Nullification and Liberty

Lew Rockwell ^ | 12/10/02 | Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

[H.Akston]

Answering my own question here brother stainless:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/805884/posts
(Claremont)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/805875/posts
(What Lott might have said)

The South was Right dittos.

[bjs1779]

A state cannot nullify a law made under the Constitution and remain in the Union.

What law did the south nullify? And if a state did nullify a law, where does it say in the constitution that they will be attacked from Washington D.C. for doing so? I know you always point to Fort Sumter in S.C., but what did Virgina have to do with that? Was D.C. a bunch of southorn racists like ....

[Non-Sequitur]

What law did the south nullify?

Read the previous posts why don't you. I was responding to billbears and his position on nullification, not the cause of the Civil War.

I know you always point to Fort Sumter in S.C., but what did Virgina have to do with that?

Virginia joined the other southern states in armed rebellion. If they didn't agree with the confederate declaration of war then they shouldn't have joined.

Was D.C. a bunch of southorn racists like ....

You mean like Jeff Davis and the rest of the confederate leadership?

[stainlessbanner]

Excellent! I was just re-reading Fed #39. Good stuff.

[Dixie republican]

I say the only way secession is legal is by way of a Constitutional amendment.

[Dixie republican]

It's a voluntary Union.

You're right that States voulntarily jopined, but if a state can leave by a simple majority vote of its legislature then there was never any Union at all. I say that the Union was formed to protect my liberty, and if one State can break up the Union, then that one State can destroy my liberty since the protector of my liberty is threatened. No one state can ever take away my liberty.

[Libertarianize the GOP]

I say the only way secession is legal is by way of a Constitutional amendment.

You are entitled to an opinion but would you care to elaborate on why. Article IV section 3 provides for the Addition of new States, if power can be extended over new people and territories then it likewise can be rescinded to allow a Voluntary mutually agreed upon secession. It also provides for the US to dispose of territories or property. If all sides can’t reach an agreement then any provision in the Constitution would be meaningless.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Ratification was an act of the American people convening in states for that specific purpose. States were not allowed to ratify by state legislatures because that power was not to be trusted to them. The Declaration is not relevent to the constitution any more than it was relevent to freeing the slaves. It was not a Constitution.

Since the Constitution itself tells you the the "People of the United States....do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America" you lie if you claim it was the States which did so.

Never was there a time when the States were truly independent not before the Revolution, not during and not after. They never acted as if they were independent, never believed their people were anything other than true AMERICANS. When the nation was begun there were no states merely colonies. It was the United Colonies which revolted then renamed the United Colonies United States.

As would be expected you have not accurately expressed what Federalist 39 says. It explicitly described the government and constitution as a COMPOUND of Federal and National powers with different branches of the government partaking differently of the two types. Congress is Federal, the Supreme Court is National, the Executive a compound of the two. The OPERATION of the government is NATIONAl, the extent of Powers Federal.

It was the adversaries of the Constitution who claimed the Union was a Confederacy and that the constitution changed that. They were right about that.

Madison is trying to allay the fears of the anti-Federalists with his language here. But it should be recognized that at this time Madison was as strong an advocate as ANY (including his close ally, Hamilton) for reducing state power and increasing federal power. His language is somewhat duplicitious in playing down the National characteristic and the consolidated characteristics of the constitution. He knew better. Just as he knew WHY state legislatures were not to be allowed to pass on ratification.

[bjs1779]

Read the previous posts why don't you. I was responding to billbears and his position on nullification, not the cause of the Civil War.

I asked you what law in the Constitution did the South nullify as you suggest they did. I don't see where it got more complicated than that.

[Non-Sequitur]

Again, if you read the posts, I was not specifically talking about nullifying any particular law. It was billbears who suggested that states had the right to ignore laws that they did not agree with or which they believed were illegal. The south didn't nullify a single law, they entered into a rebellion.

[Dixie republican]

if power can be extended over new people and territories then it likewise can be rescinded to allow a Voluntary mutually agreed upon secession.

If that were true, why didn't the Founders say so? They did a pretty good job enumerating what they wanted. You don't think they even considered secession?

[Libertarianize the GOP]

For the Same reason that most couples when getting married don't plan for their divorce. The option is there but you want to focus on the positive outcomes as much as possible to encourage that outcome. By simply granting the Federal Government the powers necessary to admit new States you don't have to explicitly State how those same powers could be used in secession. Also most all cases of Secession would not be mutually agreed upon and at that point any Constitutional provision would likely be ignored.

[Dixie republican]

I reckon I just don't buy that argument. As for the the divorce analogy, it's far easier to enumerate a division between 2 entities. But when we're talking about a Union, formed to, among other things, secure the blessings of liberty, I can't see where secession is legal when the process is not specifically stipulated; and when it can be resonably argued that if said Union could dissolve, my liberty could dissolve as well. The Constituion promises my that my liberty is protected. I can't see how it would also allow me to lose my liberty by way of self-destruction.

[Libertarianize the GOP]

You might be giving the Government a little to much credit for being the source of your rights. The Constitution was established to help facilitate a method of providing for the protection of Rights and if it no longer fills that role or a better alternative arrives then the Union no longer serves a purpose.

[Dixie republican]

I recognize that. But I'm one who lays the blame on the people for not fixing a process that's clearly broken. We've allowed our legislatures (Congress & State) to shirk their responsibility by abdicating their authority to the Judicial (Activism) and the Executive (Administrative Law). Either way, the only way to secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity is to fix the Government, not destroy the Government.

[Libertarianize the GOP]

I agree Totally with that point at this time.