GOP Could Use the Whiskey the Tea Party Drinks

Townhall.com ^ | January 7, 2013 | John Ransom

[Moonman62]

Constitutional basis for a perpetual union.

[nothingnew]

Secession Crisis U.S. Constitution "The Right To Secede" March 4, 1789 The first union of the original 13 colonies was effected by the Articles of Confederation, adopted in 1781. The articles established a confederation of sovereign states in a permanent union. The "permanence" lasted only until 1788, when 11 states withdrew from the confederation and ratified the new Constitution, which became effective on March 4, 1789. The founding fathers recognized the defects in the Articles of Confederation, learned from these defects, and scrapped the articles in favor of the "more perfect union" found in the Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution is there any mention of the union of the states being permanent. This was not an oversight by any means. Indeed, when New York, Rhode Island, and Virginia ratified the Constitution, they specifically stated that they reserved the right to resume the governmental powers granted to the United States. Their claim to the right of secession was understood and agreed to by the other ratifiers, including George Washington, who presided over the Constitutional Convention and was also a delegate from Virginia. In his book Life of Webster Sen. Henry Cabot Lodge writes, "It is safe to say that there was not a man in the country, from Washington and Hamilton to Clinton and Mason, who did not regard the new system as an experiment from which each and every State had a right to peaceably withdraw." A textbook used at West Point before the Civil War, A View of the Constitution, written by Judge William Rawle, states, "The secession of a State depends on the will of the people of such a State." Well into the 19th century, the United States was still viewed by many as an experimental confederation from which states could secede just as they had earlier acceded to it. It took a bloody war to prove them wrong. Fascinating Fact: It is significant that no Confederate leader was ever brought to trial for treason. A trial would have brought a verdict on the constitutional legality of secession. Federal prosecutors were satisfied with the verdict that had been decided in battle

[Moonman62]

Well into the 19th century, the United States was still viewed by many as an experimental confederation from which states could secede just as they had earlier acceded to it.

People can be just as wrong then as they are now. Since you like to play lawyer, all you need now is a case that you can bring to the Supreme Court, where you can play lawyer for real, and lose. My link was to a citation of the case that would serve as established law.

[nothingnew]

Okie doiky....I guess we just have a different view of the Constitution.

Regards,

FMCDH(BITS)

[Ditto]

The one in 1793 was constitutional.....
Again, I don't feel the federal laws forcing anything were constitutional.

Momma, we have a logical disconnect here. I refer you to Article VI, Clause 2 of the Constitution as ratified in 1788.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

[MamaTexan]

we have a logical disconnect here. I refer you to Article VI, Clause 2 of the Constitution as ratified in 1788.

That a law limited to such objects as may be authorised by the constitution, would, under the true construction of this clause, be the supreme law of the land; but a law not limited to those objects, or not made pursuant to the constitution, would not be the supreme law of the land, but an act of usurpation, and consequently void.
St. George Tucker View of the Constitution

-----

While the Supremacy clause authorizes laws made pursuant thereof, it cannot override other constitutional provisions, such as:

Article 4 section 4 - The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

This does not, however, says Barbeyrac, hinder but each confederated state may provide for its particular safety, by repressing its rebellious subjects. And herewith the present constitution of the United States fully agrees. For although congress are bound to guarantee to every state in the union a republican form of government, and to protect each of them against invasion; and also against domestic violence; yet this last is only to be done where the legislature, or executive of the state (where the legislature cannot be convened) shall make the application.
George Tucker Of the Several Forms of Government, SECTION XII

At the same time it is properly provided, in order that such interference may not wantonly or arbitrarily take place; that it shall only be on the request of the state authorities: otherwise the self-government of the state might be encroached upon at the pleasure of the Union, and a small state might fear or feel the effects of a combination of larger states against it under colour of constitutional authority;
William Rawle

Unless and until a State requests assistance of the federal government to physically enter a State, it has NO legitimate authority to do so.....NO MATTER what that purpose might be.

Thus my statement 'I don't feel the federal laws forcing anything were constitutional' stands.

------

So I have no logical disconnect, as I realize the Supremacy clause is not a carte blanche for the federal government to act however it pleases.

And yes, the 1793 fugitive slave act WAS constitutional, since the Appeals Court to the US Supreme court said so in 1835.

[rockrr]

Moonman62’s response in #63 (”People can be just as wrong then as they are now. Since you like to play lawyer, all you need now is a case that you can bring to the Supreme Court, where you can play lawyer for real, and lose.”) is just as appropriate here.

The insurrection that was the pretense of southron secession was put down by the union and upheld by the courts. The south lost their rebellion and people should recognize and respect that, and move on.

Or I suppose one could try flailing away in court ;-)

[Ditto]

Indeed, when New York, Rhode Island, and Virginia ratified the Constitution, they specifically stated that they reserved the right to resume the governmental powers granted to the United States.

Myth. There ratification of the Constitution was contingent on a Bill of Rights being ameneded to the Constitution which was the first order of business of the 1st Congress.

Well into the 19th century, the United States was still viewed by many as an experimental confederation from which states could secede just as they had earlier acceded to it.

Not by many, but by some. The Father of the Constitution was not among them

I return my thanks for the copy of your late very powerful Speech in the Senate of the United S. It crushes "nullification" and must hasten the abandonment of "Secession." But this dodges the blow by confounding the claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression. The former answers itself, being a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged. The latter is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy.
--- James Madison, March 15, 1833

[MamaTexan]

The insurrection that was the pretense of southron secession was put down by the union and upheld by the courts.

The obligation of the northern states to follow their sworn agreement was established as a fixed point in law (stare decisis) by a Court even higher than the Supreme Court...which was the APPEALS court to the Supreme court, yet the northern states continued to ignore their promise to perform.

This breach of the Compact by the Northern States is why the South was no longer legally obligated to stay IN it, and the federal government has no authority to judge them FOR it as that power does not appear in the Constitution.

If the South were to violate any part of the Constitution intentionally and systematically, and persist in so doing, year after year, and no remedy could be had, would the North be any longer bound by the rest of it? And if the North were deliberately, habitually, and of fixed purpose to disregard one part of it, would the South be bound any longer to observe its other obligations? I have not hesitated to say, and I repeat, that if the Northern States refuse, willfully and deliberately, to carry into effect that part of the Constitution which respects the restoration of fugitive slaves, and Congress provide no remedy, the South would no longer be bound to observe the compact. A bargain cannot be broken on one side and still bind the other side.
Life of Daniel Webster, 1851 / Vol 1 / page 518

Then the federal government violated Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 / Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 / Article 4, Section 4...and the 10th Amendment. The federal governments excuse was for 'moral justice' but its purpose was to create a consolidated government.

"When all government, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the Center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated."
Thomas Jefferson to Charles Hammond, 1821

-----

Are you saying we should follow the law by ignoring the Law?

LOL! Hypocrite much?

[rockrr]

LOL! Hypocrite much?

Again mama, as with your finely tuned emoting, I could never rise to your level of hypocrisy.

[MamaTexan]

Again mama, as with your finely tuned emoting, I could never rise to your level of hypocrisy.

Yet another pathetic 'backatcha' response containing baseless accusation in lieu of a logical refutation of facts presented.

Typical.

[rockrr]

Likewise I’m sure madam.