 "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Odd isn't it? "... deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ..."
Just because I consent to let you borrow my pick-up today does not imply it is permanent consent.
"... it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, ..."
Secession is abolishing. This is the United (that means voluntary association) States (in international law, a State is a self-governing entity aka country) of America. In other words, think of the USA as the blueprint for the European Union. A union of independent states that slowly but assuredly has their independence stripped from them for the common good of the Union. It is called communitarianism.
Just what part of the DoI do you fail to understand?
Then you fail to consider that the DoI has absolutely nothing to do with the Constitution. 4 July 1776
Along came the Articles of Confederation 15 November 1777
Then the Constitution was ratified 21 July 1788
But along came the first 10 Amendments aka Bill of Rights on 15 Dec 1791
The Xth Amendment is the key.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Whereas there is nothing prohibiting secession in the Constitution. It has been claimed that the prohibition is implied by Article I section 8 phrase regarding "suppress insurrections" , Article I section 9 regarding "suspension of Habeas Corpus during Rebellion" and Article IV section 3 regarding "New States admitted ... Congressional power to ... territory."
Some drag in the second paragraph of Article VI regarding treaties as further evidence of implied elimination of the right of secession. Their crippled argument on this one uses the inference that a treaty binds all parties and their constituent parts ergo, you can't secede and refuse to abide by the treaty.
Bubba, you have no argument beyond Lincoln's "Might makes Right." That seemed to have worked out just fine for him at Ford's Theater.
Please consider Amendment I and especially the last phrase of the sentence. "... to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
redress, n,1. the setting right of what is wrong, 2. compensation or satisfaction for a wrong or injury. ...
Then why Amendment II? Aka "The right to keep and bear arms." The supporting documentation is readily available as to the why, see above paragraph. SCOTUS has ruled it means what it means.
You, and others, need to read, study and learn history. Step 1, toss out all the nonsense your teacher, your parents and your politicians told you. If you begin a course of study with a strong bias in place, you will learn nothing. Is is said that you don't ever know a subject until you can effectively argue either side.
I'll leave you with this thought. The USA and its Constitution came into existence to protect property rights. Lincoln's war was a successful attack and usurpation of property rights. The wealth of the south was either destroyed or transferred to the north by pillaging and bureaucrats. That wealth transfer is well documented.
Although I support the right of secession, it must be the absolute last conceivable solution. For even when successful, it carries real, substantial and unforeseen long-term risks.  Commenté il y a 4033 jours |
