And if the oppression is wholly imaginary on the part of the party claiming to be oppressed then why should the other states roll over and freely give up all their constitutional protections? You want to leave? Fine. I honestly don't care what reason you have for wanting to leave. Make your position known, negotiate a settlement of all questions of disagreement with the remaining states, and go on your merry way. Don't walk out, repudiate all responsibility for your share of the obligations, steal every bit of federal property you can get your mitts on, and expect the remaining states to be happy about it.
If a State has the right to secede at will then all states have the same right and thus all other states could simply opt to secede from the existing union together and form a new union without a particular state.
But that's not what Madison said. He wasn't talking about 49 states seceding from the U.S. but those 49 expelling the 50th from the nation. The U.S. remains for the states that expelled the odd man out. It isn't a case of 49 creating a new political entity, leaving the old one to the 50th.
We can’t kick them out of the existing union but we can all leave the existing union and form a new one which we will simply deny them entrance to.
Why not? Why can't we kick them out? What prevents it? That was Madison's question, and I'm still waiting for your answer.
Its not hard to do and this right of each State individually to be exercised by most states is undeniable. The Union is voluntary for all in it. that includes any combination of them that might make a majority or all.
The right of a state to unilaterally take an action does not exist when that action comes at the expense of the other states. All states are equal, not some. All states have constitutional guarantees, not some.
“And if the oppression is wholly imaginary on the part of the party claiming to be oppressed then why should the other states roll over and freely give up all their constitutional protections? “
What Constitutional protections do you speak of, and just as importantly from what? Do you speak of some perverted concept of being protected from losing the ability to impose upon other States?
That rather sounds like imperial protection rather then Constitutional protections... Protection of the governing rather then protection of the governed.
Believe it or not you have no natural right to rule anyone else. The right to rule is a right given by God to the individual over themselves ONLY, Not to government or the majority which control such government.
“But that’s not what Madison said. He wasn’t talking about 49 states seceding from the U.S. but those 49 expelling the 50th from the nation. “
I’m afraid your mistaken, his logical chain quite literally and logically was speaking of the former.
That being said I don’t know why your bothering to dispute this fact. It really only matter insofar under an existing union the same absolute unanimity consent is not required for every new amendment as is the case of a new union.
“Why not? Why can’t we kick them out? What prevents it? That was Madison’s question, and I’m still waiting for your answer. “
You were given my answer yes 49 States can leave the union and form a new one without the 50th.
As to your assertion that we can’t kick em out, my only 2 reasons:
1: The fact that the Federal Constitution as you say contains no provision authorizing the Federal Government to kick out an existing State, therefore we have no means of kicking a state out of the existing union.
2: Nor could we amend the constitution to allow for such a power as the already violated(17th amendment) article 5 provision that prohibits an amendment that would depriving a State of their representation in the Senate without their consent, would seem to apply.
We can only leave the union ourself and deny them entrance into the new union, assuming they would even want entrance into that union.
All in all its not that serous of a disability which makes me wonder why you bring it up...
And if the oppression is wholly imaginary on the part of the party claiming to be oppressed then why should the other states roll over and freely give up all their constitutional protections?
Wow, how many false premises can you roll into one long, absurd question? Very good.
First of all, the South's oppression was NOT "wholly imaginary". John Brown was no figment, nor "bleeding Kansas", nor the "Secret Six". Neither were the sinister black-clad companies of the Wide Awakes, who'd already drawn arms from federal stocks in Illinois, and crossed over to Missouri to take part in the overthrow of the State government and the MMV, the Missouri Militia.
Wide Awakes were also sending bands of arsonists to Texas to raise the slaves and burn the towns. The Texans erased all the evidence for this conspiracy by hanging everyone in sight -- including their witnesses for the prosecution. That's the problem with lynch-law justice. It's so imprecise. They should have availed themselves of the services of Col. Lee, who'd hanged Brown, to help them with their Wide Awake problem; at that time, he was stationed in San Antonio. I suppose Gov. Sam Houston didn't want to give any countenance to the secessionists, so Col. Lee remained undisturbed.
And we've all been through your piffle about secession "destroying the Union" and the rights of the other States. You might as well argue that my Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, should be abrogated by you, unilaterally, because my silence deprives you of your "right" to justice, i.e. revenge. Sound about right? Sounds like your style of argumentation ..... straw men by the battalion, by the division and corps.
Don't forget your ad hom general disclaimer: but your opponent is a stinking Southerner!! That always works well, and I see you've been exercising it, you and Bubba.
The States that remained in the Union continued to enjoy the benefits of their association undisturbed by the absence of he Southern States. Hell, they even managed to fight a huge war without the South!
Make your position known, negotiate a settlement of all questions of disagreement with the remaining states, and go on your merry way. Don't walk out, repudiate all responsibility for your share of the obligations......
We've been over all those tired old chestnuts, too.
The first thing Lincoln did in office after giving his inaugural was to refuse to receive the South Carolina commissioners who wanted to talk to him about apportioning the federal debt. Lincoln. Refused. To. Talk. To. Them.
So that's enough of your prattle about "repudiation" and "stealing" things.
But then, you have been told that before, by presenters of argument as cultivated, resource- and quote-rich as rustbucket and 4CJ/4ConservativeJustices, and here you are again, running your cheesy grift on a new guy de novo, as if you had never heard of the Civil War before, and had just discovered your beeves in a book.
This after being refuted God knows how many times since 2002.