Image result for dr dans freedom forum

Help Educate America
Click on the following link to help educate America.
Donations are not tax deductible.

Keith Broaders
1230 N Street #510
Sacramento, California 95814
Phone (916) 399-4881

Whether a state has a right to secede from the Union or not is covered in the Tenth Amendment.

The states created the Union and before ratifying the Constitution they demanded a Bill of Rights be added to the Constitution.

They wanted to be absolutely certain that the newly formed government to be the servant of the people and the states.

It was well understood that any power or authority not specifically granted to the National government was retained to the states and the people. Since the right of secession is not mention in the Constitution, it is one of the rights retained by the states.

The thirteen colonies seceded from the British Empire and set a precedence. When in the opinion of the people of a given state feel the National government has violated the terms of the Constitution they have a right to sever the connection.

In the pyramid of political power, God created man and was the supreme sovereign, Man created the states, and the states created the Union. The central government was the low man on the totem pole. The right of secession is like an insurance policy against governmental tyranny.

Personally, I am not in favor of states seceding from the Union, but I am in favor of strict enforcement of the Constitution. I believe that the Constitution delegated limited powers to the National government were few and well defined while the powers retained by the states were nearly limitless.

By accepting the notion that in the Constitution there are implied powers you give the government the authority to expand their powers beyond what was intended. The powers of the National government can only be changed thought the amendment process outlined in Article V.

Today the Constitution is amended every time an unconstitutional law is passed, an executive order is writing or whenever the Supreme Court misinterprets the Constitution. Any amendment proposed to the states for ratification must be approved by two thirds of the members of the House and Senate and must be ratified by three fourths of the states.

Making positive changes in the Constitution is nearly impossible because getting two thirds of the member of Congress to vote on an amendment that would strip them some of their power is highly unlikely. The first ten amendments limited the power of the government to abuse the rights of the people, but all of the subsequent amendments have expanded the power and control of the government over the people.

The right of secession gives the states the ability to hold the servant government accountable. Denying the states their sovereignty turns the servant into the master.

Just like a marriage contract that can be dissolved so can the contract between the states and their servant government. Secession is the last resort, we should and make every effort to preserve the Union and restore Constitutional Republic. We don't need to amend the Constitution, we simply need to obey it.

The lawful right to secede

Views: 1127

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

The Powers to the states were not an could not be limitless because like the federal government, state governments are artificial entities a creation of the mind, legal fictions not unlike corporations

Therefore the Unlimited power rests with the People.

You are absolutely correct. The power is in the people!

The right of Secession is not mentioned in the constitution, therefor the right of secession is retained by the people, not the states.

Because the states are artificial entities/legal fictions created by law, the people who exist in nature created the laws that created the legal fictions.

The states take their marching orders from the people.

Not right now they don't Keith. We are living under a different paradigm. We have been lied to about everything we thought was real. We live in a state run, Admiralty/ Maritime, code filled, democratic dictatorship instead of a Constitutional representative Republic as we were promised.

I have to agree with Morton. They treat our needs and opinions like a fart in a windstorm. I know from what folks are saying on this blog that they are interested in bringing back the lawful Republic, which is where every right thinking American's aims should be, however, I can't see how trying to improve the de-facto regime that's running the country today can accomplish that.

They took over our de-jure govt. with stealth, cunning and bribery. Before we bring back the de-jure we have to figure out how to shut down the de-facto. I haven't seen any plan on how to do that yet. I certainly don't see how adding more Reps to their govt. is going to help us. Those in Congress are laughing their asses off at our struggle for true representation. It'll never happen as long as the lobbyists are standing in the hallways with their corporate checkbooks. 435 or 6000, it doesn't matter a whole lot. Printing checks is dirt cheap.

Those in power are never willing to give up one shred of their control unless they are met with overpowering force. Ghandi did it by convincing the people to quietly disobey everything the British pushed on them. Civil disobedience does work but it would not work here, at least not at this time, because Americans are fat, whiny, and lazy. They are addicted to the 'easy button' and those stupid, all consuming cell phones. We have spawned a nation of worthless air-headed crybabies that can't even locate the state where they are living on map.

when in the course of human events it becomes necessary to change the government and it's operation, then change it!!!  Go back to the Constitution of 1787.  Dump the crap the cabal has inserted in the current one and return to the republican form of government promised the PEOPLE (if they can hold on to it).  Time is getting shorter and shorter, return to the original creation!!

The southern states tried to do just that. They wished for a return to the Articles of Confederation.

so, are you saying that we should just give up because it did not work when it was attempted before?  I can NOT agree with that, failure is an excuse not a solution!

Where did you see me say that it's not worth trying?

I made a single statement about the southern states working towards a goal. I never said anything about giving up, so please don't put words in where there are none.

This is true.  The only problem is the people. They would rather whine and say "Oh we can't do it. The government is too big or powerful." Well grow a set like our forefathers and make it happen.  The people have forgotten that the power is in their hands, not politicians.

In my opinion there was no doubt a state had this right in 1860, but not today...   so my question is, what has changed???  the constitution sure didn't, or at least not in this regard.


© 2020   Created by Online Professor.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service