U.S. Justice Scalia on Secession

Justice Antonin Scalia of the occupying governments Supreme Court was asked along with others in 2006 concerning his view on secession, his response was….


By James Everett

All rights reserved without prejudice

To read full Article click on the link below

Justice Scalia view on secession

7 Responses to “U.S. Justice Scalia on Secession”

  1. Tim Kenney says:

    Scalia entirely overlooks the process through which each State actually seceded. They resigned their seats in the federal House and Senate of the united States, they resigned their military commissions and posts in the federal government. They held secession conventions through their right to assemble, etc. The federal government wasn’t sued to claim a “right of Secession,” then or now! The initial parties were the nation States to begin with…the federal government was the creation of the parties and not a party to the agreement itself; it was an agreement on how the nation States would operate within a limited form of federal regulation. After a long period of federal abuse, our nation States reassembled and seceded, just as they had technically done so in breaking with Great Britain. When the formed Articles of Confederation were reconsidered, constitutional conventions were formed and states technically seceded from the Articles and formed “a more perfect union.” Turns out, not so much! Scalia, for his part, skips these facts, doesn’t he?

  2. Tim Kenney says:

    By the way, I also really like your higlighting the fact that somehow violence was/is/can be justified in settling a constitutional argument. Of course, President Davis is right, that our already attained secession remains an unsettled issue…so long as the occupation continues.

    Thank you. Great overall post regarding U.S. Justice Scalia’s view on secession.

  3. What is so interesting to me is the fact that you have a U.S. Supreme Court Justice who would have been required to take….
    28 U.S. Code § 453 – Oaths of justices and judges “I, XXX XXX, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as XXX under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”
    Dismisses this oath with a statement that war and violence, and NOT law was the deciding factor, and considers such as a settled issue NOT BY LAW, but without regard to law.

  4. Casey says:

    I do not agree with the united states laws, they are harmful to the Confederate States, and to the united states it self for ex. Fergusson, Missouri. There is no written document that ends the military actions of these two countries military actions from (1861-1865) and there is no written document that the Confederate States of America Central Government has signed or ever surrendered to the united states.

  5. Yes, thank you gentlemen and I must say well said and done yourself, and we are her protectors now of her government and Dixie herself.

Leave a Reply