Posted on 08/27/2007 1:37:39 PM PDT by BnBlFlag
Congressional approval is required for a state to be admitted in the first place. Once admitted, congressional approval is required to combine two states or split a state into parts. Congressional approval is required to change the border of a state by a fraction of an inch. Implied in this is the need for congressional approval to leave since approval is needed for every other change in status.
States cannot, without consent of Congress, lay duties on imports from states. They cannot cut off water from states, form agreements or compacts against states, refuse to recognize a state's acts or proceedings, refuse to turn over criminals wanted in other states, form alliances, raise armies, all actions which, if done unilaterally, can have a negative impact on the interests of other states. If they cannot do them unilaterally while a part of the U.S. then implied in that is that they lack the power to do so merely by leaving as well.
Rejoin? The Southern states were never out of the Union to begin with.
You just quoted Congress's approval!
A blanket pre-approval is unconstitutional.
According to what? You just quoted Congress giving its approval to Texas splitting up into smaller states. What other part of the Constitution is this a violation of? Certainly not Article IV, Section III: "New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress."
There was a Statesman from North Carolina whom I don’t recall his name, who summarized that lopsidedness before Congress.
I wish I’d access to his oration because it spelled out many a point of disparity between the industrialized North and the agrarian South.
An act returning the Texas delegation to Congress following Reconstruction. Didn't you read it? Nowhere does it say that Texas was being admitted as a state. That would have been redundant.
Firstly before you blow your top (if you haven’t already): I specifically stated I was PARAphrasing..meaing quoting it from what I remeber, but not completely accurate..
Second, the Tenth Amendment, which you clearly posted (Thank You!), clearly states the ‘powers not delegated to the United States, ARE reserved to the States, or to the people”. How do you NOT see that the States reserved the power to leave (included in the powers ‘reserved to the states’). There is NO Congressional aproval necessary for leaving the United States or dissolving their bonds, not implied, and not explicitly states: if otherwise; PRove it!
The did have the power to seceed legally, wheather you want to acknowledge that or not is your responsibility!
And if you want to get technical (the ‘Contental Congress’) DID NOT have the legal authority to amend (rather scrap) the Articles (our first Constitution..). Try rationalizing that!..
Their acts of secession were NOT illegal. If you can join a Union you can unjoin it. The constitution gives us the freedom to determine our own government and if that means leaving the Union then that is allowed also. The North violated the constitution, they were the treasoneous ones because they badgered the South until war was inevitable.
Problem is the Federal Government stole much of that land from the citizens of your state through land grabs for ‘protection’ and national parks, ect..much could be given back and most states (most people) wouldnt really care..
You paraphrased in such a way to completely change the meaning. I believe the correction was justified.
How do you NOT see that the States reserved the power to leave (included in the powers ‘reserved to the states’). There is NO Congressional aproval necessary for leaving the United States or dissolving their bonds, not implied, and not explicitly states: if otherwise; PRove it!
See reply 81.
The did have the power to seceed legally, wheather you want to acknowledge that or not is your responsibility!
The did not have such a power merely because you say that they did. The Supreme Court ruled that they did not. I believe their opinion on the matter trumps your's and mine.
And if you want to get technical (the ‘Contental Congress’) DID NOT have the legal authority to amend (rather scrap) the Articles (our first Constitution..). Try rationalizing that!..
Calling the convention was an act of Congress and was afterwards ratified by every state. That seems to meet the requirements laid out in Article XIII.
Actually they were. To quote Chief Justice Chase:
"When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.
Considered therefore as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union, and of every citizen of the State, as a citizen of the United States, remained perfect and unimpaired. It certainly follows that the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union."
If you can join a Union you can unjoin it.
Without trying to put too fine a line on things, stated did not 'join a Union'. They were admitted, and only with the permission of a majority of the existing states as expressed through a vote in both houses of Congress. I see no problem with leaving through the same manner.
The North violated the constitution, they were the treasoneous ones because they badgered the South until war was inevitable.
Absolute nonsense.
"Secession is unconstitutional. There is no enacted law prohibiting..."
Secession is not mentioned in the constitution, it is not prohibited by the constitution, those things not specifically granted to the federal government are reserved to the states...
Where does unconstitutional come into this?
It does not even appear to be illegal, as another has stated - based on your 'no enacted laws prohibiting'.
Except, of course, when declaring that the Southern states were out of the Union suited the needs of the Northern Congress in order to pass the 14th amendment.
What had declared the Southern states out of the Union? It wasn't the Reconstruction acts. I'm not aware of a single piece of legislation that ever referred to the Southern states as former states or territories.
Anyone whose economy is based on slave labor doesn't have much right to complain about "economic exploitation."
The colonists broke with the UK because, although they were citizens and taxpayers they were not allowed any representation in their nation's councils.
The Confederates had full representation in their nation's counsels - overrepresentation in point of fact - and they broke with the Union because not everything went their way all the time.
The colonists were asserting the rights of men, the Confederates were being babies.
What??
George Washington phoned up the thirteen original states and told them they'd been brought into a union and to hurry up and send representatives?
The original states unilaterally voted to join, the delegates to convention acted to establish a format for union. There was no congress as such to vote each state up or down. Once established, rules were put in place for future new states but none that I know of regarding any state walking out.
Union was voluntary and only those territories obtained by war/purchase might possibly fit your assertion because they were products of federal government and not (necessarily) an established community. (However, note the oft repeated votes for / against statehood in Puerto Rico, and Hawaii's vote to join the union.
However, since it was not illegal or treasonous, since there are two parties involved in the secession of any one state - the federal government was free to choose its course of action, and it chose war.
That some Northerners supported secession in 1814 does not make it right. Quite the opposite. It proves that the issues is not one of section, but of spiteful special interests who preffer to destroy the nation, rather than risk their positions. In 1814, a subset of Federalists supported secession. They were traitors who should have been hanged, just like Aaron Burr. The Federalist Party suffered for this in the north and all but ceased to exist after 1816 because it was associated with treason.
And what did Hamilton say during the Shays and Whiskey Rebellions?
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.