The Legality of Northern Secession (easily adaptable elsewhere)

Submitted by elchololoco moderator in secession (edited )

The United States Constitution (Amendment X) grants to every State in the Union every power which is neither expressly delegated by the Constitution to the Federal government nor expressly prohibited by the Constitution to the States. While the Constitution does address admission to the Union, it says nothing at all about secession; this power is neither expressly delegated to the Federal government nor expressly prohibited to the States. Therefore, the power of secession is reserved to the States or the People.

In addition, Amendment IX explicitly says that the Constitution is not an exhaustive list of every right the People have. As proof of this, consider how our own State Constitutions guarantee us rights that the criminal Federal government does not. New York, for example, guarantees its citizens the right to form labor unions and to bargain collectively with employers (N.Y. Const. Art. I, Sec. 18). Rhode Island guarantees its citizens the right to catch fish and gather seaweed from the shore of the sea (R.I. Const. Art. I, Sec. 17). Vermonters are guaranteed the right to hunt game and fowl (Vt. Const. Sec. 67). More importantly, all six New England States guarantee their citizens the right of revolution, and they do so in very explicit terms, similar to those used by New Hampshire:

Government [is] instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind. (N.H. Const. Art. 10; emhpasis added and some commas removed)

Although the enemy country's Supreme Court held in Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869), that States do not have the right to unilaterally secede from the Union, that case is no longer good law. It has been superseded.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948 by the United Nations, guarantees every people the right of self-determination and every human being the right of peaceable assembly and free association. UDHR Art. 20 further provides that “No one may be compelled to belong to an association.”

At common law—and according to common principles of reason and political philosophy—it is generally accepted that States and Nations are associations of people. Aristotle wrote that the State “is a culmination of widening circles of human association based on human wants”, and that indeed, it is “the highest form of human association”.

It therefore follows that per UDHR Art. 20, no one may be compelled to remain a member of a particular nation-state. When many people act together and exercise their individual right against compulsory association, the People are collectively exercising their right of self-determination. Why is this important?

The foregoing is important because Article VI of the Federal Constitution explicitly puts international treaties on par with the Constitution itself:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. [emphasis added]

The enemy country's Senate has not ratified the UDHR, because it is composed of greedy, malicious sociopaths who do not care one bit about the welfare of human beings, only their own power and emolument. However, in 1992, the enemy country's Senate did ratify the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; and the ICCPR is essentially just a restatement of the UDHR in more specific language, e.g. Article 22, Sec. 1, which reads, “Everyone shall have the right to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and join trade unions for the protection of his interests.”

Therefore, any judicial decision which purports to compel anyone to belong to an association (as Texas v. White does) is unconstitutional, because it violates the ICCPR. No one has yet brought a legal action directly challenging the constitutionality of Texas v. White, but we question the propriety of paying money to the enemy country for permission to bring a case against it in its own courts.

More importantly, though, the People of our States are still justified in seeking self-determination regardless of what any law or court might say. When the Thirteen Colonies declared independence from Britain, King George and the British Parliament said they had no right to do so. This statement was wrong then, and it is equally wrong now. When a government says to its People that they have no right to self-determination, that government is exercising an oppressive and arbitrary power, and the People have the right to resist that power as well as to defend themselves against its exercise; and this resistance need not only take such tame, ineffectual forms as a tyrannical government might allow—like telephoning sociopathic Senators who won’t listen, or circulating petitions which won’t get read, or casting votes on electronic machines which can be easily rigged.

The pages of history repeatedly show us example after example of the People fighting for their freedom against tyrants who seek to seek to destroy it, and in many cases, they show them winning. There is in every human heart a yearning to be free, to live one’s life on one’s own terms; to enjoy liberty from restraint so long as one does not harm others; to chart one’s own course and pursue the lifestyle which is most agreeable to one’s own mind. This is what the phrase “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” means; and any government which seeks to deny those rights is a tyranny in all but name. Such a government is illegitimate and deserves neither the loyalty nor the acquiescence of free people.


You must log in or register to comment.