UPDATE: sorry to those who point out that the oath of office does NOT require anyone to swear on a Bible. You're absolutely correct: the U.S. was not founded as a Christian nation, though of course there were scraps of Christianity here and there (how could there not be). I am completely wrong on the taking-the-oath-on-a-Bible thing.
Also, the reason for the re-post is because of McCain/Palin's new attention to Ayers, a man who Obama happens to know, and nothing more (whereas Palin seems to endorse the AIP). If push comes to shove, I can envision a commercial tying Sarah and Todd Palin to the AIP and secesionnists like Joe Vogler.
THE OLD: I am reposting in hopes that more people become aware that secession is unconstitutional and, frankly, a treasonous philosophy.
It seems almost certain (see LA Times 9/3/08) that Sarah Palin has supported putting an initiative on the Alaska ballot that would allow Alaskans to vote on whether to leave the union.
The McCain flacks say that Palin did not actually want Alaska to leave the union, but refuse to say whether she wanted to give Alaskans the chance to vote on the matter. If Palin even thinks that a state can vote itself out of the union, she is committing herself to a treasonous philosophy and one that makes a mockery of the Pledge of Allegiance ("One nation ... indivisible") and the oath of office (uphold and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic).
As a college professor who teaches the history of the American Civil War, I find it distressing that McCain has chosen a running mate who endorses what amounts to treason and who wants to take this country back to before the Civil War.
In the comments on a previous, shrill post, readers asked not only for my evidence but also wondered why I would use the word "treason" to describe McCain/Palin. "Treason" is a word that wingnuts like to throw at us. I remember when Michael Savage, shortly after the Iraq invasion, said he'd like to rip us anti-war people out of our cars and beat us senseless (something like that) because we're all traitors. You know how it is.
So why do I use the word "treason"? Because the very IDEA that a state has the right to leave the union--via a vote within that state or any other way--is an attack on the Constitution and a treasonous philosophy.
Remember that the Civil War was a war against secession first, and only became a war against slavery later. In 1861, secession was called treason, which it was.
Not a few Southerners, Alaskans, and ardent conservatives in the inland West still think that secession is constitutional. Even Gore Vidal argues that secession in 1861 was constitutional. Gore Vidal, however, is not a constitutional scholar.
So what did the founders say about the right of a state to declare its independence? Almost nothing. They were too afraid that if they settled that question for certain, the Constitution would not get ratified. So you had Anti-federalists (those opposed to the Constitution) telling people that, if they ratified, they could never leave the Union. And you had Federalists (supporters of the Constitution) telling people that, if they ratified, they could always leave the Union if they changed their minds later.
Keep in mind, however, that the Constitution was ratified by "we, the people," not "we, the states," which suggests that sovereignty lies in the whole people of the United States, NOT in the people of an individual state. Remember, too, that the Constitution was intended "to create a more perfect union," not a less perfect union. The less perfect union that it sought to improve was the one created by the Articles of Confederation and PERPETUAL UNION." I emphasize "PERPETUAL UNION." If the Constitution was creating a "more perfect union," then, logically it could not have permitted a state to declare independence, given that the Articles--the less perfect union--had been "perpetual."
If we debate the matter further, we come to the question of whether the states or the federal government came into existence first. Lincoln argued that the Continental Congress came into existence before the states, then gave the colonies the go-ahead to write their own state constitutions. That means that the people of the U.S. as a whole existed before the people of any individual state. It's a defensible position though not without flaws (no argument re the right of a state to secede or not secede was without flaws before the Civil War).
Because the founders failed to address the secession question head-on, they left the question to the nation to address through war. That happened in 1861. The Union lost 360,000 men in that war and the Confederacy lost 260,000 (the total, 618,000, is just about the number that the U.S. has lost in all its other wars combined). Abraham Lincoln gave his life in the cause of defending the Union against the threat of secession.
After the war, Congress and the states passed the 14th Amendment to the Constitution--a thing that modern secessionists HATE (see the League of the South website)--in part to guarantee that no state would ever again declare independence from the U.S. You cannot have a U.S. if you give states the right to leave. Every time a state is angry with the federal government, it would want to secede.
The 14th Amendment guarantees that a state cannot "abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." If a state were to leave the Union, of course, it would be not just abridging those privileges and immunities, but abolishing them altogether. In other words, a state cannot secede, and to attempt to do so is to attempt treason (not to put too fine a point on it).
Now, as we know, Todd Palin was a member of the Alaskan Independence Party (AIP)for 7 years, until 2002. The AIP's fondest wish has always been secession (independence), but they have in recent years moderated their positions somewhat. They want Alaskans to vote on whether to leave the Union outright, to become a "commonwealth" (like Puerto Rico), or to resume territorial status. I don't think either of the latter options are legal or constitutional. But even if they are, the inclusion of secession--independence--in the provision that they seek to put before the Alaska voters is, well, it is TREASON.
Perhaps it is not actionable treason. Actionable treason would only come IF the state actually tried to declare independence, which it will never do. But the point is, NO STATE CAN VOTE ON WHETHER TO LEAVE THE UNION. NO STATE HAS THAT RIGHT.
So when Sarah Palin calls the AIP "inspirational" and tells its members "God bless you and keep up the good work," she is flirting with treason. Does she know that? I doubt it. She's not educated enough to be aware of the issue. And I'm afraid that neither are most Americans. I'm afraid that few of us really know our country's history and Constitution.
My point is this: unless Palin absolutely, unconditionally says that a state has no right to secede, even if a majority of its citizens want secession, she CANNOT in good conscience take the oath of office. The oath requires her to swear on a BIBLE, no less, to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Secessionists are in essense domestic enemies, and I strongly suspect (am 99% sure) that some of them have ties to militias that, at one time if not now, wanted to bring down the U.S. governemtn. I'm not saying that Palin has such ties, but certainly others in the AIP do.
Remember, the founder of the AIP, Joe Vogler, said he had "no use for America or her damned institutions," and vowed not to be buried on U.S. soil. He was murdered while purchasing plastic explosives. Sorta like a drug deal gone bad, but in this case a plastic explosives deal gone bad. He was a miner, so perhaps he wanted to use the explosives for mining, but what are the odds that he had in mind some other use for those explosives? I don't know, but I hope our press can find out.
Nor can Sarah Palin say the Pledge of Allegiance in good conscience. If she even believes that Alaska HAS THE RIGHT to declare independence, even if she herself doesn't want Alaska to do that, she cannot take the Pledge. The Pledge commits us to "ONE nation, under God, INDIVISIBLE." Those words were added precisely to head off any thought of secession.
Sarah Palin has supported the idea of letting Alaskans vote on whether to declare independence. That alone makes her a liar when she says the pledge. She CANNOT say the words "ONE nation" and "INDIVISIBLE" without lying. THERE IS NO RIGHT TO SECESSION. THE UNITED STATES IS INDIVISIBLE. IT IS ONE NATION. Okay, I grant you, she simply hasn't thought about the meaning of those words. Most of us haven't. That's what a pledge becomes ... just words, meaningless words, that we ritually incant. But if she did think about the meaning, she'd realize that she is lying UNLESS she utterly and wholely repudiates the idea that a state has the right to leave the union.
This is the same Pledge of Allegiance that conservatives have so ardently defended when it was suggested that "under God" be removed. It is really pretty funny that they are furious that "under God" might be removed to reflect the reality that the nation was founded as a bastion of religious freedom, yet they are just fine with removing the words "ONE nation" and "INDIVISIBLE." Laughable. Sad.
Now I'll return to John McCain, he the great patriot. But not so great that he was interested in finding out much about Sarah Palin before choosing her as a running mate. I doubt he knew of her secessionist sympathies, which make a mockery of his service to the United States, "ONE nation ... INDIVISIBLE." And I am quite sure that his aides are hoping against hope that no one will explore the great irony of a "patriot" choosing a secessionist sympathizer to run as VP.
She is so poorly educated that she doesn't understand that she represents treason, but she does. Not actionable treason, as I have said ... not treason that gets you sent to prison ... but a treasonous philosophy.
And if John McCain actually DOES endorse the idea that a state can vote on whether to declare itself independent from the U.S., he too is supporting a treasonous philosophy.
Let them have it, people. Let them have it. The McCain/Palin ticket is an outrage. I want everyone to know what secession really means, what it REALLY implies. It is not just a silly ideology of a tiny fringe party in Alaska, it is a form of treason.
McCain has been hammered, thankfully, on the economy ... the great de-regulator who now wants to be the great regulator. But please, please, let Americans also know that secession is NOT CONSITUTIONAL, and that Sarah Palin's support just for the idea that a state HAS THE RIGHT to secede--whether or not she thinks any state should secede--makes her unable to take the Oath of Office or say the Pledge of Allegiance in good faith.
What a mockery of patriotism. And of John McCain. God help us.