Then abortion is legal. We should stop debating it and save such talk for church? Are you sure you’re posting on the right website? The SCOTUS says it’s legal and morality doesn’t matter.
Yes, enforcing laws and suppression of rebellion is within the Federal purview, but the question is whether a state can legally secede or not. If so, then there’s no state of rebellion and the laws no longer apply following a secession. The matter was settled by the war as a practical matter, but that doesn’t help us judge the legality of Lincoln’s actions. His predecessor took a different view: secession is illegal, but so is Federal military action to prevent it. Even in the North, there was no widespread consensus. There was certainly a large portion of the population who favored allowing the South to leave peacefully.
That’s a funny interpretation of 10A you got there. “Reserved to the states” does not mean a majority vote. Frankly that’s a ridiculous and dangerous idea. Just about any issue can be construed as effecting all the states. Either a government is sovereign or it isn’t. It either has the authority to do something or not. A sovereign government does not need majority approval of other governments to act. Quite simply, it’s not a sovereign government if it can’t act unilaterally.
The states ARE sovereign governments. The Constitution is a compact between these sovereign governments where they agree to delegate certain powers inherent in that sovereignty to a central government. Some of these they give up entirely (enumerated powers), and some they give to the FedGov but still retain (shared powers). The Temth Amendment concerns the powers of government that are neither enumerated nor shared. Those powers belong to the state. Essentially it means that the FedGov is NOT an inherently higher authority. It is a creation of the states and only has the powers granted to it by the states. (Don’t be misled by the supremacy clause. It exists because of shared powers. Since some powers are shared, there can be conflicting laws. This clause makes Federal law applicable; it is not infdicative that states derive their authority from the Feds — the opposite is in fact true).
Obviously, for better or worse, we’ve moved away from this concept of the FedGov. That in large part occurred during the war. (The transformation was continued during the progressive era and finished by the time of the Depression and the New Deal). That doesn’t change the legal and Constitutional arguments, though. It only means that secession is dead as a practical matter.
Where have you been for the last 47 years?
We should stop debating it and save such talk for church? Are you sure you’re posting on the right website? The SCOTUS says it’s legal and morality doesn’t matter.
Did people stop debating segregation after the Plessy v. Ferguson decision? Did they stop working to end it? Or was Brown v. Board of Ed a figment of my imagination?
Yes, enforcing laws and suppression of rebellion is within the Federal purview, but the question is whether a state can legally secede or not.
A question which was answered by Texas v. White. States can leave the Union with the consent of the other states. I thought you were the history whiz in this discussion and I was the one who hadn't read anything?
If so, then there’s no state of rebellion and the laws no longer apply following a secession.
There was a rebellion. It was in all the history books.
Even in the North, there was no widespread consensus. There was certainly a large portion of the population who favored allowing the South to leave peacefully.
A consensus that changed overnight once the South fired on Sumter.
That’s a funny interpretation of 10A you got there. “Reserved to the states” does not mean a majority vote.
Not quite as funny as yours. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The power to admit a state and approve any change in status once its joined is a power delegated to the United States by the Constitution. By implication that includes the power to approve leaving.
Frankly that’s a ridiculous and dangerous idea. Just about any issue can be construed as effecting all the states.
I think you're exaggerating there.
The Temth Amendment concerns the powers of government that are neither enumerated nor shared. Those powers belong to the state.
No argument.
Essentially it means that the FedGov is NOT an inherently higher authority.
Does it now?
Don’t be misled by the supremacy clause.
Yeah who needs that dumb ol' supremacy clause anyway. </sarcasm>
Obviously, for better or worse, we’ve moved away from this concept of the FedGov.
And all y'all would have us believe it was all Lincoln's fault. I guess there is absolutely nothing that you won't blame on him.