Here's what Justice Antonin Scalia had to say about secession:
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 ...
I understand that secession is a Very Scary Subject for today's conformist, hive-mind mentality, but it's a very important philosophical discussion.
Scalia says "there is no right to secede." But is that a valid moral argument?
Is it the government who's sovereign, or is it each individual who is sovereign? If it's the State who's sovereign and not the individual, then we're arguing "positive" collective rights and the rule of man, not law. "You can't secede because I said so!"
If each individual is sovereign, then each individual has the right to free association. From the right of free association follows the natural right to secede.
I'm not advocating secession at this point (although it is a viable option), but to argue that we don't have the right to secession is, in essence, arguing that we don't have the right to be free.
And if we insist on forcing people to belong the the nation ... We've flushed the American Creed down the toilet!
Freedom is the ability to live in the absence of force, while North Korea more properly illustrates Justice Scalia's point of view. Think about it.
H/T - Conservative Shemale!
See Also:
Side Note: "[T]he United States cannot be sued without its consent" just rings of freedom, doesn't it?
Wow. I'm surprised he would hold that opinion.
That's where we're at in America today.
[...] Justice Antonin Scalia Talks Seccession – The Classic Liberal [...]
There are two positions here: an individual's philosophical position and one based on the US Constitution. I'm not a constitutional scholar but from what I can see the Constitution neither provides for, nor disallows secession. As a result I'm not certain that secession is a province for the courts. It would be up to Congress and the States to provide a legal mechanism. That would not happen unless Civil War or open rebellion is imminent.
I certainly hope we never get to that point.
I would hope not either.
I think Congress and the States must provide a legal mechanism if it is so desired.
Absolutely a legal mechanism for secession is far preferable to Civil War or open violence. In an ideal world – wouldn’t that be nice – Congress would anticipate future problems and deal with them before passions are inflamed. Secession is one issue; absorbing new territories as states is another; dealing with close elections (Florida); Electoral College ties during Presidential elections; having the Electoral College without actual electors. All these topics should be reviewed before there is a problem.
However, even after the 2000 fiasco we haven’t come up with anything on either the federal or state level regarding close, contested elections.