Armstrong Economics Blog/Rule of Law Re-Posted Oct 3, 2023 by Martin Armstrong
California has become a foreign country that should be expelled from the Union. There has been much discussion of how a state can secede from the Union. Justice Scalia wrote a letter in 2006 saying the answer was no and that it had been decided by force with the American Civil War. That is not really a constitutional answer.
Interestingly, Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif. (RINO)) has been removed as House speaker by a vote of the House of Representatives on a motion to vacate the chair brought by Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida on a 216–210 vote. This unprecedented action now creates a political crisis, plunging the House of Representatives into inevitable confusion and uncertainty, not to mention a highly contentious battle over the speaker position.
This coincides as it simultaneously battles the calendar to complete the appropriations process and continues its impeachment investigation into President Joe Biden.
This raises serious questions about California and whether it should be expelled from the United States, especially as the Democrats want to put up California Governor Newsom to replace Biden – OMG! Is there any way a state could be removed from the US without its consent? All of the worst politicians, from Pelosi, Feinstein, David Valadao, one of 10 House Republicans who voted to impeach President Donald Trump, Adam Schiff, and McCarty to Newsom, have all been outright anti-American core values. Out of 53 politicians from California, only ten voted against impeaching Trump. At the same time, they support Biden and would vote against impeaching him.
A Constitutional amendment could do this job. But that is not so quick of a process. The Constitution provides that Congress may propose an amendment with a two-thirds majority vote in the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. Perhaps a Constitutional Convention could muster a two-thirds vote to expel California – from my mouth to God’s ears.
However, there is a hitch. “[N]o State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.” If a state is removed from the Union, it is not represented in the Senate. This begs the legal question: If a State is expelled at this point in time, is it still a state for the purposes of the Constitution? I would say NO WAY!
The Constitution does not describe such a method, and no one has ever tried to do so in the history of this imperfect union. Therefore, it cannot be prohibited. We know that during and immediately following the U.S. Civil War, some States attempted to secede from the U.S. to join the Confederate States of America. They were treated unconstitutionally for being denied the right to secede; they were still not allowed to be represented in Congress. They were demanded to end their insurrections, and a post-war government had to be approved by the Union forces in the Reconstruction era was in place. They were effectively stripped of all representation and treated themselves as slaves.
The Union States cleverly claimed that being denied Due Process of Law and stripped of representation in Congress, somehow using legal fiction, this was not on the theory that these areas had ceased to be States of the Union. The legal fiction used was based on the idea that there was a vacancy in the positions because these areas had not held elections for the U.S. House of Representatives.
Now comes the 14th Amendment, which was, at best, not Constitutionally valid. The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments. It has been hailed as addressing citizenship rights and equal protection under the law for former slaves. However, it is punitive and a denial of Due Process in and of itself, for the defeated Confederacy bitterly contested the amendment. They were denied all representation in Congress and had been defeated militarily. They were given NO CHOICE and were forced to ratify it in order to regain representation in Congress. But if they were not represented, then how could they ratify the Amendment?
It was ratified by duress, and that is fraud under the law. Still, people sometimes sign contracts privately under duress or because of undue influence or coercion. These are all legal terms referring to questionable tactics, and they may invalidate a contract. This is my argument that the 14th Amendment is unconstitutional, for the South was denied representation unless they ratified the Amendment.
They could elect no one and not appoint even a Senator. This is why they are now trying to apply this abuse of process to Trump, claiming anyone who participated in an “insurrection” can not hold office. That was retribution and punitive and stripped the rights of the people denying them to be fairly represented in Congress.
Prior to the 14th Amendment, this denial of U.S. government representation was viewed as a function of practical reality and the war powers of Congress, and perhaps the “invasion or insurrection” and “Republican government” clauses of the U.S. Constitution. There was absolutely no constitutional validity to the actions taken by the Union. It cannot be a free government of the people when the people are not free to elect whomever they desire.
There is precedent for the expulsion of a Member of Congress. The United States Constitution (Article I, Section 5, Clause 2) provides that “Each House [of Congress] may determine the Rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a member.” There is a legal maxim known as:
“Everything which is not forbidden is allowed.“
It is the legal concept that any action can be taken unless a law is against it. It is also known in some situations as the “general power of competence,” whereby the body or person being regulated is acknowledged to have a competent judgment of their scope of action. Suppose we apply this to expelling the State of California from the United States. In that case, NO law stands in the way, and the precedent from the Civil War is bogus and unconstitutional, which was railroaded by military force.
Centinel2012 