Isn't there an underlying premise, namely, that if one has a country (however that comes to be), one does not, alone or with others, have the right to separate and self-determine apart from the others in that country? In the mid nineteenth century, states in the South were prevented from self-determining an independent or confederated existence. The current Administration opposes self-determination by assorted ethnic groups in Iraq. In contrast, groups in the former Yugoslavia, with or without approval or acceptance by others did self-determine and created or resuscitated separate countries.
What if each person on the face of the earth decided, in self-determination, to be his or her own country (the "me generation" taken to its logical extreme) and then entered into alliances that were self-determined as valuable, necessary or useful? Granted, the logistics are mind-boggling when one applies that math formula to 6 billion separate self-determined "mes" but in theory, at least, it raises the question of who gets to say that the land from the Pacific to Atlantic coast south of roughly the 44th parallel and north of the Rio Grande, etc. is a place such that those who reside there are limited in self-determination. True, someone can "leave" an area but so long as there are soverign nations with "self-determined" rules, the wandering person without a country does not have the full slate of choices that genuine self-determination offers. The person has choices within the boundaries set by majorities of groups occupying historically based "countries." Whatever justification is advanced for doing self-determination within the confines of historically, politically, and militarily established areas is probably going to make defense of self-determination within those areas more difficult. There are some serious dilemmas at the core depth of the notion of self-determination. Note: I'm not advocating the dissolution of nations. At least not in this post. And I'm not rejecting the self-determination arguments being advanced. I'm simply asking where does the analytical process begin, and if it doesn't begin with the individual qua individual, why not? Jim Maule Professor of Law, Villanova University School of Law Villanova PA 19085 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://vls.law.vill.edu/prof/maule President, TaxJEM Inc (computer assisted tax law instruction) (www.taxjem.com) Publisher, JEMBook Publishing Co. (www.jembook.com) Owner/Developer, TaxCruncherPro (www.taxcruncherpro.com) Maule Family Archivist & Genealogist (www.maulefamily.com) >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/07/03 11:28AM >>> What is "self-rule" and why should we value it? "Self-rule" is not in itself the first value of government. It is a technique for realizing the first value of government, which is justice. I think that the term "self-determination" is more useful than "self-rule", because it has been better defined. Most lawyers now accept that all peoples have the right to self-determination and that by virtue of this right they should be able freely to determine their political status and freely to pursue their economic, social and cultural development. (see the human rights covenants). It may be more controversial, but probably acceptable to everyone on this list to add that everyone has the right to take part in the government of her or his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives, and that the will of the people should be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures. (see the Universal Declaration of Human Rights). The difficulty arises in making sure that this exercise of popular sovereignty does not violate the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family, without distinction as to race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Constitutional restrictions that limit and qualify direct democracy usually exist for the purpose of guiding the exercise of self-determination towards respect for individual rights. Tim Sellers >===== Original Message From Discussion list for con law professors <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ===== > Four inexcusably brief remarks: > > 1. It was never my view that we should be contemptuous of the Founding >population. > > 2. Saying that the Founders never intended American government to be >free of undemocratic elements merely states the problem rather than resolves >it. The problem persists, namely, how are undemocratic elements in a system of >government compatible with the idea of self-rule. If such compatibility exists, >it must be explained and defended. (Incidentally, my hunch is that such an >explanation is possible. My point is that it is necessary.) > > 3. Embracing democracy in no way entails a commitment to "populist >democracy." Democratic theory contains democratic alternatives to 'populism," in >the ordinary sense of that term. > > 4. From both a pragmatist and democratic perspective, I think it >dangerous in the extreme to canonize any group of people because their education >and experience were impressive, or even because their principles were good. >Whether we can learn from the Founding generation (of course, we can) is, in my >view, largely irrelevant to the question of whether Founding-Centered (and >famous Founder-Centered) constitutionalism is appropriate. More important, >Founding-Centered constitutionalism tends to dedicate or fix constitutionalism in ways >that are, I would think, incompatible for self-rule. > >Bobby Lipkin >Widener University School of Law >Delaware
