http://www.theblaze.com/stories/west-point-chapel-to-host-first-same-sex-wedding-ceremony/
This was one those events that, given Obama's wrecking ball move to prohibit the US Military from having any say on discipline, was obviously was going to happen, but still was difficult to imagine.
The Cadet Chapel of the US Army Military Academy of West Point has now been defiled by the play-acting of a same-sex marriage.
For those who have not read previous posts on this subject, play-acting in this case refers to a government or similar body going through the motions of approving something that does not exist and that it cannot create.
Marriage existed as an institution long, long before any governments were ever created. Therefore, governments can only, like they do with private property, regulate and protect it. Laws can be made to bar people from marrying others before a divorce, at too young an age, if too closely related, or prohibit polygamy/polyandry (And even close relations and the latter technically may be argued to be beyond the pale of government control), but they have no authority to redefine marriage. To declare that one exists when it does not means that the State has effectively codified fake marriages.
At this point, the question is - If it engages in using the Law to lie,does the US Government still retain its right to govern?
Out of all edifices or practices in the US, the Cadet Chapel of West Point is the closest thing that exists to a fusion of the State with the Christian religious and cultural traditions of the United States. Those who have not visited the Chapel would have a hard time getting the feeling that the Chapel imparts on someone who has entered it. The below link will be of some help as it has multiple images of the inside and outside, but again, you have to be there to experience it:
//www.google.com/search?q=west+point+cadet+chapel&hl=en&tbo=u&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ei=yqu6UPOKF9GB0QHSxYC4Dw&ved=0CDQQsAQ&biw=1024&bih=677
The style of the Chapel has been called Military Gothic. Inside the Chapel, one feels that he has entered a fort, but something is different. The visitor is taken in by the flags along the walls, the cut stone, the rows of pews filled through the decades by some of the most illustrious leaders of our Army, but the reminder that it is a house of worship of God is immediate and striking. If one can, after entering the Chapel, still have doubt that there is such a thing as American Exceptionalism, he is a either rabid atheist or Leftist or suffers from a serious case of being a dullard.
I am a staunch Catholic, but the Protestant Cadet Chapel is the house of worship that inspires awe at the Academy.
-Now the arm of the State has been employed to require that, like in the Temple of Jerusalem under the late Seleucids and later with the Roman Empire, inherently un-Christian practices be performed under its roof.
The house of worship attended by a train of our Army Officers is now a stage on which God and our nation are mocked.
I hold that we will be held accountable by our Creator and our descendants if we, in the words of Patrick Henry, "stand we here idle" while the dismemberment of our society and culture continues unabated.
Each week ( I am not kidding, The Blaze is a good source for such reports) brings word of yet another court case in which a cross, tablet of ten commandments or nativity scene is ordered to be removed.
This should be an impetus for believers and non-religious to stand in unity. The Chapel is as much a symbol of our culture as it is a place of worship. We have no choice but to create a third party that has as its platform, in addition to protecting the right to property, taking back primary school curricula and the teaching of our military, and restoring American Constitutional governance, the following:
I am open to better wording.
-That, while no Church or Doctrine be officially established, no law or court order may be made to either prohibit public displays that recognize our Judeo-Christian culture, or require that a Christian or Jewish House of Worship be forced to host non-Christian practices.
Note that I strongly support the separation of Church and State. Just as I fight atheists and Leftists on this issue, so too I argue with (mainly Evangelicals) who try to paint a picture of our Founders as being much more Christian than they actually were. The historical facts are in the middle in this case.
The Hot Gates - 480BC. An event that was to determine what path much of the Western World would follow occurred as the Persian army threatened to overwhelm Greece in 480BC. The West today again faces both external and internal threats to its identity and existence.
Showing posts with label modern secession. Show all posts
Showing posts with label modern secession. Show all posts
Saturday, December 1, 2012
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
Walter Williams on Secession
http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/2012/11/28/williams-parting-company/?subscriber=1
Conservative writer and Academic Walter Williams (Bio link at bottom) recently penned a fair treatment on Secession. While I disagree with his views* on the legality of the secession of the slave states following Lincoln's election (I hold that they were wrong), he does bring up telling questions.
* http://thehotgates480bc.blogspot.com/2012/11/in-consideration-of-secession-part-i.html
The following are excepts from his article:
Bolding is added.
Conservative writer and Academic Walter Williams (Bio link at bottom) recently penned a fair treatment on Secession. While I disagree with his views* on the legality of the secession of the slave states following Lincoln's election (I hold that they were wrong), he does bring up telling questions.
* http://thehotgates480bc.blogspot.com/2012/11/in-consideration-of-secession-part-i.html
The following are excepts from his article:
Bolding is added.
"For decades, it has been obvious that there are irreconcilable differences between Americans who want to control the lives of others and those who wish to be left alone. Which is the more peaceful solution: Americans using the brute force of government to beat liberty-minded people into submission or simply parting company? In a marriage, where vows are ignored and broken, divorce is the most peaceful solution. Similarly, our constitutional and human rights have been increasingly violated by a government instituted to protect them. Americans who support constitutional abrogation have no intention of mending their ways.
Since Barack Obama's re-election, hundreds of thousands of petitions for secession have reached the White House. Some people have argued that secession is unconstitutional, but there's absolutely nothing in the Constitution that prohibits it. What stops secession is the prospect of brute force by a mighty federal government, as witnessed by the costly War of 1861. Let's look at the secession issue.
At the 1787 constitutional convention, a proposal was made to allow the federal government to suppress a seceding state. James Madison, the acknowledged father of our Constitution, rejected it, saying: "A Union of the States containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a State would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound."
On March 2, 1861, after seven states had seceded and two days before Abraham Lincoln's inauguration, Sen. James R. Doolittle of Wisconsin proposed a constitutional amendment that said, "No State or any part thereof, heretofore admitted or hereafter admitted into the Union, shall have the power to withdraw from the jurisdiction of the United States."
Several months earlier, Reps. Daniel E. Sickles of New York, Thomas B. Florence of Pennsylvania and Otis S. Ferry of Connecticut proposed a constitutional amendment to prohibit secession. Here's my no-brainer question: Would there have been any point to offering these amendments if secession were already unconstitutional?
On the eve of the War of 1861, even unionist politicians saw secession as a right of states. Rep. Jacob M. Kunkel of Maryland said, "Any attempt to preserve the Union between the States of this Confederacy by force would be impractical, and destructive of republican liberty............."
Since Barack Obama's re-election, hundreds of thousands of petitions for secession have reached the White House. Some people have argued that secession is unconstitutional, but there's absolutely nothing in the Constitution that prohibits it. What stops secession is the prospect of brute force by a mighty federal government, as witnessed by the costly War of 1861. Let's look at the secession issue.
At the 1787 constitutional convention, a proposal was made to allow the federal government to suppress a seceding state. James Madison, the acknowledged father of our Constitution, rejected it, saying: "A Union of the States containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a State would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound."
On March 2, 1861, after seven states had seceded and two days before Abraham Lincoln's inauguration, Sen. James R. Doolittle of Wisconsin proposed a constitutional amendment that said, "No State or any part thereof, heretofore admitted or hereafter admitted into the Union, shall have the power to withdraw from the jurisdiction of the United States."
Several months earlier, Reps. Daniel E. Sickles of New York, Thomas B. Florence of Pennsylvania and Otis S. Ferry of Connecticut proposed a constitutional amendment to prohibit secession. Here's my no-brainer question: Would there have been any point to offering these amendments if secession were already unconstitutional?
On the eve of the War of 1861, even unionist politicians saw secession as a right of states. Rep. Jacob M. Kunkel of Maryland said, "Any attempt to preserve the Union between the States of this Confederacy by force would be impractical, and destructive of republican liberty............."
I hold that it is time for a political party with a secessionist and reform platform to be created. I can think of no other way to reestablish or save what is left of the American Republic.
http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/vita.html
http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/vita.html
Saturday, November 17, 2012
Secession - Why the Panic?
I am quite befuddled with the counter-secession arguments being thrown around during the past week-plus.
We have substantial subsets of the American nation that are perfectly fine with our steady move towards Western European Socialism, legislation that is prejudiced towards business, the continuing attacks on any public identification whatsoever with our Judeo-Christian roots, the enslavement of the hitherto compliant (Rightfully so) taxpayer, Courts that smugly ignore the law and seek to subvert society, and politicians who feel as is they have to pander to all sorts of bizarre interest groups, and more. What's worse, these trends appear to have done nothing but picked up speed.
Yet, instead of thinking about what we can do, Conservatives are putting tremendous amounts of energy into denigrating the arguments and intentions of those who call for exploring the possibility of saving a protected and restored American Republic.
There seems to be what Huntington (Clash of Civilizations) refers to as "the illusion of permanency". We are surrounded by a society that has the outward appearance of a Representative Republic, our lives are (seemingly) unchanged, and we still have some political power. As a result, we are seeing a knee-jerk reaction to any movement that threatens to change things as we know them.
My take is that we are at a crossroads. While we still have the ability to secure a Republic based on American principles, one that has all the advantages of our Constitutional government, and take steps to protect it from being undermined, that ability is fast becoming threatened.
Our courts are no longer a forum to which we can appeal to seek protection but rather are tools to smooth the transition to a Progressive society utterly lacking in any vitality or virtue.
Our primary schools are breeding grounds for anti-Western and American thought.
Most colleges make the Primary schools look good by comparison.
A massive swath of our electorate seems to be locked into "self-destruct at the polls" mode.
Voter fraud by the Left is endemic.
We now have a Chief Executive that not only can choose to ignore any law, but a system of legislators and courts who will timidly refuse to raise a hand in objection.
The Media is in the business of electing Leftists/Progressives; consequently, they will ignore all of the bad and magnify the good (or not-so-bad) of their guys and do the converse for the opposition.
News outlets that try to get the story halfway straight such as Fox are painted as radicals.
The takers (Increasing in number) are willing to vote for increasing the amount of wealth that is taken from others and doled out by the Bureaucrats.
In response to calls for a reformation of the Republic, Conservatives are inexplicably employing the tired old (And plainly false) line about Secession being "settled" by the Civil War, which is kind of like saying that the question of murdering Jewish people was settled solely due to the defeat of the Nazis.
They are trotting out descriptions such as ridiculous, nonsensical, etc.
Here comes the worst of it:
They are citing Constitutional advocates such as James Madison, who in the Federalist correctly described ratification as "unconditional and forever" without thinking for just one moment that those who rightly worked for the adoption of the Constitution would never suggest that, in the event that the government had ceased to be a protector and instead became the oppressor, the States and people would be bound to a document that is not being respected in any way by those in control.
Here is the basic issue that is not being addressed. We are applying correct logic incorrectly.
Of course the Constitution is a permanent obligation for the States. The latter cannot arbitrarily walk away.
No one is saying anything to the contrary. What we are saying is that, to use the words of John Locke (Just as Jefferson did in our Declaration of Independence) we have been the victims of "a long train of abuses".
We are exactly in the same position, albeit worse in our case, that the Founders were in regards to the Crown. Nothing that Parliament dished out without our Representation could compare to the intrusions on our lives, property, and wealth with which we are faced.
None of our laws prohibit us from applying the very same principles as did they when we are faced with a government that summarily and despotically rules over the people rather than governs according to the Law.
The intention of the framers was not to create a system that would bind all generations to a government that had been undermined and turned into a despotism, even a soft one. Every one of them knew that, in the event that the Constitution was no longer being protected, it would be the right and obligation of the people to "alter or abolish it".
Like the Founders, we have tried all means possible (And without any of the barbarism of tarring and feathering) to put an end to this. We have participated in the electoral process, appealed to the Courts, written and read protests to these abuses, and we have been dismissed outright.
If an appreciable amount of the people are insistent about going in the Progressive direction, then we must not begrudge them. Let them have a fair portion of the country to administer as they please.
The need now is for the independence-minded, secessionists, and those who desire to save American principles to find a way to coalesce and form a party with a platform of a legal and safe division of the Republic.
We have substantial subsets of the American nation that are perfectly fine with our steady move towards Western European Socialism, legislation that is prejudiced towards business, the continuing attacks on any public identification whatsoever with our Judeo-Christian roots, the enslavement of the hitherto compliant (Rightfully so) taxpayer, Courts that smugly ignore the law and seek to subvert society, and politicians who feel as is they have to pander to all sorts of bizarre interest groups, and more. What's worse, these trends appear to have done nothing but picked up speed.
Yet, instead of thinking about what we can do, Conservatives are putting tremendous amounts of energy into denigrating the arguments and intentions of those who call for exploring the possibility of saving a protected and restored American Republic.
There seems to be what Huntington (Clash of Civilizations) refers to as "the illusion of permanency". We are surrounded by a society that has the outward appearance of a Representative Republic, our lives are (seemingly) unchanged, and we still have some political power. As a result, we are seeing a knee-jerk reaction to any movement that threatens to change things as we know them.
My take is that we are at a crossroads. While we still have the ability to secure a Republic based on American principles, one that has all the advantages of our Constitutional government, and take steps to protect it from being undermined, that ability is fast becoming threatened.
Our courts are no longer a forum to which we can appeal to seek protection but rather are tools to smooth the transition to a Progressive society utterly lacking in any vitality or virtue.
Our primary schools are breeding grounds for anti-Western and American thought.
Most colleges make the Primary schools look good by comparison.
A massive swath of our electorate seems to be locked into "self-destruct at the polls" mode.
Voter fraud by the Left is endemic.
We now have a Chief Executive that not only can choose to ignore any law, but a system of legislators and courts who will timidly refuse to raise a hand in objection.
The Media is in the business of electing Leftists/Progressives; consequently, they will ignore all of the bad and magnify the good (or not-so-bad) of their guys and do the converse for the opposition.
News outlets that try to get the story halfway straight such as Fox are painted as radicals.
The takers (Increasing in number) are willing to vote for increasing the amount of wealth that is taken from others and doled out by the Bureaucrats.
In response to calls for a reformation of the Republic, Conservatives are inexplicably employing the tired old (And plainly false) line about Secession being "settled" by the Civil War, which is kind of like saying that the question of murdering Jewish people was settled solely due to the defeat of the Nazis.
They are trotting out descriptions such as ridiculous, nonsensical, etc.
Here comes the worst of it:
They are citing Constitutional advocates such as James Madison, who in the Federalist correctly described ratification as "unconditional and forever" without thinking for just one moment that those who rightly worked for the adoption of the Constitution would never suggest that, in the event that the government had ceased to be a protector and instead became the oppressor, the States and people would be bound to a document that is not being respected in any way by those in control.
Here is the basic issue that is not being addressed. We are applying correct logic incorrectly.
Of course the Constitution is a permanent obligation for the States. The latter cannot arbitrarily walk away.
No one is saying anything to the contrary. What we are saying is that, to use the words of John Locke (Just as Jefferson did in our Declaration of Independence) we have been the victims of "a long train of abuses".
We are exactly in the same position, albeit worse in our case, that the Founders were in regards to the Crown. Nothing that Parliament dished out without our Representation could compare to the intrusions on our lives, property, and wealth with which we are faced.
None of our laws prohibit us from applying the very same principles as did they when we are faced with a government that summarily and despotically rules over the people rather than governs according to the Law.
The intention of the framers was not to create a system that would bind all generations to a government that had been undermined and turned into a despotism, even a soft one. Every one of them knew that, in the event that the Constitution was no longer being protected, it would be the right and obligation of the people to "alter or abolish it".
Like the Founders, we have tried all means possible (And without any of the barbarism of tarring and feathering) to put an end to this. We have participated in the electoral process, appealed to the Courts, written and read protests to these abuses, and we have been dismissed outright.
If an appreciable amount of the people are insistent about going in the Progressive direction, then we must not begrudge them. Let them have a fair portion of the country to administer as they please.
The need now is for the independence-minded, secessionists, and those who desire to save American principles to find a way to coalesce and form a party with a platform of a legal and safe division of the Republic.
Thursday, November 15, 2012
Questions Before Secession
The thought of a split of the American Republic is not an easy pill to swallow. We have come to assume that the United States in which most of us were born, raised, learned about in school and from books, movies, patriotic holidays, etc., was began in 1776 and that it would still be around long after we are gone.
I have been torn over this since the mid-90's. Like many people, I had taken it for granted that, as a result of the collapse of the USSR and its client-states, Marxist-inspired college professors would either see the light or be so utterly discredited as to become laughing stocks of the young people who sat in the lecture halls.
What I found during the 90's was that the Western variant of Marxism had the ability to, like a bacterium that had squeaked by courses of a particular antibiotic enough times, develop resistance against what would easily kill it off in the past.
Gone (For the most part) were the calls for the people to seize the means of production. The Cultural Marxism promulgated by Georg Lukaks and Antonio Gramsci then gained ascendancy . The latter was nothing new, it was similarly a more stealthy means by which the people of the West could be softened up for the supposed inevitable onset of Marxism and the corresponding end of sovereign states.
The welfare state of LBJ's Great Society was a great leap forward in this direction. Generations of people would know nothing other than lives of subsistence earned by nothing more than the act of signing a few legal forms. As we go into fourth generations of this soft but still insidious servitude, the voting bloc that seems nothing strange about this grows ever larger.
Our schools have ceased to be places of learning. they are now reeducation camps where the youth are trained to dispense with any romantic notions about patriotism, Western Culture, respect for religious traditions (Unless that of the Muslims), heroic people of the West who stood for freedom and virtue, and above all familial loyalties.
Nations such as India and China produce engineers - we produce Sociology majors steeped in the concepts of anti-Western propaganda.
We are told that somehow States have to ability and authority to define marriage, an institution that existed long, long before any organized government existed.
People are fast losing control over their bodies, property, wealth, and freedom of speech is also in the crosshairs.
I ask that the reader consider the following:
Is the American voting public going to change its outlook anytime in the next thirty years?
Are colleges (Yes some are conservative) going to stop indoctrinating 18-26 year-old students with leftist thought?
Is the Federal government going to stop intruding on our Liberties?
Will the Federal Government stop at the $200.000+ amount of debt that every American newborn is currently allotted by having been born? Note that that number assumes that each one of those babies will be a taxpayer. so the amount is undoubtedly larger.
Will our primary schools return to teaching (The literacy rate is appalling) and also give students reasons to be proud to be Americans?
Will the initiative to have individual States pledge all of their electoral votes to the popular vote winner* (Thus completely eliminating any protections for non-urban states - making rural states non-issues) be ignored?
*The left is infuriated by the fact that they need to do more than simply win all urban enclaves)
Will initiatives to allow convicted felons the right to vote be dropped?
Will the brakes be put on the increasing amount of surveillance (Drones, etc.) being undertaken without warrants?
Will NYC laws controlling such trivial issues such as soft drink sizes and salt intake be restricted to similar places or will they be applied to Anytown USA?
Will the Supreme Court, even without the inevitable new Obama appointees, go back to protecting our rights?
Will the courts start throwing our frivolous lawsuits by every angry and rabid atheist for a benediction or monument that recognizes our Creator?
Will the Left break from its alliance with radical environmentalists and the Islamic world?
As much as I respect the enormous contributions and sacrifices of the Tea Party and others who strive to restore the Republic, I still must ask the following:
Will the above group(s) be able to persuade the 50+ million who voted for a man who has wrecked the economy, put us in crushing debt, engaged in blatant demagoguery, insulted his political opponents as a daily requirement, etc., to vote for candidate who seeks to adhere to the Constitution and put the US on the right track?
Would the Founding Fathers, Daniel Webster, Andrew Jackson, or Abraham Lincoln accept, or even recognize, the United States as it exists today?
These are just some questions that one should consider before he dismisses the idea of reforming the nation along traditional lines.
Our society and its freedoms were bequeathed to us. To dispense with them ourselves or to allow others to dismantle them is not acceptable.
They most assuredly will not stop. Like Mariano Rivera, who for years threw only one pitch (His cut-fastball), simply because he was able to get batters out, with it, the Left will keep firing away at us. Opposing batters at least had eight innings to hit against other pitchers. We have no such luxury; the enemy is relentless and does not tire easily.
We can do this. We will need to unite. We can get our schools back, put a stop to insane spending, protect taxpayers from becoming serfs of the system who labor for others*, and take back our legacy.
*I will not be taken to mean that we will let people starve, etc.
Half of a country saved is better than an entire country lost.
I have been torn over this since the mid-90's. Like many people, I had taken it for granted that, as a result of the collapse of the USSR and its client-states, Marxist-inspired college professors would either see the light or be so utterly discredited as to become laughing stocks of the young people who sat in the lecture halls.
What I found during the 90's was that the Western variant of Marxism had the ability to, like a bacterium that had squeaked by courses of a particular antibiotic enough times, develop resistance against what would easily kill it off in the past.
Gone (For the most part) were the calls for the people to seize the means of production. The Cultural Marxism promulgated by Georg Lukaks and Antonio Gramsci then gained ascendancy . The latter was nothing new, it was similarly a more stealthy means by which the people of the West could be softened up for the supposed inevitable onset of Marxism and the corresponding end of sovereign states.
The welfare state of LBJ's Great Society was a great leap forward in this direction. Generations of people would know nothing other than lives of subsistence earned by nothing more than the act of signing a few legal forms. As we go into fourth generations of this soft but still insidious servitude, the voting bloc that seems nothing strange about this grows ever larger.
Our schools have ceased to be places of learning. they are now reeducation camps where the youth are trained to dispense with any romantic notions about patriotism, Western Culture, respect for religious traditions (Unless that of the Muslims), heroic people of the West who stood for freedom and virtue, and above all familial loyalties.
Nations such as India and China produce engineers - we produce Sociology majors steeped in the concepts of anti-Western propaganda.
We are told that somehow States have to ability and authority to define marriage, an institution that existed long, long before any organized government existed.
People are fast losing control over their bodies, property, wealth, and freedom of speech is also in the crosshairs.
I ask that the reader consider the following:
Is the American voting public going to change its outlook anytime in the next thirty years?
Are colleges (Yes some are conservative) going to stop indoctrinating 18-26 year-old students with leftist thought?
Is the Federal government going to stop intruding on our Liberties?
Will the Federal Government stop at the $200.000+ amount of debt that every American newborn is currently allotted by having been born? Note that that number assumes that each one of those babies will be a taxpayer. so the amount is undoubtedly larger.
Will our primary schools return to teaching (The literacy rate is appalling) and also give students reasons to be proud to be Americans?
Will the initiative to have individual States pledge all of their electoral votes to the popular vote winner* (Thus completely eliminating any protections for non-urban states - making rural states non-issues) be ignored?
*The left is infuriated by the fact that they need to do more than simply win all urban enclaves)
Will initiatives to allow convicted felons the right to vote be dropped?
Will the brakes be put on the increasing amount of surveillance (Drones, etc.) being undertaken without warrants?
Will NYC laws controlling such trivial issues such as soft drink sizes and salt intake be restricted to similar places or will they be applied to Anytown USA?
Will the Supreme Court, even without the inevitable new Obama appointees, go back to protecting our rights?
Will the courts start throwing our frivolous lawsuits by every angry and rabid atheist for a benediction or monument that recognizes our Creator?
Will the Left break from its alliance with radical environmentalists and the Islamic world?
As much as I respect the enormous contributions and sacrifices of the Tea Party and others who strive to restore the Republic, I still must ask the following:
Will the above group(s) be able to persuade the 50+ million who voted for a man who has wrecked the economy, put us in crushing debt, engaged in blatant demagoguery, insulted his political opponents as a daily requirement, etc., to vote for candidate who seeks to adhere to the Constitution and put the US on the right track?
Would the Founding Fathers, Daniel Webster, Andrew Jackson, or Abraham Lincoln accept, or even recognize, the United States as it exists today?
These are just some questions that one should consider before he dismisses the idea of reforming the nation along traditional lines.
Our society and its freedoms were bequeathed to us. To dispense with them ourselves or to allow others to dismantle them is not acceptable.
They most assuredly will not stop. Like Mariano Rivera, who for years threw only one pitch (His cut-fastball), simply because he was able to get batters out, with it, the Left will keep firing away at us. Opposing batters at least had eight innings to hit against other pitchers. We have no such luxury; the enemy is relentless and does not tire easily.
We can do this. We will need to unite. We can get our schools back, put a stop to insane spending, protect taxpayers from becoming serfs of the system who labor for others*, and take back our legacy.
*I will not be taken to mean that we will let people starve, etc.
Half of a country saved is better than an entire country lost.
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
In Consideration of Secession - Part III
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/there-is-no-right-to-secede-see-the-letter-where-justice-scalia-shoots-down-idea-of-leaving-the-union/
I found an interesting subject for part three.
The link at top concerns secession petitions filed by a number of states and a possible comment on the subject by Justice Antonin Scalia As of today the count of petitions was 47. These petitions seem to only be online types that anyone can start, send via email, and sign with a few clicks. Therefore, they obviously cannot be taken seriously and most of them are likely done in jest or as a mild form or protest.
The text of Scalia's alleged response is interesting According to the article, a producer who wanted to make a movie on the subject wrote to the Supreme Court Justices and the only one that responded was Scalia.
Of course we have no idea whether or not the letter (copy is on the link) is real or a forgery, but the content is provided below and is perfect for this topic:
"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."
For the sake of argument, let's say that the letter from Scalia is genuine.
One of the most common misconceptions from American history, and one that is unfortunately accepted without question, as that the question of Secession was settled by the outcome of the American Civil War. For the record (I fear that I will need to do this often) I am a staunch unionist, a Lincoln man to the core, and I also love the manner in which Daniel Webster treated the topic. Surprisingly to some, I also strongly approve of Andrew Jackson's actions in regards to South Carolina. In short, secession cannot occur unless the situation merits such action.
The cold hard fact is that the question of secession was not disproved nor settled by the Civil War. The Civil War proved that the overwhelmingly superior resources of industry, population, railroads, and the moral high ground of opposing the extension of slavery gave the North the advantage that it needed. Once the war became one of will and attrition verses a contest of tactics, élan, and strategy, it was only a matter of time before Lincoln would find generals who would employ the forces at his disposal rather than moving cautiously and ineptly like so many other former Union army leaders.
Wars, by their very nature, do not prove anything. One side wins, the other loses.
Scalia's statement is either a classic example of one of the most brilliant legal minds in American history either being unable to apply basic common sense, attempting to play the game of political diplomacy (He is not known for that), or gently kidding the individual to whom the letter was written.
Think about it - if we apply the logic of Scalia's statements, the following must also be true:
The Athenian Democracy would have been wrong had it been beaten by the Persians at Marathon or at the later and more crucial naval battle of Salamis.
The inhuman and criminal acts and ideology of Nazi Germany would have been right had Hitler's regime won WWII.
It would also mean that Rome was right in each and very one of her conquests of other nations and peoples, be they from the days of the Republic or the Empire (Principate).
The list could go on and on; Native Americans, Australian Aborigines, and all losing peoples are wrong, and every winning nation or dynasty being right.
In fact, if this is true, the Left must immediately cease to petition for Israel to concede to every demand of the Arabs of Palestine because Israel won every conflict since her founding.
I think that I beat that point to death, so we can put the idea that secession was decided by the Civil War safely to rest.
The question, then, is what makes a revolution, rebellion, or secession justified or not.
The answer lies in the basic concept of government. The Founders of the United States were heavily influenced by writers such as John Locke, Charles-Louis de Secondat, (Refereed to by his Baronial title as Montesquieu), Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Thomas Hobbes, and other writers.
The first two are in my opinion the most influential to the Founders. They were of course also tremendously influenced by the history or ancient Greece, Rome, and the Glorious Revolution of England. Eran Shalev, in his work Rome Reborn on Western Shores, provides and in-depth analysis of the manner in which the founders were animated by the personalities and mindsets of those of the ancient Roman Republic. His next work, which is to be released in 2013, will present evidence of the strong influence that the Old Testament also had with these individuals.
Of course we have no idea whether or not the letter (copy is on the link) is real or a forgery, but the content is provided below and is perfect for this topic:
"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."
For the sake of argument, let's say that the letter from Scalia is genuine.
One of the most common misconceptions from American history, and one that is unfortunately accepted without question, as that the question of Secession was settled by the outcome of the American Civil War. For the record (I fear that I will need to do this often) I am a staunch unionist, a Lincoln man to the core, and I also love the manner in which Daniel Webster treated the topic. Surprisingly to some, I also strongly approve of Andrew Jackson's actions in regards to South Carolina. In short, secession cannot occur unless the situation merits such action.
The cold hard fact is that the question of secession was not disproved nor settled by the Civil War. The Civil War proved that the overwhelmingly superior resources of industry, population, railroads, and the moral high ground of opposing the extension of slavery gave the North the advantage that it needed. Once the war became one of will and attrition verses a contest of tactics, élan, and strategy, it was only a matter of time before Lincoln would find generals who would employ the forces at his disposal rather than moving cautiously and ineptly like so many other former Union army leaders.
Wars, by their very nature, do not prove anything. One side wins, the other loses.
Scalia's statement is either a classic example of one of the most brilliant legal minds in American history either being unable to apply basic common sense, attempting to play the game of political diplomacy (He is not known for that), or gently kidding the individual to whom the letter was written.
Think about it - if we apply the logic of Scalia's statements, the following must also be true:
The Athenian Democracy would have been wrong had it been beaten by the Persians at Marathon or at the later and more crucial naval battle of Salamis.
The inhuman and criminal acts and ideology of Nazi Germany would have been right had Hitler's regime won WWII.
It would also mean that Rome was right in each and very one of her conquests of other nations and peoples, be they from the days of the Republic or the Empire (Principate).
The list could go on and on; Native Americans, Australian Aborigines, and all losing peoples are wrong, and every winning nation or dynasty being right.
In fact, if this is true, the Left must immediately cease to petition for Israel to concede to every demand of the Arabs of Palestine because Israel won every conflict since her founding.
I think that I beat that point to death, so we can put the idea that secession was decided by the Civil War safely to rest.
The question, then, is what makes a revolution, rebellion, or secession justified or not.
The answer lies in the basic concept of government. The Founders of the United States were heavily influenced by writers such as John Locke, Charles-Louis de Secondat, (Refereed to by his Baronial title as Montesquieu), Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Thomas Hobbes, and other writers.
The first two are in my opinion the most influential to the Founders. They were of course also tremendously influenced by the history or ancient Greece, Rome, and the Glorious Revolution of England. Eran Shalev, in his work Rome Reborn on Western Shores, provides and in-depth analysis of the manner in which the founders were animated by the personalities and mindsets of those of the ancient Roman Republic. His next work, which is to be released in 2013, will present evidence of the strong influence that the Old Testament also had with these individuals.
http://eranshalev.wordpress.com/
The starting point for the American Founding Fathers was this - that governments were created by people in order to secure liberty, property, safety, etc. Governments do not predate people or the earliest societies, therefore they cannot be held to be inherently sovereign, but are only sovereign when supported by the people they govern.
Locke, in his Treatises on Government, was far and away the most clear on this issue; if a government ceases to protect the people and instead becomes the oppressor, it is the right and obligation of the people (Who are born free by the very nature of mankind) to detach from or depose the oppressive body and create a new government.
We must also recall that, technically, all revolutionary movements, including the American War of Independence, are considered to be illegal by the government from which they are breaking. It is only when a people or a nascent nation can cite what Locke refers to as a 'Long train of abuses" (Words used specifically in the Declaration of Independence), the steps taken to reconcile, and the results of those failed attempts that a people can declare themselves to be free and independent and take steps to govern themselves.
As I noted in Part 1 two days ago, the States of the Confederacy did not have these arguments. That is why they were wrong, not because they lost the war.
Also noted in Part 1 is one of the realities of what has happened to our freedoms. Three Supreme Court cases were cited as evidence that our final bulwark against oppression has been negated and is now effectively a rubber stamp for the Left.
In the US, the State now has the authority to control anything and everything, from your property to your body and what you purchase. Our electorate has definitely changed significantly; almost half of the voters will vote for strongly Progressive candidates. That number will soon reach the 51% point. Once that occurs, those who want no part of the new program will be backed into a corner.
I personally have no problem with people who want to live in a Leftist-driven society. My problem is that these same people most certainly have a problem with me being able to live in a society that is not Leftist-driven.
The starting point for the American Founding Fathers was this - that governments were created by people in order to secure liberty, property, safety, etc. Governments do not predate people or the earliest societies, therefore they cannot be held to be inherently sovereign, but are only sovereign when supported by the people they govern.
Locke, in his Treatises on Government, was far and away the most clear on this issue; if a government ceases to protect the people and instead becomes the oppressor, it is the right and obligation of the people (Who are born free by the very nature of mankind) to detach from or depose the oppressive body and create a new government.
We must also recall that, technically, all revolutionary movements, including the American War of Independence, are considered to be illegal by the government from which they are breaking. It is only when a people or a nascent nation can cite what Locke refers to as a 'Long train of abuses" (Words used specifically in the Declaration of Independence), the steps taken to reconcile, and the results of those failed attempts that a people can declare themselves to be free and independent and take steps to govern themselves.
As I noted in Part 1 two days ago, the States of the Confederacy did not have these arguments. That is why they were wrong, not because they lost the war.
Also noted in Part 1 is one of the realities of what has happened to our freedoms. Three Supreme Court cases were cited as evidence that our final bulwark against oppression has been negated and is now effectively a rubber stamp for the Left.
In the US, the State now has the authority to control anything and everything, from your property to your body and what you purchase. Our electorate has definitely changed significantly; almost half of the voters will vote for strongly Progressive candidates. That number will soon reach the 51% point. Once that occurs, those who want no part of the new program will be backed into a corner.
I personally have no problem with people who want to live in a Leftist-driven society. My problem is that these same people most certainly have a problem with me being able to live in a society that is not Leftist-driven.
I will try to put Part 4 together tomorrow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)