This is a hypothetical question, but with the SCOTUS ruling and the way that Odrama is ripping our Constitution and country asunder, it soon might not be.
The United States consists of 50 states joined together. If a state seceeds from the United States, that means it is on its own, it is its own little entity. What happens to the citizens of that state if they seceed? If they are no longer part of the United States are they still citizens of the United States? If they seceed they will be on their own, can form their own gov't, can form their own laws without any interference from the feds.
Nobody I have talked to can give me an answer, so I am putting out to the constitutionalists in this group.
Let's start by saying that there is no need for secession once you understand Federalism and our Constitution. That being said, If a State were to withdraw from the union, it would no longer be "under the Constitution" therefore, it's citizens would NOT be citizens of the United States. Further, seceding would put a State at a severe handicap as it would have to provide it's own currency, own military, etc. It would essentially become a foreign (to the U.S.) country. There would be travel issues, taxation and commerce issues, etc, etc, etc.
Point is; there is no need to take such drastic measures. Ours is a federation of independent sovereign States. Their political power has always resided with them they have allowed greed and ignorance to undermine their sovereignty. It is just that the people have stopped learning the truth of our Constitution and have accordingly elected constitutional illiterates to office. Americans have traded liberty for security over and over again. We have accepted lies as truth, we have learned to vote ourselves sustenance from the treasury and allowed principle to yield to greed, comfort, convenience, etc.
The people are the source of political power in America, there just are so few who still know the truths of our fundamental law and the principles of our founding that the government gets away with whatever they feel like.
Have you read the essays in this list?
Do you know what your State Representatives can do to help us restore Constitutional gove...?
Being from Texas, I hear the secession option discussed constantly. It is unnecessary, and in my opinion, is the selfish way out. No offense, we just need to learn the truth and spread it. Correction is directly proportionate to the number of Americans who learn and agree to work toward restoration. We didn't get here overnight. This has been happening slowly for about one-hundred years. generations have lived and died during this time of slow and steady usurpation. It will not correct itself overnight.
Chris, your points are well taken. But, coming from Texas you already know the Federal response to "secession".
An additional observation! Ours is no longer a federation of independent sovereign States. The almost non-stop abuses of the Constitution by the Federal Government have rendered the States impotent, and the power no longer resides in them or with "we the people" who created the Federal Government. The power lies with the Federal Government, and unless we want to repeat the Revolutionary War, that is where it will stay.
(1) I am from TX. Chris is from Michigan.
(2) I sense that you are frustrated by the SCOTUS opinion in "Arizona" . Do not be disheartened, perhaps we will see a resurgence in eagerness to gain working knowledge of our Constitution. Isn't that what this very discussion seems to be ?
(3) I'll let PH slap your knuckles with her virtual ruler for comments suggesting that the Feds have rendered the States impotent. My good man- the STATES have rendered THEMSELVES impotent by acquiescing to federal usurpation, even willing accomplices in many cases. Eager to get their political "paws" on federal funds, the States have sold their own sovereignty off like a widow sells off the family farm in 5 acre pieces.
(4) AR 2 (American Revolution II) is not a necessity if we can regain control of our creation. We allowed this to happen, now WE have to be accountable and fix it.
(5) Never surrender. You sound like you have surrendered. That last post is NOT the Phillip J. Barker I am familiar with.
Mark (from Texas),
I suppose I did sound as though I have "surrendered", but nothing could be farther from the truth. I simply look at the system, see that it is broken beyond repair, and then look at the re-election of C. Rangle and Orin Hatch, and see that nothing is really on the verge of changing.
Being from Kalifornia, I have less reason to be optimistic than perhaps others because this is a State that will compete with the Federal Government relative to being abusive, and incompetent.
Whether the States rendered themselves impotent, or the Fed's blackmailed, or otherwise cajoled them into impotence is kind of a mute point. I applaud any State that seeks to restore its own sovereignty, but there are too damn few of them.
I see massive civil disobedience to unjust laws and regulations, including the income tax, as the ultimate strategy for change. While this may sound like an endorsement for anarchy, our elected representatives are proving incapable of rolling back the Federal Juggernaut, and rarely does freedom come about without conflict. It is the criminal nature of government to steal power from its citizens. The citizens can either acquiesce, or rebel. Governments never voluntarily surrender what they have stolen. Liberty can only be taken back by the people using whatever force is necessary. We will not "elect" ourselves out of this reality.
If we heed the founder's warnings and advice..
"But it will not follow from this doctrine that acts of the large society which are NOT PURSUANT to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies, will become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such."
Therefore, I see no fault in ignoring entirely, a purported law which is "NOT PURSUANT to ..constitutional powers." Ultimately, this is a personal decision, though one I whole heartedly endorse. The risk of civil disobedience must be considered by each individual. My personal belief is that PRINCIPLE must rise above CONVENIENCE or COMFORT. Take for instance the TSA groping and infringing on our basic human right of dignity. I WILL NOT FLY! I will not permit my desire to get somewhere quickly, to "round the edges" of my principles. Granted, I don't commute across the country for my job so it is easier for me to "boycott" the airlines however I AM passing on a class reunion for this very reason. If more Americans "took the righteous road" rather than the most convenient one, there would certainly be more pressure for corrections. Can you imagine the leverage we could have if we cut out ALL flight plans which were not absolutely necessary? The airline industry would be demanding that Congress remove the TSA from their airports before they went under. Not to mention the stockholders. Hmm?
Regarding States attempting to restore their sovereignty; we must remember that most people are followers NOT leaders. Most people want "someone ELSE" to fix it and want no responsibility in the matter. State governments are no different. Nobody wants to be the first to "jump". It will take a few small successes to get the ball rolling.
I agree, my friend. If we are not willing to collectively stand in opposition of tyranny, even at our inconvenience, than we deserve the chains we allow to be laid upon ourselves, and have no justification for sniveling.
We will not "elect" ourselves out of [tyranny]. Yes, I agree. Such half-efforts are what landed us here to begin with.
Your knowledge and common sense are refreshing and encouraging. You have made it clear that your understanding is a direct result of the time and effort you put into learning the subject. That makes people like me believe there is hope of really learning this if I will just do the same. Thanks so much for your contributions.
Mark, I believe we are kindred spirits. I am an "Honorary Texan". A quick story: When I was a child, running around with my "six shooters", I wanted to be called "Tex". My folks declared that impossible because I was California born. Some friends, natives of Texas, were friends of the Governor of Texas...1955. When they went "home" to visit, they stopped in the Governor's office and declared my desire. The Governor forthwith prepared, and officially stamped, a certificate declaring me an "Honorary Texan".
I will not fly either!!! I have flown throughout my adult life, including 137 business trips to the Far East, multiple trips to S. America, Australia, Britain, and around the U.S., BUT NO MORE! I will drive for days to avoid an "airport experience". Its a matter of principal.
There are considerations for those of us who are "rebellious". "One rebel at a time" is easily sucked up, and disposed of, with nary a ripple in the scheme of things. There must be a "collective stand", as you suggested. I do not know what the trigger will be, but there must be one lest we, as the Jews in Germany, succumb to absolute tyranny...which is in the works!!!!
The Constitution (save a few really dumb amendments) is still good. We simply do not have enough Americans (and NO politicians) telling our CREATION (the federal government) what our Constitution MEANS. We have allowed the federal courts to pervert it's interpretation; we have allowed our politicians to enact illegitimate statutes; we have allowed the executive branch to incorporate the other two branches (legislative and judicial) into one (administrative law); we have allowed a fiat currency to destroy our wealth (federal reserve act) and have acquiesced to the confiscation of our personal property (Income Tax Act and the 16th Amendment)
Publius has written many outstanding essays explaining all of this and more. Of note her recent essay detailing the difference between grounds for electing new representatives (or) State nullification resolutions for assuming power not granted. She explains that the federal government was not and is not a party to the Constitutional Convention but rather the creation by such convention. We are the creators and it is our creation. We must stop BEHAVING as though the federal government which We the People ...did Ordain and Establish, may determine the extent of it's own power !
If you have not read any of the Federalist Papers, I urge you to do so at the earliest convenience. If you go through the short essays in the list I posted previously, you will find excerpts from the Federalist Papers explaining to the American People of the day, what the text, the actual words and clauses of our Constitution MEAN, and the proper application of these clauses. This explanation, the one that was agreed to by the ratification, NOT what the federal courts (including SCOTUS) say it means, is what we must learn. We weren't taught this truth in public schools.
Our government is STILL subordinate to our Constitution IF we enforce it.
Lets look at this another way; in order to secede a State would have an incredible undertaking not the least of which would be a vote by the Citizens of that State voting for or against secession. If any State were able to garner such support for secession why couldn't they simply gain support to enforce the Constitution we already have (but just refuse to learn and enforce) ? What would be the benefits of such a course over secession? You would still have the armed forces of all 50 States for one. And you would be unselfishly setting a precedent for other States to join in the effort. Everyone would benefit rather than just one State and even that is debatable.
As to your question of whether A State could form it's own government...I am confused....Michigan (and indeed ALL States) already HAVE their own government. This is the principle of Federalism; 50 sovereign and independent States that form a federation for LIMITED AND SPECIFICALLY DEFINED PURPOSES. Article 1, Section 8 lists the Specified AUTHORITY granted to the federation. If you peruse this list of powers, you will no doubt notice that MOST of the power granted to the federation was power to deal SINGULARLY (rather than a plurality of 50 separate States) with foreign nations. Domestically; little power was granted to the federation (The Federal Gov't) Look at the enumerated powers in Art 1, Sec 8; The powers which have domestic (within the several States) are basically limited to developing a uniform system of commerce; uniform Bankruptcy laws, uniform systems of weights and measures, Copyright and Patent provisions, postal service, uniform currency. That is about it. There is no listing in Art 1, Sec 8 for education, subsidies (aka welfare) redistribution of wealth, regulating food, medicine, families, children, the environment, forests, banks, wages, employment, farm workers, occupational safety, transportation, private business, etc, yet we have 50 titles of federal Codes and many more regulations from a government which WE THE PEOPLE through our EXISTING STATE GOVERNMENTS created to deal with foreign countries and establish a uniform commercial system. Do you see? We have allowed the creation to dictate to it's creator what the extent of it's powers are !
So, if Michiganders are willing to vote as a majority to secede, how much better for ALL States, that they simply employ that same political capital to enforce the Constitution our founders gave us and restore the original interpretation ? The benefit is much greater, wouldn't you say?
Basically; secession is indicative of fear; whereas enforcement of existing fundamental law (Constitution) is indicative of political might ! :)