We live in a very large country with regions that are very unlike each other, and I think that's our strength. That some regions of the country act in ways I find appalling is no reason for me to impose my will upon them, simply because I hold political power.

Culture changes over time and regions/states need to be given the room they need for their culture to change on its own.

Lately, I've been reading the Swiss constitution and find that document well worth some study. Switzerland is a confederation. The Cantons respect each others political rights while supporting each other in truly national matters.

Calhoun surely called it. I'm not creative enough to think up a solution other than nullification and interposition or, ultimately, secession. The 3 branches (separation of powers) was supposed to hold the system in balance but that's failed miserably for a variety of reasons, including the 2 party system.

To those who say states cannot withdraw from the union, I've often thought, but never seen it argued, that it is of some import that the Articles of Confederation were actually called "The Articles of Confederation and PERPETUAL Union." Obviously, they were not perpetual…

When the Articles were replaced by the US Constitution, the term 'perpetual union' was not used anywhere in the document. This is some evidence that the drafters were aware that the Union was not, in fact, perpetual and that, therefore, they were consciously aware that states could withdraw.

Beyond the writings of the time (which can go any direction you want them to go depending upon who wrote the notes and when they were written and who is reading them), there is the logical argument that a compact is just another word for a contract. A contract can be terminated by one of the parties even if there is no termination clause in the document.

There may be a price to pay if that constitutes a breach, but the law correctly recognizes that one cannot be held a slave to an agreement forever. Thus, specific performance is not available in equity as a remedy where personal services are the subject of the agreement. In that case, monetary damages are determined by the court (cost to get service performed by another, e.g.).

I've not seen any scholarly writings on the subject of potential damages for secession by a state today. That would be interesting.

The Southern States were hammered as a practical matter and that has set the tone for the debate. Intellectual debate on the topic is almost impossible today.

This post was mentioned on Twitter by libertyideals: Doomed From the Start? #libertarian http://bit.ly/cjpNRh…