The other post was a bit hasty. Adam's is mistaken, not you. No right to secede? Secession is a form of unbloody revolution which is not governed by the Constitution (nor mentioned except perhaps in Amendment X). Certainly a breech of the Constitution by Federal government requires recourse other than the Courts and yet short of revolution. Moreover, it seems that the most effective kind of revolution can only be carried out through the States in order to maintain order.
You yourself seem to see this in your slip in mentioning the citizens right to secede.
Two questions of a very delicate nature present themselves on this occasion: 1. On what principle the Confederation, which stands in the solemn form of a compact among the States, can be superseded without the unanimous consent of the parties to it? 2. What relation is to subsist between the nine or more States ratifying the Constitution, and the remaining few who do not become parties to it?
One term that is being used on this thread is sovereign. What did the term mean to the Founders? Who is sovereign? The People? The States? In a few places the Founders do use that term with reference to the States, but in what sense are the States sovereign? The Founders also used the word in another sense that seems to indicate that the States are not the ultimate sovereign. For example, when Samuel Adams signed the Declaration he is reported to have said, "We have this day restored the Sovereign to Whom all men ought to be obedient. He reigns in heaven and from the rising to the setting of the sun, let His kingdom come." Or when British Major Pitcairn shouted to an assembled regiment of Minutemen; "Disperse, ye villains, lay down your arms in the name of George the Sovereign King of England." the immediate response of Reverend Jonas Clarke was:
"We recognize no Sovereign but God and no King but Jesus."
I posted on another thread:
Death is more eligible than slavery. A free-born people are not required by the religion of Jesus Christ to submit to tyranny..."
1773, Marlborough, MA
_____________________"...all assumed power in Rulers, not granted them by the constitution, is without just authority, and so far forth, can claim no submission. "As usurpation," says the great and judicious Mr. LOCKE, "is the exercise of power which another hath a right to, so Tyranny is the exercise of power beyond right, which no body can have a right to." And again, "Where-ever law ends, Tyranny begins, if the law be transgressed to another's harm. And whosoever in authority exceeds the power given him by law, and makes use of the force, he has under his command, to compass that upon the subject, which the law allows not, ceases in that to be a magistrate: And acting without authority, may be opposed as any other man, who by force invades the right of another."
...And it must be granted [5] finally, that the people as well as their Rulers, are proper judges of the civil constitution they are under, and of their own rights and privileges; else, how shall they know when these are invaded;-when submission is due to authoritative requisitions, and when not?
An Election Sermon
John Tucker
1771
Perhaps you are right that the most effective kind of revolution can only be carried out through the States in order to maintain order. I suppose if the people of enough states are angry enough at being turned into slaves they could amend the Constitution to undo the present destruction of our liberties. I admit it's far fetched, given the present moral climate, but secession is even more so.
Cordially,