Obama to use Lincoln Bible

Politico ^ | December 23, 2008 | Politico Staff

[patriot preacher]

A variety of statements made by Founders and others at the time of the Constitution’s ratification:

The State of Virginia Delegation:
The idea of secession has existed since this nation’s founding. Virginia, for instance, wanted it known when it ratified the U.S. Constitution that it would exercise its sovereignty if the federal government failed to adhere to the principles set forth in that document:

We the Delegates of the people of Virginia...do in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will...

The State of New York:
The state of New York was a bit more explicit when it declared, “The powers of government may be reassumed by the people whenever it should become necessary to their happiness...”

Thomas Jefferson:
In his 1801 First Inaugural Address, Thomas Jefferson said, “If there be any among us who wish to dissolve the Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed, as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.”

United States Foreign Policy Selectivity:
In 1836, Texas seceded from Mexico and was recognized by the United States as an independent republic. In 1903, less than 40 years after crushing the secession efforts of the South, the U.S. government supported Panama when it seceded from Colombia and promptly signed a treaty with the newly-independent nation to construct the Panama Canal. It seems that secession is acceptable when it serves the interests of the federal government.

It is simplistic, and simply wrong, to say secession was/is not a viable, Constitutional option. There is far more about this — at least as much as one can find OPPOSING secession with preference to an all powerful central government.

[Ditto]

It is simplistic, and simply wrong, to say secession was/is not a viable...

Preacher, I suggest again you move beyond ideolouges like DiLorenzo and others and spend your time with primary sources if you care to know the truth.

The "Conditional" ratifications of both Virginia and New York at no point indicated that they could unilaterally secede for whatever reason they so choose. They did not even think that at the time. It was a very different "Conditional" specifically that their ratification was contingent in the timely enactment of a Bill of Rights to be amended to the Constitution. And even though the First Congress did move on a Bill of Rights, the "Conditionals" of both New York and Virginia were meaningless! They ratified and they were in the Union.. permanently!

See here, for a synopsis of New York's ratifying convention and for Mr. Madison's opinion on "Conditional Ratification" see page 268 here. Particularly see the following written by Mr. Madison in 1788!
The Constitution requires an adoption 'in toto' and forever!..... The idea of reserving the right to withdraw was started at Richmond, and considered as a conditional ratification, which was itself abandoned -- worse than rejection. .

Please Preacher. Avail yourself to real history, not to garbage that ass clowns with a contemporary political agenda like DiLorenzo are polluting minds with.

[patriot preacher]

Sorry Ditto. You’re still wrong. Your charges make no sense. Why would states retain their right to take back those things given to the federal government via the Constitution IF THEY COULDN’T TAKE THEM BACK BY RATIFICATION?!? That just plain don’t make sense. It’s sorta like california voting YES on Prop 8, only to be told by a judge that the vote does not count and does not matter. THAT is NOT “self-government.”

Second, your quote of James Madison, while it may be accurate, was NOT held by the majority of the Founders — an example of that is the statement I previously posted by Thomas Jefferson. There were some Founders — FEDERALISTS — who desired an unbreakable Union and a strong (almost imperial) federal government. MOST did not favor such.

And would you get off Dilorenzo! I mentioned him in one post above and you try to bang me over the head with him in every post now. He is merely one of a good number of scholars, writers, experts, pundits and “ass clowns” that happen to believe, with good reason, that secession offers a viable alternative to imperial federalism.