SECESSION: Does a State Have the Right to Secede From the Union?

       by Diane Rufino

Last year I taught classes on the Constitution, Our Founding Fathers, Our Founding Principles, The Federal Court System, The Supreme Court, and Judicial Activism.  I was struck by how many people want to learn such topics but just don’t know where to go to be educated or how to trust that they will be taught the right stuff.  But one question that came up almost every class period and by every group was this: “Do the states have the right to secede.”   Well, there were several people at the program who were instructors, and three of us being attorneys (me being the least experienced, and especially with a background in patents).  Each instructor who was asked the question gave a different answer.  I didn’t know, so that was my answer, although I explained what John Locke would have said and what the answer would be if you look at the Constitution as a Social Contract.  I also know what our Founders would have said, as clearly written in the Declaration of Independence.

So, seeing that people were generally interested in the question of secession and now with the fact that almost all 50 states have filed petitions requesting a peaceful secession from the Union (as of Nov. 14, it is reported that 47 states have filed such petitions with the White House – see later), I thought I would review  that topic in as much detail as I can.  Another reason I think the review is timely and important is because the topic of secession is one that necessarily includes the matter of States’ rights and State sovereignty and those issues are very important right now, especially seeing that our government is becoming the very powerful, concentrated institution that our Founders and the States tried so hard to prevent. It is “working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one.”

After a review of our founding principles and some research, I felt fairly confident to write this review. This article will talk about the moral and legal basis of secession – which is addressed pointedly in the Declaration of Independence under the section which lists the sovereign rights held by the individual and which is NOT addressed anywhere in the Constitution.  Thus, the right is left to the People and the States, under the 9th and 10th Amendments, respectively. Even more fundamentally, the right of secession comes from the “Compact Theory of Government,” the doctrine that holds members of society together in a government system and gives it a legal basis.

That compact theory is a term that was used commonly in the days of our founding, up until the time of the Civil War.  It was addressed in the Declaration (governments “derive their just powers from the consent of the governed”), in the Debates in the Constitutional Convention of 1787, in the various state ratification conventions, and in the various articles and declarations of secession adopted by the 11 southern states. In fact, if you read the North Carolina Ratifying Convention notes, the approximately 300 delegates specifically take note of certain fundamental government principles before deliberating on the Constitution drafted in Philadelphia.  The first principle is the Compact Theory of government. Our Declaration, while defining our nation’s ideals, is actually a secessionist document. It makes the case for the right of the American colonies to sever its political bonds with Great Britain.  And what theory did our Founding Fathers use to support their case?  The Compact Theory (“Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends” – ie, it’s obligation to protect the rights of the people – “it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government.”)   Furthermore, the states’ rights’ doctrines of  Nullification and Interposition, articulated by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, respectively, are based on the compact theory. as well as on our federal system (10th Amendment) and the Supremacy Clause.

In this article, after addressing the basis for secession, I will go into detail about the Civil War to highlight Lincoln’s great misconceptions of the Constitution and our underlying government principles, which, as we know, took us down a dark and bloody path…(the abolition of slavery aside).  It is important to make this critical analysis because the only case decided by the Supreme Court on the issue of secession – Texas v. White (1869) – flows intimately from Lincoln’s administration.  His misconceptions profoundly influenced the Chief Justice, Salmon Chase, who wrote that decision.  Chase never even went to law school.  He received his legal education under the guidance of a politician, US Attorney General William Wirt!   Lincoln was good friends with Chase, a Senator from Ohio and a fellow Whig. With the formation of the new Republican Party and the election of 1860, Chase threw his support for Lincoln.  In return, Lincoln appointed him as his Treasury Secretary (1861-64).  Chase held that cabinet position throughout the Civil War and was indoctrinated with Lincoln’s view of secession. In 1864 when Chief Justice Roger Taney passed away, President Lincoln nominated Salmon Chase to the Supreme Court to replace him. Is it any wonder that the Court’s decision would perfectly reflect Lincoln’s views (while having no basis in constitutional interpretation – which is the function of the Court).

When we think of secession, we are almost programmed to think about slavery, the Confederacy, and the Civil War.  But that wasn’t the only time American states rose up in secession. But it was the only time it was unsuccessful.  The first time the states – or colonies – seceded was in 1776 when they declared their separation from Great Britain with the Declaration of Independence.  Again, the Declaration was a secessionist document. We dissolved our bonds of government with the King and Parliament. “We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”

In the Civil War, the decision was made to sever relations with fellow states.  There was a degree of animosity towards fellow states who the southern states felt were actively hostile toward them.    Currently, some think of such a decision not out of any animosity to fellow states, as it was prior to the Civil War, but as the only way to sever the relationship and dependency on the federal government.

The Southern states seceded in 1860-61 essentially because of slavery.  If it weren’t for the antagonism between the North and South over the issue of slavery, the bigger issue of States’ rights would not have asserted.  Slavery was indeed an immoral and unjust institution.  It is sad to think that people can treat fellow human beings as nothing more than property.  But it was the bigger issue of State’s rights that we must consider when we examine the Southern States’ position with respect to secession and then the response by President Lincoln.  In particular, we are talking about the sovereign rights of a state – the right of self-determination, self-protection, and the right to control its destiny.  These are all fundamental rights belonging to a sovereign….  All sovereigns. For those of us who study the Bible, we know God is sovereign.  He has complete control.  We talk about sovereign nations.  This means there are powers that a nation has, as a nation, to govern itself properly and protect its borders and people.  As we all know, our country is based on individual sovereignty, where powers have been delegated specifically from the individual to the government for it to run the Union properly.  That is our Constitution in a nutshell.  As the Declaration lays out, our nation is founded – and grounded – on the notion that individuals are the real sovereigns. They are sovereigns in themselves, which is a “self-evident truth” (meaning that no government has to explain this; nature has made it so).  As such, individuals have the “unalienable rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”  And thus we see the great explanation given by Thomas Jefferson in the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence of our fundamental rights and our foundation of government:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to 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 affect their safety and happiness.”

The Declaration gave the colonies a reason to fight the Revolutionary War for their independence.  The Declaration gave the States a reason to form a limited and federal government. It is the reason why our Founders and the States placed such an emphasis on the Compact Theory.

Back in 1860, the states still remembered why they fought for their independence from Britain and why they joined together in a Union  (as Ben Franklin advised, for mutual benefit – “Join or Die”).  They joined for security and on the basis that each state would be on equal footing.  They would enjoy the protections and benefits of the Constitution – EQUALLY.  The issue of slavery aside, the Southern States dissolved their association with the Northern States because the association had become hostile and had becomedestructive of the very reasons they joined together in the first place. They seceded for the same right of self-determination and self-government that our earlier Americans asserted for our independence from Great Britain.

In Lincoln’s mind, he was preserving the Union, but the reality is that he declared war – a bloody, costly war – on a people who peacefully, legally, and perhaps rightfully severed relations with a government that had become hostile to them and their interests, and no longer served them equally or fairly.

I am a Northerner.  And I don’t apologize for reaching that conclusion about Lincoln’s decision to invade the South.  Growing up in the North, we were taught that Abraham Lincoln was the greatest President we ever had.  He saved the Union and freed the slaves. We were taught that the South was wrong and brought the Civil War on themselves.  We were taught that Lincoln was great because of his determination to preserve the Union at all costs.  As mentioned earlier, I did some research in preparing for this review, and I’m glad I did.  I certainly learned a lot.  I learned that much of what I was taught in school was wrong and really just the government’s position on the subject.  The adoption of Lincoln’s stance on saving the Union and abolishing slavery is clearly the position the government wishes to emphasize with our children.  I wish schools could be more intellectually honest and allow the full discussion on the issues involved in secession and the Civil War.  I think it’s a shame that children indoctrinated in the public school system are so ill-equipped to appreciate the values and principles on which our country and government are based and for the most part, end up going through their entire life remembering the limited “talking points” on history and social studies that they learn in school.

In preparing to write this review, I shared what I learned with my husband, who is also a Northerner.  Even after hours of discussion and debate, he still believes that Lincoln was justified in invading the South.  He believes that slavery needed to be ended and if the South wasn’t willing to do it, then the North had every reason to (under the Declaration of Independence).  He respects Lincoln for having the courage to do that.  In his mind, the ends justified the means.

I guess you can say that we have a House divided at home now.

Personally, when referring to matters of liberty and the Constitution, I find it offensive to hear people use terms such as “the ends justified the means.”  It means that we are compromising on core principles. It simply means they don’t value the rule of law as laid down by our Founders. The laws are supposed to protect us equally and under all circumstances – especially in trying times.  FDR had that mentality of “the ends justify the means”  (and we had the internment of Japanese citizens and something most Americans don’t know – the seeds of the “enemy combatant” legal fiction that now allows the government to go after US citizens). Lincoln had that mentality (and we had the suspension of habeas corpus for American citizens and the disastrous precedent that our government can put its own survival over the interests of the states and the People – that it doesn’t have to observe or value the sovereign rights of citizens or states as laid out in the Declaration to “alter or abolish” their government, or at the very least to peacefully dissolve their political bonds so they can govern themselves more appropriately).  Even Teddy Roosevelt had that mentality.  And most of all, Barack Obama embraces this mentality (retribution and new social order justify the fundamental transformation of our government, even though the process of altering our Constitution is clear). Each president who adopts that mentality – and puts ambition over protections provided in the Constitution – perverts a fundamental principle of law upon which our country was founded.

Martin Niemoller, a German Pastor who fell out of favor with Adolf Hitler and was imprisoned at the Dachau concentration camp for several years, wrote:

           “First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out — Because I was not a Socialist.
            Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out –  Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
            Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out –  Because I was not a Jew.
            Then they came for me — and there was no one left to speak for me.”

As my priest once said: “You can’t cherry pick what you want to believe in or not. You have to stand up for the whole package.”  (He was talking about those who claim to be Christians but don’t want to acknowledge that abortion and the destruction of a fetus is against God’s law).  Liberty is a “whole package.”  There are many elements to it and to pervert one aspect is to diminish its over-all worth.

One day you’ll wish you took the time to stand up for liberty, even in if it didn’t concern you personally at the time.  As John Adams said in 1775: “A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.”

Just recently, the residents of all 50 states have filed petitions with the White House requesting permission for their states to peacefully secede from the Union and to establish a new government. The movement began on November 7, the day after the election, when Louisiana residents filed the first petition. They represent people who are fed up and who feed disenfranchised by their government and they want to exercise their rights under the Declaration of Independence to dissolve their bonds with government and establish their own, new government. Since that date, the remaining 49 states have joined in, with Vermont, Maine, and Washington being the last to file.

[For more info, see:  http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/13/petitions-seeking-white-house-approval-to-secede-now-come-from-47-states/  and   http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/11/secession-movement-sweeps-all-50-states/    and     http://www.wnd.com/2012/11/now-many-states-want-to-secede-from-u-s/ ]

The Louisiana petition, which served as a pattern for  many of the new states, simply reads: “We petition the Obama administration to: Peacefully grant the State of Louisiana to withdraw from the United States of America and create its own NEW government”….   followed by two clauses from the Declaration of Independence.   The Texas petition was much more creative.  Texas articulated its argument for secession this way: “The Texas petition explains itself this way: “The U.S. continues to suffer economic difficulties stemming from the federal government’s neglect to reform domestic and foreign spending. The citizens of the U.S. suffer from blatant abuses of their rights such as the NDAA, the TSA, etc. Given that the state of Texas maintains a balanced budget and is the 15th largest economy in the world, it is practically feasible for Texas to withdraw from the union, and to do so would protect its citizens’ standard of living and re-secure their rights and liberties in accordance with the original ideas and beliefs of our Founding Fathers, which are no longer being reflected by the federal government.”     [https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/]

Of course we know how the White House will respond to those petitions: “There is no right of a state to secede from the Union.”  But we won’t buy it.  The current administration might even respond with an Executive Order, making preparations to establish martial law should the states get any more serious than a petition on the White House government site. Glen Beck thinks that it is an insane idea to file such a petition with the White House. “Now how do you think that’s going to work out?” Beck asked on his radio show. “I mean, how dumb do you have to be?  Really?  You’re putting your name on a list that goes directly to the White House, and you’re putting your name on a list and saying, ‘yeah I think we should secede, I think there should be a Civil War.’”

As will be discussed below, the states don’t need to ask permission from the federal government when they wish to dissolve their political bonds.  The creators do not have to ask their creation for permission.

I’m not analyzing the reasons for the petitions in this article, but I would love for that discussion to follow.  I imagine that part of the reason is the current economic situation and the economic oppression and inherent unfairness that comes from over regulation and taxation.  I also imagine that other reasons would be very similar to the situation between the colonies and King George prior to 1773.  Many of 27 reasons listed by Jefferson as a “history of injuries and usurpations” of the rights held by the colonists by King George mirror the same “usurpations” by our very own government.

Ron Paul teaches that secession is a very American principle. As he says: “For those who say secession is treasonous or has been settled by the Civil War, then I say ‘You don’t know your history.’”  In a short video that he put out in the wake of the secession petitions, Dr. Paul spoke:

All the states that entered the Union believed they had a right to secede.  In fact, part of New England wanted to secede very early on and no one complained. Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry supported the right of secession and Henry even suggested that Virginia leave the Union.

        It is very American to talk about secession.  It is very much an American principle.  What about all the strong endorsements we have given over the past decade or two to those republics which seceded from the Soviet Union. We were delighted for them.  We never said ‘No, they don’t have the right to do that.’  We never said it was treacherous. And President Woodrow Wilson dragged us into World War I because he argued that e every country ought to have the right of self-determination. Why do we think differently when it comes to our country?

      Secession is a good principle. Just think of all the benefits that would have come the past 230 years or so if the principle had been more popular. The government would have been restrained not to overburden the states with too much federal rules and regulations.  But since the Civil War, the government has grown by leaps and bounds and we have indeed suffered the consequences.

       We came together voluntarily and we should be able to separate voluntarily. You know, it’s a shame that for so long now we’ve been indoctrinated with the Pledge of Allegiance – “One Nation indivisible…”  Most people don’t know who wrote the pledge.  It was Francis Bellamy who wrote it in 1892.  Bellamy was an avowed socialist who wanted to put the concept of indivisibility into the pledge to the flag.

      I think we need a discussion about secession and what the state’s rights are.  Right now we are sick and tired of it all and there will come a time when people will take secession a lot more seriously.  There will come a time when the federal government will no longer be able to deliver and that day will come when the dollar collapses.”

In addition to secession, the other concepts which we need to embrace strongly at this point in time include the following:

(i)  States’ Rights and State Sovereignty;  the need for a robust federalist system to curb the powers of the federal government;

(2)  The right of people to limited government and limited intrusion into their lives and upon their liberties, including their right to property,

(3)  The right of people to expect their states to stick up for their liberties and their property rights;  AND

(4)  Nullification – the right and duty of each state to review laws, policies, and decisions of all branches of the federal government to make sure they are within the constitutional limits of power. If not, the state must declare it null and void (unconstitutional) and refuse to enforce…  for the purpose of protecting individual liberty.   [I have addressed Nullification in many previous articles that I have written –  seehttp://forloveofgodandcountry.wordpress.com

I mention property rights specifically because our Founders have warned us that If we want to surrender our human liberties to our government, then letting it control our property is the surest way to do that.  There is a reason that Jefferson included the 3 most fundamental liberties as co-equals:  “Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness” (ie, “Property”) in the charter of our free nation.  A person can’t enjoy Life without the rights to enjoy his property and other liberties.  A person can’t enjoy his property without his other liberty rights.  And a person can’t enjoy his Liberty if he can’t enjoy his property and the right to live his life freely (without interfering with another’s rights).  Government doesn’t need to take physical title to a person’s property without rendering it useless or meaningless.  Ronald Reagan spoke eloquently on this in his 1964 speech “A Time for Choosing.

QUESTION:   Why do I believe a review on the topic of secession is important?

–>   To reflect upon what we, as a people and as a state, hold most near and dear, and what we are willing to tolerate from a federal government.  We need to decide when enough is enough.  We have to decide where to draw the line in the sand as to how much government intrusion in our lives is too much.

–>   To reflect how far we’ve lost touch with the appreciation of liberty that our founders and forefathers had. Remember how the colonists wouldn’t even tolerate a very minor tax on tea.  As James Madison said: “The people of the United States owe their independence and their very liberty to the wisdom of protesting against a minute tax on tea and recognizing the underlying oppression in that tax.”

–>   To remind ourselves of the importance of the 10th Amendment.   As South Carolina wrote in its Ordinance of Secession of Dec. 20, 1860: “By this (US) Constitution, certain duties were imposed upon the several States, and the exercise of certain of their powers was restrained, which implied their continued existence as sovereign States. But to remove all doubt, the 10th Amendment was added. Thus was established, by compact between the States, a Government with definite objects and powers, limited to the express words of the grant.  This limitation left the whole remaining mass of power subject to the clause reserving it to the States or to the people, and rendered unnecessary any specification of reserved rights.”

***   Remember this term  “compact.”  South Carolina specifically referred to the Union as a “compact between the states.”  Remember this term “compact.”

Can we put off this discussion?  I don’t think so.  I think if people can simply grasp the government’s position on the Commerce Clause and healthcare (see the discussion of Wickard v. Filburn, later) alone and its intention to control and regulate people and their property, then they just might begin to understand the urgency and the Constitutional crisis we are in with respect to our government.   And then to realize, as we here in North Carolina have had to do, that our own State has no intention of sticking up for its people – for individual liberty. The overwhelming number of people in North Carolina, across party lines, are skeptical of the of the healthcare bill (the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act , or PPACA, or “Obamacare”) and don’t want the federal government telling them to buy its healthcare plan.  Both houses of the NC Assembly passed a bill, very similar to Virginia’s “Healthcare Freedom” Act, which would exempt North Carolinians from the federal healthcare bill, but NC Governor Beverly Perdue vetoed it. There were enough votes to over-ride the veto, but taking her cue from President Obama, Perdue called Democratic house members to the Governor’s mansion the evening before the over-ride vote, and then miraculously, certain of those house members who had gone on record as saying that the federal healthcare bill is a “bad bill” and citizens needed to be protected from it and had in fact voted for the NC “Protect Healthcare” Bill (H.B. 2)  switched their votes the following afternoon.  If North Carolina had valued her sovereignty and would have been willing to stick up for its 10th Amendment powers, then Governor Perdue would have signed that bill with pleasure and in fact, would have been proud to do so.

QUESTION:   What if we don’t stand up for Sovereignty and States’ Rights NOW ??

–>   There may come a time, soon, when people begin to seriously talk about secession… as a solution.

–>   We don’t want to get to that point.  Secession is a desperate act. A last resort.  It can potentially lead us down the road to another bloody revolution.

–>   Before we even get to that point, however, we must know that conservative leaders will be targeted by the government as “Rightwing Extremists”  (See report issued by Janet Napolitano and Homeland Security on April 7, 2009 entitled: “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment”)  AND  our second amendment right to bear arms will likely be taken away because of the threat of domestic violence and an “imminent threat to the security of the nation.”  The President will no doubt cite Article IV, Section 4 for authority to do that.

Article IV, Clause 4 reads: ” The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.”

QUESTION:  How many times have we asserted our individual liberties, with respect to government?   

–>  Only once, in 1787 (and then in the state ratifying conventions).   The English have done it many times (beginning with the Magna Carta in 1215 to the English Bill of Rights, 1689).  Each time they were granted greater liberties and government was limited.  Maybe Americans should give that some thought.

QUESTION:  How many times have the States asserted its liberties with respect to a central or federal government?

–>  Twice.   The American Revolution  & the Civil War.  The colonies were established as sovereign entities. They soon adopted constitutions and established themselves as independent, sovereign states (almost as 13 independent countries in the New World).  The Southern States were stripped of sovereign power after the Civil War, and in punishing them, all of the States eventually lost the one thing that was valued most of all in our Founding – their independence. The trend since has been to strip them further of their rights and power.  Rather than the autonomous States who carried such weight and power in the design and planning of our nation, they are now little more than a uniform group of states, subservient to the federal (now a “national”?) government because of the massive growth and concentration of power and beholden to it for funding.  In short, the states have grown weaker… infinitely weaker.  And this erodes a very important foundation for our individual liberties – “federalism.”

I remember one discussion I was having regarding the 14th Amendment and how it has been used to neuter the States in the 20th century. The 14th Amendment, a Civil Rights amendment, was intended to put the full force of federal law on the Southern States to give the freed slaves the full rights and privileges of citizenship. Today, it is used to strip the states of the power of regulating in many areas it had traditionally been allowed to regulate (especially under its Police Powers – the power to regulate for the health, safety, welfare, and morality of its people) – including in the area of education (prayer and morality out of school), religion (separation of church and state), association, abortion, sodomy, and criminal rights.  As the gentleman explained: “The States can’t be trusted.”  The gentleman I was having the discussion with feels the 14th Amendment was and continues to be an important amendment. (I believe it has outlived its purpose).  As the gentleman explained: “The States can’t be trusted.”  My response was: “The federal government can’t be trusted but no one is trying to limit its power with an amendment !!”

–>  The Civil War, which Lincoln touted as a “new birth of freedom” was actually the beginning of our demise.  We lost much of our liberty.  For with the Civil War, this country destroyed the very foundation upon which our country could most effectively curb tyranny – the right of states to remain sovereign, free, strong, and independent states… to retain those powers, so numerous and indefinite, “which extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and property of the People, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.” (James Madison, Federalist No. 45)  This was our Tenth Amendment.

In the aftermath of the Civil War, the era of big, centralized government was ushered in.

QUESTION:  Who makes those decisions now as to which areas a State can regulate?  

–>  Those decisions are usually made (often with strong-arm tactics) by a Constitutionally-abusive president such as FDR or Obama – those blinded by the need for socialist policies.  Or they could be made by the nine members of the Supreme Court – 4 or 5 of whom have no allegiance to the words and spirit of the Constitution.   (See Wickard v. Filburn, which will be discussed later)

I think it’s important for a people every hundred years or so to put themselves in the position that the feudal barons were in back in 1215 when they forced King John to sign the Magna Carta and especially to put themselves in the position that our founding colonies were in when they were standing up for their liberties and trying to establish that perfect formula to protect those liberties with respect to government that historically would always tend to become tyrannical and destructive of the ends for which it was established. The gradual encroachment on human liberties over the years has been staggering and we’ve sat back and allowed it to happen. How many colonists do you think would have let that happen? The British asserted their rights in 1215, then in 1628 (Petition of Right), then in 1679 (Habeas Corpus Act), and then in 1689 (English Bill of Rights).  Each time they exercised their voice, the King or Parliament drafted a document limiting the powers of government.  Each of the documents listed above are a recognition of individual liberty and a promise to limit government with respect to the rights held by the people.  We have the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and to this day, because of the progressive and socialist nature of government and the progressive nature of the federal courts, we really have no idea what our actual rights are with respect to government. This should never be tolerated.

Let us remember the days when the colonists wouldn’t even tolerate a very minor tax on tea.  As James Madison said: “The people of the United States owe their independence and their very liberty to the wisdom of protesting against a minute tax on tea and recognizing the underlying oppression in that tax.”

And those days, the States were responsive to their people. When the people rallied and protested over the Stamp Act and the small tax on tea, as violating their natural rights, the States, one by one, in Convention, called for a declaration of independence from Britain.  Since when did the States become the very puppets of a government that was supposed to “serve” them?  Since when did the States become willing puppets of a government that disregards their very sovereignty?  It’s no wonder that the bully in DC continues to be one.

Before examining the question of whether a state has the right to secede from the Union, consider these quotes:

“The principle, on which the war was waged by the North, was simply this: That men may rightfully be compelled to submit to, and support, a government that they do not want, and that resistance, on their part, makes them traitors and criminals.  No principle, that is possible to be named, can be more self-evidently false than this or more self-evidently fatal to all political freedom.  Yet it triumphed in the field, and is now assumed to be established.  If it really be established, the number of slaves, instead of having been diminished by the war, has been greatly increased…   For a man, thus subjected to a government that he does not want, is a slave.  And there is no difference, in principle – but only in degree – between political and chattel slavery.  The former, no less than the latter, denies a man’s ownership of himself and the products of his labor; and asserts that other men may own him, and dispose of him and his property, for their uses, and at their pleasure.”  – Lysander Spooner (Nineteenth-Century lawyer, abolitionist, entrepreneur)

“The Union was formed by the voluntary agreement of the States, and in uniting together, they have not forfeited their Nationality, nor have they been reduced to the condition of one and the same people.  If one of the States chose to withdraw its name from the contract, it would be difficult to disprove its right of doing so…”     -–  Alex de Tocqueville, Democracy In America

” Could our Founding Fathers have ever forbade the right of secession, or ever dreamed of secession as illegitimate, when it was precisely their own righteous secession, the escape from British abuse which literally forged the steely bonds of their cause – those which actually bound our Founding Patriots together when they mutually pledged to each other ‘our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor’?”    — Thomas Paine, June 25, 2009, in his article “The Truth About Session”

“If the Declaration of Independence justifies the secession from the British empire of 3,000,000 of colonists in 1776, we do not see why it would not justify the secession of 5,000,000 of Southerners from the Federal Union in 1861.”    –-  New York Tribune, December 17, 1860

“The American people, North and South, went into the [Civil] War as citizens of their respective states, they came out as subjects … What they lost they have never gotten back.”     -–  H.L. Mencken

“If there be a principle that ought not to be questioned within the United States, it is that every man has a right to abolish an old government and establish a new one. This principle is not only recorded in every public archive, written in every American heart, and sealed with the blood of American martyrs, but is the only lawful tenure by which the United States hold their existence as a nation.”      — James Madison

“To deny this right [of secession] would be inconsistent with the principle on which all our political systems are founded, which is, that the people have in all cases, a right to determine how they are governed.”     —  William Rawle, the author of the leading constitutional-law treatise of the early-nineteenth century, A View of the Constitution of the United States (1825)

QUESTION:  What does the word “Secession” mean ?

–>  A separation from a community of a part of that community.

–>  One party’s voluntary withdrawal, or disassociation, from another party or from a Union of parties

–>  Secession necessitates no attack, no usurpation, no threats, no takeover, no violence.  It is a peaceful act.  Violence only enters the picture when there is a tyrant ruler.  Coercion and armed force are the favorite instruments of such rulers to halt a secession from their corrupt empire.

QUESTION:  What did our Founders say about secession?  What about our founding principles?

–>  Our Founders understood that certain fundamental rights are inherent in man because of his relationship with the Creator.  They reasoned: “How can we give consent to a government to make rules for us if we don’t have the original power to make rules for ourselves?“

–>  This is known as the Individual Sovereignty doctrine, advanced by the great philosopher on government, John Locke.

–>  It was the sovereign people (“We the People”) for who the Constitution was created.

–>  If a sovereign people can create a government, then they can also dissolve it.

As our Founders understood, certain fundamental rights are inherent in man because of his relationship with the Creator.  They reasoned: ‘How can we give consent to a government to make rules for us if we don’t have the original power to make rules for ourselves?“  This is known as the Individual Sovereignty doctrine, advanced by the great philosopher on government, John Locke. It was the sovereign people (“We the People”) for who the Constitution was created.

In order to understand the premise for John Locke’s theory on government, ask this question:  Which comes first –  individuals or governments?   We know the answer. Individuals, with certain fundamental sovereign rights, form into communities. They delegate their power over their rights and property to a local government to protect them. As John Locke explained: “Individuals have sovereign rights which no government can take away.  (Government can only exercise power on behalf of the people).  As such, government is morally obliged to serve people, namely by protecting life, liberty, and property.”

John Locke was one of the first great thinkers of the Enlightenment Era (or age of Reason).  He believed in the sovereignty of the individual – the inherent rights of the individual to self-protection.  Locke understood that the individual has natural rights to life, liberty and property, and therefore has the right to protect them.  It is from this basic premise that he explored the role of government.  We can read his views in his extensive essays entitled The Two Treatises of Government, published in 1688 and 1689.  In the first treatise, Locke refutes the belief in the divine right of Kings.  It is the second treatise, we see the essentials of Locke’s political theory.  In essence, he builds on Cicero’s “Natural Law” theory where man derives his existence and therefore his natural rights from God.  Locke takes the theory one step further and applies it to the intended role of government.

So Locke’s fundamental assertion, as was Cicero’s, is that the state of  nature has human beings enjoying most of their natural rights without the state. That is, the rights are not granted by the state. The fact that property could be freely exchanged, sold, or accumulated in that natural condition led Locke to argue that governments ought not interfere with most aspects of the economy and society. Moreover, no people living in a natural state of freedom would consent to have all their liberty taken away.  Liberty is not the government’s to take away. Therefore, any government requires the consent of the people to “protect the rights of life, liberty, and property” that the people themselves have the natural authority to do. (The right of self-protection).  This, therefore, makes government ‘conditional.’  It also dictates that the role of the state ought to be limited to protecting life, liberty, and property from those few predatory members of the human race whom Locke referred to as the “quarrelsome and the contentious.” According to Locke, everyone is entitled to live once they are created (Life), everyone is entitled to do anything they want to so long as it doesn’t conflict with the first right (Liberty), and everyone is entitled to own all they create or gain through gift or trade so long as it doesn’t conflict with the first two rights (Property).  Since the role of government is limited, its power should also be limited. Locke proposed that government be limited through a separation of powers scheme, where each branch checks the other.

It is easy to see how our Founder’s were influenced by John Locke when designing our government and drafting our founding documents.

QUESTION:  What is the purpose of a constitution?

–>  Locke wrote that the decision by a group of people to delegate authority to a government creates a constitution, a written agreement that sets limitations on government power and represents the consent of the people.  Laws established for the community naturally flow from this initial agreement and therefore a constitution is superior to ordinary laws created by any legislature. Locke’s idea of government is one of a limited constitutional regime.

Locke saw constitutions as “social contracts” or “social compacts.”

QUESTION:  What is a “social contract”  (or “social compact”)?

–>  A social contract is an agreement intended to explain the appropriate relationship between individuals and their governments.  People form an implicit social contract, ceding their natural rights to an authority to protect them from abuse.  According to the dictionary, a social contract (aka, social compact) is a voluntary agreement among individuals by which, according to any of various theories, such as those put forth by Hobbes, Locke, or Rousseau, organized society is brought into being and invested with the right to secure mutual protection and welfare or to regulate the relations among its members.

Locke saw constitutions as social contracts or social compacts.  He explained that people escape their primitive state by forming into communities and thus entering a social contract under which the state provides protective services to its citizens. Locke regarded this type of contract as revocable.  A government depends on the consent of those who are governed, which may be withdrawn at any time, thus dissolving the agreement and thereby invalidating the government.  [In the case of a federation of states, for example, one state would no longer “give consent” and therefore dissociate itself from the contract, thereby dissolving its bond with the other states].

In his Republic, Plato introduced social contract theory. In a scenario involving Socrates, Socrates refused to escape from jail to avoid being put to death. He argued that since he had willingly remained in Athens all of his life despite opportunities to go elsewhere, he had accepted the social contract  (thus he agreed to abide by the local laws, including submitting to the justice process). The idea of the social contract is one of the foundations of the American political system. This is the belief that the state only exists to serve the will of the people, and they are the source of all political power enjoyed by the state. They can choose to give or withhold this power. The origin of the term social contract can be found in the writings of Plato. However, English philosopher Thomas Hobbes expanded on the idea when he wrote Leviathan in response to the English Civil War. In this book he wrote that in the earliest days there was no government. Instead, those who were the strongest could take control and use their power at any time over others. Hobbes’ theory was that the people mutually agreed to create a state, only giving it enough power to provide protection of their well-being. However, in Hobbes’ theory, once the power was given to the state, the people then relinquished any right to that power. In effect, that would be the price of the protection they sought. John Locke, on the other hand, saw the relationship as still favoring the individual and the rights inherently bestowed on him.  He believed that revolution was not just a right but an obligation if the state abused its given power against the individual.

Thomas Paine, in his Rights of Man, wrote:”The fact therefore must be that the individuals themselves, each in his own personal and sovereign right, entered into a contract with each other to produce a government: and this is the only mode in which governments have a right to arise, and the only principle on which they have a right to exist.”

This all makes sense.  Local governments and social contracts/compacts make sense.  A local government can provide services easier than individuals who must go to work and do other things. What is your fundamental liberty worth when you can’t travel because you have to stay around to guard and protect your property?  So, some government is necessary for maximum liberty.  But the individual is careful to make sure that only certain services are delegated. As Madison explained in The Federalist No. 45, power was always meant to remain closest to the people. He wrote: ” The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined.  Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite. The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and property of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the state.”

But a federal or central government was something different.  It is a government that isn’t close to the people.  And our Founders understood that.  For that reason, the Constitution was written for We the People to outline exactly what powers We are willing to delegate away – “in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”  And the Federalist Papers explain the scope of those powers.  They are very limited and specifically listed. The Constitution was ratified by the States in reliance on such an understanding.

QUESTION:  Who are the parties to the social contract / compact that is our US Constitution?

–>  The states, acting in the interests of “We the People.”  Citizens selected their delegates who then debated the decision to ratify or not ratify the Constitution and join with fellow states to delegate certain of their powers to a federal government.  The Federal government was – is – NOT a party to the compact.  In fact, it wasn’t even actually created at the time many of the states signed of the Constitution. The government, therefore, has no enforcement power over the compact.  Only the parties – the states – do.

QUESTION:  How can the social contract / compact be dissolved?

–>  In every compact or contract between two or more parties, there is mutual obligation. The failure of one of the contracting parties to perform a material part of the agreement entirely releases the obligation of the other. This, in fact, was the position of the state of South Carolina in its Declaration of Secession. It went one step further and said that where no arbiter is provided, each party is left to his own judgment to determine the fact of failure on a contracting party, with all its consequences.

–>  There are those who oppose this view and say that in order to break a social contract/compact, all parties must agree.

–>  Note that Secessionists analogized the Constitution to a treaty, not a contract – on the ground that each state was more like a sovereign nation than a human being. And under treaty law, unilateral rescission is permissible.

–>  As we’ll see in Texas v. White, the only Supreme Court case to address the issue of secession, the court included the federal government as a party to the social compact and also supported the view that a state could not be secede unless the federal government and the other states agreed to it.

John C. Calhoun, representative from South Carolina and Vice President under John Quincy Adam said: “The error is in the assumption that the General Government is a party to the constitutional compact. The States formed the compact, acting as sovereign and independent communities.”  Calhoun, for one, was a strong proponent of slavery and pushed for secession on that issue up until his death in 1850.  For years, he urged the North to  “stop agitating the slavery question.”  He predicted the Civil War.  On the floor of the Senate in February 1837, he asserted that slavery was more a “positive good” than it was a “necessary evil.”

Calhoun was also a strong believer in states’ rights and nullification (states could declare null and void federal laws which they held to be unconstitutional), a doctrine championed by Thomas Jefferson and advocated by the Anti-Federalists. Calhoun wrote an essay in 1828 entitled “South Carolina Exposition and Protest,” in which he argued that a state could veto any law it considered unconstitutional.

In 1850, he published a book called “Disquisition on Government,” in which he argued that a written constitution would never be sufficient to contain “the plundering proclivities of a central government.”  He argued that some mechanism is necessary for a consensus among the citizens of the states to limit the actions of Congress when they exceed constitutional boundaries. Consequently, Calhoun proposed giving citizens of the states veto power over federal laws that they believed were unconstitutional.  He called this consensus of citizens the “concurrent majority.”  This veto power would be supported by Jefferson’s nullification doctrine.  To Calhoun (and Jefferson), states’ rights meant that the citizens of the states were sovereign over the federal (he called it a “central”) government which they had created as their agent.  He also argued that since States are sovereign over the government and possess the right of self-determination and self-preservation, they inherently have the right of secession.

[Note:  Between 1937 and 1995, not a single federal law was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Not one piece of legislation was seen as exceeding the scope of Congress’s commerce power.  So much for the argument made in Marbury v. Madison(1804) that the federal courts have the power of  “judicial review” to hold the branches of Congress and the states to their constitutional limits (in order to, of course, to protect the delicate balance of power and to safeguard liberty). Instead, the courts have allowed, even endorsed, the federal government to expand beyond its enumerated responsibilities. The progressive Court of the 20th century has gradually allowed the government to encroach on individual liberty and by expanding and re-interpreting the Constitution, has denied the American people the ability to limit their government.]

Calhoun believed the doctrine of nullification could lead to secession and in fact that very scenario almost played out in 1832.

In 1832, there was a major confrontation between South Carolina and the government over state interests and sovereignty.  It is referred to as the “Nullification Crisis.”  South Carolina believed that certain federal tariffs were unconstitutional and it passed an ordinance that nullified” them. The tariffs at issue favored northern manufacturing interests over southern agricultural concerns. The South Carolina legislature declared them unconstitutional and passed an ordinance nullifying them.  (Such tariffs you might recall, were cited as one of the reasons for the secession of several of the southern states). In response to the South Carolina’s nullification measure, Congress passed the Force Bill, which empowered the President to use military power to force states to obey all federal laws. President Andrew Jackson then sent US Navy warships to Charleston harbor. South Carolina turned around and nullified the Force Bill. Tensions cooled after both sides agreed to the Compromise Tariff of 1833, proposed by Senator Henry Clay to change the tariff law in a manner which satisfied Calhoun, who by then was in the Senate.

We have looked at the reasons individuals establish governments, we have looked at local government vs. federal governments, we have studied the concept of “social contracts,” we have reviewed our founding principles and reflected about what our Founders had to say about secession and the right to dissolve bonds with government.  But just in case there are those who are still unsure as to whether a state has the right to secede from the Union, we can look at legal authority.

QUESTION:  Does a State have the legal authority  to secede from the Union?

–>   Article VII sets out the provision for original ratification, and Article IV empowers Congress to admit new States.  But there is no provision of the Constitution that authorizes a state to leave the Union or bars it from doing so. The Constitution does not say anything about states leaving.

–>  There is no specific power granted to the federal government to prevent or reverse secession and the power to secede is not specifically denied to the states.  Therefore, therefore that power is retained by the states, as guaranteed by the 10th Amendment.

–>  The Declaration of Independence is itself a document justifying secession.

–>  Texas v. White (1869).  The Supreme Court said “Yes,” but not unilaterally. (However, the decision has been put into question by the actions of President Grant and the government in setting conditions for the southern states to be “re-admitted” to the Union).

QUESTION:  Which was the first state to secede from the Union?

–>  South Carolina.  It adopted its Ordinance of Secession on Dec. 24, 1860.

South Carolina’s Declaration of Secession is noteworthy among the declarations of the seceding states for the following reasons:

1).  It acknowledges the state’s earlier intention (in 1852) to secede from the Union:  “The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right.  Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue.”

2).  It is structured very similarly to the Declaration of Independence written by Thomas Jefferson.  “To the remaining United States of America and to the nations of the world, South Carolina declares the immediate causes which have led to this act (secession).”  (Also see the language above)

3).  It explains the great principles asserted by the Colonies (States), as reflected clearly in the Declaration of Independence:  (a)  the right of a State to goverm itself; and (b) the right of a people to abolish a Government when it become destructive of the ends for which it was instituted.  The fact is that each state was recognized by the mother country in the Treaty of Paris (1793) as a FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATE.

4).  It gives a very good overview of the history of the colonies:

“In pursuance of their Declaration of Independence, each of the thirteen States proceeded to exercise its separate sovereignty; adopted for itself a Constitution, and appointed officers for the administration of government in all its departments – Legislative, Executive and Judicial. For purposes of defense, they united their arms and their counsels; and, in 1778, they entered into a League known as the Articles of Confederation, whereby they agreed to entrust the administration of their external relations to a common agent, known as the Congress of the United States, expressly declaring, in the first Article “that each State retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right which is not, by this Confederation, expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled….   Under this Confederation, the war of the Revolution was carried on, and on September 3, 1783, the contest ended, and a Treaty was signed by Great Britain in which she acknowledged the independence of the Colonies.

In 1787, Deputies were appointed by the States to revise the Articles of Confederation, and on 17th September, 1787, these Deputies recommended for the adoption of the States, the Articles of Union, known as the Constitution of the United States. The parties to whom this Constitution was submitted, were the several sovereign States; they were to agree or disagree, and when nine of them agreed the compact was to take effect among those concurring; and the General Government, as the common agent, was then invested with their authority.  By this Constitution, certain duties were imposed upon the several States, and the exercise of certain of their powers was restrained, which necessarily implied their continued existence as sovereign States. But to remove all doubt, an amendment was added, which declared that 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. On the 23d May, 1788, South Carolina, by a Convention of her People, passed an Ordinance assenting to this Constitution, and afterwards altered her own Constitution, to conform herself to the obligations she had undertaken.”

5).  It reinforces that the government is subject to the two great principles asserted in the Declaration of Independence (see earlier) –    ”We hold that the Government thus established is subject to the two great principles asserted in the Declaration of Independence….”

6).  It explains the legal nature of the Constitution – as a compact (contract; an agreement; a social contract) – and acknowledges the parties to such compact (the states).  It also explains that as such, the Constitution is subject to the law of contracts:

“Thus was established, by compact between the States, a Government with definite objects and powers, limited to the express words of the grant. This limitation left the whole remaining mass of power subject to the clause reserving it to the States or to the people, and rendered unnecessary any specification of reserved rights…..   We hold that the mode of its formation subjects it to the law of compact.  We maintain that in every compact between two or more parties, the obligation is mutual; that the failure of one of the contracting parties to perform a material part of the agreement, entirely releases the obligation of the other; and that where no arbiter is provided, each party is remitted to his own judgment to determine the fact of failure, with all its consequences.

We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.”

7).  Just as Jefferson submitted “facts to a candid world” of the history of repeated injuries and usurpations by King George of England, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over the States, South Carolina listed proof that the Northern states deliberately failed to live up to their Constitutional obligations and therefore the compact is null and void:

(i)  First, those states intentionally interfered with or ignored the Fugitive Slave Clause of the Constitution (Article IV, Sect. 2) –  Any person held in service or slave in one state must be delivered back to that owner.

This clause “was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made.  The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia , which now composes the States north of the Ohio River….

(ii)  The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution…. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.

(iii)  The ends for which the Constitution was framed are declared by itself to be ‘to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.’  These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burdening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution…”

(iv)  The Northern States have showed added hostility to the Southern states “by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land (Dred v. Scott), are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.”

(v)  “On March 4, 1861, Abraham Lincoln will take possession of the Government.  He has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States…. The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy.”

Other states, such as Georgia and Texas, offer many more reasons for the decision to secede.

Secession  –

Americans seceded twice in our relatively short history as a nation.  We seceded from the British Empire over its taxation of the colonies without representation and a denial of other fundamental human liberties.  Thomas Jefferson set those reasons out very clearly for “a candid world” to see in the Declaration of Independence.  Some of those reasons were:

  • He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
  • He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of
    people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the
    Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
  • He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and
    distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of
    fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
  • He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly
    firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
  • He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws
    for establishing Judiciary powers.
  • He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices,
    and the amount and payment of their salaries.
  • He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to
    harass our people, and eat out their substance.
  • He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of
    our legislatures.
  • He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil
    power.
  • He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
  • For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
  • For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
  • For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
  • For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
  • For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
  • For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering
    fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
  • For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
  • He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
  • He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
  • He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known
    rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

– In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms:  Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

The Southern states seceded in 1861 over what they felt were years of hostility to their sovereign interests. The high protective tariffs of 1828 and 1832 were a particular cause of contention.

In 1824, a high protective tariff was proposed by the US Congress. The purpose was to protect industry in the North which was being driven out of business by low-priced imported goods (by putting a tax on them).  On May 19, 1828, it was passed by the US Congress. It came to be labeled the “Tariff of Abominations” by the Southern states because of the negative effects it had on the Southern economy. It was a high tariff on finished products (as opposed to raw materials).  In 1828, which part of the country was producing “finished products”?   The North.  The North had the industry.  The South was still an agrarian society.  Its economy was supported by its exports – of cotton, sugar, and more. Southerners relied heavily on sales in the world market for their produce so that the protective tariffs did not offer them any service (only a detriment).  The South was harmed directly by having to pay higher prices on finished goods.  It used to buy them through imports but the tariffs made them too expensive.  The choice then was to pay the high prices or buy from the North (which was also expensive for them). The South was also harmed indirectly because reducing the exportation of British goods to the US made it difficult for the British to pay for the cotton they imported from the South.  Furthermore, because the United States enacted the high protective tariffs on foreign products, those countries retaliated on raw materials exported by the Southern states.  Other countries weren’t buying their products.  The demand for raw cotton abroad was greatly reduced.  The South responded by lowering the price on their products, cotton in particular. The North took advantage of this and bought the cotton at the lower value for their manufacturing looms.

To make matters worse, the exports of the South, along with the tariffs and customs revenues, were the only important sources of tax revenue that supported the federal government.  Some have estimated that 30% of the U.S. population (the South) was providing at least 70% of the income to the government.  In other words, the South was disproportionately supporting the federal government and yet was being disserved by it with oppressive policies.

On the one hand, the government needed the revenue that the South brought in to fund the government, but on the other hand punished them, through various policies, to harm their interests and economies. So, when the South seceded, the major source of government revenue was lost.  To some historians, the war against the South was a convenient vehicle to ensure the southern revenue base was retained to fund the treasury.

One complaint against King George could easily have been made by the Southern States against the federal government:  “For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world.”

As Lincoln’s election became evident, secessionists made clear their intent to leave the Union before he took office the following March.  On December 20, 1860, South Carolina took the lead by adopting an ordinance of secession.  By February 1, 1861, Florida, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas followed. Six of these states then adopted a constitution and declared themselves to be a sovereign nation, the Confederate States of America.  Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina, Tennessee, Missouri, and Kentucky soon followed. President Buchanan and President-elect Lincoln refused to recognize the Confederacy, declaring secession illegal.  Lincoln, committed to the ideal of republicanism, saw secession as an act of anarchy and was committed to restoring the republic (the Union).  In his first inaugural address, on March 4, 1861, Lincoln said:  “Plainly, the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy.  A majority, held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people.  In rejecting the majority principle, anarchy or despotism in some form is all that is left.”  In that same inaugural address, he also said: “I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution, the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination.”

In a message to Congress later that year, on July 4, he wrote: “The distinct issue, ‘Immediate dissolution or blood’…embraces more than the fate of these United States. It presents to the whole family of man the question of whether a constitutional republic or democracy — a government of the people, by the same people — can or cannot maintain its territorial integrity against its own domestic foes. It presents the question whether the discontented individuals — too few in numbers to control the administration, according to organic law, in any case — can always, upon the pretenses made in this case or on any other pretenses, or arbitrarily without any pretense, break up the government and thus practically put an end to free government upon the earth. It forces us to ask: ‘Is there, in all republics, this inherent and fatal weakness?  Must a government, of necessity, be too strong for the liberties of its own people, or too weak to maintain its own existence?’”

In a letter to newspaper editor Horace Greeley dated August 22, 1862, Lincoln wrote:  “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy slavery.  If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving the others alone, I would also do that.”

And in his annual message to Congress on Dec. 1, 1862, he said: “Fellow-citizens, we cannot escape history. We of this Congress and this administration, will be remembered in spite of ourselves. No personal significance, or insignificance, can spare one or another of us. The fiery trial through which we pass, will light us down, in honor or dishonor, to the latest generation. We say we are for the Union. The world will not forget that we say this. We know how to save the Union. The world knows we do know how to save it. We — even we here — hold the power, and bear the responsibility. In giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom to the free – honorable alike in what we give, and what we preserve. We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth.”

Lincoln justified the war based on legal terms. (And certainly in moral terms as well).  He believed the Constitution was a contract (and for one party to get out of a contract all the other parties had to agree); in fact, he believed the original states joined together with the intent of forming a perpetual union. He believed they memorialized that intent expressly
in the Articles of Confederation. The Articles stated both in the Preamble and in the body that the union “thus created” is “perpetual.”  Article XII stated: “The Articles of this confederation shall be inviolably observed by every state, and the union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the united States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every state.” (The term “perpetual” was actually used five times in the Articles).  According to Lincoln, the Constitution, drafted to address the limitation of the Articles, merely created a more perfect ‘perpetual’ union.

So strongly did Lincoln believe this that he stated as such in his first inaugural address: “I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination.”

Apparently, this was not the position that Lincoln always held. On the floor of the 30th Congress on January 13, 1848, Lincoln delivered this message: “Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and to form one that suits them better. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may make their own of such territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority intermingling with or near them who oppose their movement.”

With respect to the sovereign powers “retained by the States,” (10th Amendment), Lincoln believed that the power or right to secede was not one of them.  According to Lincoln, secession was not such a power since it is “a power to destroy the government itself.” To leave the Union would be to destroy the government.

Lincoln also cited two other constitutional sources for his belief that secession is illegal – The Supremacy Clause and the Guarantee Clause.  The Supremacy Clause, in Article VI, states:  “The Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof . . . shall be the Supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”  Perhaps Lincoln saw secession as violating federal law, particularly the law against acts of treason.

Article IV, Section 4, clause 1 (The Guarantee Clause), states that “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.”  This clause was cited by President Lincoln to justify a war to prevent secession.

So, those were Lincoln’s reasons to ignore the fact that the Southern states had seceded from the Union and formed a new sovereign nation – the Confederate States of America – and then to wage war to bring those states back into the Union.  I had always been told that Lincoln was a brilliant man, a brilliant attorney, and a brilliant thinker.  I think perhaps I will just think of Abraham Lincoln, our 16th President, as one of the finest speechwriters and orators in history.  His Gettysburg Address, his letter to the grieving mother who lost five sons, his First Inaugural Address, and his Second Inaugural Address will always be among the most eloquent in our history.  But I have serious problems in
his legal and Constitutional justifications for the Civil War.  A list of some challenges includes the following:

1).  Lincoln believed the Constitution to be a contract that and that for one party (one State) to get out of that contract, all the other parties (States) had to agree.  Lincoln represents contract law incorrectly.  Parties are only concerned about mutual consent to dissolve the contract when they wish to be relieved of any remaining obligations.  (That is, when they don’t wish to be liable for breach of contract damages). There is absolutely no principle or tenet in contract law which says that a party is required to remain committed to an agreement it no longer wishes to be.  In contract law, there are such plausible defenses such as “frustration of contract” where the goal of the contract have been rendered no longer necessary by some act unrelated to the conduct of one of the contracting parties. Furthermore, a party is relieved of the contract when one of the contracting parties does something intentional to devalue the value of that contract. There is nothing requiring a state to remain loyal to a constitution that has become destructive of the ends for which it was created.  (Who wouldn’t argue that the conduct of government today is out of control and bears like resemblance to the one that was created by compact in 1787-1790?

2).  Lincoln asserted that secession amounts to anarchy or even despotism.  Anarchy is defined as “without government or laws; lawlessness. The South quickly established a new Constitution and laws. There was no period of lawlessness or a lack of government, either for the United States of America or for the Confederate States of America.  Anarchy is what we have now with the federal government refusing to enforce the laws it was entrusted by the American people to enforce.  It is what we have in Arizona and in every sanctuary city for illegal immigrants.  It is what is responsible for the killing and slaughter of citizens at the hands of illegal drug traffickers and illegal immigrants, who have no business being here.  [This alone is ample grounds for the sovereign people or even the States to dissolve their compact with the federal government today].

3).  Lincoln asserted that the Union as established under the Articles of Confederation was perpetual.  He noted that the full title of the Articles read –  “Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union Between the States.”  But the country was no longer organized under the Articles. It was organized under the Constitution, in order to “form a more perfect union” (and not a “perpetual union”).  Was that merely an inconvenient detail?  Did he assume that the US Constitution was an extension of the Articles and that if the states belonged to a perpetual union then they must no longer be sovereign?  But the very organization under the Articles created a loose confederation of sovereign states and a weak central government.  Most of the power remained with the state governments and in fact, the reason our Founders tended towards a new constitution was because the Articles was a weak document – it lacked enforcement ability. The government under the Articles could not raise tax revenue to pay the war debts or regulate commerce among the States. But the real failure on Lincoln’s part was in failing to appreciate the significance of the word “perpetual” in an 18th century compact. For an agreement, or compact, to be “perpetual,” it simply meant that it had no built-in sunset provision.

4).  Lincoln asserted that the states could never leave the Union because the Union is ‘perpetual.’ He went even further to say that “Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments.”  (1861).  I question whether Lincoln never read the Founding Fathers or read about our founding history.  We know his position on ‘immortality’ is both incorrect and illogical because our Founders, in fact, wrote plenty on the topic of dissolving one’s bonds with government.  Our founding colonists understood their fundamental right to sever bonds with a government that becomes tyrannical and abusive. In explaining the reasons for our formal separation from Great Britain in the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson first made a grand statement of individual liberties, one being “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 a new Government.”  We all understand that the Declaration explicitly supports the right of a people to alter or abolish government.  John Locke, the English philosopher who wrote extensively on the design and role of government, and on whose works our Founders most relied, also acknowledged the right of a people to abolish a government that becomes illegitimate. Locke wrote: “The people “are absolved from obedience when illegal attempts are made upon their liberties or properties” because “self-defense is a part of the law of Nature.”

5).  Furthermore, William Rawle, the author of the leading constitutional-law treatise of the early-nineteenth century, entitled A View of the Constitution, wrote:  “To deny this right [of secession] would be inconsistent with the principle on which all our political systems are founded, which is, that the people have in all cases, a right to determine how they are governed.”  [Note that William Rawle, a lawyer from Philadelphia, taught classes on the Constitution at West Point, including the topic of secession. He taught from this book.  Ulysses S. Grant and Robert E. Lee were two of his students].

6).  None of our Founders believed governments were intended to be perpetual. If Lincoln had been around during the American Revolution, and if his logic prevailed, then we would all still be Englishmen.

7).  If governments were intended to be perpetual, then how could Lincoln have even justified the Constitution?  Wouldn’t he have considered the “perpetual” Articles of Confederation to be the one true instrument and government?   Furthermore, if governments were meant to be never-ending, as Lincoln reasoned, then it would follow that our current Union is illegitimate, and we must revert to the arrangement under the Articles of Confederation?  (I think most states and even the People might like that idea !!)

8).  If compacts are perpetual, how were the States able to withdraw from the Articles of Confederation?  In adopting the Articles of Confederation, the States had withdrew from the Articles of Confederation.  Surely Lincoln noticed that all of the states, over a period of three years, did so despite clearly stated wording that their Union was perpetual. (North Carolina and Rhode Island were the last to ratify, in Nov. 1789 and May 1790, respectively).  After all, the Articles clearly stated that “the Union shall be perpetual.”  Why didn’t Lincoln suggest the Articles to be, in fact, the legitimate compact?  How was Lincoln able to rationalize the fact that states withdrew from the Articles (without an agreement or firm assurances from all states that they would re-form under the US Constitution)?  Didn’t they, in fact, destroy the government in doing so?  The Founders required unanimous consent by the thirteen States before making any changes to the Articles of Confederation. Yet in spite of this requirement, and just seven years after its ratification, nine of the thirteen States tacitly this ‘perpetual’ Union when they ratified the Constitution.

9).  Lincoln cites the fact that the Articles of Confederation uses the word “perpetual” several times in describing the Union.  Article II of the Articles apparently contrasted the phrase “perpetual union.”  It stated: “Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence and every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.”  [Article II of the Articles was the equivalent of and precursor to the 10th Amendment of the Constitution].  Just because parties aspire to a ‘perpetual’ union doesn’t mean that it will in fact happen.  Men and women take a vow of marriage with the expectation that their union will be perpetual, and we know how that plays out in many cases.  “Perpetual” was a legal term used in the 18th century which did not mean “everlasting.”  Instead, the word indicated the lack of an intended or included “sunset” provision which would automatically terminate the original contract upon the stated date or term.

10).  The Articles of Confederation ended by proposing a new form of government which was to be submitted to the States, and, if ratified by nine of them, should go into effect as between the States so ratifying it. If only nine consented, what was to become of the other four, and what of the faith to a perpetual union?  James Madison, author of the Constitution, the document which would effectively dissolve the Union under the Articles of Confederation, explained the “fluid” nature of the Union this way:  “The State Ratifying Convention (convened by the people themselves) was the supreme authority which, according to the American theory, could alter or abolish their government, and by which, nine States concurring, it was proposed to dissolve the “perpetual union” of the confederation and establish a new one among themselves. In this connection the distinguished member from Massachusetts remarked: “If nine out of thirteen [States] can dissolve the compact, six out of nine will be just as able to dissolve the future one hereafter.”

11).  [Taken from an article written by Jefferson Davis:  “The Doctrine of States’ Rights”]  The Constitution to form a more perfect union was adopted, not, as has been most unjustifiably asserted, by the people of the United States in mass, but by the people of the States, each acting in its own convention and ratifying at different dates, the first being December 7, 1787, the last May 29, 1790. Though the States by a voluntary compact created a general government and delegated to it enumerated powers, reserving all else to themselves, it has been attempted to deduce from these limited grants a supremacy for the agent over the States, and, consequently, to deny to the States of the Union the sovereignty they possessed as States of the confederation.  No one has attempted to show by what grant of the Constitution it can be claimed that the States have surrendered their sovereignty, and it seems absurd to assume that by implication the great object for which our fathers staked all save honor could have been lost. But they were too watchful to leave the question open for argument. Therefore, though the body of the instrument was thought by its framers to be sufficiently explicit in its limitation of the powers of the general government to those expressly delegated, yet, in an abundance of caution, almost contemporaneously with the ratification of the compact, two amendments were proposed and adopted in the following words:

“Article IX. The enumeration in the constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

“Article X. 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.”     [Jefferson Davis]

Since the federal government is vested only with DELEGATED powers, it is natural that the remaining powers inherent with a sovereign must be RESERVED.  Reassumption is the correlative of delegation.  The right of a state to take back its powers when it believes them to be abused is inherent in the nature of the compact that is the US Constitution.  In other words, the states could “resume” their status as independent states.

12).  Despite Lincoln’s unfounded extrapolation that perpetuity was implied, it was not.  The most glaring and definitive proof of this is that the notion was expressly rejected in the state ratifying conventions.  Several states – including Virginia, New York, and Rhode Island – inserted into their official ratification clauses (“Resumptive clauses”) declaring and affirming that the states could take back their own sovereign power if it was abused by the government.

(i)  New York declared: “That the Powers of Government may be reassumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness.”

(ii)  Rhode Island declared: “That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness.”

(iii)  Virginia declared: “Having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the federal Convention, and being prepared to decide thereon, do in the name and in behalf of the People of Virginia, declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression.”

13).  While many elements of the Articles made it into the final Constitution, the word “perpetual” was noticeably not included. Lincoln rationalized that the phrase “a more perfect union” referred to the “perpetual union” created by the Articles.  However, there was absolutely no evidence to support his claim. The Founders never offered any definition for their words “to form a more perfect Union.”  The fact is that Gouverneur Morris wrote the Preamble on his own, almost as an afterthought.  It was not debated in the Convention.  He wanted a statement setting forth the reasons why the Constitution was drafted for the People. The better conclusion is that the word was intentionally disregarded and that it was given no thought whatsoever. Obviously, the Founders felt “a more perfect” Union was the better expression of their intentions and expectations in creating the Constitution. Perhaps the Founders felt it was more likely than not that a government would eventually outlive its usefulness and would be replaced by one better suited to the needs of the people.

14).  The recurrent fatal flaw in Lincoln’s logic is that the withdrawal of a State would destroy the Union. It was upon this premise that he was so determined to preserve the “perpetual union.”  It was for this reason that he was not willing to read the power or right of secession in the 10th Amendment (“it is a power to destroy the government itself”) He made this assertion often.  ..  that it would destroy the government.  Lincoln repeatedly made this assertion that the withdrawal of a State would destroy the Union. This argument was flawed for two reasons: (i) there is nothing in the Constitution that requires the number of states to remain constant; and (ii) secession of even 13 states did not dissolve the Union.  (How useless or ineffective could it have been rendered if it won the war?)

15).  Even if we fully accept Lincoln’s theory of a perpetual Union, allowing States to secede does not change the perpetual nature of the Union—unless of course, ALL the States dissolve the compact.  The only way that would happen if there was uniform frustration with that compact. . As long as the withdrawal of States did not dissolve the Union, the number of States remaining in the Union would not change its perpetual nature.  New States could join the Union and other States could secede from that Union.  A perpetual Union would not demand that the same number of states remain the same. If that were the case, then wouldn’t we be limited to only thirteen states today?

16).  Lincoln believed that the power or right to secede was not one of the rights left to the States in the 10th Amendment.  According to Lincoln, secession was not such a power since it is “a power to destroy the government itself.” To leave the Union would be to destroy the government.  Was the government destroyed even after 13 states seceded from the Union?  Lincoln’s reasoning was therefore proved flawed. If the government was destroyed, as Lincoln contended it would be with the secession of even one state, then what institution – what sovereign – ordered a million troops to fight the South?  Which one issued the Emancipation Proclamation?   Lincoln made his frequently repeated assertion that the withdrawal of a State would destroy the Union. This was his fatally-flawed argument because there is  States could leave and the Union would still remain viable.

17).  Lincoln claimed to have power to preserve the Union (wage war) under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.  However, the supremacy  of the Constitution and laws made in pursuance thereof is only a valid argument if the Constitution actually requires a state to remain part of the Union or if the state is in the Union.  If the Constitution doesn’t (our Constitution is in fact silent on the subject), or if a state has separated from the Union, then the seceding state has no allegiance to the US Constitution.

18).  Lincoln also claimed legal authority to invade the South based on the Guarantee Clause.  As with the Supremacy Clause, the Guarantee Clause only applied to a state that isin the Union.

19).  Lincoln asserted that the power to secede was not a power the Founders intended for the States (for, according to Lincoln, that would be the power to destroy the government).   If the Founders didn’t intend the right of the People or States to abolish their bonds with government, then why was the Second Amendment included in our Bill of Rights?  The Second Amendment was designed to guarantee the right of the people to have “their private arms” to prevent tyranny and to overpower an abusive standing army or select militia.

20).  Lincoln apparently liked to cherry-pick which Constitutional provisions he liked and which he just intended to ignore (like the fundamental rights to writs of habeas corpus !!).  He cited Article IV, Section 4, clause 1 to support the war against the South (Guarantee Clause – “TheUnited States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.”), yet in the same breath, he was willing to violate the very next clause, which states: “TheUnited States shall protect each of them (the States) against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.”  (Article IV, Section 4, clause 2).

21).  Actually, I’m having a very hard time understanding at all how Lincoln could justify invasion with the Guarantee Clause. By invading the South, the federal government, acting under the Supreme law of the land, breached its obligation to “guarantee to each state a republican form of government” by destroying those very governments. If Lincoln believed that the states were merely in rebellion and engaging in anarchy rather than having seceded (because according to him, states don’t have that power or right), then as President, didn’t he have a duty to protect them from any violence, not to engage them in violence?

22).  It was disingenuous for Lincoln to try justifying the Civil War under Article IV, Section 4 because that would have implied that the southern states under the Confederacy would be denied a republican form of government.  Yet nothing could be farther from the truth.  In fact, Article IV of the Constitution of the Confederate States of America almost exactly mirrored  Article IV of the US Constitution and read: “The Confederate States shall guarantee to every State that now is, or hereafter may become, a member of this Confederacy, a republican form of government; and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the Legislature or of the Executive (when the Legislature is not in session) against domestic violence.”

22).  It is my opinion that Lincoln’s very act of war against the Confederate states is an acknowledgment under Article IV, Section 4 that the states had legally left the Union.  The decision to invade rather than “protect from invasion” would seem to me an act of war.  War is waged on an aggressor (which the South clearly wasn’t) or on another sovereign under a manifest destiny type mentality (or moral crusade).

24).  Slavery was doomed to fail.  It was a matter of time.  Just like communism in Soviet Russia.  Compare the actions of two Presidents, Lincoln and Ronald Reagan.  Ronald Reagan didn’t just believe that the Soviet Union and communism could fail, he believed it was inevitably destined to fail.  Rather than wage war on a debilitated and economically fragile Soviet Union and endure human casualties, he helped accelerate that process through peaceful means and sound economic policies.  Couldn’t Lincoln have pursued the same path and spared the lives of 600,000 Americans and the ravaging of the South?  Why didn’t the government purchase the freedom of the slaves and then pursue policies to help modernize southern agriculture (to end the dependence on human servitude)?

25).  Lincoln claimed the Supremacy Clause of Article VI justified his position that secession was impermissible.  Again Lincoln uses selective justification for the War.  He used the Supremacy Clause as grounds to save the Union but ignored it while the government was growing hostile to southern interests by disregarding the Fugitive Slave Clause [Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3 – ” No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.”]  In other words, he ignored the Supremacy Clause when it was obvious that the government’s position on the Fugitive Slave Clause was putting the Union on a course for division, but yet invoked it to invade the South to save the Union.  All of a sudden, Lincoln decided to claim the supremacy of the Constitution.

26).  Questions of constitutional law cannot be settled on a battlefield:  “If indeed secession was a state and a people’s right, all the Union’s victory proved was that the stronger party in a constitutional conflict may violate the law with impunity.”  (Jim Ostrowski)  In the case of the Civil War, the Union’s victory not only violated the Constitution, but it violated natural law as well.  Remember, the right to “negate secession” is not a power delegated to the federal government and the right secession is not prohibited to the States by the Constitution.  Therefore, secession is a right retained by the States.  In the alternative, the issue of secession is a political question and political questions are outside the jurisdiction of federal courts.

27).  We Americans generally believe that the Gettysburg Address is the greatest and most stirring speech given by a US President. But did Lincoln get his facts right?  Those who understand the causes of the Civil War and have read the Declarations of Secession know that it was the South, not the North, that was fighting for a government of the people, by the people and for the people. As American journalist, H. L. Menchen (1880-1956), commented on Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address: “The Gettysburg speech was at once the shortest and the most famous oration in American history…the highest emotion reduced to a few poetical phrases. Lincoln himself never even remotely approached it. It is genuinely stupendous. But let us not forget that it is poetry, not logic; beauty, not sense. Think of the argument in it. Put it into the cold words of everyday. The doctrine is simply this: that the Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination — that government of the people, by the people, for the people, should not perish from the earth. It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves.”

28).  Lastly, I criticize once again Lincoln’s ability to cherry-pick the fundamental principles he wished the government to recognize.  On the one hand, he read the Declaration’s promise that “All Men are Created Equal” as a mandate to end slavery, yet on the other hand, he chose to ignore the equally important principle 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.”

 

Looking at things from a state sovereignty point of view, saying that Lincoln saved the Union by winning the Civil War is like saying a man saved his marriage by beating his wife into submission. 

 

The Declaration of Independence wasn’t intended as a one-time “Get Out of Jail Free” card !!

QUESTION:   Didn’t the  Civil War establish the rule that secession is not an option for any State?

–>   Absolutely not.  As mentioned earlier, questions of constitutional law cannot be settled on a battlefield.  And again, Jim Ostrowski said it best:  “If indeed secession was a state and a people’s right, all the Union’s victory proved was that the stronger party in a constitutional conflict may violate the law with impunity.”

–>   The Civil War only showed that violent coercion can be used to rob men of their very lives, liberty, and property.  It showed that a President, unchecked, could overstep his constitutional bounds by waging war against a non-threatening, peaceful nation.  The Confederate States withdrew from the Union lawfully, civilly, and peacefully, after enduring several decades of excessive and inequitable federal tariffs (taxes) which were heavily prejudiced against Southern commerce and decades of hostility over slavery.  Refusing to recognize the Confederate secession, Lincoln called it a “rebellion,” “anarchy,” and a “threat” to “the government” (without ever explaining exactly how “the government” was “threatened” by a lawful, civil, and peaceful secession) and acted outside the lawfully defined scope of either the office of president or the U.S. government in general, to coerce the South back into the Union.

QUESTION:  What reasons did the Southern States give for secession?

–>  South Carolina:  It seceded basically over two abuses by the federal government and the hostile Northern states, acting in violation of the Constitution and improperly through the federal government.  (Violations of Article IV, Section 2 of the US Constitution regarding the Fugitive Slave clause and the Fugitive of Justice clause).  South Carolina’s Declaration of Secession is a wonderful restatement of the reasons the states sought to “form a more perfect Union” and establish the US Constitution.  “We affirm that those ends for which the government was instituted have been defeated and the government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholdng States. Those states have assumed the right of deciding upon the rights and property of our state and upon the propriety of our domestic institutions…  On the 4th of March, the Republican Party (ie, Lincoln)  will take possession of the government.  The guarantees of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the states will be lost.  The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy…. We therefore solemnly declare that the Union between this State and the other States of North Carolina is dissolved and South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world as a separate and independent State.”

[Remember that the Treaty of Paris, signed by Great Britain on Sept. 3, 1783, officially ending the Revolutionary War and acknowledging our independence, stated in Article I:

–  ” His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz: New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that he treats with them as such; and for himself, his heirs and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof.”]

–>  Mississippi:  It essentially seceded  over the issue of slavery(property rights) and the hostility by the Northern States towards the Southern States and their interests over that issue.  The Mississippi state convention listed out the several reasons for secession (as Jefferson had done in the Declaration of Independence for our separation from England).  “Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it. It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity. We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property. For far less cause than this, our fathers separated from the Crown of England.”

–>  Florida:  No reasons given.  “The State of Florida hereby withdraws herself from the confederacy of States existing under the name of the United States of America and from the existing Government of the said States; and that all political connection between her and the government of said States ought to be totally annulled, and the State of Florida is hereby declared a sovereign and independent nation.”

–>  Alabama:  It also essentially seceded  over the issue of slavery(property rights) and the hostility by the Northern States towards the Southern States and their interests over that issue.   “This is an ordinance to dissolve the union between the State of Alabama and the other States united under the compact titled ‘The Constitution of the United States of America’…….  The election of Abraham Lincoln and Hannibal Hamlin to the offices of president and vice-president of the United States of America, by a sectional party, avowedly hostile to the domestic institutions and to the peace and security of the people of the State of Alabama, preceded by many and dangerous infractions of the Constitution of the United States by many of the States and people of the Northern section, is a political wrong so insulting and menacing as to justify the people of the State of Alabama to withdraw from the Union.”

–>  Georgia:  It also essentially seceded  over the issue of slavery(property rights) and the hostility by the Northern States towards the Southern States and their interests over that issue.  The Mississippi state convention listed out the several reasons for secession (as Jefferson had done in the Declaration of Independence for our separation from England) as well as a detailed history of the events pitting the pro-slavery South and the anti-slavery North leading to the election of Abraham Lincoln.  For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slaveholding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property (by not returning slaves to their Southern owners), and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic (frustrating the spread of slavery into the western territories). This hostile policy of our confederates has been pursued with every circumstance of aggravation which could arouse the passions and excite the hatred of our people, and has placed the two sections of the Union for many years past in the condition of virtual civil war.”

–>  Louisiana:  No reasons given.  ” We declare that the State of Louisiana hereby resumes all rights and powers heretofore delegated to the Government of the United States of America; that her citizens are absolved from all allegiance to said Government; and that she is in full possession and exercise of all those rights of sovereignty which appertain to a free and independent State.”

–>  Texas:  Texas’ Declaration of Secession is in a special class by  itself – with its language.  Like South Carolina and Georgia, it lists several reasons for secession and goes into great detail.  “By the disloyalty of the Northern States and their citizens and the imbecility of the Federal Government, infamous combinations of incendiaries and outlaws have been permitted in those States and the common territory of Kansas to trample upon the federal laws, to war upon the lives and property of Southern citizens in that territory, and finally, by violence and mob law, to usurp the possession of the same as exclusively the property of the Northern States….  The Federal Government has for years almost entirely failed to protect the lives and property of the people of Texas against the Indian savages on our border, and more recently against the murderous forays of banditti from the neighboring territory of Mexico; and when our State government has expended large amounts for such purpose, the Federal Government has refuse reimbursement therefore, thus rendering our condition more insecure and harassing than it was during the existence of the Republic of Texas…

The Northern States have deliberately, directly or indirectly violated the 3rd clause of the 2nd section of the 4th article [the fugitive slave clause] of the federal constitution, and laws passed in pursuance thereof; thereby annulling a material provision of the compact, designed by its framers to perpetuate the amity between the members of the confederacy and to secure the rights of the slave-holding States in their domestic institutions – a provision founded in justice and wisdom, and without the enforcement of which the compact fails to accomplish the object of its creation. Some of those States have imposed high fines and degrading penalties upon any of their citizens or officers who may carry out in good faith that provision of the compact, or the federal laws enacted in accordance therewith.

In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color – a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.

For years past this abolition organization has been actively sowing the seeds of discord through the Union, and has rendered the federal congress the arena for spreading firebrands and hatred between the slave-holding and non-slaveholding States.  By consolidating their strength, they have placed the slave-holding States in a hopeless minority in the federal congress, and rendered representation of no avail in protecting Southern rights against their exactions and encroachments….

The People of Texas dissolve all political connection with the government of the United States of America and the people thereof.”

–>  Virginia:  No reasons were given.  “The people of Virginia in their ratification of the Constitution of the United States of America, adopted by them in convention on June 25, 1787, having declared that the powers granted under said Constitution were derived from the people of the United States and might be dissolved whensoever the same should be perverted to their injury and oppression. The Federal Government has perverted said powers not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern slave-holding States. Therefore, We the People of Virginia, do declare that the union between the State of Virginia and the other States under the Constitution is hereby dissolved, and that the State of Virginia is in the full possession and exercise of all the rights of sovereignty which belong and appertain to a free and independent State.  And they further declare that said Constitution of the United States of America is no longer binding on any of the citizens of this State.”

–>  Arkansas:  No reasons given.   “We declare that the State of Arkansas hereby resumes to herself all rights and powers heretofore delegated to the Government of the United States of America; that her citizens are absolved from all allegiance to said Government of the Unites States, and that she is in full possession and exercise of all the rights and sovereignty which appertain to a free and independent State.”   (same wording as Louisiana).

–>  North Carolina:   No reasons given.  [It is believed that North Carolina really didn’t want to secede but it felt that it would be positioned as a Union state stuck between two Confederate states and would therefore suffer terrible casualties of war].  ” We declare that the union now subsisting between the State of North Carolina and the other States, under the title of the United States of America, is hereby dissolved, and that the State of North Carolina is in full possession and exercise of all those rights of sovereignty which belong and appertain to a free and independent State.”

–>  Tennessee:  No reasons given.  ” We, the people of the State of Tennessee, waiving any expression of opinion as to the abstract doctrine of secession, but asserting the right, as a free and independent people, to alter, reform, or abolish our form of government in such manner as we think proper, declare that all the laws and ordinances by which the State of Tennessee became a member of the Federal Union of the United States of America are hereby abrogated and annulled, and that all the rights, functions, and powers which by any of said laws and ordinances were conveyed to the government of the United States, and to absolve ourselves from all the obligations, restraints, and duties incurred thereto; and do hereby henceforth become a free, sovereign, and independent State.”

–>  Missouri:  It seceded over the hostile invasion of the South and the government’s hostility to the Southern states. ”  Whereas the Government of the United States, in the possession and under the control of a sectional party, has wantonly violated the compact originally made between said Government and the State of Missouri, by invading with hostile armies the soil of the State, attacking and making prisoners the militia while legally assembled under the State laws, forcibly occupying the State capitol, and attempting through the instrumentality of domestic traitors to usurp the State government, seizing and destroying private property, and murdering with fiendish malignity peaceable citizens, men, women, and children, together with other acts of atrocity, indicating a deep-settled hostility toward the people of Missouri and their institutions; and  whereas the present Administration has utterly ignored the Constitution, subverted the government as constructed and intended by its makers, and established a despotic and arbitrary power instead thereof:  Therefore, all political ties of every character new existing between the Government of the United States of America and the people and government of the State of Missouri are hereby dissolved, and the State of Missouri resumes its sovereignty and again takes its place as a free and independent republic amongst the nations of the Earth.”

–>  Kentucky:  It seceded over the hostile invasion of the South and the brutal treatment of Kentucky citizens and property because of its sympathetic position to the fifteen independent Southern states. “We hereby forever sever our connection with the Government of the United States and declare Kentucky to be a free and independent State, clothed with all power to fix her own destiny and to secure her own rights and liberties.”

QUESTION:   Didn’t the Supreme Court settle the question of secession inTexas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869)?

–>  The Court held that while a state doesn’t have the right of unilateral secession, there is an exception for secession “through revolution, or through consent of the States.”

The decision is actually unsettling or curious because at it turned out, the actions of President Ulysses S. Grant were in contradiction to the Court’s holding.

This case deals with title to $10 million worth of US bonds issued by the government to the state of Texas in 1851 as compensation for a border dispute, to be redeemable in 1864.  Well, in 1861, Texas seceded from the Union and took up arms in defense of the Confederacy.  Five years later, in 1866, the reconstruction government tried to reclaim the bonds. (It filed suit with the Supreme Court under Article III original jurisdiction, as a State filing suit against a citizen of another state).

Facts:  In 1851, Congress authorized the transfer of $10 million worth of United States bonds to the state of Texas as compensation for her claims in connection with the settlement of her boundary. The bonds were payable to the state or bearer and were to be redeemable in 1864. On February 2, 1861, a Texas state Convention drafted and adopted Articles of Secession and on Feb. 23, that document was ratified by a majority of the voters of the State. The convention, which had adjourned before the vote was taken, reassembled on March 2 and instructed the delegates already sent to the Congress of the seceding States to apply for admission into the Confederation and to assent to its provisional constitution.

Texas also proceeded to make the necessary changes in its State constitution to reflect its new status.  The words “United States” were stricken out wherever they occurred and the words “Confederate States” substituted, and all members of the legislature, as well as other officers of the State, were required by the new constitution to take an oath of fidelity to this new Confederate Constitution and the laws of the new confederacy.  Officers of the State of Texas were required to appear and formally take an oath of allegiance to the Confederate States. [The governor and secretary of state, refusing to comply, were summarily ejected from office].  Members of the legislature took the oath without incident and then proceeded on April 8 to provide by law for their choice of electors for President and Vice President of the Confederate States. The representatives of the State in the Congress of the United States were withdrawn, and, as soon as the seceded States became organized under a constitution, Texas sent senators and representatives to the Confederate Congress.

“In all respects, by acts of the legislature, and by votes of the citizens, the relations of Texas to the Union were broken up and new relations to a new government were established for them.”

In 1862, during the Civil War, when Texas joined the rebellion against the United States, a Texas legislature authorized the use of the bonds to purchase war supplies. Four years later, in 1866, the reconstruction government tried to reclaim the bonds.

As the Court then asked:  “Did Texas, in consequence of these acts, cease to be a State?  Or, if not, did the State cease to be a member of the Union?”

Questions Presented:  Could Texas constitutionally reclaim the bonds?  Could it avail itself of Original Jurisdiction before the Supreme Court?

The decision would turn on whether Texas, as a consequence of its acts of adopting Articles of Secession and fighting against the United States, ceased to be a State, for if the State of Texas was not, at the time of filing its suit or even when it came before the Supreme Court, one of the United States, it would have no jurisdiction over the suit and would be dismissed.

Decision:  In a 5-to-3 decision written by Chief Justice Salmon Chase, the Court held that Texas did indeed have the right to bring suit and that individuals such as White had no claim to the bonds in question. The Court held that individual states could not unilaterally secede from the Union and that the acts of the insurgent Texas legislature, even if ratified by a majority of Texans, were “absolutely null.”  Even during the period of rebellion, however, the Court found that Texas continued to be a state.  According to Chase, entry of Texas into the United States was its entry into “an indissoluble relation” and only through revolution or mutual consent of the state and the other states could that state legally leave the Union.

[Concise:  While a state doesn’t have the right of unilateral secession, there is an exception for secession “through revolution, or through consent of the States.”]

Chief Justice Chase wrote:

        “The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to “be perpetual.” And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained “to form a more perfect Union.” It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?

        But the perpetuity and indissolubility of the Union by no means implies the loss of distinct and individual existence, or of the right of self-government, by the States. Under the Articles of Confederation, each State retained its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right not expressly delegated to the United States. Under the Constitution, though the powers of the States were much restricted, still all powers not delegated to the United States nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. And we have already had occasion to remark at this term that the people of each State compose a State, having its own government, and endowed with all the functions essential to separate and independent existence, and that, “without the States in union, there could be no such political body as the United States.”  Not only, therefore, can there be no loss of separate and independent autonomy to the States through their union under the Constitution, but it may be not unreasonably said that the preservation of the States, and the maintenance of their governments, are as much within the design and care of the Constitution as the preservation of the Union and the maintenance of the National government. The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union composed of indestructible States.

       Therefore, when Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.

       Considered therefore as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union, and of every citizen of the State, as a citizen of the United States, remained perfect and unimpaired. It certainly follows that the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union. If this were otherwise, the State must have become foreign, and her citizens foreigners. The war must have ceased to be a war for the suppression of rebellion, and must have become a war for conquest and subjugation.

       Our conclusion therefore is that Texas continued to be a State, and a State of the Union, notwithstanding the transactions to which we have referred. And this conclusion, in our judgment, is not in conflict with any act or declaration of any department of the National government, but entirely in accordance with the whole series of such acts and declarations since the first outbreak of the rebellion.

        ….. While Texas was controlled by a government hostile to the United States, and in affiliation with a hostile confederation, waging war upon the United States, senators chosen by her legislature, or representatives elected by her citizens, were entitled to seats in Congress, or that any suit instituted in her name could be entertained in this court. All admit that, during this condition of civil war, the rights of the State as a member, and of her people as citizens of the Union, were suspended. The government and the citizens of the State, refusing to recognize their constitutional obligations, assumed the character of enemies, and incurred the consequences of rebellion.

        There being then no government in Texas in constitutional relations with the Union, it became the duty of the United States to provide for the restoration of such a government. But the restoration of the government which existed before the rebellion, without a new election of officers, was obviously impossible, and before any such election could be properly held, it was necessary that the old constitution should receive such amendments as would conform its provisions to the new conditions created by emancipation, and afford adequate security to the people of the State…… The President of the United States issued a proclamation appointing a provisional governor for the State and providing for the assembling of a convention with a view to the reestablishment of a republican government under an amended constitution, and to the restoration of the State to her proper constitutional relations. A convention was accordingly assembled, the constitution amended, elections held, and a State government, acknowledging its obligations to the Union, established.

        The power exercised by the President was derived from his constitutional functions, as commander-in-chief, and, so long as the war continued, it cannot be denied that he might institute temporary government within insurgent districts occupied by the National forces, or take measures in any State for the restoration of State government faithful to the Union, employing, however, in such efforts, only such means and agents as were authorized by constitutional laws.

        But the power to carry into effect the Guaranty Clause is primarily a legislative power, and resides in Congress.  ‘Under the fourth article of the Constitution, it rests with Congress to decide what government is the established one in a State. For, as the United States guarantee to each State a republican government, Congress must necessarily decide what government is established in the State before it can determine whether it is republican or not.’

       The action of the President must therefore be considered as provisional… The governments which had been established and had been in actual operation under executive direction were recognized by Congress as provisional, as existing, and as capable of continuance…..  The necessary conclusion is that the suit was instituted and is prosecuted by competent authority.

       …. Title of the State was not divested by the act of the insurgent government in entering into this contract.”

Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869).

[Note that Salmon Chase was appointed by Abraham Lincoln as a cabinet member and was a leading Union figure during the war against the South].

It is noteworthy that President Lincoln considered Texas, but no other state, to have “been a State out of the Union.”  [He argued that that the original 13 states “passed into the Union” even before 1776; united to declare their independence in 1776; declared a “perpetual” union in the Articles of Confederation two years later; and finally created “a more perfect Union” by ratifying the Constitution in 1788].

It is also noteworthy that two years after that decision, President Grant signed an act entitling Texas to U.S. Congressional representation, readmitting Texas to the Union.

Either the Supreme Court was wrong in claiming Texas never actually left the Union or the Executive (President Grant) was wrong in “readmitting” a state that, according to the Supreme Court, had never left.    Both can’t be logically or legally true.

To be clear:  Within a two year period, two branches of the same government took action with regard to Texas on the basis of two mutually exclusive positions — one, a judicially contrived “interpretation” of the US Constitution, argued essentially from silence, and the other a practical attempt to remedy the historical fact that Texas had indeed left the Union, the very evidence for which was that Texas had recently met the demands imposed by the same federal government as prerequisite conditions for readmission.  If the Supreme Court was right, then the very notion of prerequisites for readmission would have been moot — a state cannot logically be readmitted if it never left in the first place.

This gross logical and legal inconsistency remains unanswered and unresolved to this day.

QUESTION:   What of Justice Antonin Scalia’s Letter Stating that there is NO right of Secession?

In 2006, one of the two most conservative members on the Supreme Court, Justice Antonin Scalia (the other is Justice Clarence Thomas) penned a brief letter to a screenwriter who had written to him asking for background information for a script he was preparing.  Scalia’s response was this: “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.”

I talk to people about the Constitution all the time and the one thing that I hear, especially from liberals and young people, is that the Constitution needs to be a “Living Document” because there is no way that 18th century colonists could have predicted the problems and advances we would have today. They point to the internet, the high divorce rate, the increase in homosexuality and their “rights” to be married, the increase in diversity, the increase in the number of atheists in the country, the increase in poverty and unemployment, and more. Unfortunately, these people have no idea how much our Founding Fathers knew because human nature tends to be predictable under similar circumstances. Arguably, however, the only thing that they couldn’t have fathomed is the internet. As bad as things are now… as crazy as things are with people exploring all kinds of lifestyle choices and sexual preferences and making all kinds of individual statements, our Founders have studied cultures far worse. There is nothing in this country that our Founders didn’t appreciate from looking at the Roman Empire, the Greeks, the Egyptians, the Saxons, the Normans, medieval England.…  In fact, I wrote a paper now that makes the argument that it is precisely because our Founders studied the fates of almost all the regimes of history that they uniquely understood that power must always remain in the people’s hands and they must always have the power over the life and death of their government (particularly when it becomes oppressive). For that reason, they gave us a government grounded on timeless principles. These principles were announced in the Declaration and were embodied within the framework of our Constitution…. principles such as the sovereignty of the Individual (inherent, inalienable rights), the fact that government serves the people and not vice versa, and the right to abolish a government that becomes destructive of the rights and interests of the people. Our Constitution is not a “living document” because it’s foremost goal is to protect these fundamental principles. And so, very simply but eloquently and brilliantly, our Founders gave us a limited government, with several checks and balances so that it can always be in service of and accountable to the people. Believing that our Constitution is no longer a strict document but one that “lives and breathes” is an undisciplined license to chip away at all those protections that are given to us as against our government.

That is why, in a nutshell, that I believe that secession is a fundamental principle. I believe it is as fundamental as the declaration that our rights are endowed by our Creator – inherent, fundamental, and inalienable.. never to be separated from us by a government. The very birth of our nation was a result of secession. The Declaration of Independence was a secessionist document pure and simple. If you compare it to the Articles of Secession submitted by South Carolina, for example, there isn’t much difference at all. They fundamentally state the very same things.

The Civil War was not a war over the “right” of secession, and that’s naive and ludicrous for Justice Scalia to suggest to.  A fundamental right (as it is, and it was listed in the Declaration) is “unalienable,” which means it can never be permanently divested from the sovereign.  Our rights to Life, Liberty, and Property are unalienable.  We can never lose them. Because these rights come from our Creator (Nature’s God), they precede government and hence government can never take them away.  The right of secession (“abolishing” government) is also a fundamental right.  Jefferson listed it side-by-side with the rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

The Civil War It was a war over an act of secession. The states remaining in the Union (the northern states and western states), led by President Lincoln, were determined not to let the southern states break their bonds of allegiance. It was a war declared by President Lincoln to forcibly restore the Union. It was an act of aggression blinded by the personal and incorrect views of the Constitution, as well as the personal perceptions of the Union, by a tyrant president. It was a war forced upon the South to deny them their rightful exercise of self-determination. The only thing settled by the Civil War is that the stronger army defeated the weaker army and unto the victors go the spoils of war. Hence, the North succeeded in forcing the southern states to re-join the Union… against their will and against their fundamental rights of self-determination. Court decisions are all over the place on secession, but no court of law can take away the rights of free men because the most fundamental principle upon which our country was founded is that the individual is the source of all rights and powers. It is from the individual that government precedes. Governments enjoy powers that are borrowed from the people so that they can serve the people. People delegate their power and they can take it back. Courts are instruments of government and therefore can never trump the individual.

That’s why we have all the nullification movements springing up. That’s why states are passing “Sovereignty Resolutions.” They are stepping up to re-assert their sovereignty and their rightful position as parties to the compact that created the Union and therefore to the agreement that created the government. Government is “their creation” on behalf of the people.

When I talk to groups about the original intent of government and “Nullification” and even secession, I ask them this question: “Imagine that our President is Adolf Hitler. He is beginning to take away staples such as the right to speak out freely, to assemble, to publish news, to own a gun, to be secure in your home, to own property, and to be free from searches and seizures by government. How would you want your government to operate? Would you want those checks and balances to work faithfully? Would you want your state to stand up to him and shield you from his tyrannical demands? Would you want your state to dissolve all political bonds with him and take your chances as an independence sovereign state rather than submit, fearfully, your property and even your life? What is life worth when a government holds all the power over that life – making all major decisions for you and restricting your choices?

It was unfortunate that a conservative justice of the caliber of Antonin Scalia chose to take a position opposing secession. Again, I believe he twisted the constitutional issue upon which the Civil War was fought. In fact, there was no constitutional issue at the core of the Civil War.  The Constitution is SILENT on the matter of secession.  It was a principle and not a constitutional issue… It was (and is) the very principle which guided our very creation as an independent nation.. the right of a people to chose their form of government. Another principle was the one which voluntarily pulled us together as nation of sovereign states – the law of compact.

Justice Scalia understands the power of contract (compact). He is a strict constructionist who looks to the intent of parties when they enter into an agreement. No state intended to be organized and permanently bound into a federation with a government that could ultimately destroy their sovereignty and interests. The greatest concern on the part of the states at the time of the adoption of the US Constitution was their sovereignty. They debated very strongly over whether the creation of the Union thru the Constitution would undermine their sovereignty. The Federalist Papers assured them that the only loss of sovereignty would be in the very limited areas of regulation assigned to the federal government (see Federalist No. 45). Look what Scalia wrote in his scathing dissenting opinion this past June in the Arizona v. United States decision (state immigration law SB 1070; decided June 25, 2012): “But there has come to pass, and is with us today, the specter that Arizona and the States that support it predicted:  A Federal Government that does not want to enforce the immigration laws as written, and leaves the States’ borders unprotected against immigrants whom those laws would exclude. So the issue is a stark one. Are the sovereign States at the mercy of the Federal Executive’s refusal to enforce the Nation’s immigration laws? A good way of answering that question is to ask: Would the States conceivably have entered into the Union if the Constitution itself contained the Court’s holding? Today’s judgment surely fails that test. If securing its territory in this fashion is not within the power of Arizona, we should cease referring to it as a sovereign State.”

Many states don’t agree with Justice Scalia, and as we all know, the states are stronger than the federal government. The states created the federal government. It is their creation. The creators never have to get permission from their creation.  It just isn’t logical, or legal under the compact theory.  As Federalist No. 45 makes abundantly clear, the bulk of power remains (“is reserved”) to the states. This is our Tenth Amendment. Just ask the state of Montana if it agrees with Justices like Scalia. In 2008, while it was waiting for the US Supreme Court to hand down its opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller (second amendment case), the Montana State Legislature passed a resolution, a “State Sovereignty” Resolution – H.J. 26 – asserting its state sovereignty and announcing that if the Supreme Court failed uphold the 2nd Amendment as an individual right to have and bear arms, then the state of Montana would consider it a fatal breach of the Compact and therefore it would nullify and void its bonds with fellow states.  In other words, it threatened secession if the Supreme Court took away gun rights.

[Heller was the first time in seventy years that the Supreme Court heard a case regarding the central meaning of the Second Amendment and its relation to gun control laws. The District of Columbia passed legislation barring the registration of handguns, requiring licenses for all pistols, and mandating that all legal firearms must be kept unloaded and disassembled or trigger locked. A group of private gun-owners brought suit claiming the laws violated their Second Amendment right to bear arms. The government claimed the 2nd Amendment only applies to militias, such as the National Guard, and is not an individual right. The federal district court in DC sided with the government and upheld the federal ban on private gun ownership. The Court of Appeals reversed. With four liberals on the Court who believed that the second amendment was only a collective right and Justice Anthony Kennedy as the justice who sits on the fence, the right to have and bear arms was precariously close to being destroyed]. Montana was not willing to take a chance. It was not going to sit by, as a neutered, lobotomized party, and allow the government to fundamentally alter the terms of the US Constitution.

Of course Scalia’s letter gives a powerful reason why the Supreme Court should not be the ultimate arbiter of legal decisions in this country. The Court is itself a branch of the federal government, and the federal government has shown a steady increase in the desire to concentrate power in itself. Nullification is a rightful remedy that puts checks on all branches of the federal government, including the courts. We need to get more people and more states to embrace this concept…. AND QUICKLY !!

QUESTION:  Does the Supreme Court have the authority to make a decision about whether a state may secede or not, especially in deciding that it doesn’t?

–>  In Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice Marshall articulated the concept of judicial review, writing that federal courts must hold the Executive and Legislative branches to their Constitutional limits. He also wrote that Justices and judges are bound by their oaths. They are bound by the “particular phraseology” and meaning of the Constitution in their analyses.

–>  Marbury would support the notion of a strict reading of the Constitution (which is
silent on the issue of secession).  As James Madison explained: “Every word of the Constitution decides a question between power and liberty.”

QUESTION:  What do you say to those who believe that states must ask the government for permission to leave the Union or take their chances with the federal court system?  (which is the most popular, and incorrect, assumption) ?

The Declaration of Independence reads:  “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,  —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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

The Declaration announces that it is the right of the people to abolish their government.  It doesn’t say that they People must first clear it with a court of competent jurisdiction.  The right is an inherent one, just as the rights of Life, Liberty, and Property are.  “God who gave us life gave us liberty” and therefore, liberty is indivisible from life itself.  I look back at our founding, and great men like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and John Adams embraced a concept known as ‘ordered liberty’ which was reflected in our founding documents and is the basis for our republic.  Ordered liberty stems from “Natural Law” which acknowledges that that there is a natural order to the universe: Creator – Universe – People – Governments.  There is a Creator who created the universe and then created people. People, in turn, form into communities, and in order to keep their communities ordered, they establish local governments.  Finally, local governments give rise to central governments. Natural law is what spontaneously arises when there is no government, because of “who we are” and who created us.  Individuals precede law.

Because of this “natural order,” man has (and should have) a relationship with his Creator.  At the very least, it should be one of respect. John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, and Montesqieu and others applied this concept to government.  In an ordered society, first you have man as an individual. Only when individuals come together to live in a society is there a need for government.  So individuals, with sovereign/ inherent liberty rights, precede government. Therefore, since individuals are the ones who agree to be governed and how to be governed – because after all, it is for their mutual benefit and must serve their interests – the purpose of government, first and foremost, is to protect individual rights (particularly those of Life, Liberty, and Property, and all those rights and liberties associated with them).  Individuals have the right to defend themselves and their property. True law derives from this right, not from the arbitrary power of a government.

Governments are created by compact – an inherent agreement by the people to obey laws in return for the protection of their rights and the service of their liberty interests.  Many governments are evidenced by a constitution, although it isn’t necessary, although a written instrument sets out in particular detail the relationship between itself and the People ..  that is, the bounds of its authority. Governments therefore are supposed to be limited. While some laws are necessary to promote and even enlarge individual liberty, too many laws burden liberty and oppress people.  The balance shifts.  Instead of protecting and serving the People, it becomes their master.  And then that is when we get to the point where the People review the situation and decide whether it is appropriate to form a different compact, or as Thomas Jefferson so eloquently stated: “to institute a 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.”

I certainly don’t advocate secession. We lost almost 620,000 young men when the South seceded from the Union and Lincoln fought to deny them that opportunity.  But it has to be an option as a matter of last resort otherwise we slide down the path to tyranny without a way to salvage the liberty that our Founders secured in way that only a limited government can assure.

Our country was founded on the liberty right of self-determination and the notion that it is a free people who determine the proper size and scope of government. The People, in fact, made that decision back in 1787-88 when they selected members to their state conventions to ratify the Constitution (a compact) which created their government.

Why would a state file a lawsuit against the government, in federal court – a branch of that very government ?   Can they truly that court to be a fair and neutral umpire in assessing the right of a state to sever its ties with the federal government?  The States have essentially been down that road and the Supreme Court has said that the compact can’t be dissolved.

Furthermore, why would a state file a lawsuit in federal court when it is well-known that its judges and justices alter and interpret the Constitution willy nilly and often in contradiction to the words, warnings, and intention of our Founding Fathers and the intention of the states as they often made abundantly clear in their ratification conventions when they ratified the Constitution.  Why would the states take their chances with federal judges who would easily misconstrue the terms of the contract (which they view as a “Living Document”).  It is a mindset that clearly serves the federal government’s purposes best..    In fact, it serves the federal government’s purposes exclusively and in almost all cases, it is does so at the expense of the States.

The purpose of secession is not to harm the nation or endanger the Union, but rather to preserve liberty and the historic experiment that our Founders began when they wrote the Declaration of Independence and US Constitution.  Secession is the rightful remedy to preserve the principles and values upon which our country was founded and embodied in the American Revolution. The principle underlying secession is that of social compact.  That is the principle which underlies government –  the understanding of how people agree to be governed and agree to abide by laws.  People always precede government.  It’s only when people group together in a community that government is needed to serve common interests and “protect. and enlarge” individual liberty.  After all, what is an individual’s liberty in life and property worth if he can’t leave his home and land in order to work and travel because he must protect his family and property from evil-intentioned individuals? Hence, that’s the role of government.  A social compact is like a contract. Constitutions are the instruments to memorialize the intentions of people with respect to their government.  Constitutions protect the individual.  Just like contracts protect those who enter into them and sign them. The Constitution is an agreement (contract), signed by the States on behalf of the People.  What it meant in 1787 is what it is supposed to mean today. That’s the WHOLE PURPOSE of a written Constitution (otherwise, repeal it and start over again, or amend it legally)  Can you imagine a reasonable person entering into an agreement of significant consequence without knowing how that agreement will be changed or interpreted in the future? Would you like the contract to the purchase of your home to be re-interpreted and provisions changed at will during the life of that contract?  And especially by the party that has more power than you?  No reasonable party would ever enter into such an agreement – especially with such enormous consequences as the States did in 1787-88.

It is said that nations typically follow a predictable path of progression: From bondage to spiritual faith; then from spiritual faith to great courage; then from courage to liberty; then from liberty to abundance; then from abundance to complacency; then from complacency to apathy; then from apathy to dependence; and finally, from dependence back into bondage.  We are at the “dependency” stage.  We think the federal government – all branches – are the answer.  We assume they are the final arbiters of what the Constitution means, what government should be, what government should do, and what laws the people MUST obey.  (A perfect example is the desire of Justices Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan to have a second amendment case reach the Supreme Court again after another liberal justice has been appointed to the Supreme Court so they can “get it right this time.”  District of Columbia v. Heller was a narrow 5-4 decision. These liberal justices believe strongly in government gun control – despite the overwhelming authority to the contrary – and Ginsberg has already gone public urging another case to come before the high court “after Obama wins a second term.”)

QUESTION:  Is it true that both California and Texas have such a right in the agreements they signed to join the Union?

–>   I have read that this is not true.  There are no direct provisions.  However, in both the original (1836) and the current (1876) Texas Constitutions, Article I states that “All political power is inherent in the people … they have at all times the inalienable right to alter their government in such manner as they might think proper.”

References:
1).  Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942)

2).  Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869).  Referenced at: http://www.usconstitution.net/constfaq_a4.html ]

3).  US Constitution Online.  http://www.usconstitution.net/constfaq_a4.html

4).  Chuck Braman, “The Political Philosophy of John Locke and Its Influence on the Founding Fathers and the Political Documents They Created,” 1996.
Referenced at: http://www.chuckbraman.com/Writing/WritingFilesPhilosophy/locke.htm]

5).  William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States. Philadelphia: H.C. Carey and I. Lea, 1825.]

6).  “Texas Secession Facts,” Texas Secede!.  Referenced at: http://www.texassecede.com/faq.htm

7).  Thomas Paine, “The Truth About Secession,” NoCompromiseMedia , June 25, 2009.  Referenced at:  http://nocompromisemedia.com/2009/06/25/the-truth-about-secession/ ]

8).  “Wickard v. Filburn,” Common Sense Americanism.  Referenced at: http://www.csamerican.com/sc.asp?r=317+U.S.+111

9).  “Wickard v. Filburn – Supreme Court Extends Commerce Power To Production.”  Referenced at: http://law.jrank.org/pages/13433/Wickard-v-Filburn.html

10). http://www.constitution.org/primarysources/primarysources.html   (Primary Sources)

11).  Federal Directory of Departments and Agencies: http://www.usa.gov/directory/federal/index.shtml

12).  “Lincoln on Secession,” The Real Abraham Lincoln.  Referenced at: http://pointsouth.com/lincoln/secession.htm

13).  James Ostrowski, “Was the Union Army’s Invasion of the Southern States a Lawful Act?,” Secession, State, and Liberty, New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers, 1998).  Referenced at:  http://www.lewrockwell.com/ostrowski/ostrowski31.html]

14).  Senator Russell Pearce, “9th Circuit Court of Appeals’ SB 1070 Decision Demonstrates Contempt for Constitution,” Intellectual Conservative, April 16, 2011.  Referenced at: http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2011/04/16/9th-circuit-court-of-appeals-sb-1070-decision-demonstrates-contempt-for-constitution/

15).  James Simpson, “Breaking – Power to the People! Repeal Amendment Gaining Strength,” Emerging Corruption, November 27, 2010.  Referenced at: http://emergingcorruption.com/2010/11/breaking-power-to-the-people-repeal-amendment-gaining-strength/

16).  “Is, as Lincoln Said, The Union Perpetual?”, Secession University.  Referenced at: http://secessionu.wordpress.com/is-the-union-perpetual/

17).  Schecter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935).  See Cornell University Law School.  Referenced at:  http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0295_0495_ZS.html.

18).  Currin v. Wallce, 306 U.S. 1 (1939).

19).  Thomas Woods, The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, 2004, Regnery
Publishing, Washington DC.

20).  Marco Rubio, Speech at the Ronald Reagan Library, Aug. 24, 2011.

21).  Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 71 (1866).

22).  Ronald Reagan, “A Time fod Choosing.”  Referenced at: http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/reference/timechoosing.html

23).  Jim Ostrowski, “Secession.”   Referenced at: http://jimostrowski.com/articles/secession.html

24).  ”Middlebury Institute/Zogby Poll: One in Five Americans Believe States Have the Right to Secede,” Zogby International, July 23, 2008.

25).  Thomas J. DiLorenzo, “The Men Who Destroyed the Constitution,” Lew Rockwell.
Referenced at:  http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo105.html

26).  Gene Healy, “The Squalid 14th Amendment,” Lew Rockwell.  Referenced at: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/healy1.html

27).  Andrew Napolitano, The Constitution in Exile, Thomas Nelson Publishing (April 18,
2006).

28).  David Martosko, “Petitions Seeking White House Approval to ‘Secede’ Now Come From 47 States,” Daily Caller, November 13, 2012.  Referenced at:  http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/13/petitions-seeking-white-house-approval-to-secede-now-come-from-47-states/

29).  “How Many States Want to Secede from the US?,” WND, November 12, 2012.  Referenced at:   http://www.wnd.com/2012/11/now-many-states-want-to-secede-from-u-s/

30).  White House Petitions –  https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/

31).  Diane Rufino, “We Need to Repeal the 17th Amendment and Get More States to Adopt State Sovereignty Resolutions!,” NCRenegade, July 26, 2012.  Referenced at:  http://ncrenegade.com/editorial/we-also-need-to-repeal-the-17th-amendment-and-get-more-states-to-adopt-state-sovereignty-resolutions/

32).  Mytheos Holt, “There is No Right to Secede: See the Alleged Letter Where Justice Scalia Shoots Down Idea of Leaving the Union,”The Blaze, November 13, 2012.  Referenced at:  http://www.theblaze.com/stories/there-is-no-right-to-secede-see-the-letter-where-justice-scalia-shoots-down-idea-of-leaving-the-union/

33).  “Secession (and This Blog) are Back in the News,” New York Personal Injury Law Blog.  Referenced at:  http://www.newyorkpersonalinjuryattorneyblog.com/2012/11/secession-and-this-blog-are-back-in-the-news.html

34).  Tim Brown, “Secession Movement Sweeps All 50 States,” Freedom Outpost, November 13, 2012.  Referenced at:  http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/11/secession-movement-sweeps-all-50-states/   [All Petitions Available by Links off this site]

35).  Ron Paul video on the Right of Secession.  http://nesaranews.blogspot.com/2012/11/all-50-states-file-secession-petitions.html

36).  Diane Rufino, “What is the Significance of the Constitution and Can Nullification Save It?”, January 25, 2012.  Referenced at:  http://forloveofgodandcountry.wordpress.com

37).  Diane Rufino, “Nullification: A Concept Whose Time Has Come,” June 23, 2012.  Referenced at:  http://forloveofgodandcountry.wordpress.com

38).  Diane Rufino, “Nullification and The NDAA,” May 31, 2012.  Referenced at:  http://forloveofgodandcountry.wordpress.com

39).  Diane Rufino, “Nullify Now!,” July 13, 2012.  Referenced at:  http://forloveofgodandcountry.wordpress.com

40).  Diane Rufino, “Nullification and the Myths,” August 31, 2012.  Referenced at:  http://forloveofgodandcountry.wordpress.com

41).  Jefferson Davis, “The Doctrine of States’ Rights,” The Abbebille Review, June 2014.  Referenced at: http://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/review/the-doctrine-of-states-rights/

42).  Dr. Robert Owens, “The Uncivil War,” November 1, 2013.  Referenced at:  http://drrobertowens.com/tag/resumption-clauses-constitution/

m

2016: Obama’s America or The People’s America?

      by Diane Rufino, November 9, 2012

As Obama gets set to begin his second term (sob, sob, barf, barf), he’ll no longer have his predecessor (George Bush) to blame for the bad economy. He can only blame the administration before him which was HIS. We know there are a few things we can expect, and none of them are good:

1). The looming fiscal cliff

2). Unemployment (Obamacare officially kicks in in 2014; it will hamper jobs like never before.  Obamacare is directed at businesses that have at least 50 full-time employees. How many small businesses will lay off workers to reduce their out-of-pocket costs?  How many will think twice about growing their business because the cost to do so is just too expensive?)

3). Greater tension in the Middle East (particularly with Israel, as Iran moves forward with its nuclear program)

4). “Backroom” deals with Russia (as he clearly indicated off microphone with the Russian Prime Minister)

5). Sequestration and deep military cuts (in order to pay for entitlements, thereby shifting the primary focus of government from National Security to General Welfare)

6). The end of the Bush-era tax cuts

7). The greatest tax increase on the middle class in the nation’s history (Obamacare contains 21 hidden taxes. New taxes. 7 of them are levied on ALL citizens regardless of income. And 14 additional ones will hit businesses and those making over $250,000. All of these taxes are necessary to supplement the Individual Mandate – also a “tax” according to Justice John Roberts – to pay for the President’s healthcare bill).

8). Greater demands on the wealthy to “pay their fair share” and greater sacrifices on those who are successful, causing them to reconsider major life decisions (such as getting married, buying a house, having children, having additional children, helping their children go to college, vacations, andpaying off debt, including college debt), while requiring no sacrifice on the part of those on entitlements (such as requiring an education, mandatory birth control, a transition to employment within 3- or 5-years, legal US status,drug screening, community service, making sure their children maintain a solid grade point average in school, etc).  In other words, the dynamic will continue to favor dependency because the government rewards that behavior over success and hard work.

9). Young people sacrificing their dream and resigning themselves to a less significant career

10). Appointments to the Supreme Court. One possibility is Hilary Clinton (who agreed to take the fall for Obama in the Benghazi attack of September 11th, during which the government allowed 4 American officials and former Navy Seals to be murdered by refusing to send help, which was already poised to be deployed). The threat this term, besides a Supreme Court decision upholding Gay Marriage and further eroding Religious Rights, is an attack on our Second Amendment rights. We can expect the administration to seek to define precise limits of this right with the intent of limiting individuals to the kinds of weapons they can possess, and how many and how much ammunition.

11). There is a rumor going around that Obama has his team of attorneys looking for a way to get around the constitutional limit of 2 terms as president.  Will he attempt to make himself dictator – and fulfill the prophecy of the “Savior” to all those Americans who want the government to take care of them and to solve all problems? Adolf Hitler rose to power under similar circumstances. Be careful what you wish for.

Let us not be so cavalier with the system that our Founders crafted for us, the one secured by the blood of over a million Americans, and the one that the rest of the world looks to.

The dust barely settled from Tuesday’s election before attention turned, as it should, to the looming fiscal cliff threatening the U.S. economy in the new year. The election outcome didn’t change the fact that America is headed down a path to financial oblivion. In fact, awarding Barack Obama with another four years will most likely assure us of getting to that cliff.  Economists have warned us that we have at most 4 years to turn things around or we will face a severe depression on the magnitude of that suffered by Greece.  And we already see the market players’ response to the election, as reflected by the market’s sharp downturn in the election’s aftermath. They don’t have confidence in the Obama administration. They know his policies and they don’t see how our problems can be solved. Americans rejected the candidate with experience in turning debt and crisis around. The market downturn indicates that businesses and investors believe things will only get worse.

Thanks to the political shenanigans of our elected representatives, a perfect storm of tax hikes and sequestration (which are automatic spending cuts) will hit all at once in January. All of the Bush-era tax rates will expire, sending the five tax brackets anywhere from 20% to 50% higher. The payroll tax cut will expire, costing the average worker over $1,000 next year. The Alternative Minimum Tax patch will also lapse, as will the lower death tax rate. More Obamacare taxes kick on, particularly on the already-targeted top-bracket taxpayers.

Automatic federal spending cuts across the board (except for entitlements, of course) that will be triggered, and the defense cuts in particular, will hurt both our capability and the economy. Indeed, the day after the election, Boeing announced that its defense division will suffer a 30% cut in management jobs, and several facilities in California will close. For obvious reasons, the administration demanded that defense contractors wait until after the election to announce cuts.

House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) announced that Republicans would be open for a deal.  He said that they might be open to increased revenues, but only if Democrats agree to keep income tax rates from going up and accede to reduced spending and entitlement reform. Boehner made clear that higher revenue should (and would) come from “a growing economy, energized by a simpler, cleaner, fair tax code, with fewer loopholes and lower rates for all” – which, of course, was the Romney-Ryan plan.  The House Speaker added a day later, “Raising tax rates is unacceptable.”  There was a time when a promise like that would be received with resounding approval by the American people.  But in this new era of America – in Obama’s America – only half of Americans have to fear the federal income tax code.  And so only those who enjoy the freedom from the code could care less when a tax increase is on the table.

We expect an ugly fight from Democrats, who blew up the deficit only to complain that Republicans won’t play the role of tax collector to pay for it. This is especially true of Barack Obama, who has been making the case to the American people that Republicans won’t compromise, while it’s been the Democrats who haven’t put forth any budget plans and it was the Democrats who worked behind closed doors to pass Obamacare – without considering any input from Republicans (such as tort reform) and without a single Republican vote.  President Obama would rather push the economy over the cliff than give up his “new economic patriotism” — i.e., the belief that the wealthy should pay higher tax rates.  How many times have we heard his campaign pitch “The rich need to pay their fair share!”  How many times should they pay taxes on their income or their gains?  According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), those higher rates will hit small businesses extremely hard and likely result in recession.  Also according to the CBO,  the cliff will cause unemployment to spike beyond 9%.

Meanwhile, massive deficits continue unabated. When Obama took office in 2009, the national debt was $10.6 trillion. As of Nov. 1, 2012, it stood at an obscene $16.2 trillion, and his budget proposals will push that number north of $25 trillion by 2022. The U.S. per-person share of government debt, according to the International Monetary Fund, now exceeds $53,400. That’s 35% higher per capita than Greece, which has seen a catastrophic economic collapse.

The federal government has racked up more debt since 2008 than it did in the first 224 years of the Republic. In other words, it took all the presidents from George Washington to Bill Clinton to match the debt built up under Obama’s first four years. And as Michelle Obama tweeted before the election, “If this is what the President can do in 4 years, imagine what he can do in twice the time.”  That should scare every right-thinking American out of his or her shoes.  We simply won’t survive as a free nation.  The wealth distribution that will have to result from such a transformation of our system or from an economic crisis will warp speed us into a socialist country.

A good friend of mine tweeted this after the election: “I’ll do Michelle Obama one better…  For the first time in my life, I’m ashamed of my country.”

If that’s not enough, the Treasury Department noted last week that the government will again hit the debt ceiling by the end of this year. Yet the only plan Treasury has to address our ballooning debt is to continue printing more money to finance it.  Inflation will continue to rise.  Our national debt will soon be too risky for nations like China to purchase.

The fact that the White House and Congress remain essentially unchanged after the election certainly doesn’t bode well for the nation’s economic plight. Obama undoubtedly views his victory as a mandate for more socialist policies and class warfare.  In his second term, he will seek to complete what he set out to do in his first term – the fundamental transformation of the greatest nation ever created by man.  What sins or failures of our past can justify this transformation?

A government that can create economic stress is in a good position to constrain our liberties. A hungry man thinks about food, not freedom.

In 1700, Alexander Fraser Tyler wrote: “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the Public Treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the Public Treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy always followed by dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been two-hundred years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to abundance; from abundance to complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependence; from dependence back again into bondage.”

I’ve written many articles, but the one that is most popular is one I wrote on Secession in 2011.  Never before in modern history have so many people taken an interest in secession and the division of the country into two separate nations.  Why?  They simply want to have at least one place that still is free and protects those that desire freedom above all else.  They are not getting that in the United States anymore.  So what do we do?  Do we let tempers flare?  Do we allow frustrations to intensify?  Do we laugh at these “crazy people” and assume they are just venting?   Do we take them as seriously as Barbra Streisand and Susan Sarandon and Alec Baldwin who promised to leave the country if George Bush was elected (but never left)?

There is a breaking point, you know.  We all know this from our own lives and from watching the news every time there is a workplace shooting or a suicide or a person kills his or her family because things are just so bleak.  The more the Obama administration senses the frustration with government, the more it will seek to restrain the one right the people still have – the right to own and bear arms.  The more the government senses frustration, the more Executive Orders Obama will pass to put government forces on alert to step in our states and into our communities to keep the peace. We are talking about martial law.

So, what do we do?  Do we perpetuate this cycle of government oppression and individual frustration?  Do we let tempers flare and frustrations intensify and entertain the idea of a divided country?

No, we offer them Thomas Jefferson’s remedy of Nullification and ask them to join the movement to peacefully end the “transformation” that Obama and others before him have done to destroy our constitutional republic.

We ask people to study their history and remember that the nation was founded by individual states who came together to mutually concede which limited powers they would delegate to the federal government, for their benefit, so that they could find protection and prosperity in a Union. The federal government was supposed to respect their borders and individuality and not work feverishly to erase them and to establish a one-size-fits-all approach.  The states who drafted, debated, interpreted, and ratified the Constitution (creating the federal government) are the rightful parties to declare what those powers delegated to the government are.  Therefore, Nullification is power of the states to declare when the government has overstepped its legal bounds under the Constitution and to remind the government that without a rightful exercise of power (as the Supremacy Clause explains), the particular federal law, policy, or federal court decision is null and void and unenforceable on the States and its people.  Nullification is the rightful remedy, as Thomas Jefferson articulated, to restore proper constitutional bounds of power and therefore secure individual liberty. James Madison articulated a similar doctrine – Interposition – which states that states are duty-bound to use nullification and refuse to enforce such law, policy, or decision within their borders.

It takes good and decent, concerned citizens to make a difference.

Recall the Sons of Liberty, with members such as Samuel Adams and John Hancock and Paul Revere and Patrick Henry. The Sons of Liberty, which started out as a small secret organization, set in motion a series of events that eventually resulted in our country’s independence.  In fact, it’s most doubtful that the Revolution would have happened without this group of liberty-minded agitators.  How did they get things rolling?  They started with simple acts of civil disobedience – like protesting a tax on documents (the Stamp Act) and dumping some tea into the Boston Harbor because they opposed the tax on tea.  They organized demonstrations, forced officials of the Crown to resign, circulated petitions, published newspaper articles, and distributed handbills. They started in Connecticut, spread to Massachusetts and New York, and soon there was a group in every one of the 13 colonies.  When the stamps arrived in the colonies from England which would be affixed to various documents, including newspapers, pamphlets, deeds, licenses, and other legal documents, diplomas, bibles, calendars, and playing cards, the Sons of Liberty organized to threaten and intimidate those officials appointed to apply the stamps. Thanks to the Sons of Liberty, the Stamp Act could not be enforced.  When the King responded with further oppressive measures – which Jefferson would refer to as “abuses and usurpations” of their rights – the patriotic resistance grew.  By 1766, there were thousands of members in each colony.  Soon others were encouraged to address their grievances against the Crown by similar acts of disobedience.  And we all know what eventually happened.  We fought the Revolutionary War and gained our independence.

We don’t want another war but we do want our independence again.  And Nullification is the answer.  Otherwise, I fear, there will be a revolution.

References:
Breitbart News: “Obamacare: Seven New taxes on Citizens Making Less than $250,000,” June 29, 2012.  Referenced at:  http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/06/29/Seven-new-taxes

The Patriot Post Digest of November 9, 2012.   http://patriotpost.us/editions/15407/

Diane Rufino, “What is the Significance of the Constitution and Can Nullification Save It?, January 25, 2012.  Referenced at:  http://forloveofgodandcountry.wordpress.com

Diane Rufino, “Nullification and the NDAA,”  May 31, 2012.  Referenced at: http://forloveofgodandcountry.wordpress.com

Diane Rufino, “Nullification: A Concept Whose Time Has Come,” June 23, 2012.  Referenced at: http://forloveofgodandcountry.wordpress.com

Diane Rufino, “Nullification Now!,” July 13, 2012.  Referenced at: http://forloveofgodandcountry.wordpress.com

Diane Rufino, “Nullification & the Myths,” January 25, 2012.  Referenced at: http://forloveofgodandcountry.wordpress.com

On the Eve of the Most Important Election of Our Lifetime – Let’s Hope We Get it Right

     by Diane Rufino, November 5, 2012

When a curious woman approached Benjamin Franklin as he was leaving the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in September 1787 and asked him what kind of government the delegates had given the people, he replied: “…A Republic, Ma’am, if you can keep it.”  That’s hopefully what we’re doing here, with this forum, and other such forums around the state and around the country…   we’re learning how to keep our republic.

Once the Constitution was ratified by the States, the American experiment began. The Constitutional republic that our Founders envisioned and provided became a place of freedom and opportunity for countless millions of people from all over the world. The experiment was successful because our system was based on enduring principles which recognized that human beings, although imperfect, are capable of excellence when left to pursue happiness while endowed with certain liberties that their government is obligated to protect and while also enjoying a government that was designed to step aside to allow the human spirit to soar. Here in this country, for the first time, human rights were grounded on the grand notion that man is born with certain God-given rights and not on the premise that rights are granted by government. Furthermore, our Founders declared that government is created by the people for the People, for their own convenience and for the protection of their most fundamental, God-given rights – to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Our Founders knew that the best way to protect those rights was to have a limited government, of defined powers, and dependent upon the consent of the people, who themselves, would understand and cherish those principles.

As we look around the world and notice how difficult it is for democracy and freedom to take hold and flourish, our country seems like a political miracle.  It is indeed a terrible, but awesome, burden that we carry for all people yearning to be free and independent to make sure that our experiment proves to be on solid ground, on solid principles, and therefore a continued success story.  We may be Republican or Democrat or Independent or Libertarian, but it is our collective faith in our founding documents, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, that makes us American.

In 1776, Thomas Jefferson drafted a Declaration of Independence that would come to define our nation. It continues to be our moral compass.  It is a remarkable proclamation of human rights — brilliant in its concept, clarity, and choice of words. The Constitution of the United States is also a remarkable document. It is an extraordinary mix of governmental limits, checks and balances, and divisions – all intended to secure and enlarge for posterity the individual’s sovereignty as proclaimed in the Declaration.  Our Founders made sure to give us a government of limited and clearly-defined responsibilities, reserving to the States the true power over We the Peoplewhere it can be most responsive to us and our interests. The genius of the Founding Fathers was their ability not only to grasp the revolutionary ideas of their time, but also to devise a means of implementing those ideas in practice, a means of translating them from the realm of philosophic abstraction into that of a political reality. This is the unique and grand heritage to which every American citizen is born and to which posterity is entitled.. .  Or as one author of the anti-Federalist papers, Robert Yates, put it: “for ages to come and millions yet unborn.”

We were first introduced to our founding principles when the colonies advanced their cause for separation from Great Britain with the Declaration of Independence.  In their case to a “candid world,” they explained that the American colonies viewed liberty and the role of government in a different way than the British and as such, their society was incompatible with their mother country.  It was within their right of self-determination, they argued, to break their political bonds with the King and Parliament and secede from their union with the mother country and form an independent nation.  In the Declaration, Jefferson wrote: “When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”

With regard to the colonies’ unique view of liberty and role of government, the Declaration states: “We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness… That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,  –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 a new Government.”  Listen to these words..    Written into our first founding document is the profound truth that the power of government comes from the people.  The people are the sovereign beings from which the power and authority of government is derived and for which government must serve.  That was quite different from the approach recognized in other countries — where governments were ruled by the Divine Right of Kings or barbaric tyrants. The rights of the people were always an afterthought.  The Declaration of Independence represented a profound paradigm shift in the understanding of the basis of government.

Thomas Jefferson and our other founders embraced the philosophy of John Locke who in the late 17th century wrote about the rights of Man and the proper purpose and relationship of government.  Locke took the concept of Natural law (Man has rights because of his humanity) and applied it to government, and we see his vision – and indeed his very words – in the Declaration. Jefferson’s second paragraph, in short, was John Locke’s philosophy on government.  But his philosophy was not universally embraced.  In fact, it was quickly replaced by one which stated that the proper role of government was one that created the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. The “Individualist” approach of John Locke was replaced by the “Collectivist” or “Utilitarian” approach of those to follow – such as Jeremy Betham.  Our Founders specifically rejected the collectivist approach and opted for the philosophy which saw each person as unique and endowed with fundamental rights that he can rightfully protect from the plunder, destruction, misappropriation, and misuse by others. In fact, that would be the very basis of our government – to protect the individual rights of Life, Liberty, and Property from the plunder, destruction, misappropriation, and misuse by others – and also by the government itself.  How grateful we should be that of all the countering government philosophies to choose from, they chose the one articulated by John Locke to define our nation.

So how did we get from the Declaration of Independence to the Constitution, and how are they related?  The Declaration was essentially a resolution passed by the Second Continental Congress to inform King George III that America had decided to separate from Britain.  It essentially had no legal effect on the colonies, but it did provide a common statement of ideals that the states readily adopted and which they wanted to announce to  the rest of the world. The Preamble makes such bold claims as the following: (1) that “All Men are Created Equal”; (2) that Man has inalienable (nontransferable) natural rights to “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”; (3) that the role of government is to protect those rights; (4) that government is “instituted among men” (representative government) and its power comes from “the consent of the governed” (that is, it has no power except that which the people give it); and (5) that when a government becomes counterproductive of that goal, it is the right and duty of the People to “alter or abolish” that government. The American people cite these provisions as among our founding core principles. But the actual legal basis for our government, including its scope as well as its limits, comes from the Constitution. The Constitution defines the legal relationship between the individual and his government. The Constitution that was drafted in Philadelphia and signed on September 17, 1787 was only a proposal to the states. It was the states which had to agree to the terms and ratify it so that the federal government thus created could carry out mutually beneficial services in order that they could function as a Union rather than 13 independent states. And only after proper explanations and guarantees of  the limited nature of the Constitution, assurances that the states would not lose any sovereign powers not duly delegated, and a promise that a Bill of Rights would be added, the states finally adopted the document.

Relying on Locke and other brilliant thinkers (including Montesquieu on the “Separation of Powers” and “Checks and balances” doctrines and Adam Smith on free markets), our Founders indeed came up with a unique, magical formula, not embraced in any other country, which, with every detail, limits government and enlarges individual liberty like never before.  That unique formula, in a sentence, is this:  Maximum Liberty = Minimum Government.  Our Founders took those human rights and liberties that the British had fought so long and hard to keep from the reaches of the King and secured them more firmly for us – by acknowledging the sovereignty of the individual as the basis of community and government.  Individual liberty is not secure when government cares more about its own interests than those of the People.

Though battered and bruised, the Constitution of the United States still remains the framework for our nation’s government.

After decades of detachment from what’s been going on in government and in the courts and generations of ignorance of our founding documents, we are turning back to the principles that define us as “the land of the free.”  But what we’ve realized is that while we’ve been busy living our lives, enjoying the comfort that no other nation in the world offers, and trusting that the government has been educating us on important lessons about our country in the public school system,  the Constitution had being eroded and shredded. We wonder if it still protects our fundamental rights as strongly as it was intended.  We wonder if it will be intact and will have the integrity in the future to protect the rights and interests of our children and grandchildren, or will it just continue to be clay in the hands of an ambitious government.  I believe the Constitution is so fundamentally re-interpreted and is so radically altered with such amendments as the 14th, 16th, and 17th that we may never get back the protections of liberty that our Founders tried so hard to secure in the Constitutional Convention and the state Ratification Conventions. We have lost vital government “checks and balances” elements with those amendments, including the total destruction of one of the fundamental pillars of government – the equal protection of each person’s property.  I believe our real concern right now is whether the government will now try to erode our more precious document – the Declaration of Independence. We can already see how it is transforming our system from an “individual” centered model to a “collectivist” or “utilitarian” one.

This issue is an important one –  LIBERTY MUST BE PROTECTED AND DEFENDED.  The task falls to We the People.  Liberty must be deserved or no free society can long survive. So how will we know when we deserve it?  First, we must be good enough as human beings to be trusted with liberty because with it comes great responsibility. And second of all, we must protect it from “injuries and usurpations,” particularly by our own government.  That means we must be eternally vigilant and responsible in our election of representatives. We must be educated and informed and we must hold their feet to the fire.  After all, the greatest check on government is accountability to the American people and the power of the ballot box.  The words that should guide and motivate every American are those that Ronald Reagan spoke to us: “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.”

The Constitution was indeed written for those who have the most to lose and therefore would have the greatest incentive to be vigilant, educated, and decent –  We the People. We were supposed to keep an eye on our government.  We were supposed to be responsible depositories of power.  We were supposed to be a good and moral and religious people – a people who lived decent, restrained, law-abiding lives who required little government over them and therefore could be trusted with the government that our Founders gave us and capable of passing liberty on to successive generations.

Although we hear arguments today by atheists and agnostics who disavow the role of Christianity in the founding of our nation, our founding settlers and Founding Fathers knew the real role of religion. There may have been no place for religion in our Constitution (for then we would be duplicating the religious oppression of the King and his National Church of England), but it was intended to serve a critical role in the lives of those who sought to remain free.  Only a moral and religious people are fit for liberty.  John Adams and George Washington gave us this advice.  A moral and religious people have no need for a big government.  A moral and religious people need few laws to regulate them for their conduct is decent and ethical. Only a society that places proper emphasis on religion and morality can expect to secure liberty for themselves and their posterity. England’s Lord Acton wrote: “Liberty is the prevention of control by others. This requires self-control and therefore, religious and spiritual influences, as well as education and knowledge.”  John Adams wrote: “The design of Christianity was not to make men good riddle-solvers or good mystery-mongers, but to make them good men, good magistrates, and good subjects, good husbands and good wives, good parents and good children, good masters and good servants.”  He also wrote: “We have no government armed in power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.”

We know that our country is suffering a constitutional crisis. In fact, we often question whether our representatives even know what the Constitution says or means. But in this crisis, we are learning the true brilliance of that document for we can see the direct consequences of a government that has refused to abide by its limits.

It’s no secret that the size and scope of government has dramatically increased. For example, in the last decade, private sector jobs increased by only 1%.  Federal jobs, on the other hand, increased by more than 15%.  The fact is that while people were losing their jobs and families were struggling to keep their homes and put food on their tables, government was growing.  And while ordinary folks, like all of us, just wanted to work and protect and build our businesses, Congress used the recession to grow government. Congress has used every opportunity to grow government.  Both Republicans and Democrats have been complicit.  We all know that government positions pay a lot better than private sector jobs and they’re much more likely to be secure. After all, as Reagan said, the closest thing to eternal life is a government bureau.

Do you think people who work for the government will vote for spending cuts?  Do you think they’ll vote to eliminate government jobs and therefore decrease the size of government?  Approximately 16% of the voting population work for government.  Most people have at least one person close to them – a spouse, a parent, a child – who holds such a job and will therefore most likely vote with them so they can keep their job… especially in this economy.  So that means that at least 32% of voters will vote to support the current size of government..   When that number reaches 50%, then its GAME OVER.  Big government will be here to stay and the fundamental transformation of government, which we know will threaten individual liberty, will have taken place……  not by rebellion, not by protest.. not by evil intent.. but by stealth.

Today, most ‘laws’ actually are rules and regulations enacted by bureaucrats in government agencies, not statutes passed by elected lawmakers.  Even when Congress does pass legislation, such as the Dodd-Frank financial reform law or Obamacare, lawmakers leave many blanks and expect rule-makers to fill them in. That means the bureaucracy, staffed with federal ‘experts,’ essentially exists as an unelected fourth branch of government.  There are over 1,300 government departments and agencies. It is said that there are so many rules and regulations that any one of us, at any given time, is breaking at least one of them.  If the government wanted to come after you for any reason, they can surely find one.

Furthermore, under the guise of an undefined War on Terror (which is not a country or a defined enemy, but a tactic), the all three branches are turning the watchful eyes of government inward, on We the People. First of all, there is the official Homeland Security Report – the “Rightwing Extremism” Report – issued in April 2009 which says that conservative groups such as veterans, gun rights groups, religious groups, constitutional groups, and those who dare to express frustration with government are potential “domestic terrorists” who pose a greater threat of violence in this country than radical Islamists. Apparently, the easiest way to get on that list is to go around mentioning the Founding Fathers, or dare to cling to your guns and religion. The president has expanded his powers under the Patriot Act, in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) so that now he can target American citizens with indefinite detention, torture, and even death by simply accusing them of being enemies of the state. He has personally killed at least two American citizens by drone attack…. denying them habeas corpus or the benefit of charging them with a crime.

You might ask: Isn’t the Supreme Court supposed to define what is constitutional and isn’t it supposed to protect our rights?  Well, consider this:  In 2008, the Supreme Court decided an extremely important case called District of Columbia v. Heller, a second amendment rights case.  It was a narrow 5-4 decision.  The 4 liberal justices wanted to support the government’s right to regulate gun ownership and ban guns when they see fit.  They don’t believe the second amendment gives individuals the right to own and bear arms. They believe that individuals have that right only when they are part of a militia.  Our second amendment rights are only very narrowly protected at this point by the Supreme Court. The government claims that even though the second amendment has been upheld, the Court left open the scope of that right. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg has publicly stated that she wants the issue to come before the high court again when another liberal justice has been appointed by President Obama so that “they can get it right.”  If this doesn’t concern you, consider the healthcare decision which I’m sure felt like a sucker punch to your gut.  I know it took my breath away.  When you look at those Supreme Court decisions that evidence a clear departure from our founding intention to create a limited government, this is one of them.  With that decision, Justice John Roberts has announced that not only can the government tax us when we engage in certain conduct but it can also tax us on what we don’t do.  What good is your freedom when your conduct is no longer that of your own choosing?  What good is it to hold the title to property when the government holds the power over the life and death of that property?

Forgive me if I appear suspicious of the federal courts.  Thomas Jefferson warned us about the power of Supreme Court and the inherent corruptibility of an institution vested with great power but ruled by men motivated by the same interests and political ambitions as ordinary men.  He accused them of coming too close to playing God.  He described the Supreme Court as working, like gravity, day and night, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, until it finally usurps all the power from the States and hands it to the federal government.

Our Founders separated government power into three branches of government — legislative, executive and judicial — so that they would check each other…  not so they can conspire with each other to destroy our liberty interests.  Each branch was supposed to keep each other in line, not look the other way.  Our Constitution has managed to hold up for more than two centuries, with only occasional modifications through the years.  Those are the 27 amendments.  As the Constitution dictates, it is the amendment process outlined in Article V that is the proper way to make changes to the document; NOT by judicial interpretation and NOT by re-classifying the Constitution as a LIVING DOCUMENT.

Patrick Henry once said: “A monstrous national government was not the solution….  Many had to die to be free from such a regime.”

200 years ago, our Founders pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to pursue the course for liberty.  Today, our politicians routinely sell out their sacred honor for the chance to become career politicians.  And just as sad, we have a huge segment of the voting population who has abandoned the promise of liberty for the security of a government check or government service.

Without liberty, we are slaves. Maybe not to be constrained with whips and chains, but rather with rules and regulations, conditions, taxation, fines, and imprisonment.  If we can accept that, then we are ready for a master and deserve one. On March 23, 1775, Patrick Henry stood before the Virginia House of Burgesses, to address the growing tensions between the colonies and Britain and to urge the body to adopt a resolution to organize a state militia.  He said: “The question before the House is one of dire importance to this country. I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery.”  He ended that speech with the immortal words: “I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!”

In that speech he talked about the futility of petitioning a government that has no intention of respecting the rights of the people or giving up its power over them. The colonies tried reasoning with King George for 10 years.  Patrick Henry said: “We have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming. We have complained, we have protested, we have petitioned; we have pleaded; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and we have implored the British ministry to step in on our behalf to arrest the tyrannical hands of the King and Parliament.”

I summon the words of Patrick Henry not to urge dissent but rather to remind us of what the American Revolution was all about. It was about liberty.  I also hope his stirring words will help get us off the couch and active once again in our government and to engage us in solutions.

The bottom line is that we have to scale back the size and scope of government.

It’s no longer a topic for discussion. It’s a moral imperative.  If we want to preserve liberty for our children and grandchildren, then we have to scale back government.  We can’t trust government to take the initiative to divest its expanded powers or to restore the proper constitutional balance of power – which is defined in the 9th and 10th Amendments.  Throughout the years, on every occasion, the three branches of the federal government have sought to enlarge its powers, not constrain or restrain them.  Thomas Jefferson knew this would happen.  Within the first years of our new republic, as government was already re-interpreting the Constitution, he asked: “What can we do when the government – all three branches – refuses to be bound by the limits of the Constitution?  He told us there are 3 options:  Judicial review (that is, take our chances with the federal courts), secession, or nullification. The courts, he reasoned, could not be trusted.  In 1820, after witnessing how the Supreme Court was working with great speed to re-interpret the Constitution, he wrote: “To consider the Judges of the Superior Court as the ultimate arbiters of constitutional questions would be a dangerous doctrine which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. They have with others, the same passion for party, for power, and for the privileges of their corps – and their power is the most dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the Elective control. The Constitution has elected no single tribunal.  I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society but the people themselves.”  And the following year later, he wrote: “The germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal judiciary: an irresponsible body, working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one. To this I am opposed; because, when all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the centre of all it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.”

Jefferson said that secession, while always a viable option, must be viewed as the most extreme measure and avoided at all costs.  But Nullification, he articulated, is the rightful remedy.  It is the remedy grounded firmly in our federal system and legally available by the nature of the compact that brought the states into agreement regarding their common agent – the federal government.  It puts the power in the hands of the parties that had the power to begin with – the states and the People.

People like to dismiss and discredit Nullification by labeling it a racist doctrine. They claim that because the racist Southern Democrats tried to use it in their states to resist the de-segregation mandate imposed by the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education, it is somehow unconstitutional and not a legitimate doctrine.  Yet these same critics would be happy to accept a decision by the US Supreme Court – a branch of the federal government – that held that negroes are “beings of an inferior order and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and are so far inferior that they have no rights which the white man is bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery.”  [Dred Scott decision, 1857]. Either you accept the right of a state to challenge any act of the federal government that exceeds constitutional bounds (which the southern states did with the Brown decision, as unfortunate as that challenge was), or you resign yourself to the fact that the government is always right, always has the final say, always has the power to define its own limits of power, and always trumps the parties that in fact created it.  Only one position protects liberty.

The responsibility falls upon citizens like us to educate ourselves on Nullification and vet candidates in our state legislature and on the local level who embrace this Jeffersonian remedy.

Probably the most important of our founding principles is this: Government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed. We have a bottom-up system, where power derives from the Individual.  Not a top-down scheme. The Constitution is our document to limit government and NOT the government’s document to try to regulate us.   As Patrick Henry wrote: “The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government – lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.”  Government serves the interests of the people.  The people are not supposed to serve the interests of government.

Again, the Constitution was written for those who have the most to lose and therefore would have the greatest incentive to be vigilant and educated –  We the People.  And so we must be its faithful guardians. “For those to whom much is given, much is required.” We can’t allow the government to redefine it or abuse it to the point where we the people are left without the means of defending our God-given rights.

We have survived for two and a quarter centuries.  But our republic is in dangerous peril. We are confronted with a fierce urgency and an ideological conundrum.  We stand between the forces that wish to ‘transform‘ America and the forces that wish to ‘restore‘ her.  We all know that transformation implies a contempt or dissatisfaction, whereas restoration implies honor and respect.

The big question, of course, is this:  If we do nothing, what will become of our Inalienable Rights?  Government has already strayed away from its intended purpose.  All levels of government have abused their powers. The federal government is no longer constrained by the document that alone gives it permission and limits on what it can legally do — that is our Constitution.  It no longer protects our Life, Liberty, and Property.  It actively looks for ways to regulate each of our most precious human rights. It attacks our Life with the Obamacare.  It attacks our Liberty with the Patriot Act, the National Defense Authorization Act, the TSA at our airports, and with the Supreme Court’s healthcare decision (since according to Justice John Roberts, the government not only has the power to tax Americans when they engage in certain activities, but they can also tax them when they refuse to engage in conduct that the government wants them to engage in; ie, it has the power to use taxation to coerce people into doing something that the government wants them to do).  And it attacks our Property with the federal income tax system and Agenda 21.  The government’s evil, liberty-killing scheme is funded by the power of plunder that was granted it under the 16th Amendment.  The government plunders our very natural human resources — our Property….   the fruit and improvements of our property, the products of our labor, and the creations of our mind.  Individuals have become pawns of a government that seeks primarily to advance its own agenda rather than serve their individual liberty interests.  And right now, the government is using the economy to control us and advance its socialist/utilitarian agenda.

A government that can create economic stress is in a good position to constrain our liberties. A hungry man thinks about food, not freedom.

Last year Glen Beck wrote this: “The riddle today is the same one faced by our Founding Fathers when they began their experiment.  Societies need government.  Governments elevate men into power, and men who seek power are prone to corruption.  It spreads like a disease.  And sooner or later the end result is always a slide into tyranny. That’s the way it’s always been.  And so this government of the United States, so brilliantly and deliberately structured by our Founders, was designed to keep that weakness of human nature in check.  But it required the people to participate daily, to be vigilant.  And we have not.  It demanded that we behave as though government is our servant, but we have not. So while we slept, the servant has become our master.”

It looks as though the focus of government has shifted on its end and we have barely raised an eyebrow.  The “injuries and abuses” that the colonies would not tolerate from King George are being repeated by our own government but no one has even taken notice or even cares.  Maybe liberty can’t survive.  Maybe it is inherently destructive of its own ends. Maybe complacency is a fatal flaw in human beings. People who suckle at the government teat are not exactly the guardians of liberty that our Founders had in mind.

I want to end with this bit of history:  In his opening speech at the Virginia Ratifying Convention in 1788, Patrick Henry warned:  ”A wrong step now will plunge us into misery and our republic will be lost.”  He pleaded: “Liberty is the greatest of all earthly blessings. Give us that precious jewel and you may take everything else.  There was a time when every pulse of my heart beat for American liberty and which, I believe, had a counterpart in the breast of every true American.”  He went on to urge his fellow delegates to regard the Constitution with suspicion and caution.  He feared it might lead to too much government power, at the expense of the States, thereby negating the reason for the American Revolution.

Let those words remain with us: “A wrong step now will plunge us into misery and our republic will be lost. Liberty is the greatest of all earthly blessings.”

Please vote intelligently and responsibility on November 6th.