Quote Originally Posted by Whistler View Post
Not particularly vehement about it but think it's an interesting discussion. Until 1861 secession was accepted practice and some Con-Law scholars contend secession among the unenumerated or assumed "inalienable" rights. If a person has the inalienable right to control over himself, forced participation in a union he does not consider beneficial is servitude, as such the right to separate is inalienable as well and essential to the protection of other enumerated rights deemed inalienable such as life and liberty.

I agree for sure an interesting discussion. I wanted to add, and forgot to last night, that very early case law in the Supreme Court, while the great John Marshall was sitting as chief justice. That case law provides that states are not sovereign. They are recognized as having some government control and some ability to govern themselves, however the Federal government is the governing body overall. There are recognized eras of cooperative federalism, which states get less rights and the federal government controls much more of their ability to funcion (usually around the same period a Supreme Court will more broadly define "Commerce" for more control as well). Then there are eras of dual federalism which gives states more rights to function freely without federal interference (likewise, it isn't uncommon during these eras for the SC to more narrowly define "Commerce" for less federal control). People argue that we are currently in an era of dual federalism coming out of an era of cooperative federalism at the end of 1990's and early 2000's. I would argue that that era is ending and we are rapidly heading towards a cooperative federalism era.