If such forces as desire it can peacefully achieve an amendment which permits such a separation, I believe I’ll abide it. Absent such an amendment I think I will not.
how can those two diametrically opposed philosophies be reconciled?The two sides make each other hurting and dead until one side gives up first. What, you don’t think that how it was done in 1783 ?
Coercing one to live within the model state of the other would be to deprive a large portion of the population of its liberty.The thing is, they are not at liberty to have what they want. What they want is not to live in liberty, but to enjoy the fruits of taking license. When what a person wants is not their’s to have, their taking it is theft–and ultimately, lethal force can justly be used to prevent such a felony. Let them have their New New Harmony if they can muster the wit to build it, and we’ll run a pool for the date of it collapsing.
There is nothing wrong with the peaceable dissolution of the Union or the relationship between the states to be changed.Oh I think there’s a great deal wrong with the peaceable dissolution of the Union in the manner Franks suggests, and the the relationship between the states and each other and the national government has certainly changed–not for the better. It would not be a better thing in outcome if it had been done by amendment, but it would at least be genuinely legitimate in the contect of the organic law.
but Thomas Jefferson said the several states should go their separate ways if they were to decide the Union did not work in their mutual benefitThos. J said a lot of things. He had an intemperate nature to go with his red hair–he was enamored of the French Mob, and thought little of the ill said of them was true, although the tumbrels had been rolling for a while–his judgement is suspect in that light. If it improves liberty, I will support it, what Franks speaks of will not improve it, so I will oppose it. If it is not done according to the civil law–the process of amendment–thenit surely should be opposed in keeping with the law of war.
it is interesting to note that the Constitution is silent on the issue of secessionIt is certainly is not silent on the matter. Powers are given over to the national government, and there is no mechanism therein for their retrieval to the states–except parenthetically by amendment–so there is no mechanism for the retrieval at this time nor was there such in 1860.
The 10th amendment is no mechanism for seccession, because it excludes from the free exercise by the states the powers given to the national government–those powers are the states no longer. What powers the states retain they do not need to secede to exercise, because they already have them without seccession.
Since the states are not explicitly prevented from seceded by the ConstitutionYes they are, as I have demonstrated. What powers the national government has– absent an amendment to the contrary– it retains, and the laws made pertaining to those powers are the supreme law of the land, the pretensions of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
the federal government is not given the power to suppress secession,Oh yeah? Such a power given to the national government follows:
“To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;”And a duty given to the President:
“The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;”
and the oath of that office:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
The national government is not merely given the power to do it, the President is not at liberty not to do it.
it is allowed through the Tenth Amendment.
The 10th amendment creates no new power to secede unilaterally for the states. It merely says powers not given to the national government haven’t been given, not that when they were given the states didn’t really mean it or that the supremacy clause or other clauses I’ve quoted against secession above were null and void.
I also vowed to defend the Constitution, and I have no moral reservation about the idea of secession.If, absent an amendment to permit it, you have no moral reservations about secession, then when you took that vow–in my view–you did so in a cloud of ignorance or deceit.
But it should always remain a viable option, as it is a powerful tool for the states to retain some power.It is a legal, viable, option now by virtue of the 5th amendment. I think it would improve nothing if so exercised as to make real Franks vision reality, in fact I think it would be tragic.
If you haven’t noticed, the states in fact retain great power now–RealID is all but dead as a doornail. If it were pressed, I shouldn’t be surprised to see state troopers or if need be the state militias telling the TSA goons to depart their screening stations.
And I would welcome that, the commerce clause is solely about customs fees between the states, it is not a plenipotentiary grant of power for the Congress to control whatever might brush up against what might cross a state line.
Similarly, the customs duties the national government may require on goods crossing into the US are not about Progressively influencing what recreational pharmaceuticals we consume, they can only be about supporting national industries–sadly, the Founders believed in Mercantilism as an economic policy–and about those fees being the same throughout all ports of entry.
That’s one reason I’m astonished Franks wrote this piece.
As far as I can tell, he long ago declared he was on the pinko, Constitution be d@mned side of things, he just whinges about the parts of it he doesn't like.