To: Old Teufel Hunden
The Southern states could have called a constitutional convention, they could have tried to do so politically. They did not have to. Just as no convention is necessary to grant rights, no convention is necessary to assert them.
138 posted on
08/05/2010 8:50:15 AM PDT by
An.American.Expatriate
(Here's my strategy on the War against Terrorism: We win, they lose. - with apologies to R.R.)
To: An.American.Expatriate; Old Teufel Hunden
Just as no convention is necessary to grant rights, no convention is necessary to assert them.
Except that unilateral secession wasn’t a right they had to assert.
143 posted on
08/05/2010 8:57:59 AM PDT by
rockrr
(Everything is different now...)
To: An.American.Expatriate
"They did not have to. Just as no convention is necessary to grant rights, no convention is necessary to assert them."
Individuals have rights given by their creator. Governments have powers delegated to them by the people (at least thats the way ours works). The Southern States had no power of secession ever. The founders did not believe so and when they came into the union they were not given this "opt out" clause. Clearly people have the right of secession. It's called moving to a different state or country.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson