Navigation

Tag Archives | Secession

Do the Secessionists Have As Much Courage As the Nullifiers?

By on November 13, 2012 in Activism, Big Government, Commentary, Delegated Powers, Elections, Federalism, Founding Fathers, Founding Principles, Government, Health Care, History, Nullification, Politicians, Sovereignty Movement, State Sovereignty, Tenthers 9

By now, anybody who even casually follows the Tenther movement and the liberty movement in general has likely heard about the secession petitions circulating.  Yesterday, I had personally gone from only hearing about Louisiana, to hearing my State of New Jersey had one too, to hearing the count was up to twenty States.  That could be an old number by the time this makes it into the Tenth Amendment Center blog.

The language of these petitions is interesting, as they “ask” the federal government to let said States peaceably withdraw from the United States.  Although I confess to having signed, originally for Louisiana upon first finding out, and then for New Jersey, it was more out of curiosity than anything else.

Apparently, any State circulating these petitions requires a minimum of 25,000 signatures within thirty days in order to receive a White House response.  Texas has nearly double the required signatures, and Louisiana is likely a day away from hitting the threshold.  Several states are beyond halfway there.  Check to see if your State is on the list.  While you’re at it, go ahead and sign, so you can get your response.  The most likely response from the White House is a familiar word to anybody in the nullification movement, “No.” Continue Reading →

Continue Reading 9

A Lefty’s Case for Texas Secession?

By on September 16, 2010 in State Sovereignty, Tenthers 1

Interesting post over at Mother Jones, to say the least – and the principle definitely makes sense. Here’s an excerpt:

Rachel’s case for secession wouldn’t find much common ground with Rick Perry, though; to her, breaking away would only be the mildly humorous first step. All 50 states should break apart, and then keep on subdividing from there, into counties, and then towns, and then small, walkable, autonomous communities where everyone knows everyone and no one would ever, ever, think of building a WalMart. There’s something of a small-government streak there, but mostly it’s just fiercely anti-corporate (Mexican Coca Cola notwithstanding), in a way that reminded me of the folks who want to restore Vermont’s independence so that they can ban chains and eat nothing but locally grown produce.

I think one could easily replace the words 10th Amendment, Nullification, State Sovereignty, federalism, or decentralization – instead of secession, and get the same kind of results and message across. When political power is limited in size and scope, it can best reflect the interests of the people who live there.

I just hope that more people – from the left AND the right – recognize these truths in the coming years.

Continue Reading 1

Scalia: ‘No Right To Secede’

By on February 19, 2010 in Judiciary, Law 7

So many official conservatives fall into the category of double agents for the regime: Sarah Palin, Dick Armey, Glenn Beck, and so on. And here Antonin Scalia denies secession. He is replying to a screenwriter’s query about a possible court case on secession:

I am afraid I cannot be of much help with your problem, principally because I cannot imagine that such a question could ever reach the Supreme Court. To begin with, the answer is clear. If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede. (Hence, in the Pledge of Allegiance, “one Nation, indivisible.”) Secondly, I find it difficult to envision who the parties to this lawsuit might be. Is the State suing the United States for a declaratory judgment? But the United States cannot be sued without its consent, and it has not consented to this sort of suit.

I am sure that poetic license can overcome all that — but you do not need legal advice for that. Good luck with your screenplay.

Scalia is a reliable supporter of presidential dictatorship, the police state, the torture-warfare state, and the empire. He’s also a close friend and ally of Dick Cheney’s, whom he elected vice president. Now, Scalia says some good things. That is essential to being an effective double agent. But not on the core issues of state power. However, I do appreciate his clarity here, and his correct description of the purpose of the socialist pledge. (Thanks to Bret Moore)

originally posted on the LewRockwell.com Blog

Continue Reading 7

Nullification, Secession, and the Human Scale of Political Order

By on February 8, 2010 in Big Government, Federalism, History 9

Logo of the Abbeville Institute

Logo of the Abbeville Institute

For three days last week, on the third floor of the Francis Marion Hotel in downtown Charleston, SC, a group of scholars have been meeting to discuss the history of nullification and secession in American law and politics, and the continued relevance of those concepts today.

I had the privilege of joining them for the weekend-long event, hosted by the Abbeville Institute, entitled Nullification, Secession, and the Human Scale of Political Order, and it has been an amazing learning experience.

Accomplished scholars such as Abbeville founder Donald Livingston, Thomas DiLorenzo, Thomas Naylor, Marshall DeRosa, Kirkpatrick Sale, Yuri Maltsev, and Kent Masterson Brown all addressed the gathering of well over 100 attendees during the course of the weekend.

We learned that, in politics at least, size does matter, and smaller is better. Fifty percent of countries have populations of less than 5.5 million people, including nine of the top ten in terms of wealth per capita, and nine of the fourteen freest states on the planet.

Which would come as no surprise to political philosophers throughout history, from Aristotle to David Hume, who have long argued that, like a metastasizing cancer cell, there is a point at which (republican pretensions notwithstanding) a centralized nation’s growth can render it dangerous and ungovernable.

The Soviet Union learned this fact in the latter half of the Twentieth Century, as Yuri Maltsev, a former adviser to Boris Yeltsin and senior scholar at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, reminded the group. Though the Soviet leaders had no interest in republican pretensions, to stay in power, they were forced to control the lives of hundreds of millions of people spread across eleven time zones and one sixth of the Earth’s surface. Unfortunately, Yuri noted, the only way to do this was through mass murder, and even that eventually failed when the regime literally ran out of bullets.

Which is largely why those in America who understand history’s lessons, and value individual rights as they were enshrined by our Declaration of Independence, have begun to look seriously for ways to reestablish a society that values rights over might. The founder of the Second Vermont Republic, Thomas Naylor, believes his state can serve as the model for such a society one day.

First though, we have to convince fellow Americans that our nation has in fact transitioned from republic to empire, and that the only way to regain our prosperity and moral standing as a nation of free men and women is to resist the illegal and unconstitutional activities of our government.

Which is where the Tenth Amendment comes in. By pursuing a strategic decentralization of power through the vehicle of state and local nullification and interposition, we as Americans have the power to withdraw our consent peacefully and permanently from a federal government that no longer respects the rule of law.

The agents of that government may or may not then choose to recognize our right to make such a determination for ourselves. That is up to them.

But understanding that self-government is by definition the right of all free people, and then acting on that knowledge, is up to us.

Continue Reading 9

Is Secession Constitutional?

By on February 6, 2010 in Constitution, Law 2

On LewRockwell.com, Brian Stanley wrote an interesting article on Texas v White and the court system’s view of the Constitutionality of secession.

Here’s an excerpt:

In the 1868 case of Texas v. White, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 700, a case dealing with the title to some U.S. bonds, the Supreme Court ruled that Texas’, and hence the South’s, attempted secession in 1861 was unconstitutional. But the opinion also contained some wording that might give secessionists a way around White.

So what is the potentially helpful language the Court used? After noting that it was “needless to discuss at length whether the right of a State to withdraw from the Union for any cause, regarded by herself as sufficient, is consistent with the Constitution of the United States[,]” the Court then determined that the Union was intended to be perpetual and then stated that after Texas entered into “an indissoluble relation” with the Union: “There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution or through the consent of the States.” (Emphasis added.)

CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE

Continue Reading 2

Secessionists are always right-wingers. Right?

By on February 1, 2010 in Activism, Foreign Policy 2

Wrong.

As this article from Time Magazine makes clear, there’s a long-running effort for independence in Vermont. And this movement isn’t about anything remotely “right-wing” in the traditional sense. In fact, their primary motivation is opposition to war.

Here’s an excerpt:

A former Duke University economics professor, Naylor heads up the Second Vermont Republic, which he describes as “left-libertarian, anti-big government, anti-empire, antiwar, with small is beautiful as our guiding philosophy.” The group not only advocates the peaceful secession of Vermont but has minted its own silver “token” — valued at $25 — and, as part of a publishing venture with another secessionist group, runs a monthly newspaper called Vermont Commons, with a circulation of 10,000. According to a 2007 poll, they have support from at least 13% of state voters. The campaign slogan, Naylor told me, is “Imagine Free Vermont.” In his fondest imaginings, Naylor said, Vermonters would not be “forced to participate in killing women and children in the Middle East.”

Read more here

Continue Reading 2

Stephan Kinsella on Nullification and Secession

By on December 17, 2009 in Federalism, Nullification 5

Every weekday morning I stop by Mises.org (after first going to LewRockwell.com) to read, learn something new, and share info with others. Today, to my surprise, what I consider to be one of the best writers anywhere, Stephan Kinsella, has written a blog post discussing an article that I wrote earlier this year. “Randy Barnett and the Destruction of Federalism.” I’m more than honored that Mr Kinsella has take the time to write a blog entry on my article. Thank you!

I thought it would be good to make a few points on Stephan’s post. My comments follow his, which are in italics.

I just recalled interesting article by Michael Boldin of the Tenth Amendment Center, Randy Barnett and the Destruction of Federalism. I had made some comments on it to someone in email, which are adapted below. I also commented on this previously in Randy Barnett’s Proposed “Federalism Amendment”. In my view, a better view is that amendments are pointless, as the state is construing its own limits. (See on this Hoppe and de Jasay.)

That’s actually the argument that I was at least attempting to make in the article – that nullification – mass civil disobedience to the central state, with support from the individual state governments and local governments – is a far better strategy than trying to reform the federal government through amendments (or any other way, for that matter)

Also, as Boldin is proposing nullification, he could have mentioned some previous proposals for amendments that do similar things–i.e. instead of just advocating nullification, advocate the recognition of this right, in an amendment to the Constitution

Since I don’t believe that amendments are the best route to go, this is not really in my line of thinking. But – yes, if I believed it possible that a national “consensus” could be reached for a constitutional amendment that the people of each individual state could direct their elected politicians to ignore federal laws and regulations deemed by those people to be unconstitutional – I’d be all in favor of it! I just think that a better strategy is to take action more locally.

It’s not clear why Boldin doesn’t mention secession. That goes along with nullification. The right to secede is the most important way to have real federalism–the threat of leaving. A real federalism amendment would explicitly recognize the right to secede.

Agreed. As to why I didn’t mention it – while nullification and secession are both essential checks on central power, I see them as different. As Professor Kirk Wood has pointed out in his multi-volume book, Nullification: A Constitutional History, nullification is actually the opposite of secession – it’s a way of saying NO, but still keeping the “union” together. It’s the states “saying,” in effect – we’ll stick around, but we’re not going to go along with (blank).

But, I do agree that secession is the ultimate check. And, I think it should go both ways. In a union of states that supposedly is a great advantage, if any state takes the opportunity of decentralization to start committing mass violations of liberty, then the rest of that union should kick them out.

Overall, I think Mr. Kinsella and I pretty much agree on these issues. My preferred method is various forms of non-violent resistance and civil disobedience. It seems to me that with states resisting federal laws on marijuana, real id, gun regulations and more, that the time is right to try to pull the state governments into the fold to help in such efforts. Thus, my strong support for state nullification both in that article and on this website as a whole

The funny thing here – in a recent report done by Media Matters I was lambasted for simply running a website that would discuss the idea of secession. Now, I’m not covering it enough! I guess I just need better balance…

Continue Reading 5

Ron Paul on Nullification: ‘I Think it’s a Great Idea’

By on December 11, 2009 in Foreign Policy, Nullification 3

Ron Paul, in the 2nd part of his recent interview on the Mike Church show (click here for part 1), talks about the constitution, foreign policy, national defense, and most importantly for this post – nullification.

For years, the good Dr. has been a staunch supporter of the Constitution – and is probably the only person in Congress who always asks the essential question – “where in the Constitution is this authority”

It’s good to know what’s likely no surprise to his long-time supporters – he’s wholly in favor of nullification as a response to unconstitutional laws and regulations from Washington D.C. Watch the video:

Mike: Right. And that’s the key point here. Now, some questions that I don’t hear a lot of folks get a chance to ask you, and I’d like to ask these three questions in succession. Number one, your thoughts on the following three things: one, nullification.

Ron: I think it’s a great idea. It was never really successful in our history. But I think it’s going to grow in importance. And I think it’s going to grow because the government, the federal government will be seen as inept and ineffective. And I think it’ll almost be de facto in the sense that the states will eventually just ignore some of the mandates.

Continue Reading 3

Is Nullification in the Air?

By on October 13, 2009 in Nullification, Sovereignty Movement 1

On FreedomWatch, Andrew Napolitano and Lew Rockwell talk about the principles of Nullification, Secession and Interposition.

Watch it:

If the federal government were trying to do something within a state that was unconstitutional, the state government could say – you have no jurisdiction to do something illegal within our state.

Nullification has a long history in the American tradition, and as Napolitano points out, it was used in Massachusetts to resist the abhorrent federal fugitive slave act in the 19th century.

There’s a strong nullification movement growing in the states today.

Learn more about it here:
http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/the-10th-amendment-movement/

Continue Reading 1