And thank you for another one of your standard, irrelevant replies. Apparently, in your world, you do not change, but the Constitution magically does.
According to Article VI the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. A state ordinance denying the authority of the Constitution would be invalid. One assumes that the federal government could take measures against a state denial of legitimate federal authority.
Thanks for a 'straw man' argument. "The supreme law of the land" includes the Tenth Amendment (cited specifically by the seceding States) as "the authority of the Constitution" reserving their right to secede. Your argument assumes that no such right exists, and that the federal government was somehow delegated the right to use military force against a State withdrawing from the union.
Allow me to ask again (so you can ignore the issue, yet again): can you produce a specific, written delegation of federal power to prevent the formal withdrawal of a member State using military force; or a specific, written prohibition of the reserved rights of the States to do so?
Of course not.
State "reservations" of a "right to secede" don't count if they're not written into the Constitution.
Gosh - that's not true of any other contract: the signature page, with even handwritten reservations of rights, is part of the contract. Why is it different with the Constitution? The other parties to the constitutional compact could have objected, or refused to accept the subject ratifications - and did not. And as your Post 1565 suggests, there is no prohibition against State reservations of rights in their ratification documents, because "[t]here wasn't one to begin with."
;>)
Moreover, as we've seen, many of these "reservations" involved the right of the "people" to reassume their rights if they constitutional compact were violated not the "right" of states to break with the Constitution when they thought fit.
Actually, as Thomas Jefferson observed:
"...the [federal] government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each [State as a] party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress."
But, of course, you would no doubt suggest that the federal government is the proper 'judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself, as well of infractions commited against the States by the federal government, and also of the mode and measure of redress available to the States.'
X, aka "Mr. Living Constitution," strikes again...
It's unfortunate that you don't see the point I was making about the practical side of things. There is no constitutional "right" to secession.
Oh, I saw your point perfectly - which is why I cited Amendment X:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
You, of course, can point to no delegation of power to prevent secession to the federal government, nor to a prohibition of secession applied to the States - the right to secede, is therefore, reserved to the States under the specific written terms of the Constitution itself.
You disagree with the written Constitution - citing 'practicality.' How nice.
A state could have gotten away with leaving the union in the early days. Not because it had a right to do so...
Once again - care to cite for us the specific constitutional clause prohibiting State secession? Of course not. The lack of "a right to do so" exists only in your personal, 'Living Constitution'...
Once the Constitution was truly accepted as the law of the land, coups like that (at least on the part of a state) became harder to pull off.
"[C]oups like" what? Are you referring to the 'Living Constitution' crowd (including yourself, obviously) denying the rights reserved to the parties to the Constitution (the States)? That has a more solid basis in historical fact, than does your ridiculous fantasy...
...you are reading things into the Constitution that aren't there -- things that Madison and other founders didn't see or put into the document.
Wrong - I am basing my arguments on the actual language of the written Constitution (not your 'living' version), and the written comments of the writers of the time (including Mr. Madison). As noted above, please see my Post 1523:
"The right of sovereignty, therefore, in all cases not expressly ceded to the United States by the constitution, or prohibited by it to the several states, remains inviolably, with the states; respectively."
Address the facts - or provide further entertainment (you're an excellent 'dancer,' when it comes to avoiding historical documentation).
Any way, in a world where so much is changing so quickly, it is comforting to see that talking to you is as pointless as it always was.
Ditto; you 'Living Constitution' types are among the most senseless I've ever encountered - and among the most worthless, when it comes to preserving liberty "in a world where so much is changing so quickly"...
I answered that already: the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, "anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding" and can take appropriate action when the Constitution is violated. That's as specific as your 10th Amendment mumbo-jumbo, if not more so.
But of course, you're changing the subject. A lot of constitutionally trained lawyers and scholars in 1861 didn't know whether the Constitution authorized the federal government to procede militarily against a state whose convention had adopted a secession ordinance. That was an open question. But many or most of those same scholars believed secession was not constitutional. Those are perhaps related questions, but there is a difference.
Gosh - that's not true of any other contract: the signature page, with even handwritten reservations of rights, is part of the contract. Why is it different with the Constitution?
Because if you pencil in reservations and amendments when you sign a contract, I can refuse to sign. In the case of ratification, the Constitution was submitted to state conventions for an up or down vote. Congress couldn't say, "Virginia is part of the union only under these conditions and New Hampshire only under those."
Actually, as Thomas Jefferson observed: "...the [federal] government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each [State as a] party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress."
Nice opinion, but only an opinion. Jefferson wasn't around when the Constitution was written and adopted, and a lot of what he says has more to do with his role as a factional leader, rather than a legal scholar.
But you haven't dealt with my original point: the fact that a state might possibly have gotten away with secession in the early years of the Republic doesn't mean that the Constitution allowed unilateral secession.
Republics, federations, and constitutions are weak in their early years. Many die soon after they're born. It takes time for respect for constitutions to develop and for factions to learn to put the constitution above their own will and interest.
John Adams could have refused to hold elections in 1800 or to turn over the White House to Jefferson afterwards. It would have been unconstitutional, but he could have done it and if he had, he would have been more likely to get away with it, than Clinton or Bush would have been.
Thomas Jefferson didn't have to live with laws the Federalists made. Of course he could have worked to repeal them constitutionally. But he might have refused to fill offices and pay out funds. He could have sent his followers to lock up buildings and turn out employees. He didn't, and our country's better off for it. But if he tried, it wouldn't have been as hard for him to do as it would have been for later Presidents.
John Marshall could have asserted the Supreme Court's power to rule laws unconstitional, even though there's no explicit warrant for that in the Constition itself. If he did that, his ruling would be more likely to stick than a later justice's ruling would be. And he did just that. And it did stick.
So if South Carolina or Massachusetts or New York had wanted to withdraw its assent to the Constition in 1789 and leave the union, it probably could have done so. Especially if Washington hadn't been inagurated, Rhode Island and North Carolina hadn't yet ratified, and Vermont wanted its independent recognized.
That wouldn't have meant that secession was a right enshrined in the Constition -- all the more so, since the 10th Amendment hadn't even been ratified. It would only have meant that the new union was weak enough and the Constitution new enough that no one would stop a state that seceded.
Ditto; you 'Living Constitution' types are among the most senseless I've ever encountered - and among the most worthless, when it comes to preserving liberty "in a world where so much is changing so quickly"...
Your problem is attaching dismissive labels to people, rather than dealing with honest arguments that run counter to your own. If I heard that many constitutional experts in 1861 didn't share my view of whether secession was constitutional or not, I'd want to find out what their arguments were and take them seriously. I wouldn't simply assume that they were liars or idiots. But that's just me.
If liberty's at risk, the thing to do is to speak directly to the present danger. Not to get lost in historical disputes that simply divide people of like minds about current issues.
The idea that one can go back to some Point At Which Everything Went Wrong and put history on the right track is mistaken. There are a lot of wrong tracks that make freedom and responsible governance less likely and people are only too willing to take those paths. The Confederacy was an example of such a wrong path.
the Constitution SAYS what the authors meant. nothing more;nothing less.
note: it is frequently true that the members of "The DAMNyankee Coven" are TOO IGNORANT & DIMWITTED to read & UNDERSTAND the PLAIN words of the BOR. for example, they just cannot seem to "get" the meaning of the TENTH Amendment to the BOR, which plainly means that the RIGHT OF SECESSION was NEVER ceded to the federal government. thus unilateral secession remains LAWFUL & CONSTITUTIONAL!
free dixie,sw