Thread: Let's discuss Nullification and Secession again. They are related.

The best presentation I ever read on the topic of Nullification and Secession was from the masterpiece of President Jefferson Davis, The Rise of the Confederate Government. I believe it was in his farewell address to the US Senate where he delivered his famous dictum of how nullification and secession are different.

Nullification is when a subdivision of a body politic who has granted power to a larger affiliation has determined that larger affiliate has assumed powers not granted. That subdivision formerly re-establishes precisely what power it granted by nullifying or undoing whatever assumption of power was made within its territory. (NOTE: Davis makes the interesting point that a grant of power is different than a delegated power. An example is the chief executive of the States is called governor, a title not associated with developing foreign policy. The States were never delegated such authority by their State Constitutions. The States, therefore, explicitly granted power rather than delegated certain powers they implicitly had to the super-State confederation).

Secession is when a body politic withdraws or rescinds all granted and delegated powers and once again assumes its sovereign status as an independent State. It is important to note that when the former colonies of England won their independence from the Crown in the Treaty of Paris, they were not recognized collectively. The former colonies were individually recognized as separate and independent sovereign States. And according to the US Constitution all States subsequently added to the Union were equal to the original. Equal in what way? Equal in the inherent and inalienable sovereignty.

To summarize: Nullification is an act within a larger body politic. Secession is the act of a sovereign.

The enemies of freedom leading up to the War of Northern Aggression pretended the ratification of the US Constitution established the principle of so-called "popular sovereignty," meaning the States gave up their sovereignty. Not only was this never an explicit forfeit, many of the States ratification documents explicitly retained their sovereignty in ratifying the US Constitution AND had words very similar to what became the 10th Amendment. In addition, the principle of so-called "popular sovereignty," denies the founding principle of the Declaration of Independence that the people have the right to alter of abolish their government by saying the people of NYC can trump the will of the people of Charleston. To suppose this to be true is to suppose the Founding Fathers fought and won a war of independence with the super-power of the day only to give up their hard fought and dearly paid for Liberty to be enslaved by numbers when all the evidence points to the exact opposite conclusion; that the United States is not a homogenous entity but a heterogeneous collection of sovereign States and Founding Father's wrote so eloquently in the Federalist Papers against the dangers of numbers and democracy in favor of the republic, which is not central or national in character but federal in nature.

Originally Posted by Wlessard

Lincoln had a regard for the Constitution

I reject such claims out of hand. Lincoln is the anti-Jefferson. His actions deny the principles of the Declaration of Independence, to say the least. On what principle can the States secede from England but not secede from the USA? On what principle can Texas secede from Mexico but not from the USA? On what principle can West Virginia secede from Virginia but Virginia not secede from the USA? Not the principals of morals but the ambitions a ruthless dictator!

Lincoln's entire object in object in prosecuting the War of Northern Aggression was to transform the union of voluntary consent to a union at gunpoint, from a union of equals to a union of slave and master. He had no Constitutional authority to use force against the States, deny the divorce or the right of the divorce. Lincoln was single-handedly responsible for the death of millions of Americans; his despotism far worse than King George. Northern Apologists engage in his propaganda to this day. Lincoln is a tyrant of the 1st order.

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

I reject such claims out of hand. Lincoln is the anti-Jefferson. His actions deny the principles of the Declaration of Independence, to say the least. On what principle can the States secede from England but not secede from the USA? On what principle can Texas secede from Mexico but not from the USA? On what principle can West Virginia secede from Virginia but Virginia not secede from the USA? Not the principals of morals but the ambitions a ruthless dictator!

Lincoln's entire object in object in prosecuting the War of Northern Aggression was to transform the union of voluntary consent to a union at gunpoint, from a union of equals to a union of slave and master. He had no Constitutional authority to use force against the States, deny the divorce or the right of the divorce. Lincoln was single-handedly responsible for the death of millions of Americans; his despotism far worse than King George. Northern Apologists engage in his propaganda to this day. Lincoln is a tyrant of the 1st order.

It isn't that I don't agree with you John, but you pulled 1/2 a sentence and made a comment. I think you have been debating with the Liberals here a bit too long.

Missouri has several bills proposed in the legislature right now concerning nullification. I believe that many states are about to exert their independence from the oppression in Washington. If that doesn't work, I see states working towards a Constitutional Convention to take their power back.

http://www.libertyclassroom.com/nullification/

Legislators in Missouri, Kansas and elsewhere look to nullify federal laws

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2013/01/20...#storylink=cpy

Currently there are 14 States that have Bills that have passed or are working through their legislatures stating that any Gun Control laws coming out of the Federal will not be enforced, including Texas where they will lock up Federal Officials who try and enforce them.

Originally Posted by Wlessard

While he puts it bluntly I think there are nuances here. Lincoln had a regard for the Constitution but he misinterpreted it. He once said something to the effect that he needed to re-unite the country but his actions in doing so violated the Constitution. The Federal is not above the Constitution or the States.

I think most people who are familiar with the Civil War would agree that Lincoln assumed extra-Constitutional authority in the face of national dissolution. How we view him depends on whether we believe that to be the sole, or supreme, metric by which presidents should be judged.

Originally Posted by Wlessard

Despite what the MSM may have you believe or the current Federal, there is a LONG history of the States telling the Federal to stick it.

Very true. Though the significance of that fact alone is a little ambiguous. E.G. The fact that many people get away with speeding doesn't tell us whether the state has the right to impose speed limits.

I'd be more interested to hear if the SCOTUS ever upheld a state's authority to reject federal law. That would establish a much stronger precedent than the fact that various states have, at times, done so.

Originally Posted by Wlessard

A very clear statement and understanding of the wording. In this I feel very strongly his case is accurate. Yes Laws made by the Federal to execute the Constitutional mandates are legal and the law of the land. Those laws by the Federal that are outside Constitutional Mandate are not supreme over the States. The arguments come back to what is the Federal allowed to do. Which is the 18 enumerated mandates.

That's all well and good, but it just boils down to the question of who, when there is a disagreement, has the authority to decide which laws are constitutional and which are now. By long established precedent, that authority rests with the SCOTUS. If it rested with the state legislatures individually, then we would have no reliable method for creating national laws and the supremacy clause would be meaningless, since every state would always claim that any laws conflicting with its own were unconstitutional.

Originally Posted by Wlessard

Jefferson = Nail on the Head here.

If "our system" means the Constitution (and it seems to everywhere else in this piece) then Jefferson is a terrible authority to quote, since he wasn't part of the body that created that document and, IIRC, wasn't terribly supportive of it at the time.

Originally Posted by Wlessard

States Rights trump Federal. Secession is legal and should a State decide to leave the Union they are completely withing their Rights. The States created the Federal and are Supreme ultimately to the Federal.

That view simply isn't supported by the text of the Constitution. Both the Supremacy Clause and the 10th Amendment make it clear that, within certain limits, the Federal government trumps the individual states (though visa-versa outside those limits). That's the meaning of Federalism: each is sovereign within its own sphere. We can debate the proper limits of those spheres, but for the practical purposes of creating and enforcing law, there most be some single body that determines them. Both practicality and long-standing precedent make the SCOTUS that final, determinate body.

Originally Posted by Wlessard

Currently there are 14 States that have Bills that have passed or are working through their legislatures stating that any Gun Control laws coming out of the Federal will not be enforced, including Texas where they will lock up Federal Officials who try and enforce them.

Hah! Texas is gonna lock up the Feds. I can't wait to see how that works out for Kim Jong Perry.

It's hard to take state secession from the union serious, especially when every state has its hand out for federal programs in their state. I think the arrogance and state of our federal government is below a piss poor rating to say the least, but secession won't solve anything. People are entirely to dependent on the federal government, including the state governments, and any serious consideration of secession would make things very chaotic