Posted on 04/14/2005 6:40:53 PM PDT by kellynla
[You, obfuscating] Not unilaterally, no. That was illegal.
Your turn. Chapter and verse. The article and section of the Constitution that conveys, mortgages, subrogates, or however you want to put it, the power of a People (=State, contrary you) to resume their powers and their sovereignty, and retire from the Union.
You might also show us where in the Constitution one State gets to have a say in whether another State can ratify an article of amendment or not, or whether one State has to have the permission of the others to ratify an amendment.
You can't, because they don't, and the same thing's true of secession and sovereignty. No State or combination of States has a veto over the relationship of any State to the Union. Once statehood is granted, that's it, my State is a State -- and existing States don't have the right to forbid my State to take up the power to ratify an amendment, to send electors to the Electoral College, to call a convention of the People of my State, or to secede.
Sure they do. Congress has the say over any change of status in a state. By implication this includes leaving.
Once statehood is granted, that's it, my State is a State -- and existing States don't have the right to forbid my State to take up the power to ratify an amendment, to send electors to the Electoral College, to call a convention of the People of my State, or to secede.
But they do have the power to tell you what government you will have, what laws you may not pass, what legislation from other states you will respect, and what you may or may not do outside the border of your state. Said borders, by the way, you cannot alter in any way without the permission of the other states. So yes, they can tell you whether or not you can secede.
[You, quoting me] You just don't want to admit that the People is a State.
[You, replying] No, because we were founded by the People of the United States of America, not the people of Virginia or South Carolina. The People are the United States not a State.
Not true. Every single State that ratified the Constitution did so individually, and it's clear from the context of the Philadelphia Convention debates, that the People are the People of the States, and not a lumpen, amalgamated people. We've been over this repeatedly, and you keep asserting Jaffa's fictions on the dwindling authority of his scholarship.
From the Philadelphia Convention notes of James Madison, Resolution 19, on the ratification of the Constitution, is taken up:
Link: http://www.constitution.org/dfc/dfc_0723.htm
Resol: 19. 6 "referring the new Constitution to Assemblies to be chosen by the people for the express purpose of ratifying it" was next taken into consideration.Mr. ELSEWORTH moved that it be referred to the Legislatures of the States for ratification. Mr. PATTERSON 2ded. the motion.
Col. MASON considered a reference of the plan to the authority of the people as one of the most important and essential of the Resolutions. The Legislatures have no power to ratify it. They are the mere creatures of the State Constitutions, and can not be greater than their creators. And he knew of no power in any of the Constitutions, he knew there was no power in some of them, that could be competent to this object. Whither then must we resort? To the people with whom all power remains that has not been given up in the Constitutions derived from them. It was of great moment he observed that this doctrine should be cherished as the basis of free Government. Another strong reason was that admitting the Legislatures to have a competent authority, it would be wrong to refer the plan to them, because succeeding Legislatures having equal authority could undo the acts of their predecessors; and the National Govt. would stand in each State on the weak and tottering foundation of an Act of Assembly......<snip>
Mr. MADISON thought it clear that the Legislatures were incompetent to the proposed changes. These changes would make essential inroads on the State Constitutions, and it would be a novel & dangerous doctrine that a Legislature could change the constitution under which it held its existence. There might indeed be some Constitutions within the Union, which had given a power to the Legislature to concur in alterations of the federal Compact. But there were certainly some which had not; and in the case of these, a ratification must of necessity be obtained from the people. He considered the difference between a system founded on the Legislatures only, and one founded on the people, to be the true difference between a league or treaty, and a Constitution. The former in point of moral obligation might be as inviolable as the latter. In point of political operation, there were two important distinctions in favor of the latter. 1. 12 A law violating a treaty ratified by a pre-existing law, might be respected by the Judges as a law, though an unwise or perfidious one. A law violating a constitution established by the people themselves, would be considered by the Judges as null & void. 2. 12 The doctrine laid down by the law of Nations in the case of treaties is that a breach of any one article by any of the parties, frees the other parties from their engagements. In the case of a union of people under one Constitution, the nature of the pact has always been understood to exclude such an interpretation. Comparing the two modes in point of expediency he thought all the considerations which recommended this Convention in preference to Congress for proposing the reform were in favor of State Conventions in preference to the Legislatures for examining and adopting it.
On 13 question on Mr. Elseworth's motion to refer the plan to the Legislatures of the States
N. H. no. Mas. no. Ct. ay. no. 14 Pa. no. Del. ay. Md. ay. Va. no. N. C. no. S. C. no. Geo. no. 15
Mr. GOVr. MORRIS moved that the reference of the plan be made to one general Convention, chosen & authorized by the people to consider, amend, & establish the same. — Not seconded . On 13 question for agreeing to Resolution 19. 16 touching the mode of Ratification as reported from the Committee of the Whole; viz, to refer the Constn. after the approbation of Congs. to assemblies chosen by the people:
N. H. ay. Mas. ay. Ct. ay. Pa. ay. Del. no. Md. ay. Va. ay. N. C. ay. S. C. ay. Geo. ay. 17
There is the key, the dispositive information. The People were consulted on a State-by-State basis, acknowledging their communities as States. The amalgamated People of which you speak, quoting the Preamble (which has no legal force), was considered as an option by the Convention, but Gouverneur Morris's proposal did not even draw a second. "People" = "State".
The People, acting in their capacity as sovereign States, ratified the Constitution. Your lumpenproletariat was nowhere in sight -- considered, and rejected.
It's not. There are southerners who have no idea a war was fought or care there was one.
Political websites like this have the occasional hot head. They usually come from DU but for some reason, the slavery fans are allowed here.
I have no idea why. A troll who can post one comment on Bush and be banned. But there are long time Freepers who can openly discuss rebellion, killing American troops and murdering Presidents. It doesn't make sense.
There is no implication, not at this level. It's in black and white, or it isn't there.
We aren't talking about some Treasury Secretary ordering tea-cozies with his implied powers to keep the teakettles warm that Congress appropriated to him. We're talking about the whole ball game.
But they do have the power to tell you what government you will have, what laws you may not pass, what legislation from other states you will respect, and what you may or may not do outside the border of your state. Said borders, by the way, you cannot alter in any way without the permission of the other states. So yes, they can tell you whether or not you can secede.
You are citing articles of the Constitution and the Supremacy Clause -- all of which operate on a State that is still in the Union.
So, no, the other States have no sayso about secession. As with ratification in 1788, the decision is for each State individually, its People consulting their own fortunes without any influence or coercion from other States or the federal government. That is what free means -- don't you hate it?
Get this right the first time. There are no "slavery fans" on Free Republic, or in the United States. Got it?
Look at my posts this morning and repeat that with a straight face.
Who give a damn where Emeril got his driver's license? On the other hand, you might try reading something about the Constitution before you go around retailing that "Suitors of Penelope" stuff about the Constitution -- the Unionist fever-dream of the Constitution as a steel-jawed trap that makes little states your thralls and prey.
In your dreams, that is.
You say something to me, punk?
Nonsense. Implied powers have been recognized since McCullough v Maryland. As Choef Justice Marshall wrote:
"Among the enumerated powers, we do not find that of establishing a bank or creating a corporation. But there is no phrase in the instrument which, like the Articles of Confederation, excludes incidental or implied powers; and which requires that every thing 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."
So, no, the other States have no sayso about secession. As with ratification in 1788, the decision is for each State individually, its People consulting their own fortunes without any influence or coercion from other States or the federal government.
On the contrary, with the exception of the original 13 states all states are admitted only with the agreement of the other states. An honest reading of the Constitution would come to the obvious conclusion that leaving would require the same.
Wrong. The People ratified the Constitution, not the states. To quote Chief Justice Marshall once again:
"This mode of proceeding was adopted; and by the Convention, by Congress, and by the State Legislatures, the instrument was submitted to the people. They acted upon it in the only manner in which they can act safely, effectively, and wisely, on such a subject, by assembling in Convention. It is true, they assembled in their several States—and where else should they have assembled? No political dreamer was ever wild enough to think of breaking down the lines which separate the States, and of compounding the American people into one common mass. Of consequence, when they act, they act in their States. But the measures they adopt do not, on that account, cease to be the measures of the people themselves, or become the measures of the State governments."
So it WAS the People of the United States , that lumpenprolitariat that you have such contempt for, that ratified the Constitution and not your precious states.
Looks like they're back to work trying to start another flamewar, 4CJ, and just as I predicted they're trying to assert an affiliation between you and Hitler now (even though the only real genuine nazi we know of was their old friend #3fan). Also notice that when one starts the flame baiting the others quickly follow, including but not limited to the Wlat Brigade regulars who have been off somewhere else (perhaps the barn?) for days on end. It's a true heard mentality...or something more.
As you all know, the events capitan_refugio keep referencing preceded his month-long departure from the forum on January 26, 2005. Following an altercation on a thread with him, I contacted Jim Robinson to report the events and seek his advice. He promptly replied that afternoon by pulling capitan's offending remarks and some responses to them that I had posted, which I asked JR to pull since they quoted the offending remarks. The freepmail I got from JR informed me that he had sent the following message to capitan_refugio regarding the remarks he had pulled:
"Do not post personal information about other posters. Do not stalk or harrass other posters. I would like you to immediatly cease and desist posting or writing to or about GOPcapitalist."
I heard nothing more after that, noticed that capitan disappeared for a month, and considered the matter resolved from there. As you all know however, capitan returned and far from ceasing and desisting his posting to or writing about me as JR's message instructed, he resumed and resumed with a vengeance.
Now capitan claims that he was never admonished in the manner that the freepmail above describes, and has even succeeded in getting my posts that describe this event removed (all the while his own versions as well as his own personal attacks are permitted to remain with impunity, even despite the outstanding order that was supposedly sent to him). Sadly, this strange set of inconsistent events makes for only two logical possibilities: Either JR lied about his message to capitan when he sent me the freepmail posted above, or capitan is lying now about never receiving it.
Given that the great Supreme Court Reporter and West Texas Battle historian capitan has a long and demonstrable problem with telling the truth, I have always been inclined to distrust his version of events and accept that JR's message was truthful. One thing is certain though: the message I got from JR and capitan's later claims are incompatible, meaning one of the two lied.
I'll leave it at that and also leave you to any other inferences you wish to make. If capitan desires to call JR a liar on this thread or any other part of the forum, that is up to him. Best of luck to you all and please freepmail or email me to stay in touch. It's been a blast and I wish you only the best
Sorry to see you go, amigo. Take care.
Vaya Condios my Friend!
You are the Best of the Best...hope to see you on LP!
Your Friend for Dixie!
Tex
And then there are people who CLAIM to be Southern and Texan, and are really traitors. Prove that there is one person that supports slavery on FR. You can't. Slavery was morally wrong, and everyone knows it.
Seems to me, you are just trying to "stir" the pot.
But as my Grandmother always said, "That dog isn't gonna hunt!"
If that's your choice then I regret to see you leave. You will be missed. It's a shame that people like you that are intent on conducting reasoned discourse are banned/suspended for simply attempting to keep such conversations decent. And even worse is the fact that those that pollute these threads with their bigoted,inflammatory comments are given free reign to do so, and can post such with impunity.
I love this site, but it's far different now than it was in 2000. I think Jim Robinson is a great man and a patriotic American who once wrote
We are conservative activists dedicated to defending our rights, defending our constitution, defending our republic and defending our traditional American way of life. Our God-given liberty and freedoms are not negotiable.It's a shame that at least one of the mods doesn't share his views.
Keep in touch my FRiend.
All yer base ahr ta belon' ta us.
he is DECIDEDLY NOT a LIAR!
otoh, the lack of veracity of the damnyankee in question is also well-known.
PITY you're letting the damnyankees drive you away! i, for one, will NOT leave the field to them, EVER!
free dixie,sw
I'm sorry to see you go. Thank you for your many illuminating posts. I learned a lot of history from them.
Maybe if we had all used LG's advice of putting uncivil posters on twit filter, it wouldn't have come to this. However, when you are dealing with modern day Benjamin Butlers, it's hard not to fire back.
Boy, isn't that the truth!
Hasta luego, GOPcapitalist, and be sure to keep in touch. The Texas board needs the inside skinny on what the Tina Benkiser RiNO Fan Club is up to these days.
Post the redan, load the 18-pounder. Here they come again.
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.