Posted on 10/10/2006 5:08:28 AM PDT by Colonel Kangaroo
You claimed the later states didn't have the right to secede because they were created by Congress. If the original 13 states have the right to secede (which they certainly did under the Tenth Amendment, your disagreement notwithstanding), then the Tenth Amendment also applies to the later states.
Are you arguing that the Tenth Amendment doesn't apply to later states because they were creatures of the Federal Government and didn't have any powers to retain? Novel theory that. What else did the original states lose under your implication theory? (As you can tell, I don't buy your theory.)
Being able to peaceably secede from a government that you no longer wish to be associated with is a benefit of the Tenth Amendment. Some would probably even say that being free from having to associate with Yankees is a benefit in itself, present company excluded. However, in the future, we'll probably be able to avoid Yankees only by going to restaurants that serve only grits. Yum.
Incorrect. Unlike many around here I have never said that states did not have the right to secede, and I would ask you to point out where you think I did. What I have always said, and have never wavered from, is that states do not have the right to secede unilaterally. Such a power is denied them by the Constitution, including the 10th Amendment, and that is where the southern rebellion fell afoul of the law. The Constitution applies to all states, not just the seceding ones, and protects the rights and interests of all states, not just the seceding ones. And this fact was recognized by the Supreme Court in their Texas v White decision.
The fact that southern supporters believe that the Constitution only applies to states wanting to leave is something I can never understand.
Well, when compared to you it does seem that way sometimes.
If they are expelled then they aren't a state anymore, are they? The Constitution does not apply and they aren't entitled to representation. So show me where the Constitution forbids that.
We have argued about your unilateral theory before and never convinced each other. You insert unwritten restrictions into the Constitution, and I don't.
No, I recognize implied restrictions and you don't. I believe that both sides of the secession issue have rights that need to be respected and you don't. But you're right, we'll never convince the other.
You have a short term memory problem, don't you? We just went over this uptread. Any action to expel a state violates Article V because that act simultaneously deprives the state of representation and thus violates the Constitution.
I suspect that membership in the Senate was protected in the Constitution because the Senate was an expression of state sovereignty. As John Lansing of New York said in the ratification debates:
I believe it was undoubtedly the intention of the framers of this Constitution to make the lower house the proper, peculiar representative of the interests of the people; the Senate, of the sovereignty of the states.
free dixie,sw
the founders of this republic FEARED centralized control from Philadelphia/Washington WITH REASON.
some of the most beautiful words in the Constitution are: "Congress shall make NO law"!
free dixie,sw
So on one hand you cite census statistics for the illegal populations in this "Aztlan" fantasy of yours, then on the other hand admit that they don't know what they're talking about. Interesting.
it's nothing more complicated than that.
sadly, for the "nativists" & "unionists", Azatlan is anything BUT a fantasy.
prepare to have a Hispanic,solidly Roman Catholic, Spanish-speaking, nation to the west/southwest, within a generation (unless of course, you think a CIVIL WAR that would NEEDLESSLY slaughter MILLIONS of people is a good idea. btw, one of the former (now permanently BANNED!) members of the "DAMNyankee coven oif fools, lunatics, south-HATERS, bigots & at least ONE outright RACIST" said he would HAPPILY kill "every damned immigrant in the west. every damn one!" to keep the states out there IN the union.)
free dixie,sw
Sure there are. Read the 10th Amendment. The powers "prohibited by it to the States" part of the 10th Amendment.
So, are census bureau estimates valuable or worthless? It's hard to keep track with you. It appears that the census is worthless when it contradicts you, but valuable when it confirms you. That seems awfully convenient.
Yes and whenever someone points out that Article I forbids states from entering into treaties or confederations with other states without Congressional approval you all scratch your heads and say, "Golly gee whiz, if a state secedes it isn't bound by the Constitution anymore." Well, if a state is expelled then they aren't in the Union anymore, not bound by the Constitution, and not protected by it. You all are constantly quoting the 10th Amendment saying that the right to unilaterally secede is granted to the states because it is not denied by the Constitution. Well, show me where the Constitution says the states cannot join together and expel a state if they choose to do so.
certain POWERS were specifically CEDED to the central government by the STATES (which can be "taken back" by the states, too!!)and it was INTENDED that the federal government could/WOULD do NOTHING MORE than that limited amount of things.
NOTE: i suspect there would have been a LOT less POWERS ceded, had the states recognized how powerful, INTRUSIVE & "NOSEY" the fed would become!
free dixie,sw
care for a "do over" before you become yet another laughingstock on FR???
free dixie,sw
Don't let stand get to you. Somewhere in Dixie his village is wondering where he's gotten to.
And which one of those POWERS specifically authorizes the federal government to have branch of the military called a U.S. Air Force?
Nah. You appear to have laughingstock covered.
Article V. Psst.... We've been here before.
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.