Posted on 02/25/2004 11:52:26 AM PST by 4CJ
No, waiting until a state acts, then deciding the method.
reductio ad absurdum
They agreed to Article IV when they ratified.
The Constitution says the Congress may prescribe the laws. That means the states must allow the Congress to set the process if they're going to carry out an act.
I never said they have to get approval. I said they have to allow the Congress to prescribe the way any state proves their acts.
This flies in the face of the Tenth Amendment.
The tenth amendment doesn't apply to secession because Article IV says that the Congress may prescribe laws for states to prove their acts. The tenth amendment says power not delegated to the United States. Article IV delegates to the Congress the power to prescribe laws for states to prove their acts.
Sure. But Article IV does not prohibit secession. But secession is not a legislative act - it is the act of the people of a sovereign state in convention.
It sets the rules for states to prove their acts, secession being an act of a state, it therefore falls under Article IV.
But secession is not a legislative act - it is the act of the people of a sovereign state in convention.
A public act, yes, as Article IV says.
It's part of his mental affliction and another of his Hinkley-esque qualities. He insists upon getting the "last word" in any conversation no matter how insignificant it may be. It may also be one of his schizo tendencies - he exhibits at least two distinct personalities around here and at times blends them together by conversing with himself. They both seem to mistake any form of third party reference to him, no matter how indirect it may be, with a conversation in which he is involved.
'Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.' And Congress has exercised this power, by Act of May 26, 1790....Congress exercised its power and issued its prescription 70 years before the WBTS.
The question is not whether Congress issued a prescription, but whether someone took his prescription.
And it's allowed to do so at any time per Article IV.
Congress may prescribe the law to prove or authenticate a legislative Act or judicial Act of a State. This means that Congress sets the process by which state authorities prove a submission to be an authentic copy of a State Act. Congress did set the process. At the time of the WBTS, it had been set by the Act of May 26, 1790. Currently it is set by 28 USC 1738.
This is the official opinion of the Unites States Legislative branch by way of its Act of May 26, 1790, and of the United States Executive branch by way of signing the legislation, and of the United States Judicial branch by way of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in MILWAUKEE COUNTY v. M.E. WHITE CO., 296 U.S. 268 (1935).
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,That the acts of the legislatures of the several states shall be authenticated by having the seal of their respective states affixed thereto:
Not much of a barrier to secession.
The process was never set for secession. The states should've gave the Congress the opportunity to set the laws for secession to be proven and when they didn't, they were in rebellion.
This is the official opinion of the Unites States Legislative branch by way of its Act of May 26, 1790, and of the United States Executive branch by way of signing the legislation, and of the United States Judicial branch by way of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in MILWAUKEE COUNTY v. M.E. WHITE CO., 296 U.S. 268 (1935).
Article IV says the Congress can prescribe laws as to the effect of acts. Obviously that had not been done yet for secession. The seceding states should've followed Article IV.
Not allowing Congress to set the rules for secession was a barrier.
In their 1790 act, Congress didn't say that the acts of the state legislatures except secession were authenticated by ...
You apparently wish to insert the words, "except secession", into the 1790 act.
I just wish to read the Constitution and it says Congress may prescribe laws for states to prove their acts and their effects. Seceding states must give Congress that opportunity.
Congress prescribed the law in 1790. You just don't like the result.
From the New York ratification of the Constitution:
That the Powers of Government may be reassumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness ...... Under these impressions and declaring that the rights aforesaid cannot be abridged or violated, and that the Explanations aforesaid are consistent with the said Constitution, And in confidence that the Amendments which shall have been proposed to the said Constitution will receive an early and mature Consideration: We the said Delegates, in the Name and in the behalf of the People of the State of New York Do by these presents Assent to and Ratify the said Constitution.
They understood the Constitution.
Article IV makes it clear that Congress may pass laws that govern how a state proves it's act and the effect thereof. If a state is to secede, it must allow the Congress to do that. Secession obviously has different effects than a marriage.
Getting kind of far out on your twig, aren't you? Congress had their say in the 1790 law and didn't make an exception for secession.
As I pointed out, the New Yorkers who ratified the Constitution believed they had an unabridgeable right that could not be violated to re-assume their own government when their happiness required it. I feel their interpretation is more correct than yours. No offense intended.
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.