Thernlund
Member
Having only breezed over the thread, I asked a very large group attorneys for thoughts. Interspersed among the biased political rantings was one unbiased comment that said this, to paraphrase...
So basically, if the ruling goes to "collective rights", anything in Montana's contract for statehood concerning "individual rights" fails the contemporary interpretation of the Constitution. Short of war, they have no right to secede.
-T.
EDIT: Also maybe of interest, one comment said...
States enter into the Union through enabling acts. These acts are federal laws and are subordinate to both the letter and interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. This is how some state laws can be declared "unconstitutional"
So for example, a state admitted as a "slave state" before the Civil War is nevertheless subject to the later 13th Amendment of the Constitution that outlaws slavery. Arizona's enabling act requires English as our official language. If that is ever found to violate the contemporary interpretation of the Constitution, that provision fails and we don't get to secede.
So basically, if the ruling goes to "collective rights", anything in Montana's contract for statehood concerning "individual rights" fails the contemporary interpretation of the Constitution. Short of war, they have no right to secede.
-T.
EDIT: Also maybe of interest, one comment said...
Justice Scalia, usually a conservative, is infamous for his "originalist interpretation" of the Constitution. ... Scalia has a history of going "liberal" where originalism calls for it (examples involving the rights of an accused).
Last edited: