Give me a break. As I have stated repeatedly, I prefer to cite Mr. Madison's written, public opinions - which actually helped 'sell' the Constitution to the people of the several States. The historical revisionists here prefer to quote Mr. Madison's self-described 'confidential' opinions, which in absolutely no way influenced the ratification of the Constitution. If I have in fact cited a 'confidential' opinion written by Mr. Madison that is 'disputable,' it weakens your case, not mine. In fact, when you ignore Mr. Madison's published opinions, in favor of his personal, 'confidential' opinions, you look like a 'cherry picker.' Period.
In other words, he rejects secession at will and has a hard time maintaining his earlier idea that a state can decide that the Constitution has been violated and secede on its own. I don't know what to make of this. I can't claim that Madison is being wholly logical...
"I don't know what to make of this." Fine. Perhaps you would like to refer to his imminently logical public writings, such as his Federalist Papers writings, his Virginia Resolutions, and his Report on the Virginia Resolutions.
It is not my argument, after all, that relies on his later, entirely private writings.
Matters of war and danger, in other words those of national survival are consigned to the federal government. Should a state be allowed in time of war to withdraw from the union and throw in with our enemies? Your opinion suggests that they could. I doubt the founders would agree. And if unilateral secession isn't allowed during war, is it permissible in peacetime?
Once again, you resort to the 'unilateral secession' argument. What would your opinion be, if the federal government 'threw in with our enemies in time of war?' Hmm? It could easily happen as the result of a presidential election (and I am not necessarily suggesting the 'War on Terror,' but the jury's still out on that one, isn't it?). Perhaps you should re-read Federalist No. 46, regarding the right of the several States to oppose unconstitutional actions by the federal government, up to & including the use of State military (militia) force...
As to Madison's Federalist 45: you're making far too much of this "few and defined" versus "numerous and indefinite." That's Madison's empirical generalization of the separation of powers under the Constitution, but is that the defining principle that governs Constitutional interpretation? That is to say, is anything you can think up that's vague and indefinite enough going to be a power reserved by the states? That's questionable.
Who says I'm "making far too much of this 'few and defined' versus 'numerous and indefinite' " argument? You? Mr. Madison thought it sufficiently important to make the argument, in public, in writing, to 'sell' the new Constitution to the people of the several States. And said Constitution nowhere contradicts Mr. Madison's supposedly "empirical generalization of the separation of powers under the Constitution."
"Repugnant" didn't just mean something one disliked or found distasteful or immoral. It was a legal term. A "repugnant" condition or interpretation of a contract is one contradictory to the contract itself...
Actually, Mr. Hamilton provided a perfectly acceptable definition of the term "repugnant," in context, in Federalist No. 32 which I cited, and you ignored:
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. I use these terms to distinguish this last case from another which might appear to resemble it, but which would, in fact, be essentially different; I mean where the exercise of a concurrent jurisdiction might be productive of occasional interferences in the POLICY of any branch of administration, but would not imply any direct contradiction or repugnancy in point of constitutional authority. These three cases of exclusive jurisdiction in the federal government may be exemplified by the following instances: The last clause but one in the eighth section of the first article provides expressly that Congress shall exercise "EXCLUSIVE LEGISLATION'' over the district to be appropriated as the seat of government. This answers to the first case. The first clause of the same section empowers Congress "TO LAY AND COLLECT TAXES, DUTIES, IMPOSTS AND EXCISES''; and the second clause of the tenth section of the same article declares that, "NO STATE SHALL, without the consent of Congress, LAY ANY IMPOSTS OR DUTIES ON IMPORTS OR EXPORTS, except for the purpose of executing its inspection laws.'' Hence would result an exclusive power in the Union to lay duties on imports and exports, with the particular exception mentioned; but this power is abridged by another clause, which declares that no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any State; in consequence of which qualification, it now only extends to the DUTIES ON IMPORTS. This answers to the second case. The third will be found in that clause which declares that Congress shall have power "to establish an UNIFORM RULE of naturalization throughout the United States.'' This must necessarily be exclusive; because if each State had power to prescribe a DISTINCT RULE, there could not be a UNIFORM RULE.
- A. Hamilton, Federalist No. 32
Care to apply Mr. Hamilton's 'in context' definition to State secession? Of course not...
;>)
WIJG: (If you post a reply, and I don't get back to you immediately, don't worry - I'm visiting three States over the next four days. As you noted in your Post 1743, I need to "get out more"... ;>)
x: I'm definitely not worrying. As I said, this debate is pointless. You've decided that your view is right and aren't even going to consider differing opinions.
Ante up some substantial historical documentation (I know you prefer private, 'confidential' letters, to public writings ;>), and I will be happy to reconsider my opinion. In fact, I am not a Southerner (I was born in the State where the D@mocrats recently stole the election for the diaper-wearing @ss-clown). And I have never lived in a Southern State (although at one time, I must admit, the territory where I was born was claimed by the State of Virginia ;>). I have proved my intellectual honesty, by adopting a point of view, not based on where I was born, or where I have lived, or my cultural background, but based on the written, historical record.
By the way, what's your story?
My point is that things aren't always simple. You can come up with a very definite and clearly defined view of things, but that doesn't make it right. It may just be an oversimplification or a distortion.
Your monumental conclusion is that "things aren't always simple," and that a "clearly defined view of things... doesn't make it right?" Congratulations, for being a legal (and philosophical) relativist. 'Signing a mortgage contract that requires a payment every month isn't always simple, and doesn't make it right.'
Get me a hankie...
As always, you're welcome to your views - knock yourself out...
Took your advice, thought possibly I'd missed something when first read that, years ago. Turns out I didn't. Nothing in Federalist 46 speaks of:
What Madison does suppose is a Federal Army attempting to impose some injustice on the states:
Suppose "a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger."
But this is not in the least what happened in 1860, when South Carolina seceded -- indeed just the opposite. The issue then was not some new Federal intrusion on states' rights, but rather the refusal of some Northern states to vigorously enforce the South's Fugitive Slave laws. It was Southern fears of this LACK of Federal power to enforce slave laws which caused secession.
And the war which followed did not result from some new Federal effort to suppress the South, but rather from it's weak attempts to reinforce a few small Federal forts not already abandoned to Southern lawlessness.