Posted on 09/15/2015 5:24:50 PM PDT by lqcincinnatus
Accepted? By who? You have that backwards. It was the states accepting and ratifying the Constitution and not the other way around. Virginia said that she did "...assent to, and ratify the Constitution recommended on the seventeenth day of September, one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven, by the Foederal Convention for the Government of the United States; hereby announcing to all those whom it may concern, that the said Constitution is binding upon the said People, according to an authentic copy hereto annexed, in the words following..." Having agreed to abide by the Constitution as passed then they had no recourse if their assumptions proved to be incorrect.
The federal government also followed the recommendation of Virginia to have a bill of rights - as Patrick Henry and others favored.
Most every ratification document included calls for what would become the Bill of Rights. It didn't come about just because Virginia said they wanted it. Some states, like New York, included calls for things that were never adopted. That didn't make their ratification documents any less binding or less valid.
Nope, it's very clear. And as I pointed out in my reply 93 the power to admit a state and approve any change in status or border after being admitted is a power delegated to the United States.
Their ratification was contingent on no such thing. They ratified the Constitution as passed out of the Convention, coincidentally 228 years ago today. And if that Constitution did not allow them to just up and leave on a whim, which it does not, then all the qualifiers in the world are meaningless.
Since the power to control leaving was not granted explicitly in the Constitution it is retained by the States. Try actually reading the ratification documents (NY and VA) and the ninth and tenth amendments.
Where is the power to create and fund a space agency explicitly granted in the Constitution? Where is the Air Force explicitly granted? How about VA system? Interstate highway? Somewhere? Anywhere? Or will you say that all those agencies are unconstitutional?
Chief Justice Marshall wrote, "...there is no phrase in the (Constitution) which, like the Articles of Confederation, excludes incidental or implied powers and which requires that everything granted shall be expressly and minutely described. Even the 10th Amendment, which was framed for the purpose of quieting the excessive jealousies which had been excited, omits the word "expressly," and declares only that the powers "not delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people," thus leaving the question whether the particular power which may become the subject of contest has been delegated to the one Government, or prohibited to the other, to depend on a fair construction of the whole instrument. The men who drew and adopted this amendment had experienced the embarrassments resulting from the insertion of this word in the Articles of Confederation, and probably omitted it to avoid those embarrassments. A Constitution, to contain an accurate detail of all the subdivisions of which its great powers will admit, and of all the means by which they may be carried into execution, would partake of the prolixity of a legal code, and could scarcely be embraced by the human mind. It would probably never be understood by the public. Its nature, therefore, requires that only its great outlines should be marked, its important objects designated, and the minor ingredients which compose those objects be deduced from the nature of the objects themselves. That this idea was entertained by the framers of the American Constitution is not only to be inferred from the nature of the instrument, but from the language. Why else were some of the limitations found in the 9th section of the 1st article introduced? It is also in some degree warranted by their having omitted to use any restrictive term which might prevent its receiving a fair and just interpretation."
A fair reading of the Constitution that sees that the government has the sole power to admit states, and once they have been admitted then it has the power to approve changes in borders or splitting into multiple states or combining with other states, must conclude that the power to approve leaving altogether also lies with the federal government.
You can try to ignore Virginia’s contingent ratification, but that does not make it go away.
Yes - This contingency was accepted:
“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: that therefore no right of any denomination, can be cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified, by the Congress, by the Senate or House of Representatives acting in any capacity, by the President or any department or officer of the United States, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes: and that among other essential rights, the liberty of conscience and of the press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified by any authority of the United States.”
- Virginia contingent ratification
You can call it contingent but that doesn't make it so.
“...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,...” - Virginia Ratification
This part of the ratification exists. What do you call it, irrelevant?
No, a mistaken assumption that they had the right to walk out on a whim. The Constitution does not give them that power, and their including that statement in their ratification document does not change that.
Glad you got it all figured out...in spite of the documentation.
(done engaging with you on this topic)
You mean despite your opinions.
(done engaging with you on this topic)
Not surprising. Bye.
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.