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...
;>)
False again, despite my repeated efforts to correct you. What I've said is: the 10th Amendment means just what it says, as understood by the Founders at the time. The question is: whether terms like "unilateral secession" or "unapproved withdrawal from the Union" (or "nullification" for that matter) were understood by the Founders as included in "powers reserved to the states"? And I've seen no evidence they were.
But your continued argument on this point has got me wondering: what other "powers" are not specifically prohibited to States under the Constitution? There must be quite a few:
And with a little imagination, we could go on and on, and on, listing supposed "powers" that are not expressly prohibited to the States. But would anyone seriously suggest that all such "powers" were intended by the Founders under the 10th Amendment? I don't believe that for a second.
So, I think the 10th Amendment's word "powers" has to be understood as meaning "legitimate & usual powers of government," which while not there enumerated were well known to everyone. And I've seen no evidence suggesting those usual "powers" included secession.
WIJG: "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."
Of course, I'm no lawyer and we're talking personal opinions here. But as long as you are citing "THE LAW," perhaps you can cite for us a law which expressly legalized unilateral secession? Hmmmmm?
WIJG: "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."
Granted. My oversight.
But let's return to my list of supposed "powers" not expressly prohibited to the States, and add the "power" to declare it legal to murder federal officials -- or indeed anyone else. Would you claim that our Founders intended such by the 10th Amendment? No way am I going to believe that.
WIJG: "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."
Nonsense. Nowhere does the Constitution require the Federal government to abandon its military installations for no good reason -- even if those forts suddenly find themselves in a "foreign country" nothing says the President has to automatically give them up. Your argument here is bogus.
WIJG: "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." "
Here you're just blowing smoke. In fact, "secession" and "nullification" are both words not found in the Constitution or related documents, but which were later claimed as covered by the 10th Amendment. Both are strictly "penumbras" and "emanations," having no recognized legal validity.
I'll say again: where "secession" is not mentioned in the Constitution, words like "insurrection," "rebellion," "domestic violence," "treason," and "invasion," are listed and powers ENUMERATED for dealing with them, including but not limited to the power to declare war.
But the whole debate is bogus to the core, because three weeks after taking Fort Sumter -- and Lincoln (not Congress) declaring a state of Insurgency -- the Confederacy formally declared war on the United States.
So, it was the South which began shooting at Fort Sumter, not the Union. It was the South which then declared war, not the Union. It was the South which appealed to the "court of arms" for a "trial by combat," and they got exactly what they asked for. What is your problem with that? ;-)
WIJG: "(Apparently you are recognizing the Confederacy's sovereign right to do so - that doesn't exactly fit with the rest of your opinions... ;>)"
What a ridiculous argument. The Confederacy did in fact formally declare war on the United States. Whether it had a "sovereign right to do so," or not -- it did declare war, and so had no right to complain or blame someone else for the war which it officially started.
WIJG: "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..."
"Self righteous pontificating?" What's wrong with you, pal, are you sick?
Neither Buchanan nor Lincoln spent any serious time with "southern peace commissioners." But both informed the South that Fort Sumter would not be surrendered, period, and both made efforts to resupply it, the first in January, 1861.
I'll remind you, yet again, that after America's victory over Britain in 1781, the Brits maintained forts on American soil for the next 34 years, through several negotiations, the last Brits not finally removed until after the War of 1812. These British forts did not, by themselves, cause any wars between the US & Britain. In due time they were all negotiated away.
By contrast, the South announced in January, 1861 that ANY effort to resupply Fort Sumter was tantamount to war. Obviously, the Confederacy wanted a war of independence. And it got one. What's the problem?
WIJG: "And as I've noted before, Squat-to-Post, "John Galt" is an entirely different Freeper"
Whatever made you imagine that I don't or didn't understand your handle? Are you stupid? You are using the name "Who is John Galt" to post garbage that is insulting to "John Galt" and its creator, Ayn Rand. Unlike Ayn Rand you are not a philosopher, you are a partisan lost-causer, who will say anything and everything you can think of to defend your cause. Nothing wrong with that -- more power to you and your buddies. But you should stop misusing the name "...John Galt."