Is Secession Legal?

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
4,457
Reaction score
2,351
Secession is not in the US Constitution.  Secession is outside the Constitution, Outside of law, thus Outlaw without protection of the law and there is no legal protection for actions taken to implement Secession.  Without legal protection, those actions become illegal.
 

rittmeister

trekkie in residence
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
1,760
Reaction score
1,272
jgoodguy said:
Secession is not in the US Constitution.  Secession is outside the Constitution, Outside of law, thus Outlaw without protection of the law and there is no legal protection for actions taken to implement Secession.  Without legal protection, those actions become illegal.
the strange thing is that years ago the uk demanded that a 'right to secession' was to be codified in the eu and consequentally that was done (mostly by british lawyers, btw). that doesn't work either. personally i do believe that seceedees (is that a word? people who want to seceed is what i mean) probably are way to emotional to evaluate the consequences their desire might be triggering before they go all hell over leather to implement said desire.
 

jjunkguy

New Member
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
rittmeister said:
jgoodguy said:
Secession is not in the US Constitution.  Secession is outside the Constitution, Outside of law, thus Outlaw without protection of the law and there is no legal protection for actions taken to implement Secession.  Without legal protection, those actions become illegal.
the strange thing is that years ago the uk demanded that a 'right to secession' was to be codified in the eu and consequentally that was done (mostly by british lawyers, btw). that doesn't work either. personally i do believe that seceedees (is that a word? people who want to seceed is what i mean) probably are way to emotional to evaluate the consequences their desire might be triggering before they go all hell over leather to implement said desire.
The difference was that the 1861-61 secessionists were able to lock up or otherwise coerce their opponents a option not allowed the Brits.
 

rittmeister

trekkie in residence
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
1,760
Reaction score
1,272
jjunkguy said:
rittmeister said:
jgoodguy said:
Secession is not in the US Constitution.  Secession is outside the Constitution, Outside of law, thus Outlaw without protection of the law and there is no legal protection for actions taken to implement Secession.  Without legal protection, those actions become illegal.
the strange thing is that years ago the uk demanded that a 'right to secession' was to be codified in the eu and consequentally that was done (mostly by british lawyers, btw). that doesn't work either. personally i do believe that seceedees (is that a word? people who want to seceed is what i mean) probably are way to emotional to evaluate the consequences their desire might be triggering before they go all hell over leather to implement said desire.
The difference was that the 1861-61 secessionists were able to lock up or otherwise coerce their opponents a option not allowed the Brits.
not that they didn't try [img=26x22]http://forum.jaggedalliance.de/images/smilies/nunu.gif[/img]
 

Wehrkraftzersetzer

Hüter des Reinheitsgebotes
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
952
Reaction score
624
It is absolutely legal if You were sold by somebody who didn't own You. hint the selling moron was French Italian and the buying Moron Bavarsian


Napoleon was born Italian he faked his birth date to be French (Corsica changed hands)
 

Jim Klag

Ike the moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
1,727
Reaction score
1,259
jgoodguy said:
Secession is not in the US Constitution.  Secession is outside the Constitution, Outside of law, thus Outlaw without protection of the law and there is no legal protection for actions taken to implement Secession.  Without legal protection, those actions become illegal.
Amen JimmyV. :exclamation: :D
 

Wehrkraftzersetzer

Hüter des Reinheitsgebotes
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
952
Reaction score
624
jgoodguy said:
Secession is not in the US Constitution.  Secession is outside the Constitution, Outside of law, thus Outlaw without protection of the law and there is no legal protection for actions taken to implement Secession.  Without legal protection, those actions become illegal.
anything is legal if You belong (as the British Civil Service always does) to the winning side

they tried and lost, should better have noticed that from the beginning
 

Jim Klag

Ike the moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
1,727
Reaction score
1,259
Wehrkraftzersetzer said:
jgoodguy said:
Secession is not in the US Constitution.  Secession is outside the Constitution, Outside of law, thus Outlaw without protection of the law and there is no legal protection for actions taken to implement Secession.  Without legal protection, those actions become illegal.
anything is legal if You belong (as the British Civil Service always does) to the winning side

they tried and lost, should better have noticed that from the beginning
That has always been the criteria for legality. He who wins makes the rules.
 

Andersonh1

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 13, 2019
Messages
571
Reaction score
738
jgoodguy said:
Secession is not in the US Constitution.  
Many State powers are not in the US Constitution. That does not necessarily make them unconstitutional, because the Federal Constitution is meant to be exhaustive only when it comes to the Federal government. It places some restrictions on States and recognizes some powers of States, but much of what the States and People can or cannot do is outside the intended scope of the Constitution and is not addressed.

That being the case, we have to go beyond just "it's not there" to establish legality or illegality of secession.
 

Jim Klag

Ike the moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
1,727
Reaction score
1,259
Andersonh1 said:
jgoodguy said:
Secession is not in the US Constitution.  
Many State powers are not in the US Constitution. That does not necessarily make them unconstitutional, because the Federal Constitution is meant to be exhaustive only when it comes to the Federal government. It places some restrictions on States and recognizes some powers of States, but much of what the States and People can or cannot do is outside the intended scope of the Constitution and is not addressed.

That being the case, we have to go beyond just "it's not there" to establish legality or illegality of secession.
Actually, you're both right - which is why we have a Supreme Court. They are the final arbiters of what is and is not constitutional. Unfortunately, the southerners chose to strike preemptively without testing their political theory's legality in the courts. I believe they might have been afraid of losing their case.
 

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
4,457
Reaction score
2,351
Andersonh1 said:
jgoodguy said:
Secession is not in the US Constitution.  
Many State powers are not in the US Constitution. That does not necessarily make them unconstitutional, because the Federal Constitution is meant to be exhaustive only when it comes to the Federal government. It places some restrictions on States and recognizes some powers of States, but much of what the States and People can or cannot do is outside the intended scope of the Constitution and is not addressed.

That being the case, we have to go beyond just "it's not there" to establish legality or illegality of secession.
Hi.
We can establish there is no reserved power of secession by its lack in the record.  The other powers you speak of exist in the record and thus are reserved.  
The issue is that for a reserve power to exist, it has to exist at the time of the Constitutional convention.  Enumerated in the Constitution is not the issue.
 

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
4,457
Reaction score
2,351
Jim Klag said:
Andersonh1 said:
jgoodguy said:
Secession is not in the US Constitution.  
Many State powers are not in the US Constitution. That does not necessarily make them unconstitutional, because the Federal Constitution is meant to be exhaustive only when it comes to the Federal government. It places some restrictions on States and recognizes some powers of States, but much of what the States and People can or cannot do is outside the intended scope of the Constitution and is not addressed.

That being the case, we have to go beyond just "it's not there" to establish legality or illegality of secession.
Actually, you're both right - which is why we have a Supreme Court. They are the final arbiters of what is and is not constitutional. Unfortunately, the southerners chose to strike preemptively without testing their political theory's legality in the courts. I believe they might have been afraid of losing their case.
The existence of the Supreme Court is an example of a delegated power to the United States government that preempts an implied/reserved power of secession because by denying ultimate sovereignty to the States, it denies an implied or reserved power of secession.
 

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
4,457
Reaction score
2,351
More on the claim of a reserved power of secession.  Cash Post.


Here is how Joseph Story, Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court and Dane Professor of Law at Harvard University described the 10th Amendment:

“This amendment is a mere affirmation of what, upon any just reasoning, is a necessary rule of interpreting the constitution. Being an instrument of limited and enumerated powers, it follows irresistibly, that what is not conferred, is withheld, and belongs to the state authorities, if invested by their constitutions of government respectively in them; and if not so invested, it is retained BY THE PEOPLE, as a part of their residuary sovereignty.” [Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, Book III, p. 752]
Plainly, then, since the People are the ultimate sovereigns, not the states, they retain any and all powers they have not delegated to either the United States or to their particular state. So for the Tenth Amendment argument for a state to have the power to secede to begin to have any validity, we first have to ignore the Supremacy Clause and second there has to be a provision in the Constitution of that state where the People delegate the power to secede to that state. Absent such a provision, if there is a right to secede it does not belong to any state.
Those who claim the Tenth Amendment allows secession make that claim because the word “secession” is not used anywhere in the Constitution. In my opinion, this is a fatally flawed argument, because there are several features of the Constitution that prohibit the effect of secession without having to specify the word. Not least among these is the Supremacy Clause, Article VI, Clause 2. As noted, I’ve recently discovered support for Article V being an antisecession measure. To illustrate, let me use an analogy. If there is a law that says you cannot jump from higher than 3 feet, I don’t need to specify that you cannot jump off the 10-foot wall in your backyard. The effect of jumping off the 10-foot wall is that you will necessarily have to jump from higher than 3 feet. Likewise, the Supremacy Clause tells us the US Constitution and US Laws remain supreme law any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding. As an ordinance of secession would be a thing in the constitution or laws of a state that is contrary to the US Constitution and US Law being supreme in that state, it is prohibited from taking effect. Therefore, the effect of secession, which is claiming the Constitution and US Law are no longer supreme in that state, is prohibited by the Constitution, and is thus excepted from the reserved powers, assuming secession was actually one of those reserved powers.
In short Delegated powers exist that prohibits secession.
 

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
4,457
Reaction score
2,351
The 3 forks of the 10th amendment prohibiting secession. 

[font=arial, sans-serif]Amendment[/font][font=arial, sans-serif] X. The powers not delegated to [/font][font=arial, sans-serif]the United States[/font][font=arial, sans-serif] by the [/font][font=arial, sans-serif]Constitution[/font][font=arial, sans-serif], nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.[/font]

[font=arial, sans-serif][size=small][font=arial, sans-serif]The powers not delegated to [/font][font=arial, sans-serif]the United States[/font][font=arial, sans-serif] by the [/font][font=arial, sans-serif]Constitution[/font][/font][/size]

[font=arial, sans-serif]There are deligated powers that prohibit secession [/font]

[font=arial, sans-serif][size=small][font=arial, sans-serif]nor prohibited by it to the states,[/font][/font][/size]

There are Constitutional prohibits against sovereign independence of States. 

[font=arial, sans-serif]are reserved to the states respectively, [/font]

There is no evidence of a reserved power of secession. 

[font=arial, sans-serif]or to the people.[/font]

The people, not the States have any residual sovereignty.  The People of the US created the Consitution and only the people have the power to undo it.
 

rittmeister

trekkie in residence
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
1,760
Reaction score
1,272
Jim Klag said:
Andersonh1 said:
jgoodguy said:
Secession is not in the US Constitution.  
Many State powers are not in the US Constitution. That does not necessarily make them unconstitutional, because the Federal Constitution is meant to be exhaustive only when it comes to the Federal government. It places some restrictions on States and recognizes some powers of States, but much of what the States and People can or cannot do is outside the intended scope of the Constitution and is not addressed.

That being the case, we have to go beyond just "it's not there" to establish legality or illegality of secession.
Actually, you're both right - which is why we have a Supreme Court. They are the final arbiters of what is and is not constitutional. Unfortunately, the southerners chose to strike preemptively without testing their political theory's legality in the courts. I believe they might have been afraid of losing their case.
jeff, our chances in court are mediocre at best - how about guns?
 
Top