Lew and Tom: I’ve never understood the anti-secessionist reasoning that says the Civil War settled the secession question as a matter of law. This is not a legal issue — anymore than the Revolutionary War was — but a philosophic question; a principled inquiry into the moral rightness of allowing some to rule others by institutionalized violence. Those who believe secession to be unlawful ought, in good conscience, undertake a plan to (a) terminate the present constitutional system, and (b) return America to its colonial status with Great Britain (and begging forgiveness for having undertaken such an illegal act more than two centuries ago).
Legal arguments against secession are as absurd as the suggestion that, once an employee has contracted to work for an employer, he is thereafter prohibited from terminating the arrangement. The government uses this argument in the hiring of soldiers, but would such an opinion be respectable among decent men and women? That such a position would be tantamount to endorsing slavery is as evident in private contract law as it is in politics!
Of course Scalia — and all other federal government officials — would be opposed to secession: should the present system become dismantled, he and his colleagues would have to seek employment elsewhere. Outside of the realm of politics, where do any of these career politicos have any experience that would be valuable in a marketplace?
