White House Bombarded with Petitions to Secede – Is Secession Constitutional? – The Cases and Interpretation rest on Lincoln Address!

The Illustrated Republic of Texas - image: rightlinkblogs.com – see article from Tree of Mamre

State’s Petitions for Secession from the United States of America is nothing new, and the Secession of the Southern States and subsequent formation of an independent nation, as a Confederacy – and subsequent Civil War are part and parcel of history and myth. President Abraham Lincoln is lauded for his fight to free the slaves, yet little is known about the economic incentives that drove the battle between the States, nor the manner in which Lincoln shredded the Constitution, which today’s naysayers insist prevents Secession.

As of November 13th, 34 States had submitted Petitions to the White House to secede. The States now include: Nebraska, Ohio, West Virginia, Nebraska, Kansas, Pennsylvania, California, Utah, South Dakota, Delaware, Nevada and Alaska. Colorado, Arkansas, South Carolina, Georgia, Missouri, Tennessee, Michigan, New York, Oregon, New Jersey, North Dakota, Montana, Indiana, Mississippi, Kentucky, Arizona, Alabama, North Carolina, Florida, Oklahoma, Louisiana and Texas. (Greeley Gazette).

However, these are petitions that are signed by Citizens of the States in Question, and, although an answer from the White House is allegedly required upon attainment of 25,000 signatures, it is doubtful they carry more weight than a protest. That protest however, is economic in purpose and the ends to the means is noting disapproval of a job not well done by the President and the Federal Government in general. It is a peaceful protest in scope, requiring nothing more than an internet connection. That said it does carry weight in certain states that have asserted their rights under the Second Amendment, which is the first step towards actual secession.

There were, at last count, 20 states that had drafted, and filed legislation asserting these rights. Although Rick Perry the Governor of the State of Texas has ”dimissed the petitions for secession (Austin Statesman), the Governor was the first to sign and certify Texas’ Sovereignty under the 10th Amendment. Rick Perry, of all individuals in the State of Texas understands the rights of States (DMS). In fact up to 20 of these “United States”, have suggested their sovereignty, in 2009. That would be the first step in a process that would lead to a break between the State and Federal Government allowed under the 10th amendment.

But what of the Constitution? That’s interesting as there is no specific mention or suggestion in the actual document that does not allow for a State to secede should they so choose. The courts have weighed in, of course, and noted it is “not constitutional”, yet the citing from a recent (2002) case in Alaska, where a ballot initiative was struck down by the State’s AG, suggests that what these judges have based their “constitutional opinion” upon, is a letter or address from none other than Abraham Lincoln.

Refer to the treatment on the case here: at FindLaw:

The constitutionality of secession was “intensely debated and ․ unresolved” until the end of the Civil War.17 As President Abraham Lincoln stated in his first inaugural address, “A disruption of the Federal Union heretofore only menaced, is now formidably attempted.” 18  President Lincoln tried to persuade the country to reject threats of secession from southern states, arguing that “no State, upon its own mere motion, can lawfully get out of the Union,-that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void,” 19 and that “the Union of these States is perpetual.” 20  While a state's ability to secede was an unsettled question before the end of the Civil War, subsequent United States Supreme Court opinions have concluded that secession is clearly unconstitutional, and Lincoln's belief in a perpetual Union is reflected in what we have described as “a plenitude of Supreme Court cases holding as completely null” the acts of secession by Confederate states.21  In Texas v. White, an opinion issued just after the Civil War, the United States Supreme Court stated:

The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States.   When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation.   All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State.   The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact;  it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body.   And it was final.   The union between Texas and other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States.   There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States.

This is the law to which we Alaskans bound ourselves at the moment we achieved statehood.   We recognized in Kohlhaas I:  “When the forty-nine-star flag was first raised at Juneau, we Alaskans committed ourselves to that indestructible Union, for good or ill, in perpetuity.” 23  We concluded that because “[s]ecession is clearly unconstitutional” 24 and “[b]ecause the initiative [sought] a clearly unconstitutional end, the lieutenant governor correctly declined to certify it.”

Nowhere in the above decision and background footnotes on the decision in the Kohlhasss case, suggests that there is a provision written into the Constitution, rather, it is the address of Abraham Lincoln to which those justices refer, and an interpretation by justices of the provisions, rather than an actual article, which suggest the States may never leave. Apparently, these justices gave little heed to the 10th amendment and States’ rights to Sovereignty.

How reasonable is Secession? It really depends on how much the State in question is dependent upon the Federal Government? At this point in the nation’s economic history, one would suggest it may be the other way around (as it was with Lincoln) whereby the Federal Government needs these States more than the States need the Federal Government. Those that fear “Civil War” might wonder how on earth that might be accomplished – given the Presidents propensity to weigh decisions requiring military action and/or strongly worded statements for weeks if not months! More over it is this opinion that the State’s do have the right under the 10th Amendment, and there are no specific directions within the document to restrain a State from leaving the Union.

The expenses incurred, from the printing of money, the care of the citizens, the defense of the newly formed State (or for lack of a better word, and stemming from the document preceding the Constitution), or Confederacy of States, would not be worth the headache. The Petitions however, are worth this as a protest given the “Fiscal Cliff” and a media, that many believe, is less than forthcoming when it comes to this Administration.

Are they serious – yes, talk to friends in Texas who are Independent in nature, or any other state and they are convinced that secession is “doable” Buy property in Texas, as a hedge, or pick a state where the legislature and Governor have declared Sovereignty. It may be a hedge against inflation, or should one wish to take sides, a home “abroad”, or in the very least, an investment. Consider that this election was close, and this election was based on ideology rather than any other issue. Consider that 48% of the citizens of these United States were convinced the direction of the nation was wrong. It’s 2001 all over again, and instead of those insisting they have Bush Derangement Syndrome and must take three weeks off, or go to France – these disgruntled or fearful, individuals are seeking to stay closer to home.

No kidding, this blogger now has property in Texas.