.
“Virginia declared that it reserved the right to secede from the Union.”
I explicitly said that of course some nobodies in the state legislatures may have thought the states could succeed, no major founder thought that. Of course, Mason was against the constitution. He walked out of the convention, refused to sign the constitution, and argued against ratification… because the constitution gave the federal government too much power over the states. In short, he was against ratifying the constitution because he understood it would deny states the right to secede! To cite him as a counter-example to my claim is sheer idiocy.
My conclusion is that of essentially every scholar who has ever looked at this issue. Your “historically inaccurate” is merely a “I know you are but what am I” sort of childish denial. Of course I will not argue you away fro this conclusion — children really can’t be argued with — but I note this for those who are wondering what the truth is here.
Oh I get it now. If a founder thought the constitution was a voluntary compact, then they aren’t “major” founders. Only if they thought the constitution was a yielding of sovereignty are they “major” founders.
In other words, you are just minimizing the beliefs of the ratifiers of NY, Rhode Island, and Virginia, because they contradict your interpretation of history.
Your silly appeal to authority (“essentially every scholar”) is just as weak as your ridiculous denial of the founders who considered the constitution as a voluntary compact.
George Mason was against the constitution yes, but he was not against it because he thought secession was out of the question. You are making a false inference. Mason’s writings suggest that he considered the right of secession to be ingrained into the right of joining the union.
Mason wrote that he opposed referring the Constitution to state legislatures for ratification, “because succeeding Legislatures having equal authority could undo the acts of their predecessors; and the National Government would stand in each State on the weak and tottering foundation of an Act of Assembly.”
It was for precisely this reason that Mason wanted the people of each state to elect delegates to a convention, as opposed to the sitting state government, for the purpose of debating and any ratifying of a proposed federal constitution. States would retain sovereignty, and the right of secession would still exist: with the people of each state.
The primary justification for secession (violations of the compact) and the method by which it could be carried out (through a state convention), was the very method used by the 11 Confederate states when they seceded.
Your claim that Mason was against the constitution because he thought states were permanently giving up their sovereignty, is yet another one of your uninformed, historically inaccurate statements.
I explicitly said that of course some nobodies in the state legislatures may have thought the states could succeed
Right, and the NY delegates, Rhode Island delegates, they too were “nobodys”.
“The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their Constitutions of Government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, ’til changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole People, is sacredly obligatory upon all.”
—George Washington, “Farewell Address”
“That whatever measures have a tendency to dissolve the Union, or contribute to violate or lessen the Sovereign Authority, ought to be considered as hostile to the Liberty and Independency of America, and the Authors of them treated accordingly.”
—George Washington, “Circular Letter to the States”
“A firm Union will be of the utmost moment to the peace and liberty of the States as a barrier against domestic faction and insurrection.”
—Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 9
“What the fate of the Constitution of the United States would be if a small proportion of States could expunge parts of it particularly valued by a large majority, can have but one answer.”
—James Madison, “Letter to Edward Everett”
“The Constitution is a compact; that its text is to be expounded according to the provision for expounding it, making a part of the compact; and that none of the parties can rightfully renounce the expounding provision more than any other part.”
—James Madison, “Letter to Edward Everett”
There really isn’t any doubt about what the Founders thought about secession folks.
I don’t understand why pro-secessionist can’t just admit this and say “Yes, but they were wrong.”
Because then they have to admit we proceduralists are right, and then they can no longer posture as thr affronted party kept in bondage.
But you proceduralists are wrong. The evidence shows a prevailing belief among ratification delegates that the constitution was a voluntary compact, not a yielding of sovereignty.
See Virginia, NY, and Rhode Island.
I have no idea what the founders thought about secession, but the only quote that can be really interpreted in that way is the second one.
The first, fourth and fifth are clearly about changing the constitution but have nothing to do with secession. The third one also doesn’t say that you can’t leave. A “firm Union” doesn’t say anything about anyone entering or leaving it…
What I think to be so strange is that there is only beating around the bush. Secession is not a side issue. The only thing you need to say is: I am for secession or I am against it. Period. Didn’t they never say this CLEARLY?
If they all thought secession is bad and ought to be stopped with force then they are not better than King George.
If they all thought secession is bad and *it* ought to be stopped with force then they are not better than King George
You miss ‘renouncing’? Or ‘expunge’?
Expunge parts of the constitution means, you want be in the Union but pick the best parts. That is not saying there is no exiting the Union.
If you enter a club, the club may tell you to follow ALL club rules else leave.
It’s the same for renouncing parts..
“Didn’t they *ever* say this CLEARLY?” …
That counts against you you know. So clear it was just assumed. Gene has proven it was assumed. Read Volokh too. Nowhere does it say the prosecutor cannot name the jury in atrial either. You reserve that to the states?
I am not sure I am following you.
I said that most quotes Gene gave are not about secession. They only make clear that members cannot cherry pick rules, ignore some, or even change them for themselves. Yet this doesn’t mean that you cannot leave the Union in which case the constitution is not needed anymore. Like the club rules don’t apply to ex-members of a club any more.
Else it seems to be complex who thought what at which point in time. And that it is strange that for the most part when I see people arguing about this issue they show quotes that at best beat around the bush.
Your argument from clarity has implications about trial by jury. You need to accept that an implicit understanding on tbj existed or you have a problem. So you need to accept implicit understandings. Look at all Gejne’s comments, and Blackadder, and Volokh. The implicit understanding on secession is clear enough.
Ken, you misunderstand me. I am not making an argument from clarity, implying that you are not allowed to think the founders were for or against secession.
I am just lamenting that obviously there are hardly any clear statements, and because of that there are endless discussions, when, as Gene certainly is right, it doesn’t matter at the end what the founders thought about secession.
Just because they are dead since few hundred years it doesn’t make them more right or less.
And no at least in 4 of the five quotes from Gene it certainly nothing is clear about secession.
Sorry, skylien, that is a pretty much insane interpretation of those quotes, as not relating to secession! Of course, one can deny the tree in the front yard really is a tree, but the only thing to do with someone who says this is write them off as nuts.
Gene, just saying my interpretation is insane doesn’t prove much..
Isn’t it strange that when you read those quotes that they do not mention the word “secession” or “leaving the union” even remotely?
They certainly are talking about members in the Union need stick to all rules at all times, not cherry pick them. That doesn’t mean you cannot leave the Union. That is a non-sequitiur.
But please go on and explain how e.g. the first quote undeniably says you cannot leave the Union.
I will start, in brackets my added interpretation:
“But the Constitution which at any time exists (for all members of the Union), ’til changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole People (of all member states), is sacredly obligatory upon all (members. There are no exceptions among members or special rules for certain members. This isn’t saying that new members cannot enter or some leave!).”
How is that insane?
Very weak Daniel. The quoted passage mentions forming a new state within an existing state or aggregating existing states into a new state as part of the existing Federal Union. It says nothing about secession of an existing sovereign state from the Federal Union. Not even a good try.
Its your response that’s weak. States are states by the virtue of a state legislature vote and a Congressional vote.
States therefore are states as long as both of those votes are on the books. As far as I know only a state legislature can undo the first and only the Congress can undo the second.
Sovereign states in confederation?
What happened to the States entered the Union through ratification? An act of Congress ALLOWED states to enter the union originally, but it was only the act of ratification which entered the state into the union. Thus it is incorrect to say “removing a state from the Union would be repealing that act of Congress. ” No, the state is still ALLOWED to enter into the union, that act of Congress stands until Congress repeals it. But actually being a part of the union is an act of the state itself.
No Daniel, but I am not surprised to see you raise this objection- it is part of your charm- your ability to take any language and interpret it any way you wish.
The clauses you cite were written this way to prevent states from being sub-divided against their will as sovereign entities. This is the reason that the state legislatures themselves must also agree to any sub-division within the union. The states as sovereign entities themselves existed prior to joining the union (and your citation of “new states” being meaningful makes me believe you are ignorant of the history of the United States prior to the constitution), and seceding would not be making a “new” state at all. By the constitution, it takes an act of Congress to admit a state into the union, but there is no requirement for an act of Congress for one to leave. If there were, the framers would have explicitly written it since they were greatly concerned about the abuse of federal power.
You may not like that argument, but it is basically uncontradicted. The fact of force is what kept the South in union in the 19th century, but this use of force was purely arbitrary and not based in constitutional structure.
Bob, do you think that homeschooling will be banned or regulated out of existence anytime soon, like in the next 20-30 years? In California in 2008, an appeals court ruled that all homeschooling parents needed to have a 4 year certification degree, but fortunately it was overturned by another court.
Historically speaking, there is no doubt that the vast majority of those signing the constitution saw it as creating a *permanent* union with no right of secession. The anti-federalists denounced the proposed constitution, for one thing, because states would no longer be able to exit. *Not a single pro-consitutionalist* came back with “Oh yes they would!” That is pretty much decisive on that point: they were all conceding that the new constitution would take away the right to exit, and arguing it was still a better deal for the states.
Jefferson was almost alone amongst the Founders in later flirting with secessionist ideas. Madison quickly told him to shut up. And Madison’s administration made contingency plans to march an army into New England if it had tried to secede in 1814-15.
George Mason.
Right you are, major. George Mason was *against* the constitution because it would create a permanent union! And thus he was not a founder, because he *didn’t* sign the constitution and argued *against* its ratification. Or perhaps you think one of the “founders” of a rock group was a guy who quit during the first practice because he thought the group was heading entirely in the wrong direction!
No, Mason was NOT against the constitution because he thought it was a permanent yielding of sovereignty. He held that the constitution was a voluntary compact, but ceded too much authority to the feds. He held that the right of secession was always retained by the people of each state, which is why he wanted the people to elect delegates to any convention, rather than a standing state government. He held that the power to join the union included a power to secede from the union.
All you’re doing is ex cathedra claiming that every single person who thought secession was constitutionally legal, are not “major” enough to be included your historically inaccurate sweeping revision of history.
Abraham Lincoln: Forced Into Glory
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rep3/lincoln-forced-into-glory.html
If Texas secedes and the U.S. military tries to invade Austin we will tell them what the people of Gonzales told Santa Ana’s army when they demanded surrender of their cannon: “Come and take it!”
You are making me feel slightly discomforted, therefore there is something logically or factually incorrect in your statement.
I will try to find it, and if I can’t, then I will quibble over something superficial, and hope that my impertinence will garner me points for style.
DK, you really come across as stretching to make constitutional arguments to justify your personal preference.
If I had to give my $.02 I would say its extremely odd that the revolutionaries fought a bloody war to secede from the British Empire only to intentionally create a union that nobody could ever exit. Does anyone actually believe that?
Along those same lines, the constitution was ratified by the skin of its teeth as it was. Does anyone believe it would have survived ratification if it has a clause expressly prohibiting secession?
“If I had to give my $.02 I would say its extremely odd that the revolutionaries fought a bloody war to secede from the British Empire only to intentionally create a union that nobody could ever exit. Does anyone actually believe that?”
Lincoln did.
Are you sure? Perhaps he knew better, he was just power-hungry and didn’t particularly CARE what the founders meant/intended.
Valid point. I’d say a doubtful mossibly on the former, i.e., the American Revolution was a secession from Great Britain and an absolute definitely on the later, i.e., the Union was an entity that no party could ever leave.
That’s not how to do history, Chris P.
The correct way is to think of a biased political view you want to propagate, then interpret historical events in a way that justifies said bias. That way, if anyone objects, you can say they are historical revisionists.
Just make sure your bias is the most popular. We love believing in ideas according to majority vote.
How dare you describe the historical equivalence of Keynesianism.
Who says they could never exit? I don’t think anyone ever said the founders wanted such a union.
Suppose Congress were to enact a law that dissolved Texas’s borders and created two states without Texas’s assent? The President signs this act and the Supreme Court upholds it. What is Texas’s recourse? It is literally the realm of the possible that the framers of the Constitution did not consider such potential abuses of power since they themselves had taken part in a secession.
However, consider the fact of West Virginia. If Virginia really couldn’t legally secede in 1861, then West Virginia is an unconstitutional fact of history. The constitutionality of West Virginia literally rests on the fact that Virginia did, in fact, legally secede, but was forced back into the union.
Boy, this needs an edit function. I meant to write that it is literally in the realm of the impossible that the framers of the constitution didn’t reserve to the states the right to leave should the federal government overstep it’s bounds.
Statism is a very serious mental disorder.
Bob, do you think that homeschooling will be banned or regulated out of existence anytime soon, like in the next 20-30 years? In California in 2008, an appeals court ruled that all homeschooling parents needed to have a 4 year certification degree, but fortunately it was overturned by another court.
Daniel Kuehn is the Andrei Vyshinsky of the blogosphere. Although Vyshinsky, unlike DK and the Soviet leadership, had some ethnic connection to the people he wanted oppressed.
… Metonymically speaking.
If there is something I like more than a reference to Vyshinsky it’s probably illegal. So thanks for this, even though it’s wrong.
I have no idea who Vyshinsky is, but ever since I noticed, not too long ago, that Beefcake the Mighty was being ridiculed for his seemingly odd structuring of the comparisons he makes (kind of like “Apple is the Sad of Oranges”), I find it humorous, now, to “help” him by qualifying his comparisons for him in the same way as before.
I don’t even know the people he’s referencing.
Good times.
Vyshinsky was the prosecutor in Stalin’show trials.
Ahh, OK, thank you.
I think he falsely accused Kaniel Duehn of wanting to carpet bomb Minsk. He was sentenced to 20 years at thesis defense.
You’re right. DK only wanted to send in killer armies, not a killer air force.
I am so sick and tired of DK being misinterpreted. So many people are saying he is advocating for death, when all he is really advocating is for the ending of people’s lives.
The Vyshinsky ironies are delicious. Thank you one and all!!
Apparently leaving in response to “love it or leave it” isn’t really an option.
Bob, you should blog more on ethics/moral issues. This post is spot on.
Haven’t read all the comments in this and DK post but I think what he, and those who agree with him, mean is that you are their slaves when he says he will use force to prevent you from seceding from the Federal (and maybe state and local?) union.
I bet Daniel will also use force if you refuse to pay extortion money to the union too.
I wonder at some point if Daniel will say “Screw this. I agree with you all and from now on I am a libertarian (or anrach-capitalist)”
I suppose he is young enough for there to be a bit of hope.
Choose between the Declaration of Independence or Lincoln, folks… can’t have both.
whether it’s a good idea for a President to forcibly put down a secession movement, settled once and for all by John Wilkes Booth in a theater?
Touche, Bob! That is the most awesome rebuttal I have seen yet. Is it another Murphy original?
Guys you are missing the obvious here, secession comes under the regulation of interstate commerce, so it is a power delegated to Congress. I know this because everything comes under interstate commerce.
MF already beat you to it.
http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2012/11/the-economics-of-the-great-depression-online-class.html#comment-49952
Yeah well MF’s doesn’t count because he posted secession comments under the great depression thread.
Actually, that post originally had a tie-in, but Bob deleted it out of kindness to a friend.
Which book?
Best. Response. Ever.
If Canada wants to become a state, or 11, or 12, should it be allowed unilaterally to do so?
What if we declared ourselves 999 states, and filled the senate, and house, flooded the EC and abolished private property? You gonna use force to oppose us, knowing it could lead to civil war? We’re pretty determined you know.
Ken B. wrote:
What if we declared ourselves 999 states, and filled the senate, and house, flooded the EC and abolished private property? You gonna use force to oppose us, knowing it could lead to civil war? We’re pretty determined you know.
If you’re going to be this careless with your analogies Ken, I have to stop. You’re saying a group of people wanting to leave the US is comparable to them wanting to take over its central government?
Suppose I opposed the US invasion of Iraq, saying, “Hey, we have no business taking over some other people’s government just because we think that it’s run by a bad guy.” Then the opponent tells me, “Oh, so I guess you’re saying you have no problem if Saddam invaded Washington DC and started telling us how to run our affairs?” This is the most bass awkwards argument I’ve ever heard. You’re afraid of people in Texas telling you how to run your government, so that gives you the right to invade their land and install a government that confers benefits on you. Sweet.
I’m not being careless. I want to know what is involved in JOINING the union. And I have a specific goal in mind. I’m told leaving is unilateral. Is joining? I assume not, but just what should I assume. Majority vote in the US? Act of congress? Something less than amendment?
I think you can figure out where I’m going here.
Bob:” I asked if Daniel would allow me personally to leave the US physically without getting shot, and he had no problem with that. Then I asked if everyone in Texas could walk away without getting shot, and at this point someone else in the comment thread objected (to me!) saying that’s not what secession is like. ”
A salient objection. You cannot unilaterally declare yourself exempt from the laws of the land. Nor can the people of Texas just declare themselves exempt from the laws of the land. Nor can you decalre that federal writ does not run in your yard and Texas cannot just declare that federal writ does not run in Texas.
So it sounds like, in principle, you have no problem with the feds shooting me if I want to leave the country. You’re worse than Daniel. I mean, I personally can’t just unilaterally overrule federal writ. It starts with a “w” and everything.
You don’t see a difference between 1) leaving the country and 2) declaring your front yard exempt from federal law? Seriously?
I have a problem with Charles Manson leaving the country. Or Bernie Madoff. So I don’t accept an inviolable right of the kind you seem to want. If you are not under a court order or sentence I think you can leave to wherever will take you, with all your moveable wealth too. But I don’t think you can buy up half of Nashville and suspend the 14 amendment there.
Why can people take their car with them, but not their land?
How can Bob take his land? Dig a big hole in Nashville and call UPS?
This whole discussion skylien is Bob’s comaprsion of secession with an idividual emigrating. Fallacy of composition, as noted by that unnmaed commenter over at DK’s. Bob as a person can leave but not declare his yard exempt from the laws and remain. You want analogies with individiuals? That’s the relevant one.
Not a good answer. I have not compared it to individuals. I compared one property (a car) with another property (land), and asked a simple question.
What answer do you want? How can Bob move his land? he can keep ownership, hew can sell up.
Bob has made the argument from his right to leave to a state’s right to secede. That as has has been noted is a bad analogy. The anlogy to secession would be declaring his land exempt from law and staying on it. I reject that. An anology at the state level to his moving to Mexico would be all Texans moving to Mexico. Perfectly legal. Bob’s argument is a fallacy and I am directing this exchange at that fallacy.
I can put my car under the law of Mexico, but I cannot do so with land. Why? You reject that out of hand. You must make a good argument why you treat one property differently than other property.
208 comments and no Kentucky Resolutions of 1798?
“1. Resolved, That the several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes — delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral part, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.”
http://www.constitution.org/cons/kent1798.htm
Ex post facto ain’t it?
Doesn’t count, Anonymous. The Kentucky ratifiers are not “serious people.”
Only the federalist’s and anti-secessionist’s opinions count.