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.
In your warped, statist, brainwashed mind it was a wrong path.
x, That is just—silly
The first thing I have at heart is American liberty; the second thing is American Union.— Patrick Henry
“Without the check and balance of true Federalism, that is, a system of balance between the State and Federal governments where the abuses of the Federal government can be challenged and defeated by We the People of the Sovereign States, all American liberty is in danger”
William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States of America, was the text used at the US Military Academy from 1825-1840
“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.”
Jefferson may not have led the charge crafting that particular document. However, Mr. Madison did!
Can we both agree that Madison {The Father of said document}
Disagreed with your beloved {Webster} Therefore, Lincoln..With just about everything!
“I return my thanks for the copy of your late very powerful Speech in the Senate of the United S. It crushes “nullification” and must hasten the abandonment of “Secession.” But this dodges the blow by confounding the claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression. The former answers itself, being a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged. The latter is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy. Its double aspect, nevertheless, with the countenance recd from certain quarters, is giving it a popular currency here which may influence the approaching elections both for Congress & for the State Legislature. It has gained some advantage also, by mixing itself with the question whether the Constitution of the U.S. was formed by the people or by the States, now under a theoretic discussion by animated partizans.”
“But this dodges the blow by confounding the claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression”
State of New Hampshire: Article VII, New Hampshire State Constitution, 1792.
The people of this state have the sole and exclusive right to governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent state
Article X, New Hampshire State Constitution, 1792 W]henever the ends of government are perverted, or public redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to, reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.”
Constitution State of Massachusetts, 1780
The people of this commonwealth have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves, as a free, sovereign and independent State….”
More later..
Regards
Where were we?
;>)
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.
Actually, your claim is "mumbo-jumbo" - the Tenth Amendment is exceptionally specific.
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."
Sorry, but you just 'jumped the shark.' You're suggesting that, if a State ratified the Constitution, with the proviso that it accepted the odd numbered articles, but rejected the even numbered articles, the other parties to the compact would be magically forced to accept that State as a member of the union.
In fact, I suspect the other parties to the compact saw nothing objectionable, with regard to the reservation of the right of secession. After all, the union in question had been formed by the secession of the member States from a self-proclaimed "perpetual" union.
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.
My - you're quite picky, aren't you? You're willing to insist that the federal government "can take appropriate action when the Constitution is violated," no specific violation of ANY written article, section, or clause necessary, but you insist that the remarks of Mr. Jefferson are irrelevant because he "wasn't around" (he was serving his country overseas, IIRC). You remind me of my neighbors, who want to ignore the votes of our troops when they're out of the country.
I'm used to dealing with people like you (and they all vote D@mocrat) - read Mr. Madison's Virginia Resolutions, and his Report on the Virginia Resolutions. Mr. Madison 'was around,' and his written, public statements are consistent with Mr. Jefferson's Kentucky Resolutions...
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.
I have not dealt with it, because your "original point" is idiotic - it is directly analogous to stating that 'the fact that a resident of Washington DC might possibly have gotten away with owning a handgun in the early years of the Republic doesn't mean that the Constitution allowed personal firearms ownership.' It has no bearing, whatsoever, on the constitutionality of the action.
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.
Obviously, you're stuck in your own learning phase - you insist that the written Constitution must conform to your "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.
Sorry to say it, but now I know you're a cool-aid drinker. If Mr. Adams and his political party had "refused to hold elections in 1800 or to turn over the White House to Jefferson," there would have been an armed response from the States (please see Federalist No. 46, which was fresh in the memories of the people of the several States, and which you have apparently never read).
That wouldn't have meant that secession was a right enshrined in the [Constitution] -- all the more so, since the 10th Amendment hadn't even been ratified.
What it would have meant, actually, was that the right to secede was reserved by the States as parties to the compact, and that the federal government had never been delegated the power to prevent it. That was true in 1789, as it was in 1860...
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.
Really? I have not noticed you citing "many constitutional experts in 1861" in support of your views.
Personally, I prefer to cite the terms under which the new Constitution was 'sold' to the people of the States - I'm not a 'bait & switch' kind of guy. "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.
You know, you just (accidentally, obviously) 'hit the nail on the head.' I'm a gun owner, a Lifer with the NRA, and a living, breathing part of America's "Gun Culture." Years ago, when I was a young man, I realized that, if the Second Amendment actually meant what it said, then the rest of the Constitution did, too. Reading the historical documentation from the early years of the Republic, I discovered - guess what? - that the Founders' agreed.
Wake up, sport. "[L]iberty's at risk," today, and people like you, who are willing to ignore the specific, written words of the Constitution, are part of the problem...