Nullification and States' rights
- Mtbailzposted 12 years ago
0Would you support a bill that would allow the states to nullify any federal law they deemed unconstitutional? For instance, if SOPA was passed any state could simply nullify it if it violated their or the federal contitution. It seems this could bring take power from the national government and fortify federalism quite quickly.
so do the states that do this, then set up border guards and patrols and such to protect there individual decisions over what freedoms they want? Not let anyone in that does not think like the majority does?
This takes us back to civil war days. Noooooooo! No support for anything like this that devides the nation appart, we have enough of it already man!No the federal Authority is incredibly important in dragging those retrograde states into the modern world, for example the decriminilisation of Sodomy in texas about 6 years ago and the whole have to carry ID in Arizona fiasco prove that the Federal government is necessary to keep individual states from hurting their own constituents.
The federal government already completely ignores the 10th Amendment. So not much hope here.
No, I absolutely would not. If we did that, we'd still have slavery and voting limited to men and so on.
Pcunix,
You might be underestimating the morality of huge amounts of people if you think slavery would still be around.It would have stayed around longer..
And we would not have had the civil rights advances we have today, food safety, pollution laws and many other important laws. Individual States would have thwarted all of that.
This is why Libertarian philosophy is so dangerous.I don't know about food safety. Until recently, the United States as a whole (states included) have been for regulation on that matter. Ever since the early nineteen hundreds, Americans have been concerned about their food source, however I would say that has changed recently.
My fear in all of this is that a big employer can have an undue effect at the local level. It's all too tempting to grant exemptions to someone important to a local economy. Federal law restrains that to a reasonable extent now; without it corporations would destroy all that we have gained.
I'll give you that, although there are many states that are not as bad when it comes to employer rights over employee rights. My home state of NH would be one. No matter what the Republican do , they cannot get Right to Work passed.
weren't you arguing for helping out local businesses with public money? The argument was something idiotic like "everyone is interconnected through money, and if a company fails, then everyone dies"
... or was that John Holden?
Slavery would've survived for about a decade longer.
... but so would the thousands of dead soldiers on both sides.Your opinion. I'm quite sure it might have lasted much, much longer in some States.
"Your opinion". Oh, we can just do that?
Pcunix: that's just your opinion that it's my opinion.
CHECKMATE.
Slavery was only profitable because they socialized the costs of enforcing slavery. Part of the cost of owning a slave was that s/he would run away repeatedly. The hunt to bring him/her back was expensive, but the federal government made it a socialized cost.
Deal with it.Sure. That's why we had a war over it.
Sometimes, Evan.. oh, never mind. Not worth it.Pcunix, almost every other western slave-holding country ended slavery peacefully.
In fact, most northern states made slavery illegal without a war.
In fact, the War Between the States - which really wasn't a civil war - was not chiefly over slavery.
Oh well. Middle School history rears its ugly head.I didn't say the war was chiefly over slavery.
However, if you actually knew much history, you'd know that this was a major issue between the States and particularly so with regard to new territories.
Slavery would have continued much longer without Federal power. So would all the other disgusting conservative "causes" that we now recognize as wrong.
Conservatives (far right conservatives, not moderates) are ALWAYS on the wrong side of history.Actually, you did.
"That's why we had a war over it."
see how that works? A "war over [slavery]" would suggest that it is the almost absolute reason for the war.
English.
And you know this how ?.... that is what the founders thought in 1789 ... and 1860 is a lot more than ten or twenty years from ratification....
The states are a very important check on federal power.
And Federal is an even MORE important check on the States.
And the STATES are an even MORE important check on the FEDERAL government.
(see how that works? Checks and balances?)Yes, I do.
But you don't want those Federal checks..And you don't want the state checks.
I only don't want unconstitutional federal checks.Fortunately for the rest of us, YOU don't get to decide what is Constitutional.
Thank god it's written in plain English for us all to read ourselves. Your arguments about what's constitutional are completely inconsistent with the language in the document.
All you can say is "supremacy clause" (which makes NO sense), "judge marshall" (who he himself decided - after the Constitution was ratified - that he could interpret it), "the federalist papers" (which aren't a part of the Constitution at all) and "general welfare" (semi-colons exist, thus your argument is void).
So... Sorry that you can't read a document written in plain English, but all your arguments are flawed to the core.You really DO live in the 18th century, don't you?
It's disgusting to see "I'm a modern dude" take precedence in your mind over "the limitations of government need to be chained by a supreme law document"
They are chained.
You fail to understand why the chains need to be examined as time passes.The way to correct chains is to amend the Constitution, not to have some douche declare that a 200 year old document is meaningless.
Well, nullification had been decided on in 1832 when Jackson threatened to use force in South Carolina when they passed a nullification law saying they would not follow the tarrifs made in 1828 and 1832. However, I feel like it's an interesting concept that has been implied in the 2012 presidential race.
since 1865, the following terms have been lies:
"The United States of America" -- they are no longer states, but districts.
"The Union" -- people who are forced together are not in a union.
"Checks and Balances" -- these ceased to exist.You guys anxious to re-fight the civil war? The states only have the rights which the fed allows them. The fed is the outside perimeter to what is allowed.
NONSENSE!!!
The states CREATED the Federal Government. They each are allowed to leave and join as they wish.
To claim that states can't secede is to claim that The US seceded from Britain before it was ever united. The language required to make the sentence is contradictory.
Your argument is null.Evan, I don't know if I would go as far as to say the states are allowed secede. No where in the constitution does it say that.
Yes, actually it does. Amendment 10: those powers not prohibited to the states or granted to the federal government are retained to the states.
Secession is NOT prohibited to the states, thus it is a state power.
Also, the states already HAVE seceded. They seceded from Great Britain. To claim that states can't secede is to claim that the US Revolution never happened, and that the Declaration of Independence is a meaningless document.Your Great Britain argument is a little flawed because the states never agreed to be apart of Britain in the first place. But they were allowed to choose their entrance into the federal government. I suppose you're right about the 10th amendment and secession although I doubt the founders would have wanted that.
And you seriously think we'd just let them secede.
Evan, that Reality phone is still ringing..So, you would pick up your rifle to kill Floridian children?
Glad to hear it, Pcunix.
And then, after you've murdered their parents, will you pay your tax money to shelter them?
I'm sorry that "reality" is hard to digest.
Secession: "The action of withdrawing formally from membership of a federation or body, esp. a political state: "secession from the union"."
"The colonies in North America seceded from the tyrannical British governmental body that overruled their rights".
Or, how about this example:
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
... the joke of the matter is that you're going to argue against what I just wrote. That's how far this country has come.
The 13 colonies separated -- individually, one at a time -- from Great Britain.True, the Declaration does say this however the constitution has a very strict policy on treason.
It does, and in these days of heightened national security, it would not be overly surprising if Evan is already on a watch list.
I'm serious about that. It would be very easy to see him as someone who might be fomenting a home grown insurrection. I would hope that he is NOT, but his ideas and evident anger are quite extreme.Of course I'm on the watch list. There's not a doubt in my mind.
The thing that worries me the most is that the NDAA declared the US a warzone, and one of these days some fu**er's gonna grab me and leave Yuki wondering what the hell happened.
Question of the day: Is secession treason?
Answer to the question: of course not. It's constitutional, and the US were founded on this basic inalienable right to free association.
In fact, here's the CONSTITUTIONAL DEFINITION OF TREASON!!!!!
THERE'S A GOD-DA**ED DEFINITION OF TREASON IN THE DOCUMENT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT!!!
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."
So, peaceful secession is NOT treason. The South peacefully seceded, state by state, and then formed a confederacy. This confederacy then repeatedly told the US that they must move their soldiers from Fort Sumter. The North kept their troops in the Fort, and then proceeded to reinforce them. The South then forcefully evicted them.
Were the Southern states treasonous? NO THEY WEREN'T!! THEY WERE A FOREIGN CONFEDERACY!
My brain hurts from having to correct these obvious fallacies.
PS: notice how the language in the Constitution uses the plural pronoun: "levying war against THEM".
The US is plural, not singular.really? No response to "treason has a definition in the Constitution"?
How about this? Federal welfare states can be quiet and comply with federal law until they start contributing more than they take!
the nullification argument, which spring sfrom the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions is a moot point -- ask Andrew Jackson. His threatened beat down of South Carolina -- the Force Bill -- straightened that out in the 1830's.
*ahem*
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
The states are allowed to secede; they've done it before and the power to do so is still enshrined in the Constitution.Yes, Evan, we all know that.
However - Earth to Evan once again - do you honestly believe that the rest of us will allow that? Do you really think there are more than a crazed handful of people who WANT that?
We know you hate the awful Guvmint that interferes with your supposed right to do whatever you want. We suspect that you could someday end up crouching in a deep woods cabin scribbling incomprehensible tracts that no one will ever read. We also know that you aren't the only little voice squeaking this tune.
It's not going to happen, Evan. Your Libertarian candidate is not going to be nominated and there are surely enough sane people in every State that no secession effort will ever be more than a few crazies yapping at each other while everyone else shakes their heads in wonder.
Come back to reality, Evan.You ignored my response to your previous post.
Do I think you will allow it?
I would! Apparently you would not. You find this deity known as "The United States" to be more influential in your decision making than "the happiness of others".
You claim you will fight for the Union -- well then show me your gun, Pcunix. Show me your support of the 2nd Amendment which will allow you to pick up a weapon and then fight to prevent Georgia, Alaska, Ohio, or California from claiming sovereignty.
Will you take aim at my head? Will you pull the trigger just because I want Ohioans to be free from mandates, regulations, and tyranny?
If you want "the Union" but are too lame to fight for it -- if YOU won't fight for it -- then you're just a pathetic Chicken Hawk like Clinton, Gingrich, Romney, Santorum, Obama, and Lincoln (Lincoln never saw battle. He would have, however, if Davis gave Lee permission to take DC).
Pcunix: Show me your will to actually kill someone who does not want to be a member to this Constitution, and I'll take your argument seriously.
Until then, quit speaking gibberish.If you knew anything beyond your prejudice, you'd know that I am a strong supporter of gun ownership.
As to taking up arms, I'm a bit too old, but if the United States had to engage the army to put down insurrection in Ohio or anywhere else, yes, I woud support that action.You would shoot me simply because I didn't want you telling me what to do.
and you call yourself a liberal.
Disgusting.
I want to point out that, by your "it's ok to kill people who don't want to be told what to do" logic, that I should be able to use my ........ ugh, nevermind. This would just be construed as a death threat.
Your logic of "using murder to force people into bondage" is exactly why we had slaves.
Oh, and it is now completely hypocritical of you to ever call anyone a chicken hawk.
Regarding Ron Paul's nomination: He probably has the most delegates so far.
Here's more information about the delegate system:
http://www.dailypaul.com/212952/alert-d … et-tonight
It's interesting to note that it actually is a system set up to help Romney win because he's a Mormon.
It's also VERY interesting to note how much the big-wigs of the Republican Party are terrified of Ron Paul winning.
And even you admit - not in words, but in numbers - that he's tied with Obama.
Except you just quoted the Declaration....the Constitution is the document that has legal standing and it does not allow unilateral secession....mutually agrees upon secession is a little different ...
The Civil War was the war of states rights, brought upon by the secession of the southern slave states, in order to "Preserve the Union" Secession is met with force of arms. The emancipation thing came later, a move designed to bring the south to it's knees.
Indeed: The Emancipation Proclamation freed not a single slave. It was written to convince the slaves in the south to rise up and kill the mothers and children still working the farms in the south.
Glad that we agree that the States DID secede from Britain! we met half way!
Now, can you show me where -- exactly -- the right to leave the union was made illegal? Because without such a statement, the 10th amendment makes secession legal.
I've found that Pcunix is willing to kill me if I lead my state to secession. Is the same true for you?
The Constitution neither provides for, nor prohibits, secession.
It does, however, provide in Article I Section 10 that "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility."
The argument then becomes whether the seceded states were states. If so, then they violated Article I Section 10. If not, then it is a moot point.
Even mooted, however, it seemed that the confiscation of federal property within those states was probably illegal. Also, there seems to have been no provision for the Confederacy to assume its proportional share of the national debt, or remuneration for monies paid by the federal government for land on which some of the states were situated.
I can think of two situations that form similarities:
1. If a child wants to divorce itself from a family, can the child claim the bedroom in the family home as its own property seperate from the family home?
2. If the amount of debt on a car note could be satisfied by the value of the engine and wheels, does the bank have the duty to repossess only the wheels and engine or to accept only those parts of the vehicle from the debtor, or does it retain the right to repossess the vehicle in whole?
Certainly, Lincoln stretched interpretation of parts of the Constitution, and ignored other parts, in order to preserve the Union. However, arguments that cite other documents to demonstrate the intentions of the founding fathers ignore the Articles of Confederation in which the intention was to create a nation into perpetuity.Tom, countering a Libertarian with reality won't work. They don't live here..
Some of us do, PC. Those of us who do, though, tend to recognize that the arguments over interpretation of the Constitution began WITH THE FOREFATHERS. Those who don't like to imagine that Hamilton wasn't a founding father, or acknowledge that Madison was, unless it suits their arguments.
Tom, convincing a liberal that they aren't consistent is one of the most pointless endeavors one can venture upon. I think I've shown every liberal that they're a hypocrite, and that their philosophy is not consistent.
But it doesn't matter.
I'm not sure why I bother to try any longer.
Hamilton was a founding father, but then he stabbed his child in the back when it didn't turn out the way he wanted.
The 10th amendment exists? Well, I'll just invent "Supreme Courts get to translate the constitution", thus nullifying the 10th amendment.You didn't address Article I Section 10.
Since you quoted the Declaration of Independence, would not the Articles of Confederacy weigh in somehow? It stated the new country was perpetual.
Did the Confederate states just have the right to confiscate federal property? Did the states on land which was purchased by the federal government have the same right to secede without remuneration?
When a statement is made that the founding fathers wanted states to have the power, then it is admitted that Hamilton was a founding father, is there not inconsistency with that argument also?What part of A1S10 do you want me to address? Because NO WHERE does it say that the states can't secede.
If a state secedes, they are no longer bound to the chains of the Constitution.
Then, they are free to "enter into [a] Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation" or "enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State".
Logic tastes good.
As for "The Articles of ConfederaTION", my favorite article is Articles II:
"Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled."
But, hey, while we're on A1 S10, can we talk about monetary policy?
"No State shall ... make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts"
Regarding Federal Property, it was really state property. The States paid for it, and it was located in their territory. Instead of launching total war against the South, the North could have easily "asked for their property back".
Did the states on land which was purchased by the federal government have the same right to secede? Yes. Of course they did. They were states. They were given the same powers as states when they were made states.
That's how "being something" works: you become that thing that you are said to have be.
Hamilton was a founding father, as I said. But his baby was amended to have a 10th amendment, and then he nullified the entire document by creating rules that weren't constitutional into the Judiciary.But, Evan, no where in the Constitution does it say a state may secede of its own volition. You are saying, in essence, silence on the subject means that it is a right. That was Hamilton's argument against the Bill of Rights. In fact, no founding father worked harder to get the Constitution ratified than Hamilton, nor did anyone else make such a compelling argument that, at some point, rights not specifically listed in the Bill of Rights would not be considered rights.
The point is that you make Hamiltonian arguments except for issues on which you disagree with Hamilton. It's as if you contend there was no dispute over what the founding fathers intended with the Constitution when, in reality, disputes over the intentions began with the drafters of the Constitution.
Since there were differences of opinion on whether states had the right to secede, Article I Section 10 is also in dispute. It is not as clearly cut as you purport it to be since there is no specified right for a state to secede, unless, of course, you want to make a Hamiltonian argument that any right not specifically limited exists.
The other rebuttals you make are based on the presumption that states had the right to secede. The Civil War demonstrates that issue was disputed, but let's go ahead and take one of your issues a bit further: federal property within a state's border belongs to the state. Where did you come up with that notion? Do you think military bases exist at the pleasure of the state?I can't read your entire post because your first sentence is wrong. It is your topic sentence, so the rest of the post is completely null and void.
The 10th Amendment maintains EVERY power as a State power, lest it is given to the federal government or taken away from the state.
The power to secede was never granted the Federal government (obviously), and it was never prevented to the states.
Your argument is factually incorrect; you have yet to show me where the Constitution outlaws secession.
There is NO dispute to be had in A1S10: the language is clear.
Until you can show me the passage that says "No state shall leave the union once formed", I will agree with your argument.So much hyperbole, and hypotheticals...
just show me the text, in the Constitution, which says "no state shall leave the union, once formed", and I will acknowledge defeat.
Do not bother replying unless your response shows me this statement.Don't tell me what to do, and what not to do. That's so unlibertarian of you.
Don't reply, if you choose. I'm used to it from you.
There is no explicit language in the Constitution that allows secession. You claim it is understood because that's what the Declaration of Independence said, and, absent its explicit forbiddance, is understood. How about the Articles of Confederation? In that document, the country was to perpetual. Was that not drafted and agreed to by the forefathers?"What part of A1S10 do you want me to address? Because NO WHERE does it say that the states can't secede."
The part that says they cannot enter into an alliance or confederation. It seems to be a stronger statement that what they did could not be done rather than the 10th amendment which does not say they could do what they did. It is merely silent.Tom: if you SECEDE from the Constitution, then you don't have to follow its tyranny.
That's why the states SECEDED, and THEN formed a confederation.
For example: "Dang, it sure does suck that I'm going to be drafted into pointless war in Vietnam. I guess I'll SECEDE from the US by becoming a Canadian citizen, and then I won't be BOUND by their laws!"
The first state to secede was South Carolina on December 20, 1860. The Confederate States of America was created on March 11, 1861. That's a 3 month buffer.
Now, for the last time, show me where the Constitution outlaws Secession.
There IS explicit language in the Constitution that allows secession.
IT'S THE 10TH AMENDMENT.
"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."
... jeezus, if I weren't already bald, I would have ripped out my hair by now. This is like the 4th time I've written this on this forum.
You have to show me where SECESSION is outlawed. All you've shown me is that States that are currently under the influence of the Constitution can't make a union.
This coming from a liberal...
... who just admitted that he would kill someone for wanting to be free...
... who insults chicken hawks, but then refuses the call to duty to fight for what he feels is necessary...
... who wants to force people into buying things they don't want...
... and who disavows that the States seceded from Great Britain...
... and who doesn't acknowledge the 10th amendment to the Constitution, but DEMANDS the 14th...
... who fought vehemently against Bush's war in Iraq, but now doesn't even mention the constant wars in these forums.....
I could go on, but I think we've shown that your consistency is worse than Romney's.
I can't let you guys get away with this.
I'm bumping this forum.I remember the last time states tried to leave the Union. It ended with over 500,000 dead. We do NOT need another Civil War right now.
You're right! We should just let states leave freely!
Peace is the best choice!
What a wonderful example you use!
So, you move to Canada and try to gain citizenship. However, you are still an American citizen and a scofflaw known as a draft dodger. Though you are in Canada, you still must become a citizen there, which is unlikely since Canada didn't grant citizenship to draft dodgers simply because they wanted to avoid the draft. The consequence, of course, is that you are still an American citizen in violation of the law of the land, and must now wait for Jimmy Carter to grant amnesty before you can return to American soil without fear of prosecution for breaking the law.
Your presumption that the tenth amendment gave the states the right to secede is what was disputed. Therefore, even though you see it as Article I Section 10 would not apply, people with guns on the other side didn't see it that way. Furthermore, the people in the seceding states did not move. Had they moved outside of US territory, they would have been freed of the burdens of the Constitution.
A better example is a child divorces itself from the family and claims that the bedroom it occupies is now separate from the family home and immune from the rules of the house. Does the child have the right to retain the room simply because there is no specific written rule forbidding it?
My point is not that I am correct, and you are incorrect. My point is that you are seeing grey matter as black and white. Though grey is a combination of both black and white, it truly is neither black nor white. If you want to claim that it is only one or the other, then it is you who is failing to see the grey in its entirety.
You might take away from this discussion that I believe the states did not have the right to secede. However, if the point made were that the states absolutely did not have that right, I would be pointing out that the grey area of the subject is not black nor white.I'm still waiting for you to show me where the Constitution says "No state shall secede from the Union".
Until then, your argument is 'null', and you're just showing me that you can't admit you're wrong.
PS: telling someone to stop talking isn't anti-libertarian. Forcing them to be quiet using violence is.I already showed you where it is in the Constitution. It is stated as clearly as what you showed me that allows secession. You also claimed that it was intended by virtue of the Declaration of Independence. I cited a more recent document that shows that the union was perpetual.
It is not me who will not admit that I am wrong (although "incorrect" is likely what you mean). You are not willing to accept that the same thing from different perspectives may appear differently.
So, telling me to not exercise my rights is not unlibertarian unless you do so with a gun, eh? You have an interesting way of seeing things, and not seeing things, depending on what it is you want to see and not see!
So, let's just say that Lincoln was wrong to not allow secession. How do you think that might have affected history four score later if he had not done what he did?NO. you did NOT show me the constitutional quote:
"You can't form a union" does NOT apply to states that are NOT part of the Constitution.
The states SECEDED first, THEN FORMED A UNION.
--------------
Example #1:
Step one: put all the ingredients into a bowl
Step two: mix them together
Step three: bake the cake
Evan: "They put the ingredients in first, then they mixed them, then they baked the cake"
Tom: "No, they baked the cake before they mixed the ingredients together. They also mixed the ingredients together BEFORE putting the ingredients into the bowl!"
----------
Example #2:
Step 1: Quit your account with Verizon in January.
Step 2: Be without service for 3-4 months
Step 3: Join up with Virgin Mobile in May
Step 4: Verizon demands money for phone usage in August
Evan: "that makes no sense. Verizon can't demand the money because the customer stopped using their contract in January! Verizon's contract allowed the customer to stop using the contract!"
Tom: "Dude, Verizon is TOTALLY entitled to the money. The Verizon contract said that you can't have one phone using two different cell providers!"
-------------
Does this clarify things?Oh, Evan, if only other people were as smart as you.
Here is what Madison, the father of the Constitution, said about it: "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."
Here is what Andrew Jackson said about it: "But each State having expressly parted with so many powers as to constitute jointly with the other States a single nation, cannot from that period possess any right to secede, because such secession does not break a league, but destroys the unity of a nation, and any injury to that unity is not only a breach which would result from the contravention of a compact, but it is an offense against the whole Union. To say that any State may at pleasure secede from the Union, is to say that the United States are not a nation because it would be a solecism to contend that any part of a nation might dissolve its connection with the other parts, to their injury or ruin, without committing any offense. Secession, like any other revolutionary act, may be morally justified by the extremity of oppression; but to call it a constitutional right, is confounding the meaning of terms, and can only be done through gross error, or to deceive those who are willing to assert a right, but would pause before they made a revolution, or incur the penalties consequent upon a failure."
Andrew Jackson also threatened to send federal troops into South Carolina to put down its attempt to secede in 1828, and to hang the leader of the secessionists from the highest tree.
The only conclusion that can be drawn is that the right to secede is, at best, a grey area. If there is clarity, it is that states do not have the unilateral right to secede. For you to claim that it is black and white that they do have the right is tantamount to a lack of recognition on your part that black and white make grey. At worst, it is you demonstrating prejudicial idiocy. Employing tactics such as name calling does not make you correct. It makes you childish and ignorant of history.
You claim I'm a liberal. I've voted for Ron Paul twice to be President. How many times have you voted for him?Your quote from Madison is from 1833.
I don't know if you knew this, but the Constitution was written some 50 years earlier.
Here are a few quotes from him that were a bit more "timely": The Virginia Resolutions of 1798
http://www.constitution.org/cons/virg1798.htm
He wrote that it was the duty of the states to interfere with unconstitutional laws.
He also called the 10th amendment ignored (which he had argued, earlier, that it was redundant: everyone knows it already exists), and that the federal government was usurping powers not delegated to it.
Anyway, Madison never said that Secession was allowed, but he certainly agreed that States can overthrow federal government tyranny.
---
The more important point, however, is that NO WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION IS SECESSION ILLEGAL."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."
Yeah, seceding at will is a violation is agreeing with you!And your quotes are 223 years after the Constitution was written. What's your point?
My point is that the only document we can use to decipher what the Constitution says is the Constitution itself.
I'm citing THE document. You're citing some other guy.
There is NO passage in the Constitution that outlaws Secession.it also does not say that states can leave the union, either
Yes, it does, actually.
The 10th amendment makes any power not a) taken away from the states and b) not granted to the federal government, a power of the states.
Because secession is not taken from the states, it is a Constitutional action.
"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."
"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."That interpretation of the Constitution is as big a stretch as I have come across.
Implicit in the very act of creating a new sovereign country is the loss of total individual state sovereignty and independence. This individual state sovereignty was not simply loaned to the new entity known as the United States of America.
The states gave up the total individual independence inherent in a sovereign nation when they joined the union. They didnt just give some powers over the federal government like they were gifts at Christmas time. Furthermore, as the first line of the Constitution states... "It was the People of the United States (that acted to form a) "more perfect Union..." Not the States.
Even if the the federal government had only been granted minimal powers under the Constitution, a new binding contract was created to form a new sovereign nation. You can debate who should have more power or if the feds have exceeded their intended boundaries .. but that is not the point (plus, that is for the Supreme Court to decide if a disagreement arises).Allow me to restate the Constitution's plain English:
"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."
... I'm STILL waiting for someone to show me where secession is "delegated to the United States by the Constitution" or where the power is "prohibited by [the Constitution] to the states".
Can't do it? Neither could I.Look at it this way...
You believe that the Constitution gives the States certain powers, as well as some powers the Federal government, right?
Although the Federal governments powers (which you listed in a previous post) might be more limited in number, they still must not be infringed upon by the individual states (as well as the other way around), correct?
Then how can you justify secession if that very act not only deprives the Federal government of every single power it possess, but also abolishes every individual right protected by the Constitution?
The Constitution clearly lays out how it can be changed, and how the distribution of powers can be altered, through the extensive Amendment process. Yet you would let individual states ignore that and secede unilaterally, and thus violate each and every federal power and the guarantees of individual liberty protected by the Constitution.
You can't have it both way.. you can't claim that one part of government can't overstep its jurisdiction, while another part can chose to ignore each and every explicitly power given to another part by seceding.Oh, that's easy. The 9th amendment exists:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
This basically says "quit making up dumb logic to take away rights from the people and the states"you mean like succession... which would take away ALL rights from the people protected by the Constitution, as well as ALL powers from the Federal government
... what? People have rights no matter who their government is. The 9th amendment 'makes sure' that the language held in the Constitution can't be used to take away rights that were NOT taken away.
Secession is a right that was not taken away, thus the 9th amendment keeps that power to the states and people.Rights are guaranteed by the Constitution. If a state secedes from the Union, they are no longer bound by the Constitution and the safeguards that it contains. They still have their rights given to them by nature, but the protection of these rights are not guaranteed in law.
I've already addressed your other erroneous arguments. The only solution is to meet at Gettysburg.
See you there Friday at 5 pm
Evan, you're just plain wrong on this. "Deciphering" the constitution requires reading key Supreme Court decisions interpreting the document as well as reading the constitution which is ambiguous or silent on some issues.
Surely you're familiar with the "checks and balances" among the three branches of the federal government (and state governments as well).The Supreme Court is filled with a bunch of partisan lawyers who use their positions to create laws, rather than to administer justice.
When President Paul is elected, he will abolish the Supreme Court, and the entire Federal Government.
In fact, the entire area of Washington DC will be converted back into a swamp (as the Constitution does not specifically authorize the federal government to build buildings with electrical power, bathrooms or internet tubes)Ha!
"The Supreme Court is filled with a bunch of partisan lawyers who use their positions to create laws, rather than to administer justice."
Some truth in this, especially with the current majority of creeps. In any event we're stuck with their decisions until a new court or a constitutional amendment changes or nullifies them.Still waiting for the quote in the Constitution which bans secession.
I think the Civil War cooked the secessionists' goose for good.
Ralph's Argument:
-----
"The power to secede did exist: the states seceded from Britain, and they also left that power to the states in the Constitution....
"... however, when a few of them tried to secede, Lincoln launched a horrendously brutal war - the worst in centuries - to inform them that the Federal Government no longer cared about the Constitution...
"... and ONLY BECAUSE the South lost, the power was taken away... but not really, because it's still there in the Constitution...
"... and I fully acknowledge that Might Makes Right, and that invading countries to alter their government is EXACTLY 100% compatible with this reasoning."
-----
I just wanted to point out that you can NO LONGER be anti-Bush for invading Iraq.
Sorry Ralph: the Constitution is written in English.
The 10th amendment is clear.
Secession is NOT denied the states, and thus is a power granted them.
I'm sorry that reading is so difficult to every Supreme Court justice ever, but that's what it says.
The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, and it allows for Secession.No, he's not. He's only familiar with the Constitution as read and interpreted by Ron Paul.
I'm still waiting for a quote in the Constitution which strips the power of secession from the states.
PS: Pcunix!! Don't shoot!! I'm only DEFENDING the right of secession!!! I'm not actually trying to secede!!!
Evan, this is one line from the source you provided: "That the good people of this commonwealth, having ever felt, and continuing to feel, the most sincere affection for their brethren of the other states; the truest anxiety for establishing and perpetuating the union of all;"
Notice the word "perpetuating."
I agree that the Constitution does not specificy that secession is illegal. However, it does state that no states can form alliances or confederations. You used examples of cake baking and executed contracts to establish your position. There is nothing finite about the Constitution. It wasn't established to be such, it has no termination date, and the founding fathers, including its regarded author, contended that secession is not a right. Another of your heroes, Andrew Jackson, said that any attempt to secede was an act of revolution. The Civil War was a failed attempt at revolution, at best.
Perhaps the greatest evidence that can be produced to demonstrate the perpetuity of the union is that the Vice President for Lincoln's second term was a citizen of a state that had seceded. You can call him names, show his disdain, or make any argument you want, but people who are not eligible to be President are Constitutionally prohibited from holding that office.Thank you!!
"I agree that the Constitution does not specificy that secession is illegal."
Thank you!!
Thank you!!!
I have shined at least SOME light upon SOMEONE on these forums!!
Thank you!!
"... I'm STILL waiting for someone to show me where secession is "delegated to the United States by the Constitution" or where the power is "prohibited by [the Constitution] to the states".
Article I Section 10.secession is NOT outlawed there.
The act of states STILL UNDER THE CHAINS OF THE CONSTITUTION to make treaties IS.
Time lines are hard, but here we go:
<-Earlier---------------------------------------------------------------Later-------------------->
Secede from the union.... then.... make a treaty
Related Discussions
- 41
Whole life terms, against human rights or not?
by karl 11 years ago
I see the European court has once again ruled that the UK is in breach of the European human rights act.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23230419Surely some crimes are so heinous that the perpetrator should be locked up forever for public safety?
- 248
Arizona Immigration Law- What do you think?
by TheSituation 14 years ago
What do you all think about this one? Seems like some good fodder for my fellow hubbers.
- 192
Arizona versus the Federal government and California
by tobey100 14 years ago
I support the Arizona Immigration Law and I'll gladly tell you why....I've read it. All of it. I've been slammed from every corner for supporting profiling. I always ask my critic, "Have you read the law?" the answer is usually a resounding yes yet, when I ask them...
- 113
An Uncivil Peace--Is the US headed toward another Civil War?
by pgrundy 14 years ago
We watched Ken Burn's series on The Civil War this past weekend (all umpteen episodes---my partner is sick and it is winter in Michigan, so you know, we had time), and I was struck by the similarities between Lincoln's era and our era, and the similarities between Lincoln and Obama.Not all the...
- 18
Should States Be Allowed To Secede From The Union of the United States Of Americ
by VC L Veasey 7 years ago
Should States Be Allowed To Secede From The Union of the United States Of America?Which Could Effectively End The Union That So Many died during the Civil War to maintain.
- 7
Is there any real reason why government needs to be involved in marriage?
by Brad 8 years ago
Is there any real reason why government needs to be involved in marriage?There is no constitutional right to marriage based on the constitution.Marriage until recently was the domain of the states and they set the requirement for licensing marriage.Then the federal government took over and told the...