Replies

the Tenth Amendment is exceptionally specific.

Just what the Tenth Amendment means in practice isn't that unclear. It's like the 14th Amendment in that it's used to justify a wide and deep interpretation of the Constitution, rather than specific details of what government can and cannot do. As can happen with the 14th Amendment, the 10th Amendment is sometimes used to force an interpretation of the Constitution that ignores or distorts what the document actually says.

Some people act as though the amendment said "the powers expressly delegated" as some of the drafters originally wanted it to. That would have made the amendment meaningless, as people soon realized. It would have meant that the federal government could deliver the mails but not build post offices. Obviously, there are some powers that are necessary to execute the designated powers, and just where these end is hard to say.

There is also Article I, Section 8, Clause 15: "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions" authorizing the use of force against illegitimate rebellion.

Anyway, the idea that a Constitution that carefully balances powers and checks and balances contains a secret "Get Out of The Union Free" card in the "emanations and penumbras" of the 10th Amendment is indeed "mumbo jumbo," as many scholars in the 1860s recognized.

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.

The question for the state convention was whether they ratified the constitution or not. And they did. If a state ratified declaring it wasn't going to abide by whole sections of the Constitution, either the ratification or the reservation would be invalid. But if it wanted to include some boilerplate about natural rights, nobody would object.

In those days everyone believed in a right to revolution against tyranny. And they believed that if a chaotic or anarchic state of nature returned that the people could recreate government along new, or old lines.

So nobody objected to a state convention's including language of that sort in its statement of ratification. It didn't mean that states were asserting a right to secede and the federal government was recognizing it. Just that revolution was always available as a last resort.

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.

The Constitution was proposed by a convention representing the people of the country. Had such a convention representing people from every state been convened in 1860 or 1861 and decided to dissolve the Union, it's hard to see how the sitting government could have objected. Had Congress done so in one of several different ways, objections would have been minimal. But that wasn't unilateral secession -- nor was the process that led from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution.

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"

No specific violation? The constitution empowers the federal government to deliver the mails, to maintain federal courts, to collect taxes. If a group in one state or another tries to prevent it, the federal government has the right to see to it that the laws are upheld.

Jefferson was a party leader who often got carried away by his own rhetoric and the interests of his faction. I don't say that his opinions are of no value, just that they don't trump other opinions, like what Madison was writing in his later days, when he wasn't acting as Jefferson's lieutenant.

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...

Again, read Madison's mature opinions, not those he wrote when he was Jefferson's second banana and concerned that the Federalists were overturning the Constitution.

And while we're at it, you should get out more. The Republican Party is a lot more than a few secessionist kooks. So is American conservatism. If you succeed in making the conservative movement about secession, it means the end of conservatism, the triumph of hypocrisy, and the ruination of the country.

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.

You must win a lot of arguments by calling your opponents views "idiotic." It shows just how willing you are to engage in constructive argument.

But actually, you've got my point entirely wrong. I'm not talking about individual rights but about what governments do. Individual rights can be eroded over time, but government have force behind their actions that can make them precedents for the future.

If Congress had declared in 1790 that the right to bear arms was a collective, rather than an individual right, and they'd gotten away with that usurpation, we'd be more likely to think that the law of the land. Of course they wouldn't have gotten away with it, but the principle is not so different from what would have happened if a state had tried to secede in 1790. In those days, when the Constitution itself was shaky and interpretations uncertain, a usurpation like that was more likely to carry the day than it would have later, when Americans became used to living in union under the Constitution.

Obviously, you're stuck in your own learning phase - you insist that the written Constitution must conform to your "own will and interest."

A meaningless cheap shot.

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 was one possibility. Or Congress or the courts or the military might have gotten involved. Or it might have come down to street fighting between Federalists and Democratic-Republicans.

But you are ignoring the point I was making: constitutions are fragile in their infancy. A willful President, a rogue general, a power-hungry faction, or a renegade state can all bring a young constitution down.

Adams didn't have the majority on his side in that case. Another President or Congress or party who did have a majority could have gotten away with usurpations in those days that wouldn't have been allowed later. In the same way, a faction in a state that asserted its independence from the union may have prevailed. But that didn't mean that they were acting constitutionally. I'm getting tired of making the same point to someone who doesn't want to hear it, though.

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...

Okay, you're on the spot now. What text can you point to in the Constitution as it was before the Bill of Rights guarantees secession? Where's the passage that says that?

I don't think you'll find one. Your conclusion comes from the assumptions that you bring to the Constitution, not from what the letters and words actually say. That's also true for your reading of the 10th Amendment.

Really? I have not noticed you citing "many constitutional experts in 1861" in support of your views.

I've never claimed that there was unanimity regarding secession, or that everyone agreed with my views -- just that there certainly wasn't any widespread agreement the secession was constitution. But the presidents at the time, Buchanan and Lincoln, the Attorney General, Stanton, all believed unilateral secession to be unconstitutional. So had statesmen and thinkers as varied as Madison and Jackson, Webster and Story, Brownson and Lowell. You can find a contemporary study here: American Dis-union: Constitutional Or Unconstitutional?.

But, to repeat, I'm not saying that no one believed in state secession at will. I'm saying that the question was by no means as simple as defenders of the Confederacy like to pretend it was.

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.

Not all propositions have the same degree of evidence behind them. Not all beliefs one may have are equally warranted.

Your problem is assuming that things that are unequivocally said in the Constitution and things that you infer from the text are equally warranted. But that's not the case. Treating your own hypotheses from the text as equivalent to the words themselves doesn't strengthen those hypotheses. On the contrary, over time it will make people less inclined to listen to you when you really are right.

Jefferson Davis had the same problem. He came to believe that his own interpretation of the Constitution was as certain as the theorems of geometry. He couldn't distinguish what was there to be read in the Constitution and what he read into it. His own will and interest convinced him that the matter was more certain than it possibly could be. You're going down the same path.

Just what the Tenth Amendment means in practice isn't that unclear.

In practice, it is completely ignored. It is essentially irrelevant, when it comes to limiting the power of the federal government. Which suggests that the original meaning and intent are being completely ignored.

There was absolutely nothing "secret" about it, at the time of the ratification. As Mr. Madison famously noted:

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

- James Madison, Federalist No. 45

The subject of the formal withdrawal of a State from the federal union quite obviously falls within the "numerous and indefinite" category, rather than the "few and defined" category, don't you think?

In other words, the Tenth Amendment meant precisely what it said - which is why it is part of the Bill of Rights. If it did not mean what it said, and if it was as unimportant to the States as you suggest, the States would have treated it exactly like the 27th Amendment (proposed 1789; ratified 1992).

So why would you assume that the reservation was invalid, rather than the ratification? Hmm? If the ratification was invalid (due to the specific,written reservation of the right of secession), then the union could hardly object to the departure of a legally 'non-ratifying' State.

And if the reservations were considered invalid by the other ratifying States, why did none object? Hmm? Did any of the other States, as parties to the constitutional compact, notify the States that reserved the right of secession, in writing, that their reservations were invalid?

In reality, the ratifications were accepted as submitted, including the reservations of the right of State secession, because the other States as parties had absolutely no objection to such a specific, written, and binding, reservation of rights.

The Constitution was proposed by a convention representing the people of the country.

Bull crap. The Constitution was proposed by a convention representing the people of the individual States. If you are at all unclear on the concept, please see Articles V and VII of the United States Constitution.

The federal government had no power or right "to deliver the mails, to maintain federal courts, [or] to collect taxes," outside of the union. Once a State had formally withdrawn from the union, those delegated federal rights were of no effect within the seceded State.

But I'm feeling generous: if you want to insist that the federal government used military force to conduct a war that killed nearly 700,000 Americans, because the federal government thought it had an obligation to deliver junk mail to the seceded States, you're certainly welcome to your (deranged) opinion...

Again, read Madison's mature opinions, not those he wrote when he was Jefferson's second banana and concerned that the Federalists were overturning the Constitution.

I have read "Madison's mature opinions:" I consider his arguments (regarding delegated powers) in the Report on the Virginia Resolutions to be as irrefutable as any I've ever seen. Care to refute those arguments - or just spew opinions?

;>)

And while we're at it, you should get out more. The Republican Party is a lot more than a few secessionist kooks.

While you're at it, you should make fewer 'kooky' assumptions. I visit more States in a given month than most people visit in years - and I'm a "republican" (as I understand Mr. Jefferson's meaning of the term), not a "Republican."

So is American conservatism. If you succeed in making the conservative movement about secession, it means the end of conservatism, the triumph of hypocrisy, and the ruination of the country.

Gosh - I didn't know you were a conspiracy theorist! But I guess you 'found me out' - my goal in life (/sarc), in intimate coordination with Dr. Evil, is "making the conservative movement about secession... the end of conservatism, the triumph of hypocrisy, and the ruination of the country." Too bad you caught me (OOPS - I meant us! Sorry, Dr. Evil!), just inches short of my (OUR!) goal!

;>)

You must win a lot of arguments by calling your opponents views "idiotic." It shows just how willing you are to engage in constructive argument.

I am perfectly willing to engage in "constructive argument." Being a professional scientist, I am also perfectly willing to describe an "idiotic" argument as (guess what?) "idiotic."

Actually, you've got your own argument wrong (no doubt because it is, basically, "idiotic"). You are talking about constitutional rights - and it matters not whether they are "individual rights" or States' rights. I am discussing the rule of law - specific, written, constitutional law, and I don't care whether it relates to individuals, the federal government, or the people of the States. You seem to be discussing some sort of theoretical, evolutionary process that somehow 'transmogrifies' a written Constitution into a 'Living Law of the Land'...

Thank you for proving my point.

A meaningless cheap shot.

Please feel free to show us where you are NOT conforming your view of the Constitution to your "own will and interest." You seem to have precious little respect for the written words...

But you are ignoring the point I was making: constitutions are fragile in their infancy.

I would suggest the exact opposite, insofar as our own Constitution is concerned. In it's "infancy," it was actually considered to be "the supreme Law of the Land." Today, in it's "maturity," it is what Mr. Jefferson warned us of (courtesy of encroachments by the federal government, and disinterest by the people): it has been made "a blank paper by construction."

"Fragile?" Give me a break. A constitution that means whatever the government says it means is a long ways past "fragile" - it's 'dead & buried,' and absolutely meaningless...

Okay, you're on the spot now. What text can you point to in the Constitution as it was before the Bill of Rights guarantees secession? Where's the passage that says that?

Oh, so now you're insisting that a constitutional right can only exist, if its spelled out specifically, in writing? Or does that (in your opinion) only apply to the States, and the people of the States? While the federal government somehow (magically) possesses all rights & powers not forbidden it, in writing?

Please see Federalist No. 45 (cited above), and while we're at it, Federalist No. 32 (I love quoting Hamilton to 'big government' types ;>):

An entire consolidation of the States into one complete national sovereignty would imply an entire subordination of the parts; and whatever powers might remain in them, would be altogether dependent on the general will. But as the plan of the convention aims only at a partial union or consolidation, the State governments would clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not, by that act, EXCLUSIVELY delegated to the United States. This exclusive delegation, or rather this alienation, of State sovereignty, would only exist in three cases: where the Constitution in express terms granted an exclusive authority to the Union; where it granted in one instance an authority to the Union, and in another prohibited the States from exercising the like authority; and where it granted an authority to the Union, to which a similar authority in the States would be absolutely and totally CONTRADICTORY and REPUGNANT...

The necessity of a concurrent jurisdiction in certain cases results from the division of the sovereign power; and the rule that all authorities, of which the States are not explicitly divested in favor of the Union, remain with them in full vigor, is not a theoretical consequence of that division, but is clearly admitted by the whole tenor of the instrument which contains the articles of the proposed Constitution. We there find that, notwithstanding the affirmative grants of general authorities, there has been the most pointed care in those cases where it was deemed improper that the like authorities should reside in the States, to insert negative clauses prohibiting the exercise of them by the States. The tenth section of the first article consists altogether of such provisions. This circumstance is a clear indication of the sense of the convention, and furnishes a rule of interpretation out of the body of the act, which justifies the position I have advanced and refutes every hypothesis to the contrary.

In other words, even Alexander Hamilton thought you were full of it...

Actually, my conclusion comes from a fair reading of the historical documents of the time (from the 1600's through the mid-1800's). Your "conclusion," on the other hand, appears to be a more modern fabrication...

But the presidents at the time, Buchanan and Lincoln, the Attorney General, Stanton, all believed unilateral secession to be unconstitutional. So had statesmen and thinkers as varied as Madison and Jackson...

Actually, both "Madison and Jackson" were presidents as well. I note that you included the term "unilateral" - while Mr. Madison may have suggested in his private correspondence that unilateral secession was not constitutional, he certainly did not suggest the same with regard to secession in response to an abuse of the compact:

A rightful secession requires the consent of the others, or an abuse of the compact absolving the seceding party from the obligation imposed by it.

- James Madison, Letter to Alexander Rives, 1833

(Thank you, Non-Sequitur, for the citation! ;>) And, as we all know, Mr. Madison argued quite persuasively, in his public writings, that the individual States (as parties to the constitutional compact) reserved the right to determine whether the compact had been violated. As did, of course, Mr. Jefferson (see my previous citations). In other words, your "unilateral" secession argument is irrelevant.

But, to repeat, I'm not saying that no one believed in state secession at will. I'm saying that the question was by no means as simple as defenders of the Confederacy like to pretend it was.

Who's 'pretending?' Certainly not me. In my judgement, the First, Second - and Tenth - Amendments mean exactly what they say, or they mean nothing. That argument in no way contradicts the historical documentation I have cited (at length). It seems to me that it is the 'perpetual union' historical revisionists who are 'pretending'...

Perhaps you should retake English 100 - I am not 'inferring things' from the text. That is your forte. In many instances, the language is simple. When the Constitution says, "Congress shall make no law," I suggest that "Congress shall make no law." Where the Constitution states, "The powers not delegated... nor prohibited... are reserved," I suggest precisely the same thing. You, on the other hand, suggest (paraphrasing only your comments from the above post) that 'what the amendments mean... [is] used to justify a wide and deep interpretation of the Constitution, rather than specific details of what government can and cannot do... Individual rights can be eroded over time, but government[s] have force behind their [unconstitutional] actions that can make them [constitutional] precedents for the future. If Congress had declared in 1790 that the right to bear arms was a collective, rather than an individual right, and they'd gotten away with that usurpation, we'd be more likely to think that the law of the land...' I simply don't have time to go back to your numerous other references to 'fuzzy law,' in previous posts. Suffice to say, the difference between your reading of the Constitution, and mine, is obvious.

And, by the way, if I thought "people" were "inclined to listen to" me, I would be a politician, not a scientist, and I certainly wouldn't spend my time debating the constitutionality of State secession on Free Republic.

Gosh - I've never been compared to Jefferson Davis before! (I've never even been to Mississippi - or Washington DC.) And if you honestly think I'm "going down the same path" as Jeff Davis, I would suggest one more thing: "you should get out more"...