12Th Aoff And State Succession Petitions?

[bluebell]

That idea was squashed in the American Civil War with its 600,000+ dead. You remember "And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand".

Matthew 12:25

So yes I would fully support arresting, convicting for treason, and putting these secessionist clowns in prison.

It's probably a good thing you don't make the laws then. The U.S. government says that such petitions are acceptable.

[harfad]

12Th Aoff And State Succession Petitions?

I take it you mean secession, not succession! The website is designed to accept any kind of petition, not just for secession. That means that you can counterpetition, or petition for the opposite proposal, as some people have done here. I think that Latter-day Saints might consider doing that, and campainging for others to joining them in doing that.

[Darren10]

Mormons do have strong patriotic convictions and do indeed view the Constitution as a divinely inspired *legal* document. My view, and I am sure many LDS would agree is that the primary divine purpose of the United States of America and its freedom of religion was to restore the gospel of Jesus Christ on the earth. The unique blend of Protestant Christianity, particularly those of the Pilgrims, and the English Enlightenment made such an event culturally and socially possible to create the Constitution.

My view of the US Constitution is that the colonies became states and as states rejected the Articles of Confederation and ratified the US Constitution. Thus the federal government was created by the states, not vice versa. Here I view the idea that the creator is greater than its creation as true. The states did NOT want a powerful federal government lest the United States became the very country the states as colonies fought against and became independent from. Here we see the importance of the 10th Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.

This places the vast majority of legal and governmental power to among the states and the people (who I view as much better represented in their state than in the federal government) and allows the federal government to have only specified powers. The Bill of Rights was designed to prohibit action by the federal government, not the state governments. The idea was to limit what the federal government can do and allow people as individuals to decide their own fates. The people may also decide collectively as to the creation of laws and policies of their country and communities.

Cessation became a difficult topic to resolve. According to the 10th Amendment,the states *absolutely* had the right to secede. Secession was not a power given to the federal government and no state therefore each state may decide for itself to prohibit secession or to allow it. What ultimately decided the "fate" of secession was the force of arms. Though by placing the nail in secession's coffin also launched a significant blow to the Tenth Amendment. It has been only after the Civil War that significant belief formed that the federal government may interfere in a state's decision.

Here's my dilemma. I absolutely believe that the US Constitution was inspired by God but so was the preservation of the Union. Like today, I would have sided with President Lincoln who never recognized the state's right or secede and went to full war with the seceded states in order to preserve the Union. But here I limit the "divine will" to the preservation of the Union, not against states remaining sovereign to the federal government.

Now enter today's thread of whether or not a faithful Latter-day Saint could sign a petition to secede from the Union. The twelfth article of Faith does declare that we (the LDS) believe in being subject to government and their legal officiators. I think if these petitions were a serious attempt to secede which would naturally mean to enforce said secession with the force of arms, than, no, I don't think a faithful Latter-day Saint should sign any such petition. But even here I will not pass judgement as to whether or not a Latter-day Saint is being faithful or unfaithful to his or her theology by signing today's petition. Like others here, I find it much more of a means to freely express frustration and that's merely exercising one's First Amendment right. Even here in Texas the talk of truly seceding is quite limited in number.

In the end while I view open armed rebellion against today's administration as immoral, I don't think I'll pass judgement upon Latter-day Saints who may side with that view. If the brethren of the Church do than that would be another consideration but for now I think, as a matter of hypothesis, it immoral to secede today's petitions are not violently rebellious in nature. I do think that the nation's governors should openly repel the federal government's current efforts to interfere in all their affairs and in each person's affairs, armed rebellion is not the correct course of action.

[Darren10]

My bad. Fumble fingers sticks again.

Hey, be thankful. At least you save all ten. ; > )

[Darren10]

It's probably a good thing you don't make the laws then. The U.S. government says that such petitions are acceptable.

Yup!

The First Amendment consists of five “freedoms,” which are: Religion, Free Speech, Free Press, Assembly, and Petition. The Petition section of the first amendment, also commonly referred to as the Petition Clause, states that “People have the right to appeal to government in favor of or against policies that affect them or in which they feel strongly. This freedom includes the right to gather signatures in support of a cause and to lobby legislative bodies for or against legislation,” (Copley First Amendment Center) (2). A more simple definition of the right to petition, is “the right to present requests to the government without punishment or reprisal. This right is guaranteed in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution” (History Central, 1).

http://www.learningtogive.org/papers/paper204.html

[TAO]

Okay, these are the things that come to my mind:

Why secession would not be against the consciousness of Mormons

1) Book of Mormon stories talk about the Nephites escaping the unjust government of the Lamanites

2) We left Missouri to avoid the unjust government and actions of the people in that area.

3) The church believes in taking a moral stance on issues which it believes should not come to pass

Why secession would be against the consciousness of Mormons

1) Book of Mormon stories also talk about the Nephites bearing the unjust government of the Lamanites.

2) We dealt with a government mandate banning polygamy by complying with the government

3) War of any sort will make missionary work harder.

4) President Packer just told us to not be stocking up on guns, but to be stocking up on food storage.

So yeah... I can see the cases for both sides. Ultimately, I don't think secession would be a good idea, and yet, I know government can be very evil at times, so I don't dismiss it as a possibility in a worst case scenario, which is unlikely to happen here anyways. We'll let God decide what works best for us, and right now he's saying 'let's not try any sort of secession' (or so President Packer implies). I think we should take that at face value, and probably not sigh these petitions. We can protest government actions in other ways in a much more productive fashion.

Edited November 15, 2012 by TAO

[Mark Beesley]

According to the 10th Amendment,the states *absolutely* had the right to secede.

Not according to the Supreme Court. See State of Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869).

[Darren10]

Not according to the Supreme Court. See State of Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869).

Note the date of that court decision. As I said, it has been *post* Civil War era thinking that has favored the federal government interfering in state affairs. This includes the constitutional right to secede. While the constitutional right to secede was, of course, wildly debated in the US prior to the Civil War, I know of little if any voices which expressed the idea that the federal government may control the states.

[Saints Alive]

The American Revolutionary War was fought on the proposition that there can be no legitimate taxation without representation in England's Parliament. As Colonists they were represented by the King not Parliament. In effect they were seeking a bigger voice in tax policy. It had nothing to do with the rates.

already addressed this. The King actually did offer the colonists representation in parliament. Edited November 15, 2012 by Saints Alive

[Saints Alive]

That idea was squashed in the American Civil War with its 600,000+ dead. You remember "And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand".

Matthew 12:25

So yes I would fully support arresting, convicting for treason, and putting these secessionist clowns in prison.

So much for freedom of speech... You can speak freely as long as I agree with you... Oh brother!

[Mark Beesley]

Note the date of that court decision. As I said, it has been *post* Civil War era thinking that has favored the federal government interfering in state affairs. This includes the constitutional right to secede. While the constitutional right to secede was, of course, wildly debated in the US prior to the Civil War, I know of little if any voices which expressed the idea that the federal government may control the states.

The date of the decision is irrelevant. The Tenth Amendment, under which you claimed the states had the "absolute" right to secede from the nation, was not repealed or amended between 1791 and 1869. The decision of the Supreme Court in 1869 was constrained, if at all, by the Tenth Amendment. (Incidentally, the Tenth Amendment was not included in the original Constitution which purports to "establish a more perfect Union.) So, unless you can produce a court opinion prior to the Civil War which supports the notion that a state had the "absolute" right to secede after it had joined the Union by ratifying the Constitution, then I suggest you produce it. Otherwise, such a statement is pure poppycock.

(Your analysis of the Tenth Amendment and what it means is simplistic at best. In even a cursory reading of the Constitution, one finds that in Article One Congress is granted the power to enact all laws that are necessary and proper for executing the powers granted by the Constitution, meaning that power not expressly granted in the Constitution to the federal government may be implied under the necessary and proper clause. That has been the interpretation of the Tenth Amendment since the early days of the Republic. See McCulloch v. Maryland 17 U. S. 316 (1819).)

[Mark Beesley]

already addressed this. The King actually did offer the colonists representation in parliament.

I've never read this. What is your source?

[CV75]

Background: Over 1 million Americans in all 50states have signed succession petitions on the white house's website.

Question: Does the 12th AofF preclude Mormons from signing these petitions in good conscious?

I don't think so -- they are following due process.

[blackstrap]

Necessary according to whom ? Proper according to whom? Aye... there's the rub !

[Saints Alive]

I've never read this. What is your source?

It was in a book one of my college professors wrote, I'll see if I can find it. I can't remember the title, something along the line of American Liberty something to that effect. It's been years since I read it.

[Tacenda]

On the local news the other day they reported that thousands of citizens from Utah signed a petition to secede. The petitioners want to have their own country according to the report. I believe those numbers would reflect many who are LDS. Alot of members sure wanted a different candidate.

I'm unable to use my computer or would have provided a link.

[Mark Beesley]

Necessary according to whom ? Proper according to whom? Aye... there's the rub !

Which is why we have Article III, and Marbury v. Madison.

[Scott Lloyd]

Background: Over 1 million Americans in all 50states have signed succession petitions on the white house's website.

Question: Does the 12th AofF preclude Mormons from signing these petitions in good conscious?

By "succession," do you mean secession?

There is a difference. To succeed means to come after. To secede means to break away from.

[Saints Alive]

By "succession," do you mean secession?

There is a difference. To succeed means to come after. To secede means to break away from.

yes, secede. Darn you spell check!!!

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

So yes I would fully support arresting, convicting for treason, and putting these secessionist clowns in prison.

Darn you constitution, you suck.

[Mark Beesley]

yes, secede. Darn you spell check!!!

I would like to propose a new rule for the Board. If you use the wrong word because you were too lazy or in too much of a hurry to use a dictionary, and someone calls you on it, rather than blaming it on spell check or fat fingers, or some other such excuse, how about we just own up to our mistake, thank the person for pointing it out, and move on? This goes for TSS as well as myself. Are we so proud as to be unable to admit when we make a mistake?

[Mark Beesley]

So yes I would fully support arresting, convicting for treason, and putting these secessionist clowns in prison.

Being stupid is not a crime. Heck, look at me. I'm still free!

[Scott Lloyd]

yes, secede. Darn you spell check!!!

Glad it wasn't just human error.

I've seen other mistakes on this thread as well: "session" and "cessation" instead of secession. I wonder if they are attributable to spell check as well.

[Mark Beesley]

Glad it wasn't just human error.

I've seen other mistakes on this thread as well: "session" and "cessation" instead of secession. I wonder if they are attributable to spell check as well.

You're obviously much more charitable than me. Hey, you should be a Democrat!

[Saints Alive]

I would like to propose a new rule for the Board. If you use the wrong word because you were too lazy or in too much of a hurry to use a dictionary, and someone calls you on it, rather than blaming it on spell check or fat fingers, or some other such excuse, how about we just own up to our mistake, thank the person for pointing it out, and move on? This goes for TSS as well as myself. Are we so proud as to be unable to admit when we make a mistake?

Spelling is outdated and overrated anyway... No wat i meen.