[Tau Food]

I appreciate Jeff Davis's argument. It reflects his view that, despite the Constitution, the United States remained nothing more than just a league of states. His argument takes no account of the new constitutional relationships between individual Americans and the United States government.

I think Patrick Henry's view of the effect of the Constitution was more accurate. Henry argued that the Constitution should not be ratified because it was apparent to him from the text of the proposed Constitution that its effect would be to convert the existing "confederation" of states into a "great consolidated government" created by "we the people of the United States" rather than "we the states." In short, Jeff Davis apparently refused to acknowledge what Patrick Henry saw as obvious.

As an individual, I have personal constitutional rights as an American citizen. I have first amendment rights to speech, religion and press. I have second amendment rights to own a personal firearm. I have the right to vote for individuals to represent me in the U.S. Congress. If my state proposes to sentence me to live in one of its dungeons or to kill me, I have a right to a trial, I have a right to be represented by an attorney, I have a right to be judged by a jury and a slough of other procedural rights. Also, I have the right to seek the assistance of a United States district court if my state chooses to disregard my rights under the United States Constitution. Jeff Davis's argument that secession does not affect the "internal affairs" within the seceding state ignores the fact that secession by my state immediately strips me of my American citizenship and immediately strips me of every one of my rights under the United States Constitution.

Do you know of a way for a state to secede without stripping American citizens within the seceding state of their American citizenship and of all of the constitutional rights that are afforded to them under the U.S. Constitution?

[central_va]

There is no point, you don't believe in the founder's original concept of the relationship between the federal and state; it is clear you are just another "statist". It isn't your fault really, republics are hard to keep - to wit Franklins answer "a republic if you can keep it"; it takes faith,fortitude, honesty and integrity. It takes understanding of how the republic is supposed to work, these qualities are lacking in you and unfortunately most of the entire US population. The only way to settle these differences exemplified by you is on the battlefield.

We have, as a nation, totally lost our way. The founders would be appalled at you in so many ways.

IMO The original "error" of including the BOR in the USC brought the whole Federal / individual relationship into play. That was not the purpose of the document as drafted. It's original purpose was to reign in the Federal's ability to concentrate power. The BOR just being in the USC elevated the Federal and watered down the whole intent.

We have nothing to discuss.

Well Mr. Franklin, we couldn't and didn't.