Beowulf right to Leave the SL

Alistair wrote:In Pearls of Weber it states:

If Beowulf had wished at any time to become a member star system of the Star Kingdom of Manticore, it could legally have done so. The Solarian League Constitution, like that of the Republic of Haven, enshrines the right of self-determination by its member systems, and the right of any member system to withdraw from the League. No full member system has ever attempted to do so, and the possible consequences of such an attempt might be interesting, but the legal right exists and is recognized by all constitutional scholars.

If Beowulf right to leave is recognised by ALL "constitutional scholars" then do the Mandarins have a leg to stand on in the court of public opinion when Beowulf leaves the SL?

The question here isn't whether or not Beowulf has a legal right as defined by the Constitution to leave the League; it's whether or not the constitutional provision is still operable, despite never having been repealed or formally amended.

To pick a couple of somewhat contentious present day US constitutional debates: the 10th and 2nd Amendments. The 10th Amendment's specific guarantee of the powers of the states has been largely emasculated simply by being ignored by the Federal government, effectively since the end of the Civil War and even more since the 17th amendment established the direct election of senators and eliminated the process which was supposed to make the Senate the guarantor of federalism. The question of whether or not the 2nd Amendment protects an individual or a collective right — that is, whether it refers to individuals’ right to be armed or only to the creation of a “well regulated militia” — has been especially vexatious in the US since 1939 but was largely a nonissue prior to that time. In 1939, the Supreme Court took a collectivist approach when it allowed the Federal government to regulate sawed off shotguns under the interstate commerce clause by arguing that the amendment referred to a militia and not to an individual. The decision was neither as complete nor as sweeping as many anti-gun proponents have asserted, but it stood for about 70 years. More recent Court decisions against the cities of Washington and Chicago have asserted that it represents a guarantee of an individual’s right to be armed and that the guarantee applies not simply to the Federal government but to state and local governments, as well, under the 14th Amednment. These decisions are neither as complete nor as weeping as many pro-gun proponents have asserted, but they have certainly reversed the trend in the collectivist direction.

The SL’s constitution is several times as old as the present US Constitution, and (in many ways) constitutional law is much less well developed in the SL than in the US because the SL’s constitution has been essentially ignored in so many ways during the evolution of the present bureaucratic system. The sheer age of that bureaucratic system --- fact that it's been in existence and effectively unchallenged for so many centuries --- only reinforces that tendency and obscures the theoretically clear limitations on governmental power in general. Thus the right to secede from the League is in fact recognized by “all” constitutional authorities as existing in law but is not universally recognized as existing in fact. This is an important distinction, and one which is, unfortunately, often lost sight of by people who believe in the rules of law.

For example, US history is replete with presidents , congresses, and (especially) agencies which have cheerfully ignored constitutional restrictions until/unless they were brought up short by the courts . . . and in some cases, even after being ruled against by the courts. I’m sure quite a few US citizens will recall FDR’s attempt to pack the Supreme Court when the Court began ruling his anti-Depression programs unconstitutional. Going farther back in time we have Andrew Jackson defying the Marshall Court in Worcester v. Georgia, and present day federal agencies like the IRS are notorious for nonacquiescence — that is, for deliberately ignoring court decisions which go against them and refusing to accept their validity as binding precedent. In the final analysis, the rule of law — the ability of the judiciary to enforce its interpretation of law on the rest of government — depends upon the willingness of the rest of the government to allow itself to be so bound. The US idea is that the balance of powers between the branches will produce not just rivalries but also natural alliances between them, in the sense of each branch safeguarding its own power from encroachment by the others and combining to prevent any one branch from usurping its/their powers. The equation depends upon balance, however, and once the balance begins slipping, it’s almost inevitable that one branch or the other will begin amassing a disproportionate share of power at the cost of the other branches, regardless of anything the letter of the law may say.

Mandarins, anyone?

Wow DW thank you for the post!

I guess its scary seeing the US Government ignoring it own laws!

But I see how that works in the SL... which is far more corrupt

I guess the mandarins are about to rue the day that they amassed so much power.

Thank you. I think the Honorverse reality would mirror United States History before, during and after the War Between The States...1861 to 1865. Many Southern American states seceded from the Union. The US Constitution had no real language keeping them in the Union

The driving force of the War Between The States was probably emotional and highly economic. Big egos and bigger potential war profits drove logic from the minds of those on both sides. History shows us how THAT ended up. The South lost and we still experience the after effects.

Could Beowulf secede from the Sollie Union? I dunno. Different situation than in America, USA in 1861. Probably they could if they wanted to. But it might be to their best advantage to work both sides of the fence and remain as a conduit of communication, reason and sanity...and hope.

Just me. HB of CJ (old coot) Lt.Cm. born in Big Lick VA.

WOW!

I could not have said it better myself.

If I had been the one who said it, I would have provoked a flame war and Duckk would have banned me, again.

That being said, Beawulf benefits from a clause in the SL Constitution that explicitly enumerates the right of secession. More importantly, RMN Homefleet, Eiigth Fleet and Tenth Fleet at Lynxx Terminus are only one or two wormhole transits away.

runsforcelery wrote:

Alistair wrote:In Pearls of Weber it states:

If Beowulf had wished at any time to become a member star system of the Star Kingdom of Manticore, it could legally have done so. The Solarian League Constitution, like that of the Republic of Haven, enshrines the right of self-determination by its member systems, and the right of any member system to withdraw from the League. No full member system has ever attempted to do so, and the possible consequences of such an attempt might be interesting, but the legal right exists and is recognized by all constitutional scholars.

If Beowulf right to leave is recognised by ALL "constitutional scholars" then do the Mandarins have a leg to stand on in the court of public opinion when Beowulf leaves the SL?

The question here isn't whether or not Beowulf has a legal right as defined by the Constitution to leave the League; it's whether or not the constitutional provision is still operable, despite never having been repealed or formally amended.

To pick a couple of somewhat contentious present day US constitutional debates: the 10th and 2nd Amendments. The 10th Amendment's specific guarantee of the powers of the states has been largely emasculated simply by being ignored by the Federal government, effectively since the end of the Civil War and even more since the 17th amendment established the direct election of senators and eliminated the process which was supposed to make the Senate the guarantor of federalism. The question of whether or not the 2nd Amendment protects an individual or a collective right — that is, whether it refers to individuals’ right to be armed or only to the creation of a “well regulated militia” — has been especially vexatious in the US since 1939 but was largely a nonissue prior to that time. In 1939, the Supreme Court took a collectivist approach when it allowed the Federal government to regulate sawed off shotguns under the interstate commerce clause by arguing that the amendment referred to a militia and not to an individual. The decision was neither as complete nor as sweeping as many anti-gun proponents have asserted, but it stood for about 70 years. More recent Court decisions against the cities of Washington and Chicago have asserted that it represents a guarantee of an individual’s right to be armed and that the guarantee applies not simply to the Federal government but to state and local governments, as well, under the 14th Amednment. These decisions are neither as complete nor as weeping as many pro-gun proponents have asserted, but they have certainly reversed the trend in the collectivist direction.

The SL’s constitution is several times as old as the present US Constitution, and (in many ways) constitutional law is much less well developed in the SL than in the US because the SL’s constitution has been essentially ignored in so many ways during the evolution of the present bureaucratic system. The sheer age of that bureaucratic system --- fact that it's been in existence and effectively unchallenged for so many centuries --- only reinforces that tendency and obscures the theoretically clear limitations on governmental power in general. Thus the right to secede from the League is in fact recognized by “all” constitutional authorities as existing in law but is not universally recognized as existing in fact. This is an important distinction, and one which is, unfortunately, often lost sight of by people who believe in the rules of law.

For example, US history is replete with presidents , congresses, and (especially) agencies which have cheerfully ignored constitutional restrictions until/unless they were brought up short by the courts . . . and in some cases, even after being ruled against by the courts. I’m sure quite a few US citizens will recall FDR’s attempt to pack the Supreme Court when the Court began ruling his anti-Depression programs unconstitutional. Going farther back in time we have Andrew Jackson defying the Marshall Court in Worcester v. Georgia, and present day federal agencies like the IRS are notorious for nonacquiescence — that is, for deliberately ignoring court decisions which go against them and refusing to accept their validity as binding precedent. In the final analysis, the rule of law — the ability of the judiciary to enforce its interpretation of law on the rest of government — depends upon the willingness of the rest of the government to allow itself to be so bound. The US idea is that the balance of powers between the branches will produce not just rivalries but also natural alliances between them, in the sense of each branch safeguarding its own power from encroachment by the others and combining to prevent any one branch from usurping its/their powers. The equation depends upon balance, however, and once the balance begins slipping, it’s almost inevitable that one branch or the other will begin amassing a disproportionate share of power at the cost of the other branches, regardless of anything the letter of the law may say.

Mandarins, anyone?

Probably because RFC presented his argument in an objective manner without inserting personal opinions or blaming specific people or political parties.

Historically when you attempt to make points such as this the post often ends up coming across (whether you intend it to or not) as a tirade against the people and/or political parties you disagree with.

namelessfly wrote:WOW!

I could not have said it better myself.

If I had been the one who said it, I would have provoked a flame war and Duckk would have banned me, again.

That being said, Beawulf benefits from a clause in the SL Constitution that explicitly enumerates the right of secession. More importantly, RMN Homefleet, Eiigth Fleet and Tenth Fleet at Lynxx Terminus are only one or two wormhole transits away.

runsforcelery wrote:To pick a couple of somewhat contentious present day US constitutional debates: the 10th and 2nd Amendments. The 10th Amendment's specific guarantee of the powers of the states has been largely emasculated simply by being ignored by the Federal government, effectively since the end of the Civil War and even more since the 17th amendment established the direct election of senators and eliminated the process which was supposed to make the Senate the guarantor of federalism. The question of whether or not the 2nd Amendment protects an individual or a collective right — that is, whether it refers to individuals’ right to be armed or only to the creation of a “well regulated militia” — has been especially vexatious in the US since 1939 but was largely a nonissue prior to that time. In 1939, the Supreme Court took a collectivist approach when it allowed the Federal government to regulate sawed off shotguns under the interstate commerce clause by arguing that the amendment referred to a militia and not to an individual. The decision was neither as complete nor as sweeping as many anti-gun proponents have asserted, but it stood for about 70 years. More recent Court decisions against the cities of Washington and Chicago have asserted that it represents a guarantee of an individual’s right to be armed and that the guarantee applies not simply to the Federal government but to state and local governments, as well, under the 14th Amednment. These decisions are neither as complete nor as weeping as many pro-gun proponents have asserted, but they have certainly reversed the trend in the collectivist direction.

The SL’s constitution is several times as old as the present US Constitution, and (in many ways) constitutional law is much less well developed in the SL than in the US because the SL’s constitution has been essentially ignored in so many ways during the evolution of the present bureaucratic system. The sheer age of that bureaucratic system --- fact that it's been in existence and effectively unchallenged for so many centuries --- only reinforces that tendency and obscures the theoretically clear limitations on governmental power in general. Thus the right to secede from the League is in fact recognized by “all” constitutional authorities as existing in law but is not universally recognized as existing in fact. This is an important distinction, and one which is, unfortunately, often lost sight of by people who believe in the rules of law.

For example, US history is replete with presidents , congresses, and (especially) agencies which have cheerfully ignored constitutional restrictions until/unless they were brought up short by the courts . . . and in some cases, even after being ruled against by the courts. I’m sure quite a few US citizens will recall FDR’s attempt to pack the Supreme Court when the Court began ruling his anti-Depression programs unconstitutional. Going farther back in time we have Andrew Jackson defying the Marshall Court in Worcester v. Georgia, and present day federal agencies like the IRS are notorious for nonacquiescence — that is, for deliberately ignoring court decisions which go against them and refusing to accept their validity as binding precedent. In the final analysis, the rule of law — the ability of the judiciary to enforce its interpretation of law on the rest of government — depends upon the willingness of the rest of the government to allow itself to be so bound. The US idea is that the balance of powers between the branches will produce not just rivalries but also natural alliances between them, in the sense of each branch safeguarding its own power from encroachment by the others and combining to prevent any one branch from usurping its/their powers. The equation depends upon balance, however, and once the balance begins slipping, it’s almost inevitable that one branch or the other will begin amassing a disproportionate share of power at the cost of the other branches, regardless of anything the letter of the law may say.

Mandarins, anyone?

The 10th amendment states that the states have all powers which have not been given to the federal government nor forbidden to the state. Based on this strict interpretation the south had every right to sucede from the Union. I think Lincoln had the best of intentions, but technically he was in the wrong about forcing the Union to be whole.
In the case of the SL, without the current struggles with the SEM, I think the Manderins would have treated any sucessionest systems they same way. Now, with the SEM and the SL pushed into conflict, they are more willing to let it go because thay have bigger fish to fry.

ok, mini off-tpoic rant:

runsforcelery wrote:To pick a couple of somewhat contentious present day US constitutional debates: the 10th and 2nd Amendments. The 10th Amendment's specific guarantee of the powers of the states has been largely emasculated simply by being ignored by the Federal government, effectively since the end of the Civil War and even more since the 17th amendment established the direct election of senators and eliminated the process which was supposed to make the Senate the guarantor of federalism.

Thank you Thank you Thank you Runsforcelery. I have been searching high and low for someone who, apparently, finds the 17th amendment completely agianst what the forfathers wanted. Others: check it out. The consitution created the senate for the individual states to be represented. The 17th amendment took the power away from state legislative bodies, to appoint their state senators, to represent the states rights in congress, and gives it to the peoplein another popular vote decision to be made. The state has lost the ability to stand up for itself in the law making and desicion process.
Runs for Celery?
Maybe "Runs with celery" and the rest of just chase him like the treecat celery addicts we are, waitting for him to dop a stalk here or there.

runsforcelery wrote:The question of whether or not the 2nd Amendment protects an individual or a collective right — that is, whether it refers to individuals’ right to be armed or only to the creation of a “well regulated militia” — has been especially vexatious in the US since 1939 but was largely a nonissue prior to that time.

And that´s one reason why USA seriously needs to get a new constitution. Which is of course an impossible ideal.

Anyone neutral in the question, with halfdecent linguist/English skills will state that 2nd amendment refers to militia rights, as the USA was originally meant to not have any army at all(as that was seen as leading to imperialism and foreign ventures), with individuals forming a militia replacing that, because not reading it like that makes the text itself nonsensical and internally inconsistent.

Even with modern language, it´s clear, but once you look at it based on the time it was written, it´s blatantly obvious.

runsforcelery wrote: Thus the right to secede from the League is in fact recognized by “all” constitutional authorities as existing in law but is not universally recognized as existing in fact. This is an important distinction, and one which is, unfortunately, often lost sight of by people who believe in the rules of law.

In reale, is it de facto or de jure that matters...


And maybe i should have started with whatever closer to ontopic i was going to write, because now i´ve forgotten what that was...

If they do leave the league, what are the chances they will join the empire? It would be the most clear message that they are no longer a part of the league.

Tenshinai wrote:And that´s one reason why USA seriously needs to get a new constitution. Which is of course an impossible ideal.

Anyone neutral in the question, with halfdecent linguist/English skills will state that 2nd amendment refers to militia rights, as the USA was originally meant to not have any army at all(as that was seen as leading to imperialism and foreign ventures), with individuals forming a militia replacing that, because not reading it like that makes the text itself nonsensical and internally inconsistent.

Even with modern language, it´s clear, but once you look at it based on the time it was written, it´s blatantly obvious.

Sorry to hijack the post about this, and I won't continue in this post after this post, regardless of responses given back, PM me or create a new thread in the Anything forum and I'll be happy to continue disscussing, but to provide a counter point to Tenshinai in this thread:
Yes, due to no standing army the militia was meant to defend when needed, and yes we have a standing army now. However... ( you knew it was coming )

From http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/second_amendment

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Its says that so the militia may be maintained, individuals may own their own weapons. The militia's weapons could have been maintained by the states but they decided the its the people's rights that they should own them. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The militia was a reason to do so, not the reason to do so.
And I argue that the militia is still valid, in the unlikly senario where a dictator takes power and controls the military, we need to be able to defend ourselves.
Done, I'm sure, for now.

Back on topic:

runsforcelery wrote:The question here isn't whether or not Beowulf has a legal right as defined by the Constitution to leave the League; it's whether or not the constitutional provision is still operable, despite never having been repealed or formally amended.

SNIP

The SL’s constitution is several times as old as the present US Constitution, and (in many ways) constitutional law is much less well developed in the SL than in the US because the SL’s constitution has been essentially ignored in so many ways during the evolution of the present bureaucratic system. The sheer age of that bureaucratic system --- fact that it's been in existence and effectively unchallenged for so many centuries --- only reinforces that tendency and obscures the theoretically clear limitations on governmental power in general. Thus the right to secede from the League is in fact recognized by “all” constitutional authorities as existing in law but is not universally recognized as existing in fact. This is an important distinction, and one which is, unfortunately, often lost sight of by people who believe in the rules of law.

For example, US history is replete with presidents , congresses, and (especially) agencies which have cheerfully ignored constitutional restrictions until/unless they were brought up short by the courts . . . and in some cases, even after being ruled against by the courts. I’m sure quite a few US citizens will recall FDR’s attempt to pack the Supreme Court when the Court began ruling his anti-Depression programs unconstitutional. Going farther back in time we have Andrew Jackson defying the Marshall Court in Worcester v. Georgia, and present day federal agencies like the IRS are notorious for nonacquiescence — that is, for deliberately ignoring court decisions which go against them and refusing to accept their validity as binding precedent. In the final analysis, the rule of law — the ability of the judiciary to enforce its interpretation of law on the rest of government — depends upon the willingness of the rest of the government to allow itself to be so bound. The US idea is that the balance of powers between the branches will produce not just rivalries but also natural alliances between them, in the sense of each branch safeguarding its own power from encroachment by the others and combining to prevent any one branch from usurping its/their powers. The equation depends upon balance, however, and once the balance begins slipping, it’s almost inevitable that one branch or the other will begin amassing a disproportionate share of power at the cost of the other branches, regardless of anything the letter of the law may say.

Mandarins, anyone?

The real concern is weather the Mandarins can afford to spend the time and energy confronting the succesion of the Beowulf from the SL with the SEM just wiping out Filereta.
Officially they don't have a leg to stand on but must allow them to leave. Unofficially, laws and rules made centuries ago tend to be overlooked in the fact that it seems to have never been attempted before. We do not read of any other system having tried to leave the SL. Based on that, the desire to leave the SL probaly is being viewed from colored glasses by most citizens. The forward motion of no one having tried it in the past will sweep away the voices in support of the succesion due to the fact it alters the status quo, and that scares people more than most things.
This is my humble opinion. I could be totally wrong of course...

Tenshinai wrote:

runsforcelery wrote:The question of whether or not the 2nd Amendment protects an individual or a collective right — that is, whether it refers to individuals’ right to be armed or only to the creation of a “well regulated militia” — has been especially vexatious in the US since 1939 but was largely a nonissue prior to that time.

And that´s one reason why USA seriously needs to get a new constitution. Which is of course an impossible ideal.

Anyone neutral in the question, with halfdecent linguist/English skills will state that 2nd amendment refers to militia rights, as the USA was originally meant to not have any army at all(as that was seen as leading to imperialism and foreign ventures), with individuals forming a militia replacing that, because not reading it like that makes the text itself nonsensical and internally inconsistent.

Even with modern language, it´s clear, but once you look at it based on the time it was written, it´s blatantly obvious.


And maybe i should have started with whatever closer to ontopic i was going to write, because now i´ve forgotten what that was...

If it were that cut-and-dried the issue would not have arisen. The Founders based a lot of their political thought on their understanding of the British Glorious Revolution of 1688 and the Bill of Rights of 1689. The latter, among other things, specifically deprived the Crown of the right to deprive citizens of arms (I believe there was an "appropriate to their class" limitation, but I'm not sure without looking it up) for the purpose of self-defense and also to assist in the maintenance of public order.

The actual text of the 2nd amendment reads "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed," and the problems in interpretation hinge upon what "a free State" is, who "the people" are in this case, and what "shall not be infringed" means.

If "the people" are, indeed, simply the organized militia(s) of the United States, then the notion that arms are necessary to "the security of a free State" depends upon the coercive government the Founds most feared not having a monopoly on force; i.e., the militias, as state/local organizations would present an armed deterrent to a tyrannical ventral government that would trample on their rights and freedoms . . . which was precisely how the Rebels had regarded the government of George III. In other words, the militia(s) were the mailed fist that was supposed to be the ultimate guarantor of federalism. Unfortunately for this interpretation in modern terms, the Civil War pretty clearly showed that it didn't work (from the South's perspective) and the Federal government's willingness (and ability) to federalize the national guard --- as Eisenhower did in Arkansas in 1954 --- sort of erases the rganized militia"/national guard as a deterrent (for good or ill) on Federal authority/overreach (definitions of which are which will vary).

If the original notion that the militia was to provide the deterrent to federal tyranny, and if the federal power can federalize the militia when it chooses to do so, then the deterrent has to be vested somewhere else or abandoned. There were, of course, other reasons for the Founders to favor a militia system over a standing army, but it's clear from their correspondence that they were most concerned about the potential for "tyranny" (a word they used a lot) of a central government with a monopoly on armed force. Arguments can certainly be made for abandoning the "deterrent to tyranny" argument entirely; arguments can also be made against abandoning it, however.

Moving beyond the notion of restraining the federal government, however, brings us to the "arms for self defense" argument which was an explicit part of the Bill of Rights of 1869 and (in my opinion; others may vary) clearly implicit in the 2nd Amendment. If self defense is a part of the right, then it must clearly apply to individuals, not simply organized militias, and the general view in the US prior to the 1939 court case I referenced earlier was that it did. That position has now been (largely) reinstated, but in the context of the passage of another 70-80 years.

Which brings us to what "shall not be infringed" means. Does it mean shall be absolutely unrestricted, in which case I can park a nuke in the basement and carry Sarin gas in my car? Does it mean only small arms, or are crew-served weapons covered, as well? Does it allow the government to theoretically allow its citizens to be armed while hedging the weapons with which they may be armed with so many restrictions as to make them effectively useless?

I tend to come down on the side of the Framers' intention having been, first, to prevent a federal monopoly on force, second, to provide for local defense in situations in which the federal forces could not respond in a timely fashion, third, to require the federal government to summon the militia if a need for armed force arose as a means of restraining adventurism, and, fourth, to allow individuals the means to defend themselves and their families against attack. The first three are all sort of rolled together and subsumed in the existence of the militia; the fourth is related to but separate from it. If, therefore, the national guard continues to fulfill the function of the militia for peacekeeping, local security, rescue, etc., and we are going to decide that its function of preventing "federal tyranny" is no longer applicable, then the "right of the people" to be armed in self-defense becomes the focal point of the debate. Personally, I believe the Founders intended for US citizens to have that right for that purpose. Others clearly disagree, which is their right. It is also my right to vote for or against candidates on the basis of how they feel on this issue, and I intend to continue doing so.

In any case, the interpretation is not nearly so cut-and-dried as your summation suggests and the argument in question has been going on for over 300 years now.

I don't expect it to end tomorrow.