Edwin Vieira and Timothy Baldwin: Both Wrong on Secession

February 13, 2010

I am the little boy, standing in the crowd along the parade route, who points out that the Emperor is naked.

Yesterday I ran attorney Edwin Vieira’s last article entitled “A Dissenting Opinion on Secession Part 3.” Another attorney, Timothy Baldwin of the Liberty Defense League has jumped into the fray about Vieira’s articles, defending secession in both concept and practice. I will not be posting his articles.

They are both wrong.

They both spent an inordinate amount of time, research and words explaining the breadth and meaning of the Constitution. They look at the intent of the Framers, the Federalist Papers, court cases and historical events to prove their points.

I liken this effort on the part of both authors to re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

The 18th Century attorney Lysander Spooner (from Worcester, Massachusetts) settled the issue of the Constitution once and for all when he wrote the epic book “No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority.”

He proved conclusively that the Constitution has no binding authority upon the Federal Government or any individual. The document is not a legal contract nor is it a treaty between states. Spooner notes that the Federal government, as established by a legal contract, could not legally bind all persons living in the nation since none had ever signed their names or given their consent to it. That consent had always been assumed, which fails the most basic burdens of proof for a valid contract in the courtroom.

It might be argued (in vain, I think) that the persons living at the time of the ratification may have in some way been bound by the Constitution. However, future generations who did not agree to it could not be bound to its terms, since it is not a contract or treaty. Future generations is us.

Adherence to the Constitution relies solely upon the “consent of the governed” as mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. However, that adherence seems to only go one way…the citizen toward the government. Washington does not willingly adhere, nor accept constitutional restrictions on its power.

Look at another example of living in a society that operates under a set of rules that you were born into. We here in the American part of Western Civilization are steeped in Christendom. Our laws and social mores are based upon the human rules of conduct found in the pages of the Bible. So, when we are born in the USA, we are raised in an atmosphere that is decidedly slanted toward Christianity. Sure, some of the mores have their foundation in natural law, but we are born into this culture. That has nothing to do with whether any two parties agreed to be bound by Biblical law. It is as much a part of you and me as the air we breathe. Only later, when we start reading books, do we find that there is a structure about why we behave as we do. We also learn that we have a choice to accept or reject.

There is a cultural memory in America about the US Constitution, almost Biblical in its style. Even though that memory has waned to the point of disappearance, people still think that the government should only take constitutional actions. Then guys like Vieira and Baldwin, and websites like the Tenth Amendment Center, build entire doctrines around the Constitution. Authors have written, and are still writing books about constitutional law and its practical use. Meanwhile, none of them can make a convincing argument that the US Constitution is enforceable on any individual or governmental entity in the United States.

Therefore, all debate about the constitutionality of the actions of those in Washington DC is entirely moot. Those in DC already know that they cannot be held to the strictures of the Constitution…their daily actions prove that truth. All three branches of government…Legislative, Executive and Judicial…all entirely ignore the Constitution and do absolutely as they please. As it relates to the Judicial branch, at least they feign an interest in constitutionality as they deliberate court cases. But taken as a whole, the Federal government has no use for the Constitution.

All of this arguing, writing, bowing, curtseying, and dancing amounts to little more than the Kabuki theater made popular in Japan. Kabuki theater was the avant-garde, or theater of the bizarre. When learned, reasonable, intelligent-appearing people are convinced that they should continue to argue about the finer points of a dead document, and then attempt to enforce the terms of the dead document upon each other, there is a gigantic cognitive disconnection within the society.

Some of you people need to get a grip on reality.

In conclusion, any American state that wishes to secede from the United States may do so. There is no constitutional law anywhere that prevents it, since the Constitution is dead.

For those readers who have not become familiar with the works of Lysander Spooner, you may read “No Treason” for free online at: No Treason. The book is only about 35 pages in length.

There are many other works by Spooner at the website. You’d be very well served to spend a few hours reading Spooner’s brilliance.

Secession is the Hope for Mankind. Who will be first?

DumpDC. Six Letters That Can Change History.

© Copyright 2010, Russell D. Longcore. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.