Posted on 02/17/2006 5:47:19 PM PST by Mobile Vulgus
Andrew Jackson showed that secession was unconstitutional as clearly as any.
There is nothing in the Constitution claiming it to be a contract. This is just another misunderstanding of the document concocted to defend such indefensible acts as destruction of the Union.
As I said even IF it were a contract secession would be illegal. Courts are were contact disputes are settled not insurrection.
Insurrection disguised as "secession" is still insurrection and the Founders placed the ability to respond to insurrection firmly in the document.
One of your problems is trying to pretend that insurrection was something else then demanding proof that that something else was forbidden. Sneaky but only with the stupid would it work.
Slavery was the ONLY reason the RAT lead insurrection occurred so one must look at the context of the legal "argument" which wasn't an argument either just insurrection.
?
Insurrection covers the issue. The Tenth does not justify nor legalize insurrection. As has been shown above the Union was designed to be and was called "perpetual" repeatedly and changing the form of the government of that Union did not change the perpetualness of that Union. Nor could insurrections.
Show me ONE word spoken about secession during the Convention. It was inconceivable to the Founders and you cannot show me ONE word which they spoke considering secession to be acceptable or constitutional. And given the growth of the Constitution out of the Articles there was no necessity to address the already addressed nature of the Union. For the Founders it was settled.
A constitution allowing secession would have been worthless and not even Jefferson supported such an idea. Not that he was in any way a Constitutional expert.
Plus you have the little problem that the states were the creation of the Continental Congress. None existed until it asked them to write state constitutions and form as states. Our common belief that we were all Americans pre-dated both the states and the Union. Creation of the Union and the Constitution was an act of the American People not states.
Since you claim that the United States was not created as a "prepetual union" under the Constitution, what exactly prevents a 2/3 majority of the Congress and a 3/4 majority of the other states from selling any given state to a foreign power even if that state does not wish to be sold?
The South surrendered unconditionally.
Just as I suspected that "quote" from me did not exist and you link to its "source" clearly shows that. If this is a typical example of your accuracy in your quotes you cannot be shocked when people don't buy them.
I read and UNDERSTAND the great thinkers you reference and don't attempt to selective pull out out-of-context quotes to butress weak arguments.
If you believe out of context quotations to be a search for truth then I can only shake my head and laugh.
Let's try this again
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
I'll even break it down for you.
The powers not Delegated to the United States by the Constitution (i.e. those powers that were not specifically GIVEN to the Federal Government)
Nor prohibited by it to the states, (i.e. the Constitution does not prevent a State from performing an act)
are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
(i.e. the states and or the people reserve these rights to themselves)
Where's your paragraph that says
"The Federal government has the right to force States to stay in the Union by force of arms"
hmm?
..and Billy Yank, Johnny Reb--the war is over...
Helllooooo MamaTexan! Where you been girl??? I totally agree with what you say..........Lincoln, like FDR have been way overblown as "good Presidents", imho.
"Plus you have the little problem that the states were the creation of the Continental Congress. None existed until it asked them to write state constitutions and form as states. Our common belief that we were all Americans pre-dated both the states and the Union. Creation of the Union and the Constitution was an act of the American People not states."
Wrong again, the states were here before the Constitution under the Articles of Confederation.
The power was never given to the Federal Government to conduct that kind of sale.
If the power is not in there and enumerated, it doesn't exist.
That's what prevents them from doing it.
First you must understand what the Tenth was referring to and what it was not. It was NOT referring to any acts by a state which would affect the structure of the Union. It was referring to those acts of states which ONLY affect the internal aspects of a state. Since secession affecting the entire structure of the Union it is unconstitutional.
How can a State law (secession) overrule the Supreme Law of the Land? Remember that is what the Constitution is and says it is.
The reason the tenth was written was to reassure states that their internal affairs were to remain under their control not a national government's. It was for the most part also a re-assurance that there would be no federal interference with slavery.
Your hypothetical comment on what my Constitution says is incorrect. It is for me what it said it is The Supreme Law of the Land.
The only question is whether we would be speaking German or Russian.
The 10th Amendment is in plain english and does not mention the Union at all. Because it does not do this it also gives no power to the Federal Government to force a state to stay in the Union.
That's the entire premise of the 10th Amendment. If the power is not enumerated in it, it does not exist and belongs to the states and to the people.
Correction to your definition as it fits to the Articles of Confederation.
Perpetual - 1. an 8 year period from 1781 - 1789 2. An 8 year lifespan of a document that was replaced by a document that does not mention the word perpetual.
Please take a little care to understand what I have written before calling me wrong. If you had you would have seen that I did NOT say that the Constitution preceded the states. Check again. Then check the dates of the state constitutions they were all written after the Continental Congress asked for them. Then tell me I am wrong.
Secession was not a right. Where does it say in the constitution explicitly that states may leave of their own accord? Unless you subscribe to the notion that there a hidden rights in the consitution such as priviacy, right to sodomy, right to abortion, etc. The planter class wanted to deny slaves god given rights to freedom and sacrificed hundreds of thousands of lives of young southern men to accomplish it.
Put another way, would you allow Hawaii to secede today becuase it claims it has a unique polynesian culture that it must preserve?
That argument is fallacious and of the same type that Jefferson used when declaring that the US could not make the Louisiana Purchase. Fortunately Madison convinced him to shut up and buy it.
Hamilton outlined what makes an act constitutional or not in the Essay on the National Bank. If you are truly interested in this issue you should read that document. It is a brilliant analysis.
The power to tax individuals in the states, prohibit sale of alcohol in the states, or require states to allow women or blacks to vote in their states was never in the Constitution either until 2/3 of congress and 3/4 of the states said it would be.
If the Union of the States is not perpetual, there is nothing that prevents 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the states from expelling other states from the Union.
Read Madison and see what he thought about your unilateral secession BS.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.