shopify analytics tool

NeoNotes — California secession and the U.S. Constitution

Kudos for mentioning the movements for splitting the state. A couple have a decent chance of making it on the ballot.

As for secession, no, it's not treason. Yes, I know 98% of American history professors and 99.997% of American politicos and technocrats disagree with me. But under the Tenth Amendment, states have the power to secede and no one but the people of that state can tell them no.

Finally, water rights. Remember that Chinatown used internal California water rights as the MacGuffin. If you are interested, you should look at the history of the Imperial Valley. As an Arizona resident, I'll tell you that water rights are one of the biggest issues in the Southwest. For years California took the "unused" portion from the other states. As Nevada and Arizona grew in population, this created all sorts of difficulty. It seems that some of the original planning happened during very wet years. Mexico seldom gets it's allotment at all.



What can I say, SCOTUS was wrong. It's not the first time. The Dred Scott decision, Minersville School District v. Gobitis, and United States v. Rabinowitz are three that I remember off hand. Well, I did have to confirm the names of the last two.



Perhaps I should explain my reasoning a little more.

Why are parts of the Constitution absolute (the commerce clause, the First Amendment) while the Tenth is not? The Constitution was about a union yes, but it was mainly about restraining Federal power. It enumerates some individual rights (but does not limit rights to those listed), details protections that individuals can expect from the Federal government, puts international and interstate activity under the Federal government, and leaves everything else open. Basically, if the Constitution does not mention it, the Federal government has no power over it.

I realize this is a minority opinion, especially considering what passes for "social studies" and U.S. history these days. But please, don't take my word for it. Read the Constitution for yourself. See if there is anything there that disagrees with what I told you.

Then ask yourself why you were taught any other interpretation.



Very well written. Very well reasoned. But that doesn't make it right. You just spent eight eloquent paragraphs telling me that even if the Tenth Amendment says exactly what I what I said it does, we shouldn't pay too much attention because it's not in our best interests. Your interpretation shifts power and judgment away from the people and to the Federal government.

Gee, I can't imagine why the courts and politicos would not want people paying close attention to restricting government power. Can you?

The Tenth Amendment is one paragraph and one sentence.

I've learned over the years that many times lawyers argue in massive detail why laws and contracts do not mean what is obviously stated. That's their job, but it doesn't make it true.

I said in the beginning that mine was a minority opinion. I'm saying that the courts and the Federal government have an overriding interest making sure that not too many people ask too many questions.

There's nothing in the Constitution that explicitly says anything about succession. But the Declaration of Independence does, and Jefferson said it even more eloquently than you did.
NeoNotes are the selected comments that I made on other boards, in email, or in response to articles where I could not respond directly.

blog comments powered by Disqus
2018       2017       2016       2015       2014       2011       2010       2009       2008       2007       2006       2005