Tag: Constitution

Categories
National politics

The Issue of Secession


Image by The COM Library

We just had an election. Once it was over some people began talking about seceding. This is not the first time the United States has faced such a situation. I was reminded of that after seeing Lincoln. As we talked after the movie Laura asked why we fought rather than just letting the southern states leave. We talked about some of the implications of secession – it is certainly not a simple topic – but as I have been thinking about it I came to the conclusion that the fact that there is no provision for secession in the Constitution might need to be changed at some point. With that in mind I decided to draft such a provision to further explore the nuances of the concept of secession.

I would like to make it clear that I am not in favor of seceding at this time nor do I foresee a time when I would favor it but I think that creating a clear path for secession might be useful in making the possibility more understandable for those who might wish to consider it. In fact, if crafted correctly it might even serve as a deterrent to some who might pursue the idea without due consideration.

I based my draft on the concepts embodied in the provisions for the admission of new states (Article IV Section 3). Specifically I wanted to promote self determination, a deliberate process, and continued order. Here it is:

States may petition the Congress to secede from the Union. The Congress must vote on a treaty of secession within two years of the petition or else the petitioning state may offer its own treaty of secession which the Congress must vote on within 10 days. The President may not veto a treaty of secession unless he is a resident of the petitioning state or the treaty was drafted by Congress within the two years allowed. Secession shall not be completed until after a one year waiting period which begins after the Congress and the Legislature of the petitioning state have ratified a treaty of secession and after the Legislature and the people of the petitioning state have each voted in favor of secession in separate votes conducted at least 350 and no more than 400 days apart. If the treaty of secession is ratified more than four years after the vote of the residents of the seceding state, the residents of the seceding state must approve the treaty of secession in a popular vote during the one year waiting period.

During the one year waiting period the seceding state shall have all the rights and obligations of all other states in the Union. If the President is a resident of a seceding state the vice president shall assume the office of president at the beginning of the waiting period for the duration of the term.

Seceding states may be readmitted to the Union in the same manner as new states at any time but must remain independent from other political unions for a period of five years following their formal secession.

Parts of states may secede from the Union by first following the procedures to become a new state. In cases of a partial state secession a treaty of secession must be ratified by the Congress and the Legislature of the newly approved state and the one year waiting period must be observed but the people of the new state may vote in favor of secession prior to the creation of the new state and the legislature of the new state may vote in favor of secession anytime within the first 400 days after the creation of the new state regardless of when the people of the newly created state voted in favor of secession.

It was interesting to see what details came to my mind as I tried crafting this provision. I would love to hear from others if there are issues I have failed to address or if there are things you would change about this draft.

I’d also be interested in hearing any other thoughts about secession that anyone would care to share.

Categories
culture politics thoughts

The Liberty Line

By Chris Yarzab

In response to my question from yesterday I was surprised to discover that I got an answer and that the answer was an emphatic if ever-tenuous “yes.” We do have reason to celebrate our independence as a nation presently. More important than what the answer was was realizing what line in the sand would determine, at least for me, when the time had come that we no longer had reason to celebrate.

During the course of the festivities yesterday we stopped to pray over our afternoon meal (I’m sure people will not be surprised to learn that we were doing some grilling in the back yard for our meal) and while my brother in law was praying I realized that as long as we enjoyed religious liberty in this country, the freedom to pursue worship as we individually see fit (the only reasonable limitation being that one person cannot compel another to do something based on the first persons religious beliefs and practices), we would have reason to celebrate Independence Day. I don’t recall if there was something said in the prayer that prompted the realization or if it was simply the act of praying itself but the realization was powerful.

There are many other types of liberty in our nation that make our independence worthwhile but for myself I consider that if I had freedom of speech and association, the right to bear arms, protections against unreasonable search and seizure, respect for personal property, and all the other freedoms enshrined in our constitution but had the freedom to practice my religion taken away I would find no cause to celebrate what was left of our independence. On the other hand, if my freedom to live according to my religious belief were adequately protected but all other liberties were unprotected (insofar as they could be without infringing that one right) I would do whatever I could to promote those other natural rights but I would still consider myself blessed to live in a time and place where my religious freedom was recognized.

Categories
culture politics

We Are Not Doing Enough

In answer to Lyall’s question – “Are we doing enough?” In fact, Lyall answered his own question by saying:

I remember three US history classes in school . . . Not one of them came close to teaching me about US history or gave me an appreciation for our Republic and constitution . . .

For me the best part of the post was the quote from and reference to Commentaries on the Constitution. Based solely on that quote I intend to read that volume and hope to raise my appreciation for our Constitution and government.

Categories
National politics

Weak Representation

In a move that was anything but surprising, the Senate voted to gut the constitution rather than stand up against the politics of fear. Democrats control both houses of Congress and yet this bill passed by large margins in both chambers. Senator Obama thinks that the executive branch is using fear to extract more power and yet he halted his presidential campaigning to go vote in favor of this capitulation to the politics of fear. The New York Times explains the outcome of the vote this way:

. . . many Democrats were wary of going into their political convention in Denver next month with the issue hanging over them—handing the Republicans a potent political weapon.

In other words, the Democrats were so afraid of defending their votes that they capitulated to the minority party rather than cast their vote according to their beliefs. This indicates that they believe in re-election above all else. Maybe we should reword the oath of office to reflect reality – “I pledge to support and defend my re-election at the end of this term.” This is the same thing that had Republicans, when they were in the majority, voting to expand domestic discretionary spending at unprecedented rates in an effort to create a permanent Republican majority. The Republicans were rewarded with the loss of both houses of Congress in the midterm elections. I wonder how the Democrats will be rewarded (probably not with the loss of the majority at this time).

P.S. Naturally Hatch and Bennett voted in favor – they were probably squirming in anticipation as they waited to cast their votes.

Categories
life politics

Independence From What

In church today there were a number of things spoken related to Independence Day. One of the people who spokle wa a woman from the UK who noted that the celebration was of independence from Great Britain. Of course that is a natural perspective, but I think that we need to recognize that that what we are really celebrating is independence from oppresive government. In Eighteenth Century America the government of Great Britain was the embodiment of government oppression.

Today we should still be mindful of any government oppression and assert our continued independence by participating in the system and holding government accountable because freedom from government oppression can only be had by clinging to an authority higher and more lasting than the current administration. That is why each officer of government at all levels pledges to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States – now if they would all keep their pledge.

Categories
National politics

Original Intent

While I fully agree that the Electoral College was not an arbitrary decision and should not be abolished, I also think that we need to articulate the arguments in favor of the Electoral College better than simply stating:

Our Forefathers specifically wanted the STATES to elect the President and Vice President, not the general public.

That argument is about as compelling as the argument often used by those who want to abolish the Electoral College that we have the means to count every vote today (as if addition had not been invented back in 1789). Our Founding Fathers did want the states to elect the President and Vice President, but they also wanted the states to elect Senators. We passed the 17th Amendment to change that for Senators so reading history books may tell us that the Electoral College was a conscious choice by the founders, but those same history books also remind us that we have ignored the founders in the past and we could do so again in the 28th Amendment.

Categories
politics

Articles of Confederation

In the midst of my efforts to evaluate all the Federalist Papers, I realized that I had never read the Articles of Confederation which was the basis against which the Constitution was written and against which the Federalist Papers were generally basing their arguments.

The Articles of Confederation were the first attempt by the states at an independent and unified central government. As I have watched the rise of the European Union I have often thought that Europe was trying to recreate the structure of the United States government among their member states. As I read the Articles of Confederation I realize that what they have built looks much more like the Unites States from 1777 to 1788 under those articles than the United States after 1788 under the Constitution.

I will probably do more evaluation in a comparative fashion while reviewing the Federalist Papers and the Constitution, but a few points of interest that struck me as I read include:

    • Article 5 – The states determine the size of their congressional delegation (from 2 to 7) but each state has a single vote. Even more interesting were the term limits placed on each delegate – they could serve no more than 3 years out of any 6.
    • Article 9 – The congress of the united states, besides being the legislative body of the nation, served as the executive power for the nation (insofar as there was any executive power), and was charged with adjudicating, or establishing a temporary court to adjudicate, any dispute between two states – thus serving as (or controlling) the judicial branch of government.
    • Article 11 – Canada was explicitly invited to join the united states if it desired to but any other colony could join without the consent of 9 of the states.
Categories
National politics

A Good Summary of the FLDS Situation in Texas

I really liked the content of the well titled San Angelo Witch Hunts. The author does a good job of outlining the case and demonstrating that so far we have ample evidence that the authorities are and were violating the Constitutional rights of the FLDS people (even if they were breaking the law) and that we have zero solid evidence that the FLDS people were actually violating the laws. Either there is a lot of evidence that is not being made public (which would still not excuse the illegal actions of the authorities) or else this is an example of authorities who have zero respect for the most fundamental laws of the nation.

I don’t think anyone could read that post and still excuse the actions of the Texas authorities.

Categories
culture National politics

A Thin Red Line

I stumbled upon a great statement on the line that separates civilization from anarchy. Timothy Gatto writes this in response the the FLDS situation:

While you might not agree with what the FLDS is doing, it doesn’t warrant any civil authorities to act outside of Constitutional law. When civil authorities bypass or ignore the Constitution, we are all put in jeopardy, and we are that much closer to living under a totalitarian government that makes up its own laws as it goes along. Sometimes the issues are larger than the crimes. I think I can safely say that most Americans abhor the practice of using young girls as ‘breeders” and in the process satisfy the lust of old men, but that issue isn’t as important as civil authorities acting outside the law. We are supposed to be a nation that believes in the rule of law. That premise is behind the definition of a civilized state. The law is for everyone to obey, the governors as well as the governed. Once the line that separates civilization from lawlessness is crossed, the result is anarchy, no matter who crosses that line first. There were other ways of stopping what was happening to these young girls. The authorities didn’t have to violate anyone’s constitutional rights.

While he is speaking specifically to that one case, the line he draws – the respect for law by those who govern and those who are governed – is a universal line. It’s a line we really can’t afford to cross.

Categories
National politics State

A Reasonable Proposition

I think Tim Lynch has outlined a good idea for moving forward from the FLDS Texas Nightmare. This is what the Texas CPS would do if they were serious about upholding the law and pursuing justice.

    • Send the 300 children under age 4 home since there has been no evidence of abuse and they are a decade from being forced into underage marriage.
    • Send the boys over the age of 4 home because there is no evidence of abuse toward them.
    • Allow the police one more week (since it’s already been three) to present evidence of abuse. Absent that evidence they should send the rest of the girls home as well.

Tim suggests that the investigations can continue past the next week, and prosecutions can come whenever there is evidence for a trial, but holding innocent children in detention, away from their parents for three weeks, without being able to present any evidence of abuse is a slap in the face of justice.