°
forecast

Ron Paul: Secession is 'deeply American principle'

Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, said today that secession was a “deeply American principle,” amid a growing number of people petitioning the White House to let their states secede from the U.S.

“Secession is a deeply American principle. This country was born through secession. Some felt it was treasonous to secede from England, but those ‘traitors’ became our country’s greatest patriots,” the former presidential candidate wrote in a post on his House website. “There is nothing treasonous or unpatriotic about wanting a federal government that is more responsive to the people it represents.”

He continued: “If the possibility of secession is completely off the table there is nothing to stop the federal government from continuing to encroach on our liberties and no recourse for those who are sick and tired of it.”

Since President Barack Obama was re-elected earlier this month, a flurry of secession petitions from states were created — most notably from Texas, which with more than 115,000 signatures far exceeds the 25,000 signatures needed for an official White House response. Critics have said its disgruntled voters are upset that former GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney lost.

As of 7:55 p.m. today, an online petition calling for Virginia to secede had more than 8,500 signatures. A petition calling for North Carolina to secede had more than 29,900 signatures.

Paul wrote that secession must still be an option to be used as leverage to make sure the government doesn’t “encroach” on Americans’ liberties.

“In fact, the recent election only further entrenched the status quo. If the possibility of secession is completely off the table there is nothing to stop the federal government from continuing to encroach on our liberties and no recourse for those who are sick and tired of it.”

Paul wrote that secession is a form of American freedom.

“At what point should the people dissolve the political bands which have connected them with an increasingly tyrannical and oppressive federal government?” Paul wrote.

He added: “And if people or states are not free to leave the United States as a last resort, can they really think of themselves as free? If a people cannot secede from an oppressive government, they cannot truly be considered free.”  

Posted to: News Politico

How to be civil in comments:

 No name-calling, personal insults or threats. No attacks based on race, gender, ethnicity, etc. No writing with your Caps Lock on – it's screaming. Keep on topic and under 1500 characters. No profanity or vulgarity. Stay G- or PG-rated. Read the full rules here.

Comment deleted

Comment removed for rules violation. Reason: Personal attack, name calling

Comment deleted

Comment removed for rules violation. Reason: Personal attack, name calling

Comment deleted

Comment removed for rules violation. Reason: Personal attack, name calling

It ain't gonna happen.

So, about 1/2 of 1% of Texans, 1/3 of 1% of North Carolinians and a "whopping" 1/10 of 1% of Virginians have signed the petition to secede. Not exactly an overwhelming mandate.

The division here is a poor

The division here is a poor representation of the people of our country. I think the message to take from this action is that we need to be united, yet most of you choose to sit here and bicker all day while pretending to be the righteous party. Paul's words are valid and adhere to our history. This really does not warrant the comments made by many of you towards him or each other. You are missing the point. The administration has the political capital to truly change things now and inclusion is the key to ending this presidency on a positive note.

Cool article.

Cool article.

Get real folks

Texas has 26 million people and 115,ooo sign an "online" petition and DEMAND a response. I say send the FBI to visit everyone of these 115k treasonous citizens and offer them a ticket to a country without government interference, like Haiti, Somalia, or maybe Afghanistan. I suspect they'll beg to come back to our socialist country then.

Ron Paul and secession

There is some wise old saying that goes that the only thing that people learn from history is that nobody learns anything from history.
And while I'm at it with quotes, let me add that the ancient Greeks said that those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first drive mad.
Let me add from my own store of quotable lines--who do you want to inherit your house--your kids or somebody else's even though it may have been nearly demolished from war?

Just go away Crazy Ron

Many folks think it's about time for the Congressman from Texico, who once referred to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. as a "pedophile and lying socialist satyr", and that "95 percent of black males in Washington, D.C. are semi or entirely criminal" to move on.

Isn't this article an example of yellow journalism and

sensationalism? This article was run last week and got a lot of comments. The FACT that NC by our own constitution cannot succeed makes little matter to this rag. It doesn't matter WHAT Obama says or does regarding this, he has NOTHING to do with the discussion of succession. That is in the hands of the several states. That is a 10th amendment item. That is part of the problem with this rag, that it continues to publish stories that are inaccurate on fact.

It demonstrates how little people know history or understand the rights of States. To a progressive, States have no need for rights as it should come from the Feds. That is a major problem.

Will folks do research? Course not. Constitutions mean nothing. Which means laws mean nothing.

I think your comments were

I think your comments were directed at the fact that people are "petitioning the White House" to secede. It may not be clear from the article that the White House has this website that allows people to petition it for any reason and those seeking to raise awareness of this issue are using the website to do so. I think, or at least hope, that most who might consider secession as a viable course understand that it does not require the permission of the President or the federal government in any way.

you make an assumption

The petitions do not say, "So WE can .... by seceding." Can you prove that the petitions were not created by liberals trying to rid themselves of North Carolina?

Can you prove

that the petitions were not created by conservatives trying to blame liberals?

Time to stop repeating this

Time to stop repeating this childish suggestion.

Yes!

As you say,"...Constitutions mean nothing. Which means laws mean nothing."

That is the precedent which the Kenyan Marxist has established.

Texas would stand alone

as the world's 14th largest economy, larger than Australia, almost as big as Russia.

200 billion in exports.

GDP over 1.4 trillion.

The facts are correct

I looked up these figures and they are correct. Does anyone know what the U.S. Constitution states about succession?

Typo.....

"Secession"

The Constitution does not

The Constitution does not expressly reference secession, therefore, it is reserved to the States through the 10th Amendment.

A stretch there

since secession can be construed as insurrection and the Congress has the responsibility to stop insurrection.

ANd although the 10th was meant to limit the power of a federal government let's not forget that the 9th limits the federal and state governments when it comes to individual rights.

This whole constitutional

This whole constitutional argument is moot. As pointed out above, the Supreme Court's already ruled on the issue.

Using that logic we would

Using that logic we would still be under English rule.

Except that the ruling

Except that the ruling specifically excepts national revolution...

So the states would have the

So the states would have the power to secede, but a majority of 9 federal judges a hundred years ago determined they couldn't. No where in the Constitution does it give the Supreme Court the power to make that kind of decision and no where in the Constitution does it limit a state's power to withdraw from this country.

The 9th Amendment limits

The 9th Amendment limits individual rights and that is why we can't secede? :)

Disregard, I misread your

Disregard, I misread your comment.

Yes. Notwithstanding

Yes. Notwithstanding NCGuy's 10th Amendment argument, the Supreme Court actually ruled back in 1869 that secession by any one State is unconstitutional. One might think Ron Paul would be aware of the case - Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700.

"The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States."

Of course they wrote that.

They wrote it 4 years after the Civil War. What did you think they'd say, that the South had every right to secede from the Union?

It's as valid today as it

It's as valid today as it was then. Our entire structure of constitutional review by the judiciary is founded on Madison v. Marbury decided in 1803. Supreme Court decisions don't expire.

Readdressed

But they do occasionally get readdressed, redirected, or even overruled with new, opposite precident.

Which Justice (even one) do

Which Justice (even one) do you suggest would vote to overrule Texas v. White?

One

John Campbell

????

????

Civil war era

Justice John Archibald Campbell, he was a sitting supreme court justice who resigned his position and joined the confederacy at the outset of the civil war..

The idea of secession is a joke, but to say that it cannot ever happen, because the court ruled on it once. is also a joke.

Cute. It is unlikely that

Cute. It is unlikely that John Campbell would be able to vote. Name a current Justice.

They don't expire

But they can be overturned by later Courts. Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896 upheld the constitutionality of the doctrine of separate but equal. It was subsequently overturned in 1954 by Brown v. Board of Education.

I'm not suggesting the right of succession will be affirmed by the Court - or even addressed - but to say Court cases don't expire suggests an inviolability that doesn’t exist. If they couldn’t be overturned, liberals wouldn’t be so concerned about the possibility of a Republican-appointed Court gutting Roe v. Wade and conservatives wouldn’t be concerned about the possibility of a Democratic-appointed Court restricting gun rights.

As questioned below, name

As questioned below, name one sitting justice of the Supreme Court who you think would vote to overturn Texas v White - not just pulling a name out of the hat but one who you serious think would vote to overrule existing case law and.rule in favor of dissolving the Union. Not asking for a 5 majority - just 1.

If you'd take the time to read my entire post

As I said, "I'm not suggesting the right of succession will be affirmed by the Court - or even addressed." (Sorry for the typo - spell check changed it from secession).

I can't name a Justice I believe would vote in favor of a State's right to secede. I can’t even name a Justice who would vote even to hear such a case. The point I was trying to make, despite what the constitutionally ignorant thumbs down crowd believes, is that Supreme Court decisions are not, in fact, permanent. They can and have been overturned by later Courts. I even provided an example. I’m quite positive that the issue of the right of secession is decided, but that doesn’t change the fact that the current or a future bench has the authority to change it.

To be fair

To be fair, the date of that court case makes it suspect. The court could hardly have come out and said, "yeah.. About that whole war thing we just did... The bad guys were right, it was ia justified attempt and a war of northern aggression."

Not knowing more about the case than your quote, one might argue that a declaration of secession is a revolution, and thereby one of the acceptable criteria, or that the other states can vote to permit it as one might a vote to add a state.

It's one of those fun political mind benders that while there's a stated path to get in, no one quite knows how the opposite direction works, other than the "Stop me if you can" approach.

Opinion's online for anyone

Opinion's online for anyone to read at cornell.edu. Revolution is viewed by the Court as a country-wide revolution, not an action that can be taken by a State or its residents. The case is still cited in contemporary history classes. There will, of course, be those who take issue with its ruling.

The Constitutionality of secession is a moot point

The concept itself means that the state is rejecting the Consitutuion (or what has become of the government supposedly operating by the Constitution.) The key point is the reaction of the Federal government. As this Administration has repeatedly shown THAT is not dependent upon the Constitution either.

Without the US Military

to protect Texas it would become either part of Mexico again or be overrun by the Mexican drug gangs. The fact that such a small majority 115k out of a total population 25 million gets this much press is a testament to the sensationalism and lameness of the media.

Good riddance....

Let Texas mess with itself for a while...

By the way...

... I say this in jest, as I think the whole notion is a joke.

Ron Paul and secession, II

I remember a cartoon from the 1960s about Richard Nixon and would apply to Ron Paul. "Would you buy a used war from this man?"

Nice to see a professor explain

It looks like the article is worngly telling us Congressman Ron Paul is calling for states to secede.

The next article to appear will be headlined "Ron Paul calls for Texas to secede" and the article will reference some expert telling how militias are primed for armed revolt.

It is all about branding and what we are told to think a politician said.

the fall of a democracy

1887 Alexander Tyler: "A democracy is always temporary; it cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist until the time voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse over loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship." "The average age of a great civilization from the beginning of history, has been about 200 yrs. During that time, these nations progressed through the following: bondage to spiritual faith; spiritual faith to great courage; courage to liberty; liberty to abundan

You often post chain mail on here

Why do some insist on polluting the message board here with bogus tea-party inspired garbage emails?

because they trust their tea

because they trust their tea party masters and believe in spreading the tea party message of hate and division via the pasting of fact free chain letters.

. . .

If this is a quote from over 100 years ago from someone who made an educated conclusion based on historical trend, how could it be attributed exclusively to the T party or any group for that matter?

IT'S TOO EARLY FOR ALL THIS RESEARCH - I SHOULD BE PAID FOR IT

... on the other hand, was this quote really ever made? And BTW, the real 'Alexander' died 74 years before this alleged 1887 quote was ever to've been made.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Fraser_Tytler

http://www.snopes.com/politics/ballot/athenian.asp

Wrong.

Secession from the United States should be allowed for the States which Chose to NOT to Follow the Constitution, Not by those who do. I could see Obama as the leader of an Alternate "Country" as he has openly expressed his disdain for our Constitutionally Established form of Government including his outlandish usage of Executive orders to bypass the other 2 branches of our government. I am sure they could pick out some states adequate for the population who wish to join him and leave those States who believe in Freedom and Liberty alone. Just a Thought.

The crazy uncle...

you see only once a year, at Thanksgiving Dinner, has spoken!

. .

I thought the crazy uncle was Biden

Don't like the party?

I think I'll just take my blanket and leave, the heck with you guys. I'm quitting! So there! Whattaya mean, I have to have a passport to get out of your driveway? Why can't I go to Maryland and buy gas without paying a tariff? You're sure I can't take my dog to California without a 6 week quarentine? If a guy from Virginia commits a traffic violation in NC, does diplomatic immunity apply?

My point? It's easy to have a philosophical debate about what might be possible, but how many would-be secessionists have actually taken the time to consider and factor in all the nuts and bolts and practical ramifications of such an action?

Very appropriate...

that you included the word "nuts"!

BETTER BRING EXTRA KIBBLES N BITS WITH YOU

... and if you lived next door to, or down the street from a state boundary line (as many folks do), walking your dog could take weeks!

$9,164.11

The amount of federal dollars per capita that goes to the State of Texas. I say adios and good riddance. Let's give Texas and Arizona back to Mexico.

But our southern border will

But our southern border will look like a toothless old man...

... AND A WHOLE LOT OF WATERFRONT TO BOOT

What if both parties are in agreeance between Mexico and the U.S. and we acquire Mexico. Think about it for a moment: Everybody's happy and nobody would be "illegal" any longer.

You can't tell the RWNJs

You can't tell the RWNJs that they are the the majority of the 47% who benefit from gov't largess. They won't be able to comprehend that truth. They don't have the experience with self directed rational thought required to make the leap from the spoon fed propaganda to objective facts.

STATES secede, not residents

STATES secede, not residents OF states. If they are serious, they should file petitions with THEIR STATES, get a ballot issue and vote. IF it passed by a majority, the State reps MIGHT consider it.

Feel free, btw. A little Supreme Court case called 'Texas V. White' says that no, states do NOT have the right to secede from the union. BTW, the funny part of that is, guess which side Texas (yes, the state, not some random last name or business) was on? Yep, that states can NOT secede from the union.

Of course, any individual who wants to (this isn't a 'love it or leave it', these are people who want to SECEDE, after all, they already wanna leave) can always take a page from Mitt, and 'self secede'. Renounce your citizenship and leave.

Paul's argument seems quite

Paul's argument seems quite reasonable, which is more than can be said for most of the comments I'm reading here. Hopefully the White House's response to the petitions will include recommendations for Congress to determine a process for peaceful secession of states, division of states, and for that matter admission of new states. I expect the resulting process would have a high bar involving supermajorities, making the issue moot for the time being.

However, given this Congress's inability to perform even its most basic duties (budget?) and the reelection nonetheless of the vast majority of its members, it seems quite unlikely any action would be taken to address what it still a very hypothetical scenario.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Please note: Threaded comments work best if you view the oldest comments first.

Daily Deal |  | Promote your business