US at the brink of Civil War?

I looked around and did not see this posted anywhere, so I thought I would post. It sounds like we (US) are edging ever closerto a Civil War. A letter from the State of Montana was written and sent to Washington yesterday, that basically states they are willing to secede from the Union, depending on the outcome of the Supreme Court case D.C. Vs. Heller (look it up).

So if the court supports the "collective rights" argument, what next? It sounds like numerous other states have individual rights to bear arms in thier constitutions as well, and may be following suit.


sos.mt.gov...

www.washingtontimes.com... .dll/article?AID=/20080219/EDITORIAL/646772049&template=nextpage

The U.S. Supreme Court will soon decide D.C. v. Heller, the first case in more than 60 years in which the court will confront the meaning of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Although Heller is about the constitutionality of the D.C. handgun ban, the court's decision will have an impact far beyond the District ("Promises breached," Op-Ed, Thursday).



The court must decide in Heller whether the Second Amendment secures a right for individuals to keep and bear arms or merely grants states the power to arm their militias, the National Guard. This latter view is called the "collective rights" theory.



A collective rights decision by the court would violate the contract by which Montana entered into statehood, called the Compact With the United States and archived at Article I of the Montana Constitution. When Montana and the United States entered into this bilateral contract in 1889, the U.S. approved the right to bear arms in the Montana Constitution, guaranteeing the right of "any person" to bear arms, clearly an individual right.



There was no assertion in 1889 that the Second Amendment was susceptible to a collective rights interpretation, and the parties to the contract understood the Second Amendment to be consistent with the declared Montana constitutional right of "any person" to bear arms.



As a bedrock principle of law, a contract must be honored so as to give effect to the intent of the contracting parties. A collective rights decision by the court in Heller would invoke an era of unilaterally revisable contracts by violating the statehood contract between the United States and Montana, and many other states.



Numerous Montana lawmakers have concurred in a resolution raising this contract-violation issue. It's posted at progunleaders.org. The United States would do well to keep its contractual promise to the states that the Second Amendment secures an individual right now as it did upon execution of the statehood contract.

------------------------------
Replaced 'quote' tags with 'ex' tags

Please read 'Posting work written by others'

www.abovetopsecret.com...




[edit on 21/2/08 by masqua]

I don't think it's an issue of secession, yet. It will be long, drawn out appeals that take years first- after all, we are in America- before the state would try to secede. Would the state of Montana be able to handle the military pressure the US would most assuredly place on them? Only time could tell on that front.

And in seceding, I see a Petoria like situation arising. Someone grab Mayor Adam West, quick!

OK, maybe *secede* is the wrong word here. From the way I read it though, the ratified Montana constitution was an agreement between the commonwelth of Montana, and the US government to become a state. Both sides ratified the Montana constitution.
If the Supreme Court rules the "collective rights" and not "individal rights" they are basically breaking that agreement. In doing so the State of Montana feels that the contract between the state, and the federal government becomes "null and void" due to breach of the mutual contract.

So if this actually happen, what next? Probably nothing, and it will be held up in the courts for years. But, based on the way the Montana (and other) state constitutions were written, they COULD absolve themselvs from the Union. That is why the state constitution was written that way. It provided an *out* should the federal government attempt to take state and individual rights away.

It will be interesting to see what comes of this. I think they are some pretty strong words, indicating possible intent.

Can the State of Montana stand alone on this, no. However, if people view D.C. vs. Heller as unconstitutional, and the first steps to removing wepons from the hands of law abiding citicens, it could escilate fast. This could very well be the first steps.

I've noticed, though the Montana Secretary of State's letter makes mention that the Supreme Court decision may violate the contract between the Commonwealth and the United States federal government, it makes no mention of succession.