PART 1 of 5
By
Timothy N. Baldwin, JD.
April 14, 2010
NewsWithViews.com
Dr. Edwin Vieira has released his (presumably) final responses (“Thoughts On ‘A Concurring Opinion’”) to my responding articles (“A Concurring Opinion For Secession”) to his original articles (“A Dissenting Opinion On Secession”). While I was hesitant to respond at all to Vieira’s articles, and as I shall forego directly responding to what I believe are incorrect insinuations, commentaries and conclusions, I must observe and highlight a very important matter relative to a state’s right and duty to free itself from tyranny. For in truth, Vieira admits to the precise conclusion that a State does have a natural right to separate itself from a political tie.[1]
As Vieira recognizes in his articles, there may be circumstances that justify (expressing the notion of right) a state (i.e. body-politic) from separating itself from the U.S. Constitution and thus, the union itself. The ground for this justification, Vieira says, does not come from the U.S. Constitution, but rather, comes from the principles[2] as delineated in the Declaration of Independence.[3]
Specifically put, the Declaration of Independence appeals not to a constitution for a basis, or a justification, of secession--even though a constitution existed at that time--but to the Supreme Judge of the world and to the natural laws God created. Given the supreme nature of this right of secession, a different body-politic at a different time in human affairs has the same inherent right as did the colonies in 1776. Vieira observes,
“‘Secession’ as most ‘secessionists’ define that term cannot be justified under the Constitution. It can be justified in principle under the Declaration of Independence, but only when the conditions precedent required by the Declaration of Independence obtain. And even then it can be justified in practice only if a “seceding” State is fully prepared, before she “secedes”, to deal with all of the political, economic, and social consequences of her action.”[4]
Despite Vieira’s conclusion that the U.S. Constitution does not allow a state to unilaterally secede,[5] his statement admits that a State would be justified, that is, would have the right, to declare independence (i.e. separate, withdraw, secede, disassociate, sever, etc.) when the circumstances are present. Of course, these circumstances can only be determined and executed by the separating state, just as the Declaration of Independence demonstrates.
In truth, any person who believes in the fundamental concepts of God-given or natural freedom, liberty and rights must acknowledge that the States’ and union’s political existence was birthed in the rights expressed in the Declaration of Independence, which admits the right of bodies-politic to throw off a government that is deemed to be destructive to the ends for which governments exists, a “perpetual” union or government notwithstanding.[6]
Advertisement
As a consequence of this unilateral right of separation and independence, it naturally follows that a declaration of independence is subject to no human court or appeal.[7] Rather, that body-politic declares independence by “appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of [their] intentions.”[8] This appeal to the Supreme Judge of the world rests in the philosophical and moral conclusion that no man or group of men; no government or group of governments; no political association or group of political associations have the right or power to violate the Laws of Nature relative to the essential purposes of society and government,[9] such that where “government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as TO THEM shall seem most likely to effect THEIR safety and happiness.”[10]
To this end, only the applicable body-politic can effect their own happiness; and indeed, it is their duty and obligation to provide as such. This duty to procure one’s own happiness is self-responsibility and –accountability. When grievances exist within a state, the body-politic has the obligation to ensure the remedy. Indeed, if proving the mere truth and justice of a claim for freedom were sufficient, and reason provided the force of justice, there would be little tyranny in the world, but history proves that a tyrannical power is deaf to the appeal of truth and reason.
Consequently, these bodies-politic are answerable only to themselves and to God when it comes to matters of union and separation for freedom’s sake.
Despite Vieira’s statement that the purposes a body-politic’s entering into a political union are inconsequential relative to its right to withdraw from that union, the opposite is true: the PURPOSE of its entering a political association, union, treaty or forming a government is most crucial to its remaining therein. On the most basic level, purpose is the most essential and fundamental motion and drive for a body-politic to form government or enter into unions.
Constitutions are created for a purpose. Governments are established for a purpose. Men are created by God for a purpose. Laws are created by God and man for a purpose. Men enter into society for a purpose. Everything in existence is for a purpose. To remove purpose from the equation of constitutional and philosophical analysis is to create a mindless and enslaving union and government system.[11] Purpose most certainly matters and is critical in the analysis of separation verses union.
When the purpose of a particular union is destroyed, the union has a most absurd existence--an existence which history proves is founded mostly upon the force by tyrants or the people’s fear of them, and not upon the bonds of friendship and loyalty.[12] To perpetuate the absurdity is doubly absurd. Thus, there may be a time in the course of human events where that body-politic declares, after “reflection and choice,”[13] that it is “necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another,”[14] because the purpose of its remaining in that political association no longer exists.
| Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts! |
Moreover, the purpose for entering a union may in fact be the same purpose for its separating from a union: that is, to secure life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If the body-politic be praised for entering a union to secure freedom, based upon certain purposes, its posterity will sing its praises for separating from a union where remaining in the union is detrimental to those purposes. For part two click below.
To read parts 2 through 5 in this article series, click here.
Footnotes:
1,
Note: I disagree with Vieira concerning when a State’s natural right
would be invoked, particularly in Vieira’s description of what constitutes
“tyranny.” See articles 4 and 5 in this series for further
discussion.
2,
“[P]rinciples will rule the future as they have ruled the past.”
Terrence McSwiney, Principles of Freedom, (New York, NY, E.P. Dutton &
Co., 1921), 92.
3,
Note: Vieira applies the “principles of the Declaration of Independence”
differently than this author, as Vieira concludes that as long as the
government has “good faith,” then no tyranny exists. This
author disagrees. For further discussion, see article 5 of 5.
4,
Dr. Edwin Vieira, “Thoughts
on Part Twelve of ‘A Concurring Opinion’,”
NewsWithViews (April 8, 2010), (Emphasis added). I disagree with Vieira
concerning the “conditions” placed upon a state to practically
declare independence; namely: “only if” the state is “fully
prepared” “before” secession, etc. The Declaration of
Independence made no such remarks of condition, nor was this the case
in 1776 when the colonies declared independence. Additionally, who makes
the determination of whether or not the state meets all these conditions?
The federal government? Three-fourths of the states? The U.S. Supreme
Court? If the answer is, the seceding state, then it is superfluous to
add any conditions on secession when the sole judge for determining if
those conditions have been met rests with the seceding state. See Also,
“No nation is willing to renounce her liberty: she will rather break
off all commerce with those states that should attempt to infringe upon
it.” Emer De Vattel, The Law of Nations, (Indianapolis, IN, Liberty
Fund, 2008), 74.
5,
Compare, “Secession…is perfectly defensible on the principles
of the constitution.” Christopher Wyvill, The Secession From Parliament
Vindicated, 2nd edition, (York, L. Lund, Little-Stonegate, 1799), 14.
6,
“They may quit a society which seems to have dissolved itself in
order to unite again under another form.” Emer De Vattel, The Law
of Nations, (Indianapolis, IN, Liberty Fund, 2008), 95.
7,
“[I]t belongs to the nation [or state] alone to judge and determine
[disputes regarding fundamental laws, the public administration, or the
rights of the different powers of which it is composed] conformably to
its political constitution.” Emer De Vattel, The Law of Nations,
(Indianapolis, IN, Liberty Fund, 2008), 96.
8,
Declaration of Independence
9,
“Happiness…is the great end of the law of nature. [It is the
duty of a body-politic] to seek…their own perfection.” Emer
De Vattel, The Law of Nations, (Indianapolis, IN, Liberty Fund, 2008),
145. “Society is established with the view of procuring…the
necessaries, conveniences, and even pleasures of life, and, in general,
everything necessary to their happiness,--of enabling each individual
peaceably to enjoy his own property, and to obtain justice with safety
and certainty,--and, finally, of defending themselves in a body against
all external violence.” Ibid., at 126. “It is evident that
men form a political society, and submit to laws, solely for their own
advantage and safety.” Ibid., at 97.
10,
Declaration of Independence
11,
“Let us leave a hatred of the sciences to the despotic tyrants of
the east: they are afraid of having their people instructed, because they
chuse to rule over slaves. Emer De Vattel, The Law of Nations, (Indianapolis,
IN, Liberty Fund, 2008), 145.
12,
“[T]hose who lay the first foundations, as it were, of states, are
most of them united to one another in mutual benevolence.”
Samuel Pufendorf, Two Books of the Elements of Universal Jurisprudence,
Book 2, Observation 3 (Indianapolis, IN, Liberty Fund, 2009), 320 (emphasis
added). See Also, “Nothing but a genuine bond of brotherhood
can so unite men.” Terrence McSwiney, Principles of Freedom, (New
York, NY, E.P. Dutton & Co., 1921), 44 (emphasis added).
13,
“[We are called upon to decide whether] societies of men are really
capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and
choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their
political constitutions on accident and force.” Alexander
Hamilton, Federalist Paper 1 (emphasis added).
14,
Declaration of Independence
� 2010 Timothy N. Baldwin, JD - All Rights Reserved
Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts
Timothy Baldwin is an attorney from Pensacola, FL, who received his bachelor of arts degree at the University of West Florida and who graduated from Cumberland School of Law at Samford University in Birmingham, AL. After having received his Juris Doctorate degree from Cumberland School of Law, Baldwin became a Felony Prosecutor in the 1st District of Florida. In 2006, he started his own law practice, where he created specialized legal services entirely for property management companies.
Like his father, Chuck Baldwin, Timothy Baldwin is an astute writer of cutting-edge political articles, which he posts on his website, www.libertydefenseleague.com. Baldwin is also the author of the soon-to-be-released book entitled, Freedom For A Change, in which Baldwin expounds the fundamental principles of freedom believed by America’s forefathers and gives inspiring and intelligent application of those principles to our current political and cultural standing.
Baldwin is involved in important state sovereignty movement issues, including being co-counsel in the federal litigation in Montana involving the Firearms Freedom Act, the likes of which is undoubtedly a pivotal and essential ingredient to restoring freedom and federalism in the states of America. Baldwin is also a member of freedom organizations, such as The Oath-Keepers, and believes that the times require all freedom-loving Americans to educate, invigorate and activate the principles of freedom within the States of America for ourselves and our posterity.
Web site: LibertyDefenseLeague
E-Mail: tim@libertydefenseleague.com
