WIJB: "As noted above, you (in your Post 1528) suggested that only Congress "can define just what exactly is an 'insurrection,' or 'invasion.'" Care to substantiate that statement with historical documentation, or court opinions? Of course not..."
You may remember the historical sequence of events in 1861. After the destruction and surrender of Fort Sumter, President Lincoln declared a state of Insurrection. President Davis then declared war on the United States. Congress then voted to approve all of Lincoln's actions:
"And be it further enacted, that all the acts, proclamations, and orders of the President of the United States after the fourth of March, eighteen hundred and sixty-one, respecting the army and navy of the United States, are hereby approved and in all respects legalized and made valid, to the same intent and with the same effect as if they had been issued and done under the previous express authority and direction of the Congress of the United States.39"
WIJG: ""Nonsense?" That certainly applies to your irrational argument, presented in Post 1510, suggesting that "the Constitution does not mention secession because it did not in any way contemplate it." The same Constitution, under your argument, did not mention a "perpetual" union [in essence, the exact opposite of State secession] because it did not in any way contemplate it.
"And congratulations - you just suggested that there WAS discussion in 1787 of something resembling secession or "sun setting" or any other termination of the Constitution -- through such ordinary, peaceful and lawful methods as [amendments] and constitutional conventions. Please provide the citation[s]. Because you can't, I suspect this is just another one of your many 'verbal diarrhea' posts..."
You speak of "verbal diarrhea"...
Here is a historical fact: the words "unilateral secession," or "unapproved withdrawal from the Union," or any similar, are not mentioned in the Constitution, or the Federalist Papers or any other debate of 1787, at least that I've ever seen.
What certainly are mentioned are lawful procedures to amend or even completely rewrite the Constitution -- see Article V. So seems pretty logical to me to say the Founders intended the Constitution to be modified lawfully, not through the unilateral demands of a few states.
WIJG: "The term "perpetual" was applied, in writing, to the union formed under the specific terms of the Articles of Confederation. The Founders were well aware of the language, could easily have included it within the written terms of the new Constitution - and did not."
The omission of the phrase "perpetual union" from the new Constitution of 1787 is a matter of historical interest. But I have never seen where it was commented on at that time, as being significant.
It may simply have been a response to the fact that the Founders did indeed expect their new Constitution to be amended and even rewritten from time to time, and provided lawful procedures for doing that.
Of course President Lincoln's argument in 1861 was that the Articles' term "perpetual union" had been replaced in the Constitution with the phrase, "to form a more perfect union." Lincoln asked: how could a "more perfect union" not also be perpetual?
WIJG: "As noted above, you suggested that there WAS discussion in 1787 of something resembling secession or "sun setting" or any other termination of the Constitution -- through such ordinary, peaceful and lawful methods as [amendments] and constitutional conventions. I have already asked you to please provide the citation"
I detect that you have some kind of problem understanding the difference between legal, lawful & constitutional processes such as amendments or constitutional conventions -- which are fully authorized in the Constitution -- on the one hand, versus violent and unlawful insurrections, rebellions, "domestic violence" and even invasion of Federal property -- which are not. Why is that?
Working down through post 1717, trying to find actual arguments amongst all the insults...
I suggest that I post more rational, historically documented arguments than insults. Of course, my rational, documented conclusion may appear to be nothing but an 'insult' to you, and people holding irrational opinions similar to yours, so I reserve the right to perform my own count (if I ever become sufficiently bored or irritated to do so ;>)...
You may remember the historical sequence of events in 1861. After the destruction and surrender of Fort Sumter, President Lincoln declared a state of Insurrection.
What if Mr. Lincoln had declared a 'National Sodomy Day?' Care to elaborate, with citations from the Constitution that define the President's power to define "a state of Insurrection?" By the way, you yourself 'declared' in your Post 1528 that only Congress "can define just what exactly is an 'insurrection.' "
Looks like Mr. Lincoln must have been in violation of the Constitution, as you read it...
;>)
Here is a historical fact: the words "unilateral secession," or "unapproved withdrawal from the Union," or any similar, are not mentioned in the Constitution, or the Federalist Papers or any other debate of 1787, at least that I've ever seen.
So what? The words "marriage," and "funeral," are not mentioned in the Constitution either. You would suggest that both are therefore unconstitutional. Congratulations.
As I have noted repeatedly, your arguments are completely irrational (and if you wish to consider that an 'insult,' it says more about your understanding of the historical facts, than my presentation thereof).
The omission of the phrase "perpetual union" from the new Constitution of 1787 is a matter of historical interest.
"Historical interest?" How nice. The people who drafted the Constitution, and sold it to the people of the States, were entirely familiar with the phrase (it was an important part of the previous 'law of the land') - and yet they chose not to include it in the Constitution.
Because of your personal biases, you discount that point completely.
(What were you saying about insults? In fact, you're insulting the intelligence of anyone reading your post... )
Of course President Lincoln's argument in 1861 was that the Articles' term "perpetual union" had been replaced in the Constitution with the phrase, "to form a more perfect union." Lincoln asked: how could a "more perfect union" not also be perpetual?
Let's look at Texas v. White (which I imagine you've never heard of):
...when these Articles [of Confederation] were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union." It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words.
Which, of course, is complete and utter bull crap (not the first, or last time such a product has issued from the 'High Court'). "It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words?" Bull crap - all they had to do was include 'boiler plate' language from the previous compact, including the words 'perpetual union.' They did not - and by your own argument, presented in Post 1510 (paraphrasing), "the Constitution does not mention [a perpetual union] because it did not in any way contemplate it."
I detect that you have some kind of problem understanding the difference between legal, lawful & constitutional processes such as amendments or constitutional conventions -- which are fully authorized in the Constitution -- on the one hand, versus violent and unlawful insurrections, rebellions, "domestic violence" and even invasion of Federal property -- which are not. Why is that?
Actually, you seem to be the one with "some kind of problem" - you suggested in your Post 1528 that only Congress "can define just what exactly is an 'insurrection' ", but then you stated in your Post 1799 that "President Lincoln declared a state of Insurrection." Gosh - looks like you're contradicting yourself (yet again)...
I discounted Rawle's opinions because, so far as I know, he was not involved in the Constitutional Convention of 1787, or in discussions of that time regarding it's meaning -- i.e., the Federalist Papers.
Congratulations.
President Jackson's proclamation of 1832 on Nullification and Secession, I'd put in a different category because:
* Jackson was a very popular war hero elected president -- the first since Washington. As such, his strong words against nullification and secession can be said to express the beliefs of most Americans at that time.
* Jackson was a slave owning Southerner, demonstrating that arguments for or against nullification and secession were not necessarily always North against South.
In other words, I'm not of course saying that Jackson was a constitutional expert. But I am saying his opinions, especailly as a Southerner, carried a lot of weight at the time and helped hold the country together.
Actually, you ARE saying that Mr. Jackson was a constitutional expert, if you weight his opinions more heavily than Mr. Rawle's. "Jackson was a very popular war hero elected president... his strong words against nullification and secession can be said to express the beliefs of most Americans at that time?" Bull crap - you might just as well weight Barack Obama's opinion of constitutional law, over Thomas Jefferson's, or William Rawle's.
WIJG: "(And, by the way, you are conflating nullification and secession, when, in fact, they are separate issues. ;>)"
BJK: I'd be most curious to see you explain how these are constitutionally separate issues.
In essence: a State could (theoretically) 'nullify' an unconstitutional federal action without leaving the union (and without violating your non-existent 'perpetual union' clause of your vapor-ware Constitution); while State secession in no way required the 'nullification' of any federal action or law, because State secession was nowhere prohibited by the written Constitution. They are entirely different issues - I am surprised (actually, not ;>) that you couldn't see the difference...
;>)