DC, Heller, and Montana.

By The Armorer on February 26, 2008 | | Comments (12)

An interesting sidelight to the DC vs Heller (DC Gun Ban) case sitting before the Supreme Court. The state of Montana filed an amicus brief that essentially stated "When we joined the United States, it was essentially a contractual agreement, and in the contract, we said "We'll keep our guns, individually, thank you very much." Now there are some who see a veiled threat of Secession over the issue if the Supreme Court rules for a collective, vice individual right. Mind you, I'm not looking forward to the thought of the Balkanized States of America, but, without slavery as a rallying cry, based on the USGov's actions and stated intents about people yearning to be free... *could* the Federal government forcibly stop a succession by a state? Of course they could - but could they do it legally, without just tossing all those other nice words about self-determination onto the scrapheap of history? Me, I'm not looking for Montana to secede over the issue... I'm just posing a thought problem...

Share This Article:

Categories:

12 Comments

By JimC on February 26, 2008 9:43 AM
Well, hasn't the Federal Government already shown that secession is not an option? I believe 1861-1865 proved that a state may not secede -- legal or not. At least that is what my historian and politically active friends tell me.
 
By BloodSpite on February 26, 2008 9:43 AM
Interestingly enough KDWill and I were talking about secession just this morning. With the recent Tribal leader upheaval with Native American Reservations attempting to Secede from the US (which got shot down by the court ironically) The ideal that states might secede due to current political climate, gun laws, restrictions, stem cell research taxes and otherwise, I hesitate to say it's a forgone conclusion that the idea of secession is not an imminent one. As more states are looking to protect water rights, gun rights, personal property rights, and generally protect their states constitutions', I think, in fact if not practice a state declaration is in fact imminent in the next 5 to 10 years, versus just possible. We were debating the factor of a major change in the governmental climate in the over all spectrum: ie is a revolution possible in the next 20 years? Spawned either from the left or right of the aisle? As majority conservative states continue to clash with majority liberal states regarding what they can and or can't do under Federal Law, at what point does the pot boil over from what citizens deem their rights to be, and what the law says their rights are? Toss in the personal rights reductions that have been encompassing our nation slowly (not just Patriot Act but things like gun rights for example) and I think the situation becomes more volatile in the long run. Mix in a spatter of the Illegal Alien, and influx of aliens from other countries, both legal and illegal and the so called Melting Pot of America could lead to some pretty poor cooking in the long run. But then I tend to be a cynic anyway :)
 
By John of Argghhh! on February 26, 2008 10:25 AM
Jim - based on the last 80 years or so, if we're going to rely on precedent, there is more recent verbiage on the part of government that would obviate against forcibly resisting secession. We're all about "self-determination" right? That was why I put the slavery caveat in the post - the issue of slavery gives the Civil War the legitimacy that would be absent otherwise. Mind you - don't come back with all the exceptions and caveats regarding the start of the war... you know I know all that. I'm just saying that the issue of human chattel slavery gives the Federal position in the Civil War a standing that would be absent in the case of Montana seceding because they see the compact of the Bill of Rights as being broken by the Federal Judiciary.
 
By kat-missouri on February 26, 2008 11:26 AM
What John said.
 
By Oldloadr on February 26, 2008 11:41 AM
If conservative minded states were to secede and recall their delegation to Washington, who would be left in the Federal Gov't with the ba**s to stop the succession? And John, even with the "moral high ground" of abolition, Lincoln barely got re-elected in 1864...
 
By John of Argghhh! on February 26, 2008 12:18 PM
Geez, get out of the weeds of the Civil War, people! 8^) And I suspect Blue State Dems, seeing their power diminished, would be very bloodthirsty - for our own good, of course. They would find some minority in the seceding states that would be harmed by the secession, and that would be all they'd need. Their bigger problem might be the loyalty of the services, and the fact that a lot of combat power in the Guard and regular forces is stationed in Red areas, not to mention manned by Red people. It would be ugly. As the lolcats say, "I do not want!" And that's not just for political cya on fomenting rebellion. I truly do not want.
 
By JimC on February 26, 2008 1:53 PM
I only made the point on precedent because that is how the country works. With the last 125 years under our belts could any of our states actually be an independent country at this point? Well maybe California, but would we miss them? -- oh yeah we need the vegetables. BTW, whatever happened to the Ultimate Resolution? The national debt crossed the target point some time ago that was supposed to cause 14 states west of the mighty Mo to secede.
 
By KCSteve on February 26, 2008 2:09 PM
My biggest concern over either of the current Dem pretenders ascending to the throne is that they have the greatest chance of inviting 'rooftop recalls'. Like John, that sort of thing is something I do NOT want going on in my country. John Ross's book Unintended Consequences is a long read, but it's a good one. I don't think that Hillery or Obama would deliberately do something to push people over the edge, I just think that they'd do a comination of things that would do the trick.
 
By John of Argghhh! on February 26, 2008 2:23 PM
Heh, Steve, as a gun-owner, what you describe is one of my nightmares. Nothing like an a$$hole killing a President to inspire gun laws. It's one of the things I worry about, not that I can do anything about it. Jim - but recent precedent is supposed to overturn older precedent, right? Almost by definition, else Dred Scott would still hold water. That said - what is this "Ultimate Resolution" you are referring to? I have a gap in my memory banks.
 
By Justthisguy on February 26, 2008 2:54 PM
Hmmm. Can we _expel_ a state? I'm thinking Kali, and maybe NJ and Mass.
 
By John of Argghhh! on February 26, 2008 4:18 PM
Oh, I dunno, JTG, how about part of a state? The coast from San Fran to LA? Keep San Diego and the Inland Empire and the High Desert, the mountains and northern Cali. Hmm. Guess we'd want to give 'em Sacramento, too, mebbe. Check with Bill about New Joisy, and Maggie about Massachusetts.
 
By JimC on February 26, 2008 5:43 PM
The Ultimate Resolution was an idea in the early Clinton years, as I remember, to secede from the US if the national debt exceeded 6 trillion. I think that 6 trillion is correct it might have been 5. It was resolved by 14 states west of the Mississippi. I seem to remember Montana among them.