There, fixed it. ;-)
My opinion is that the 10th Amendment means just what it says, but that there's no evidence "unilateral secession" or "unapproved withdrawal from the Union" were contemplated at the time as being included in "powers... reserved to the states."
I'll cite again the example of murdering federal officials -- not prohibited by the Constitution. And for sake of discussion, let's make it on federal property in federal territory. In your response, you amazingly cite article 2 as authorizing Congress to deal with military discipline -- did you mean Article 1? And then you claim Article 4 "might suggest that such crimes occurring on federal property would also be subject to Congressional statute." Might suggest? Might suggest?? Article 4 suggests no such thing!
What I'm suggesting is that there has to be some limit to nonsense, and some place where common sense take over, and that should apply to such serious matters as secession and the murder of federal officers.
But the whole argument about secession is bogus from the beginning, because it was not secession alone which caused the Civil War. Indeed, seven deep south states peacefully seceded, and there was no war -- none. At the same time, eight other slave states debated secession and decided against it. Still no war. Federal forts were seized by Southern forces -- no war. Federal troops were expelled from seceded states -- no war. Federal ships were captured by Southern forces -- no war. Federal armories and customs houses taken over by Southerners -- still no war.
So, up to that point (March 1861), it might even be said that the Union had de facto acknowledged the states' secession. And as Lincoln said in his First Inaugural address, there COULD be no war, unless the South started it.
Well, Davis soon obliged, by firing on & forcing surrender of Fort Sumter. Now Lincoln still did not declare war, but he did declare an Insurrection.
Where the Constitution says nothing about "unilateral secession," it does clearly speak of suppressing Insurrections.
In response, the Confederacy declared war on the United States.
That's why I've said, secession alone did not cause the Civil War, and indeed there need have been no war, had the South not been determined to start one.
"As I noted above, Squat-to-Post, your arguments are infantile..."
As I've noted before, you are a disgrace to the name John Galt, and its creator, Ayn Rand. You should sign off, check out and then come back under some more appropriate name -- of which I've suggested several that could truly reflect your nature as a partisan lost causer...
Actually, you're simply misquoting me - and you're also wrong. But allow me to refresh your memory:
From your Post 2,208:
Indeed, a logical thought process (which a disciple of Ayn Rand will surely appreciate) might proceed as follows: can words like "secession," or any of the three states' paragraphs referring to "reassumed powers" be found in:
* the Constitution itself (answer: no)
* Founders documents such as the Federalist Papers (answer: no)
* Amendments to the Constitution (answer: no)
* Treaties ratified according to the Constitution (answer: no)
* Laws written & approved according to the Constitution (answer: no)
* Official government regulations issued with the approval of Congress (answer: no)
* Judiciary rulings recognized as precedent (answer: no)
* Supreme Court rulings on their constitutional validity (answer: no)
* Any other document which might be, or has been, recognized as legally binding (answer: no)
From your Post 2,210:
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.
Allow me once again to summarize your opinion: if it isn't mentioned in the Constitution, it's illegal. An infantile opinion, certainly, but most definitely yours.
;>)
In your response, you amazingly cite article 2 as authorizing Congress to deal with military discipline -- did you mean Article 1?
Actually, I cited Article II - but thanks for correcting my typo.
;>)
And then you claim Article 4 "might suggest that such crimes occurring on federal property would also be subject to Congressional statute." Might suggest? Might suggest?? Article 4 suggests no such thing!
Actually, IIRC, Article IV, Section 3, clause 2 ("The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States") has been cited as the basis for federal legal authority in the various territories,and on federal properties. But by all means, feel free to prove me wrong.
;>)
What I'm suggesting is that there has to be some limit to nonsense, and some place where common sense take over...
(We obviously find neither in your opinions... ;>)
...and that should apply to such serious matters as secession and the murder of federal officers.
I always find it amusing, when someone essentially proclaims 'the rule of common sense' (meaning their own, personal version of 'common sense,' naturally) in preference to the rule of law.
...So, up to that point (March 1861), it might even be said that the Union had de facto acknowledged the states' secession. And as Lincoln said in his First Inaugural address, there COULD be no war, unless the South started it.
Well, Davis soon obliged, by firing on & forcing surrender of Fort Sumter. Now Lincoln still did not declare war, but he did declare an Insurrection.
Mr. Lincoln's failure to "declare war" was no indication of northern forbearance - in fact, Mr. Lincoln was advised that a declaration of war would amount to formal recognition of the seceded States / Confederacy as sovereign and independent entities. However, neither Mr. Lincoln's maintenance of forces inside South Carolina nor his declaration of an "insurrection" were constitutional, unless secession was UNconstituional - something you have yet to prove.
Where the Constitution says nothing about "unilateral secession," it does clearly speak of suppressing Insurrections.
So, you're back to conflating "insurrection" and secession, just as you conflated secession and nullification in your Post 2,052. You really should strive for a more "logical thought process."
In response, the Confederacy declared war on the United States.
(Apparently you are recognizing the Confederacy's sovereign right to do so - that doesn't exactly fit with the rest of your opinions... ;>)
That's why I've said, secession alone did not cause the Civil War, and indeed there need have been no war, had the South not been determined to start one.
Really? Perhaps you can tell us how Mr. Lincoln received the southern peace delegation in 1861? Given your self-righteous pontificating (above, and "up to that point (March 1861), it might even be said that the Union had de facto acknowledged the states' secession. And as Lincoln said in his First Inaugural address, there COULD be no war, unless the South started it"), I have no doubt that you will be able to provide extensive transcripts of Mr. Lincoln's personal and passionate discussions with the southern peace commissioners, in his tireless efforts to avoid armed conflict. Please include the documentation in your next post...
;>)
As I've noted before, you are a disgrace to the name John Galt, and its creator, Ayn Rand. You should sign off, check out and then come back under some more appropriate name -- of which I've suggested several that could truly reflect your nature as a partisan lost causer...
And as I've noted before, Squat-to-Post, "John Galt" is an entirely different Freeper (but then, you never were one to let facts get in your way).
Go back to your 'Blue Avenger' comic books, pal...
;>)
Gosh, I almost forgot to mention: we're still waiting for you to provide evidence of Mr. Lincoln's decision to "appeal to a judge" (your Post 2,210), rather than deploy military forces within the seceded States. "I ask you: what appeal was ever made to any court on the subject of secession" by Mr. Lincoln's government?
;>)