Scalia: There is no right to secede

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Source: http://www.newyorkpersonalinjuryattorneybl...-to-secede.html

Edited March 1, 2010 by w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

The man does have a sense of humor!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The man does have a sense of humor!

He does.

Wait...2006? Who is Daniel Turkewitz?

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

The man does have a sense of humor!

Scalia is a strict constructionist and someone is going to ask him a question like that. Scalia got a good chuckle out of it and so did I.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Eugene Volokh has some interesting thoughts on this. Excerpt below.

Whether there is a moral right to secede, which the nation as a whole should respect, must be a judgment based on how we see the world today, not based on what happened 144 years ago. A matter is “settled” by political decision only so long as the political decision commands the adherence of the polity. If in 2065 Alaska, California, Hawaii, or Texas (just to consider some examples) assert a right to secede, the argument that “in 1865, the victorious Union government concluded that no state has a right to secede in opposition to the wishes of the Union, so therefore you lack such a right” will have precisely the weight that the Americans of 2065 will choose to give it — which should be very little.

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

Eugene Volokh has some interesting thoughts on this. Excerpt below.

Whether there is a moral right to secede, which the nation as a whole should respect, must be a judgment based on how we see the world today, not based on what happened 144 years ago. A matter is "settled" by political decision only so long as the political decision commands the adherence of the polity. If in 2065 Alaska, California, Hawaii, or Texas (just to consider some examples) assert a right to secede, the argument that "in 1865, the victorious Union government concluded that no state has a right to secede in opposition to the wishes of the Union, so therefore you lack such a right" will have precisely the weight that the Americans of 2065 will choose to give it — which should be very little.

Scalia was being facetious.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Scalia was being facetious.

Yes, but he meant it when he said "There is no right to secede".

[Christi and Ian 24]

So that means that even though Texas has it written into their state constitution that they can secede at any time, if the U.S. doesn't want them to, they can't? Not that they would...but I wonder, what was the point of them putting it into their constitution then?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

So that means that even though Texas has it written into their state constitution that they can secede at any time, if the U.S. doesn't want them to, they can't? Not that they would...but I wonder, what was the point of them putting it into their constitution then?

It's not in their Constitution

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Eugene Volokh has some interesting thoughts on this. Excerpt below.

Whether there is a moral right to secede, which the nation as a whole should respect, must be a judgment based on how we see the world today, not based on what happened 144 years ago. A matter is "settled" by political decision only so long as the political decision commands the adherence of the polity. If in 2065 Alaska, California, Hawaii, or Texas (just to consider some examples) assert a right to secede, the argument that "in 1865, the victorious Union government concluded that no state has a right to secede in opposition to the wishes of the Union, so therefore you lack such a right" will have precisely the weight that the Americans of 2065 will choose to give it — which should be very little.

That requires looking at the U.S. Constitution as a living document.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

That requires looking at the U.S. Constitution as a living document.

And Mr. Volokh is clearly a conservative.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

And Mr. Volokh is clearly a conservative.

Not anymore...he just outed himself.

[luckytxn 2,265]

It is nowhere in the Texas constitution that says we can secede at anytime we choose. The closest it gets is to say we can change our government at anytime we choose. There is also not in the United states constitution that says we can't secede. We seceded once and at the point of violence we were forced to be readmitted to the union. If Texas tries to secede again it will be forced at the point of violence to stop it. We are enslaved to the U.S. so the only way that Texas and other states have started this talk can do is to use politicians to make change.

Most Texans that are born and raised here are raised to be very pro Texas but we are also raised to be very pro American. No one can deny that many Texans have given their lives to defend this great nation but so have every state. Most elections there comes this talk and that is what is going on now.

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

It is nowhere in the Texas constitution that says we can secede at anytime we choose. The closest it gets is to say we can change our government at anytime we choose. There is also not in the United states constitution that says we can't secede. We seceded once and at the point of violence we were forced to be readmitted to the union. If Texas tries to secede again it will be forced at the point of violence to stop it. We are enslaved to the U.S. so the only way that Texas and other states have started this talk can do is to use politicians to make change.

Most Texans that are born and raised here are raised to be very pro Texas but we are also raised to be very pro American. No one can deny that many Texans have given their lives to defend this great nation but so have every state. Most elections there comes this talk and that is what is going on now.

If Texas is part of the United States, then how do you explain El Paso?

[Peikko 1,575]

Of course there is no 'right' to secede, if there were, states would be continually holding the federal government to ransom, at least the bigger states would. Of course, if a state wants to secede regardless of any 'right' to do so then they can go ahead and do that, but I would imagine that trying to turn a state into a fully fledged independent country would be fraught with difficulty, social, political and economic. It would likely lead to violence as well.