Look pal, you are making a specific argument here: that the US Constitution, or amendments, treaties, laws, supreme court rulings or regulations somehow make lawful, not just the vague & undefined terms of "powers" "reassumed (or resumed)" & "by the people" -- words found only in signing statements of three states, and nowhere else -- but specifically terms like: "unilateral secession" and "unapproved withdrawal from the union," which are found NOWHERE in ANY original Constitutional language.
But if you can show us where those specific terms ARE made lawful, I'll be most interested to see that.
WIJG: "Furthermore, you continue to ignore the Tenth Amendment, which declares (in short) that powers not delegated or prohibited by the Constitution are reserved to the States and their people. And the Constitution nowhere prohibited State secession."
If terms like "unilateral secession" or "unapproved withdrawal from the Union" had been included in ANY of the original Constitutional language (i.e., Federalist Papers), and there noted favorably, then I would agree it might be considered part of the 10th Amendment. But nothing like that appears.
So consider what I've said before: the Constitution also does not specifically prohibit actions like unprovoked murders of federal officers. Does that in any way make such acts constitutional? Obviously not, and so with other serious acts, like secession.
Bottom line: you have challenged me to show where unilateral secession is forbidden, and I have challenged you to show where it was ever acknowledged as lawful. Now consider, in normal contract law, when such an impasse arises, the parties typically appeal to a judge for legal decision. I ask you: what appeal was ever made to any court on the subject of secession?
Isn't it entirely fair to say that the South, in 1861, appealed to the "court of arms" for a "trial by combat"?
How did Jefferson say it? "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants"? So exactly who were the tyrants in 1861 -- those who started war to defend their "peculiar institution" of slavery, or those who accepted war, eventually to free those slaves?
And is it not then fair to say the "court of arms" heard the South's "appeal" and rejected it?
Allow me to summarize your opinion (which you also presented in Post 2,208):
if it isn't mentioned in the Constitution, it's illegal. Although you suggest (in 2,208) that such an opinion is "logical," it is, in fact, infantile.
But if you can show us where those specific terms ARE made lawful, I'll be most interested to see that.
Sure thing, pal:
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.
Secession is nowhere prohibited to the States by the Constitution, nor does the Constitution delegate to the federal government the power to prevent the secession of a member State. (As you noted above, sport, the terms " 'unilateral secession' and 'unapproved withdrawal from the union' ...are found NOWHERE in ANY original Constitutional language." ;>) The power was therefore reserved to the States and their people under the terms of the Tenth Amendment.
;>)
If terms like "unilateral secession" or "unapproved withdrawal from the Union" had been included in ANY of the original Constitutional language (i.e., Federalist Papers), and there noted favorably, then I would agree it might be considered part of the 10th Amendment. But nothing like that appears.
It appears that you can not read simple English: the amendment States that "powers NOT delegated... NOR prohibited... ARE reserved," not the opposite, as you suggest with your inane "if terms... had been included" claim.
So consider what I've said before: the Constitution also does not specifically prohibit actions like unprovoked murders of federal officers. Does that in any way make such acts constitutional? Obviously not, and so with other serious acts, like secession.
Actually, the fact that "the Constitution also does not specifically prohibit actions like unprovoked murders of federal officers" simply suggests that such crimes (occurring within a State) were to be dealt with under State law, rather than federal law; while Article II delegates authority over such crimes occurring within the ranks of the military to Congress; and Article IV might suggest that such crimes occurring on federal property would also be subject to Congressional statute.
Once again (no doubt because you are excessively influenced by "penumbras & emanations" ;>), you read something into the Constitution that is not there.
Now consider, in normal contract law, when such an impasse arises, the parties typically appeal to a judge for legal decision. I ask you: what appeal was ever made to any court on the subject of secession?
Why would a State appeal an action that was nowhere prohibited by the Constitution? But perhaps Mr. Lincoln's federal government agreed with your "parties typically appeal to a judge" opinion: if so, perhaps you can provide the documentation...
Isn't it entirely fair to say that the South, in 1861, appealed to the "court of arms" for a "trial by combat"?
You might help substantiate that suggestion, by providing evidence of Mr. Lincoln's decision to "appeal to a judge," rather than deploy military forces within the seceded States...
;>)
So exactly who were the tyrants in 1861 -- those who started war to defend their "peculiar institution" of slavery, or those who accepted war, eventually to free those slaves?
Actually, I would suggest that the tyrants were the federal officials who used military force to prevent an action (State secession) that was nowhere prohibited by the Constitution. Oh, and that would include the federal officials who waited years (until January 31, 1865) to pass an amendment proposing to actually ban your "peculiar institution" (your term "eventually" was more than just a little appropriate ;>).
And is it not then fair to say the "court of arms" heard the South's "appeal" and rejected it?
Sure, pal - if you also believe the same "'court of arms' heard Poland's 'appeal' [in 1939] and rejected it;" and if you believe the "'court of arms' heard Hungary's 'appeal' [in 1956] and rejected it;" shall I go on?
As I noted above, Squat-to-Post, your arguments are infantile...