Sigh!!!
Over at the Voloh Conspiracy we have this post Why the Issue of Secession Isn’t “Settled”
Here is a part:
In many federal systems, secession is an important safeguard for minority groups and a guarantee against excessive concentrations of power in the central government. Historically, at least some secessions have done great good, such as the “Velvet Divorce” between the Czech Republic and Slovakia in 1993, Norway’s early 20th century secession from Sweden, Finland’s secession from the Russian Empire, and the Baltic States’ 1991 secession from the USSR. The American Revolution was, of course, a violent secession from the British empire, one that most Americans surely believe to have been justified.
First the "Founding Fathers" did not SECEDE from the British Empire. They had a revolution. A good bit of the Declaration of Independence is a case that THE REQUIREMENTS were met for this natural law right. Now you can agree or disagree if those requirement were met but that was the argument. They were not discussing some legal remedy called secession.
We can talk about if Secession is good for other Federal like republics all we want. However the problem is we are talking about this Federal Republic. I am hard pressed to find any right to secession or mechanism for it in the Constitution.
If people want to attempt to pass an amendment to the U.S. Const to give that right fine. However it is not there now.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Lawyers Confusing Natural Law Right to Revolution and Secession
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
"I am hard pressed to find any right to secession or mechanism for it in the Constitution.
If people want to attempt to pass an amendment to the U.S. Const to give that right fine. However it is not there now."
Doesn't that positivist assessment - referring to the text of the Constitution to refute what is claimed as a natural right - rather miss the point of the Natural Law argument in favor of secession?
But it's all a silly academic exercise anyway. What makes secession "right" or "legal" is whether you are able to militarily defend your decision to secede. What makes secession "wrong" or "illegal" is if the nation from which you are seceding is successfully able to thwart (militarily or otherwise) your decision to do so.
In short, there is no rightness or wrongness (or legality or illegality) regarding secession. There is only success or failure.
Had the Confederate States of America been successful in defending itself against the Union's attempt to forcibly return the seceding states to the fold, no one would be arguing today "Yes, but the Constitution doesn't allow it." It would be a completely moot point.
By the way, I'm not arguing that this is the way it SHOULD be; just that this is the way it IS.
From a moral, Natural Law perspective, I would think that any claim to a right to secession must be predicated on the conditions for a just war having been met, since secession is, in many instances, almost certain to lead to war.
"In short, there is no rightness or wrongness (or legality or illegality) regarding secession. There is only success or failure."
Ok let me say as a legal principle there is no right or wrong as to secession. I think though LEGAL wise there is a huge question of right and wrong.
WHich is why I think it is important too keep it clear that secession and the Natural Law right and requirements for each are different.
Secession does not have to be based on any injuustice that gives to the right of Revolution. Maybe you just want to leave.
Of course in this day and age it gets even more complicated because it is not 1860. The United States is much more diverse in all regions and when you leave you are basically do so over what no dount would be the heated objections of the minority. Which coud be for reasons that come nothing close to requirements of revolution
My point is that if, for example, the State of Texas voted tomorrow to secede, what's to stop them? The Constitution? By definition, the State of Texas has, in my example, just voted to say "The Constitution no longer applies to us."
In that situation, the only thing that can stop the State of Texas is if the United States decides to take action to force Texas to forego its secession efforts.
Do you see what I'm saying? To argue over whether there is a "right" to secession is merely an academic exercise.
If someone decides to secede, they're going to do it regardless of whether someone else thinks they do or do not have a "right" to do so. The only thing that can stop someone from seceding is the successful action (violent or otherwise) of the country from whom they are seceding to thwart the secession.
Well ina sense Jay you are right. I mean in the end the guys with the bigger military and police force wins.
I just hink it is folly though for people to make a COnst Claim that the right exists in the Const
Post a Comment