‘There Is No Right to Secede’: See the Alleged Letter Where Justice Scalia Shoots Down Idea of Leaving the Union

Comments Off on ‘There Is No Right to Secede’: See the Alleged Letter Where Justice Scalia Shoots Down Idea of Leaving the Union

Actually Scalia is wrong….the States can secede. His premise is the Civil War showed us there is no right to secede….that is crazy for a man in his position to make such a statement and he is dead wrong. The only thing settled by the civil war is that the federal government will murder it’s own people to squash dissent.

Last night, TheBlaze reported that residents of 27 states had filed petitions with the White House to be allowed to secede from the union. As of today, that number has swelled to 47.

But could it actually happen? Do states even have a right to secede anymore? The answer, according to arguably the most respected conservative Justice of the United States Supreme Court, is an unequivocal “no.”

Over at New York Personal Injury Attorney Blog, author Eric Turkewitz recounts an interesting  story of how his brother, a screenwriter, managed to apparently coax an answer out of Scalia on precisely this topic:

Dan is a screenwriter (whose screenplay Tranquility Base was just named a finalist at the Vail Film Festival, and previously took top honors elsewhere). Back in 2006 he started working on a political farce that had Maine seceding from the United States and joining Canada.[…]

So, on a lark, he wrote to each of the 10 Supreme Court justices (including O’Connor) with this request:

I’m a screenwriter in New York City, and am writing to see if you might be willing to assist me in a project that involves a unique constitutional issue. My latest screenplay is a comedy about Maine seceding from the United States and joining Canada. There are parts of the story that deal with the legality of such an event and, of course, a big showdown in the Supreme Court is part of the story.

At the moment my story is a 12 page treatment. As an architect turned screenwriter, it is fair to say that I come up a bit short in the art of Supreme Court advocacy. If you could spare a few moments on a serious subject that is treated in a comedic way, I would greatly appreciate your thoughts. I’m sure you’ll find the story very entertaining.

I told Dan he was nuts. I told him his letter would be placed in the circular file. And then Scalia wrote back. Personally.

And what did Justice Scalia say? Pretty much that not only could Maine not secede (ironically enough, Maine is one of the three states that has no secession petition on the White House website), but the question is so firmly settled that it could not even get a hearing before the Supreme Court, because the United States government would refuse to entertain it:

I am afraid I cannot be of much help with your problem, principally because I cannot imagine that such a question could ever reach the Supreme Court. To begin with, the answer is clear. If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede. (Hence, in the Pledge of Allegiance, “one Nation, indivisible.”) Secondly, I find it difficult to envision who the parties to this lawsuit might be. Is the State suing the United States for a declaratory judgment? But the United States cannot be sued without its consent, and it has not consented to this sort of suit.

I am sure that poetic license can overcome all that — but you do not need legal advice for that. Good luck with your screenplay.

So there you have it. No right to secede exists (according to Scalia that is) , and residents of those 47 states are just blowing smoke. Nevertheless, it says something that the topic seems to come up every time a polarizing president is reelected.

Advertisements

Teachers Face Investigations for Anti-Obama Messages

4 Comments

I have to ask, what in the world is happening to America?  Is this America or Communist China? Do we have a 1st amendment or don’t we? There were NO threats made in this case, ONLY people “offended” by this teacher. To that I say, SO WHAT, I get offended almost daily now, so can I get the ones that offend me investigated? I doubt it. Is Obama our President or our Dictator? Because this type thing makes him look more like a dictator. Unbelieveable for this to be happening in America…..land of the “free”.

Two public school teachers are facing investigations for posting messages that some perceived as critical of President Obama on social networking sites.

In Rock Hill, SC, a middle school teacher was placed on leave after she posted a message on her personal Facebook page about President Obama and food stamps.

“Congrats Obama,” she allegedly wrote. “As one of my students sang down the hallway, ‘We get to keep our food stamps’ … which I pay for because they can’t budget their money … and really, neither can you.”

A school spokesperson said they had received several calls complaining about the eighth grade math teacher at Rawlinson Road Middle School. The teacher has apologized.

A school official told Fox News that the complaints originated from pro-Obama supporters outside the school.

“People outside the school system that saw her posting and some of them said they were offended by it,” spokesperson Elaine Baker said. “She used poor judgment according to our social media policy. Teachers are kept to higher standards.”

Baker said teachers and school employees should “watch what they post on Facebook to be careful.”

“Sometimes you just can’t speak out publicly about what you’d personally like to say, about anything,” she told television station WSOC.

A high school teacher in Columbus, Ohio is under investigation after he posted what some considered an anti-Obama message on his personal Facebook page.

“Congrats to those dependent on government, homosexuals, potheads, JAY-Z fans, non-Christians, non-taxpayers, illegals, communists, Muslims, planned murder clinics, enemies of America, Satan You WON,” the unidentified teacher wrote.

A spokesman for Columbus City Schools confirmed to Fox News that the Linden McKinley High School teacher was being investigated – but he remains in the classroom.

Hazel Davis, who has a son in ninth grade, was one of the parents who complained about the post.

“I didn’t think it was right,” she told the Columbus Dispatch. “He’s talking about a majority of the people that go to the school.”

The school district confirmed to Fox News that 95 percent of the students receive a taxpayer-funded lunch.

“I don’t think he should be teaching anybody,” she told the newspaper.

Fox News Radio

White House website deluged with secession petitions from 20 states

1 Comment

If the States want to seceed from the Union, they don’t need permission from the Federal government. The States created the federal government. I don’t believe it will happen, but we’ll see what the reaction is. According to the US Constitution:

“that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and institute new Government.”

From Worldnet Daily:

Movement started day after election spreading like wildfire.

Since WND first reported that residents in the state of Louisiana were petitioning to secede from the U.S., residents in over 20 more states have filed requests with the White House to peaceably break from the union.

Furthermore, the Louisiana petition has topped 14,000 signatures, more than halfway to the threshold needed after which the White House has pledged to respond.

And for Texas, one of the new states to join the fray, the signature count now tops 25,000.

The White House’s We the People website explains that once a petition reaches 25,000 signatures, it will be placed on a queue for response from the administration. The website also maintains a page for previous petitions that have received a White House response.

Other than Louisiana and Texas, states with secession-related petitions pending on the White House website now include Alabama, ArkansasColorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, South Carolina and Tennessee.

The Louisiana petition, which has served as a pattern for  many of the new states, reads as follows: “We petition the Obama administration to: Peacefully grant the State of Louisiana to withdraw from the United States of America and create its own NEW government.”

It continues, “As the Founding Fathers of the United States of America made clear in the Declaration of Independence in 1776: ‘When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.’”

The petition concludes with a further quote from the Declaration of Independence: “‘Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and institute new Government.’”

Residents of other states, however, have chosen different wording.

The Texas petition explains itself this way: “The U.S. continues to suffer economic difficulties stemming from the federal government’s neglect to reform domestic and foreign spending. The citizens of the U.S. suffer from blatant abuses of their rights such as the NDAA, the TSA, etc. Given that the state of Texas maintains a balanced budget and is the 15th largest economy in the world, it is practically feasible for Texas to withdraw from the union, and to do so would protect it’s citizens’ standard of living and re-secure their rights and liberties in accordance with the original ideas and beliefs of our Founding Fathers, which are no longer being reflected by the federal government.”

A petitioner from Tillamook, Ore., identified by the site as Kristopher W, worded his state’s petition this way: “Allow Oregon to vote on and leave the union peacefully and remain an ally to the nation.”

He continues, “With the federal government increasing it’s size much larger than our Founding Father’s intended, and it’s abuse of power trumping over the rights of state constitutions, and the forcing of unconstitutional laws over it’s own citizens, the people of Oregon would like the chance to vote on leaving the Union immediately. The federal government has imposed policies on Oregon that are not in Oregon’s best interests, and we as citizens would respectively and peaceably separate ourselves from a tyrannical government who cares nothing about creating a sustainable future for our children. At any time that the citizens of Oregon [should feel] the federal government was no longer imposing on the Constitution, we could re-vote to again join the union under a new agreement.”

As WND reported, the first of the petitions was filed the day after the 2012 election by Michael E. (full last name not provided) of Slidell, La.

The White House created the “We the People” petition site ostensibly as a way of giving all Americans “a way to engage their government on the issues that matter to them.”

“The right to petition your government is guaranteed by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution,” the page reads. “We the People provides a new way to petition the Obama Administration to take action on a range of important issues facing our country. We created We the People because we want to hear from you. If a petition gets enough support, White House staff will review it, ensure it’s sent to the appropriate policy experts, and issue an official response.”

The page also explains, “You have just 30 days to get 25,000 signatures in order to get a response from the White House.”

Once the White House does draft a response, it has pledged to send it via email to everyone who has signed the petition (registration on the site with a valid email address is required to sign petitions).

To view or even sign one of the petitions, click here.

Mark Levin Gives “Unvarnished Truth” On Romney Loss

Comments Off on Mark Levin Gives “Unvarnished Truth” On Romney Loss

I can’t post the video portion of this post, but you can hear it at Real Clear Politics here:

Mark Levin passionately defends conservatism and analyzes last night’s election in the opening monologue of the Wednesday broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio program. Here’s a partial transcript of Levin’s opening remarks:

MARK LEVIN: We conservatives, we do not accept bipartisanship in the pursuit of tyranny. Period. We will not negotiate the terms of our economic and political servitude. Period. We will not abandon our child to a dark and bleak future. We will not accept a fate that is alien to the legacy we inherited from every single future generation in this country. We will not accept social engineering by politicians and bureaucrats who treat us like lab rats, rather than self-sufficient human beings. There are those in this country who choose tyranny over liberty. They do not speak for us, 57 million of us who voted against this yesterday, and they do not get to dictate to us under our Constitution.

We are the alternative. We will resist. We’re not going to surrender to this. We will not be passive, we will not be compliant in our demise. We’re not good losers, you better believe we’re sore losers! A good loser is a loser forever. Now I hear we’re called ‘purists.’ Conservatives are called purists. The very people who keep nominating moderates, now call us purists the way the left calls us purists. Yeah, things like liberty, and property rights, individual sovereignty, and the Constitution, and capitalism. We’re purists now. And we have to hear this crap from conservatives, or pseudo-conservatives, Republicans.

Obama has lost the white vote

Comments Off on Obama has lost the white vote

The Magic Is Gone: In an e-mail to Columbia University journalism professor Thomas Edsall, political scientist Larry Bartels of Vanderbilt University explains why the Obama campaign cannot afford to alienate white working class voters while pandering to minority voters:

If the Democratic Party can do something to win one more non-college white vote, without alienating anyone else, it is exactly one vote closer to winning. If it can do something to win one more college white vote, or Latino vote, or Asian vote, without alienating anyone else, it is exactly one vote closer to winning. If it wins one more non-college white vote and loses one college white vote, or Latino vote, or Asian vote in the process, it is not any closer to winning. The interesting strategic questions have entirely to do with the marginal shifts in vote probabilities produced in different groups by different sorts of appeals, and their collateral political costs (whether alienation or opportunity costs).

 Unfortunately for Obama’s calculus, RealClearPolitics Chief Political Correspondent David Paul Kuhn reports that he “does not currently have enough white support to win re-election even if he retains his minority base from 2008”: 

Pundits often note that Romney cannot win with his current level of Hispanic support. That’s likely true. But so is the converse: Obama cannot win with his level of white support unless white swing voters withhold their votes from Romney as well.

 Today, fewer whites back Obama than any Democratic candidate since Walter Mondale. Romney does not need to emulate Ronald Reagan to win. Should he match Reagan’s share of the white vote in 1984 – presuming all else remains constant since 2008 – Romney would rout Obama.

 Of course, America has changed since Reagan. Non-Hispanic whites were 89 percent of the electorate when Reagan first won the White House in 1980. They were 85 percent in 1988. By 2008, whites were 74 percent. That shift has upended the electoral landscape. But only so much. …

 Should Romney win the whites Obama lost, Romney will only need to perform as well as John McCain with minorities to win. …

 The white margin to watch: 61-39. That’s the rough break-even point. Obama likely needs more than 39 percent of whites to assure re-election. Romney likely needs at least 61 percent of whites to assure Obama’s defeat (or 60.5 in some scenarios).

Kuhn concludes that “diversity may not prove enough to save Obama.”

Tea Party Nation