Comments on: Scalia: ‘No Right To Secede’

By: Ming Teas

Ming Teas — Sat, 22 Jan 2011 06:31:43 +0000

Every single time I see blogs as beneficial as this for the reason that I must cease bludging and commence working on mine.Thanks

By: N Spencer

N Spencer — Sun, 19 Dec 2010 19:14:10 +0000

Texas V WHite, says, that if the states agree to it, secesion is allowed, not that secesiion is not allowed.

Btw, the bonds rediablit issue was overtuned on appeal, so Texas v White has nothing so say abour secesion.

By: Jeff Matthews

Jeff Matthews — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 20:26:10 +0000

But nobody gets out without a fight. That's the rule. Might makes right. See the US SCt case of Texas v. White (1869). It says so right in there.

By: jim dunlap

jim dunlap — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 01:48:01 +0000

The right to secession is a precedent in our countries history. First thirteen colonies seceded from Great Britain. Next nine States seceded from The Articles of Confederation ( a Union forever) to form our present government under the Constitution. The next act of secession was when the southern states seceded from the Union. At this time secession was considered proper because seventeen counties in the State of Virginia seceded from Virginia in violation of the Constitution and became recognized as the State of West Virginia. If we are a nation of laws we must follow precedents, therefor we must accept that cessation is a right reserved to each and every state in the United States.

By: @davezawislak

@davezawislak — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 07:30:10 +0000

If States seceding was decided by the War between the States, why was it necessary for the states to be readmitted. Also why was West Virgina allow to be a separate state at any time?

By: uberVU - social comments

uberVU - social comments — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 06:24:31 +0000

Social comments and analytics for this post…

This post was mentioned on Twitter by TenthAmendment: #10th: Scalia: ‘No Right To Secede’ http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/02/scalia-no-right-to-secede/…

By: Monorprise

Monorprise — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 04:46:07 +0000

Scalia is right thou, its highly unlikely such a thing would come to the court in the first place.

Scalia is perhaps in the assertion that the "Civil War" which was a act of violent force was capable of resolving an issue of constitutional law. Such is an argument for Might making right.

I say this because if he was correct then the violent (Might) ruling on the constitutionality of secession is one that can be just as easily overturned using the same violent(Might) means. Next time by a prepared and desperate separatist group in a position to make up for their lack of numbers with the tactical advantage of a surprise first strike. Something that is considerably easier to do all the more devastatingly from the inside then it is from an enemy outside.

In that case we should be a police state living in perpetual fear of insurrection, because the drive for human freedom, individualism and thus separatism from boundless government control by a hostility majority is irrepressible. You can not keep human nature in prison forever, all you can do is raise the stakes of their eventual escape.

In this case by denying the right of secession by anything but violent force, you make the stakes which freedom must over come to be re-obtained your own destruction.
That is not a wise position for any "country". It is an entirely hypocritical position for any "country" which clams to call itself free and based upon consent of the governed.