Arizona to Secede?

Here we go, from an American Constitutional Scholar, Michael Dorf:

As I will explain below, it is settled law that the Constitution does not permit unilateral secession: A state or group of states cannot simply leave the Union over the objections of the national government. However, the arguments that led to this settled understanding are hardly unassailable, and the Constitution is probably best read as permitting the mutually agreed upon departure of one or more states.



The U.S. Constitution does not expressly recognize or deny a right of secession.

So yes, States have the right to secede ... according to this expert.

Ok I highlighted another very important quote that this Constitutional scholar said ..... its above ... in red.

How can it NOT be a Constitutional right when it does NOT prohibit it?




Michael C. Dorf - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
I've supported it in several posts. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it hasn't been supported.

Do you think that asking the same question over and over is going to get you a different answer? The only person that has anything to support would be the one that claimed that secession is a Constitutional right. Quite obviously, you are beginning to understand that you cannot support that because it is false. So now you are trying to turn it around to save face. Best to just let it drop.

Texas signed away their right to secede in the war of 1812. I think that is the 4th or 5th time I have stated that. Do you understand it now?

No offense, but I will take the word of a Constitutional scholar over yours.
 
Here we go, from an American Constitutional Scholar, Michael Dorf:







So yes, States have the right to secede ... according to this expert.


Michael C. Dorf - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks. Once again, you have proven yourself wrong, and in the very first sentence of the quote.

I guess you fail to understand that the Consitution does not have to prohibit it. It has to specifically provide for it in order for it to be a Constitutional right. The very first sentence of your copy and paste specifically says that the Constitution does not provide for that right. So, repeat after me: secession is not a Constitutional right.
 
No offense, but I will take the word of a Constitutional scholar over yours.

And the Constitutional scholar says the very same thing I am saying: secession is not a Constitutional right and it is not provided as such in the Constitution.:roll

"it is settled law that the Constitution does not permit unilateral secession" from your source. Do you understand what that phrase means?
 
lol.

ya should have gone to bed long while back. you just shot your own foot. tsk.
 
And the Constitutional scholar says the very same thing I am saying: secession is not a Constitutional right and it is not provided as such in the Constitution.:roll

"it is settled law that the Constitution does not permit unilateral secession" from your source. Do you understand what that phrase means?

do you understand what unilateral means? He explains that quite clearly ....

Main Entry: uni·lat·er·al
Pronunciation: \ˌyü-ni-ˈla-tə-rəl, -ˈla-trəl\
Function: adjective
Date: 1802

1 a : done or undertaken by one person or party b : of, relating to, or affecting one side of a subject : one-sided c : constituting or relating to a contract or engagement by which an express obligation to do or forbear is imposed on only one party
2 a : having parts arranged on one side <a unilateral raceme> b : occurring on, performed on, or affecting one side of the body or one of its parts <unilateral exophthalmos>
3 : unilineal
4 : having only one side

— uni·lat·er·al·ly adverb

But yet, States DO have the right to secede. They just cannot do it unilaterally (and he even admits that argument is not unassailable).
 
Thanks. Once again, you have proven yourself wrong, and in the very first sentence of the quote.

I guess you fail to understand that the Consitution does not have to prohibit it. It has to specifically provide for it in order for it to be a Constitutional right. The very first sentence of your copy and paste specifically says that the Constitution does not provide for that right. So, repeat after me: secession is not a Constitutional right.

Indoctrination at its finest :giggle:

You will have to read everything he said rather than what you want to read ....

I am off to bed now ... I will let others enlighten you how you shot yourself in the foot.
 
No offense, but I will take the word of a Constitutional scholar over yours.

I would take the word of Supreme Court over a Constitutional scholar

No secession vote for Alaska, state Supreme Court rules
The Alaska Supreme Court has rejected an Anchorage man's effort to change the Alaska Constitution so that he could call a vote for secession from the United States.

"Alaskans' political lives are inextricably tied to both the government of the State of Alaska and the government of the United States of America," wrote Justice Dana Fabe in the court's unanimous decision in Scott Kohlhaas' case.

Kohlhaas, a 50-year-old political consultant who is also chair of the Alaska Libertarian Party, wants Alaska to be its own country.

"I want independence," he said in an interview this week. "This is our land. These are our people. And we have the right to choose our own destiny."

Kohlhaas tried to bring the independence question to voters in 2003 but the lieutenant governor refused to certify his ballot initiative and Kohlhaas took the case to the courts. The Supreme Court rejected his efforts, saying at the time: "When the forty-nine star flag was first raised in Juneau, we Alaskans committed ourselves to that indestructible Union, for good or ill, in perpetuity."

Kohlhaas' 2007 effort was slightly different. It was for a ballot initiative asking voters to change existing law and Alaska Constitution provisions to authorize secession.

The Supreme Court ruled the core of both measures remains the same -- secession -- and that's still illegal.

Ballot initiatives are to propose and enact legislation. The lieutenant governor's office can refuse to certify initiatives that are clearly illegal, Fabe said.

In issuing the unanimous decision, Fabe quoted President Abraham Lincoln, saying, "The Union of these States is perpetual."

Fabe noted that the Alaska Constitution created a state government that is linked to the United States government, including a provision that disqualifies from public office anyone who advocates, or belongs to an organization that advocates, violent overthrow of the U.S. government.

But Kohlhaas insists Alaska would be better off independent.

"We'd be living like kings, no doubt about it," he said. "With private ownership of the land, we could have a real economy, we could have real jobs, manufacturing. I see Anchorage like a Hong Kong -- free banking, free commerce, just an incredible place to live."

Lynette Clark, chair of the Alaskan Independence Party, was also part of the 2007 initiative. She's a gold miner at the El Dorado Gold Mine, a tourist attraction, and lives outside Fairbanks. She said the rest of the country treats the state "like an ugly stepchild."

She can envision an Alaska divorced from the U.S. "We would be very similar to what we are now: independent, kind, caring, giving, sometimes a bit grouchy and scratchy. A batch of folks that believe in taking care of the land."

Vic Fischer, a former Democratic legislator and delegate to the state constitutional convention in the mid-1950s, said secession is just not allowed: "We fought for years for statehood and we are doing real well. It's sort of silly arguing that we'd get more if we weren't a part of the United States."

Without the help of the federal government, Alaska "would fall flat on its face," he said.

Kohlhaas says Alaskans may not vote in favor of independence -- he is realistic about that -- but he says he will continue to fight for the right.
 
do you understand what unilateral means? He explains that quite clearly ....



But yet, States DO have the right to secede. They just cannot do it unilaterally (and he even admits that argument is not unassailable).

Yes, I understand what unilateral means. And no where does it say that they have the right to secede unilaterally, bilaterally, trilaterally, or any other number of laterals. You simply do not understand what you are reading.:roll: No where does he say that states have a Constitutional right to sucede in any fashion, and no where does he say that the Constitution provides for such. You said you would take his word for it. There it is. Take it and stop trying to argue your way out of your error. You just keep making yourself look more foolish.
 
Indoctrination at its finest :giggle:

You will have to read everything he said rather than what you want to read ....

I am off to bed now ... I will let others enlighten you how you shot yourself in the foot.

she doesn't have a gun :)
 
Indoctrination at its finest :giggle:

You will have to read everything he said rather than what you want to read ....

I am off to bed now ... I will let others enlighten you how you shot yourself in the foot.

I read it. And unlike you, I understood it. It really is a good thing you are going to get some sleep. We can only hope it will improve the distortion in cognitive processes you continue to demonstrate.

BTW...look down. Your foot is bleeding profusely and has been for some time now. I'd bandage that if I were you. Your sheets will be a mess.:laugh2:
 
a screenwriter wrote a letter to 9 Supreme Court judges to ask a hypothetical question about state secession.

I’m a screenwriter in New York City, and am writing to see if you might be willing to assist me in a project that involves a unique constitutional issue.
My latest screenplay is a comedy about Maine seceding from the United States and joining Canada. There are parts of the story that deal with the legality of such an event and, of course, a big showdown in the Supreme Court is part of the story.

At the moment my story is a 12 page treatment. As an architect turned screenwriter, it is fair to say that I come up a bit short in the art of Supreme Court advocacy. If you could spare a few moments on a serious subject that is treated in a comedic way, I would greatly appreciate your thoughts. I’m sure you’ll find the story very entertaining.

and Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia replied back -
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.

Scalia-Turkewitz-Letter-763174.jpg



so good luck with your attempt to secede from USA :wave:
 
a screenwriter wrote a letter to 9 Supreme Court judges to ask a hypothetical question about state secession.



and Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia replied back -


Scalia-Turkewitz-Letter-763174.jpg



so good luck with your attempt to secede from USA :wave:

Great one! But I doubt he'll believe it there either. He doesn't even understand when his own quotes are telling him he's wrong.:laugh2:
 
Great one! But I doubt he'll believe it there either. He doesn't even understand when his own quotes are telling him he's wrong.:laugh2:

love that little humor that Justice Scalia wrote - "I am sure that poetic license can overcome all that — but you do not need legal advice for that."

Got a good chuckle out of that. :lol:
 
I read it. And unlike you, I understood it. It really is a good thing you are going to get some sleep. We can only hope it will improve the distortion in cognitive processes you continue to demonstrate.

BTW...look down. Your foot is bleeding profusely and has been for some time now. I'd bandage that if I were you. Your sheets will be a mess.:laugh2:

Here, let me take you by your hand and explain what you missed and "thought" you understood.


again.....


As I will explain below, it is settled law that the Constitution does not permit unilateral secession: A state or group of states cannot simply leave the Union over the objections of the national government. However, the arguments that led to this settled understanding are hardly unassailable, and the Constitution is probably best read as permitting the mutually agreed upon departure of one or more states. <<<<< That right there means ... wow! secession!

ah! permitting secession .... hmmmmm

My foot is absolutely terrific. . save those bandages for yourself.

Now, if I have to define "permitting" ... I will be happy to explain, in nitty gritty detail .. what this man said.

Apparently, it is beyond your level of comprehension as you have demonstrated time after time.


Main Entry: se·ces·sion
Pronunciation: \si-ˈse-shən\
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin secession-, secessio, from secedere
Date: 1604

1 : withdrawal into privacy or solitude : retirement
2 : formal withdrawal from an organization

withdrawal


4 a : the act of drawing someone or something back from or out of a place or position

de·par·ture (dĭ-pärˈchər)
noun

1. The act of leaving.
 
Yes, the Democrats have been championing Scalia for some time .... :roll:

over this very issue - do Americans have the "right" to disagree now, or do we live in a police state?
 
What is alarming about his response is Scalia's insisting that the issue was settled by the so-called "Civil War". Of course, the Constitution itself must be the authority--not the Court and definelty not a war. If went to war over the freedom of the press and those who seek to do away with free press proved the victor, surely we would not exclaim, "There is no right to a free press. The free pressers lost the war." Such a reliance on victory in war is outrageously absurd. Might does not thwart the rule of law. That is tyranny of the majority, which is just as vile a despotism as tyranny of a single agent.


In Defense of the Constitution: Scalia and Secession
 
Back
Top