WIJG: "You sound exactly like a liberal politician - 'the Constitution means just what it says, subject to my understanding of what the Founders intended.' How nice..."
Did you really mean to make this argument? If the Constitution does not actually mean what the Founders intended, then pray tell, exactly what DOES it mean? ;-)
WIJG: "Then you have not read Madison's Federalist No. 43,"
Had not read Federalist 43 lately, so went back to review -- did I miss something the first time, years ago?
In Federalist 43, Madison compares the Constitution to a treaty amongst states, and that's true -- but only up to a point. Yes, State legislatures sent delegates to the Constitutional Convention in 1787. But specially elected ratifying conventions approved the Constitution in each state. Thus "roots" of the Constitution were sunk deeper into the US body politic than your usual "treaty."
Nevertheless, as Madison says: a "treaty" made by several parties can also be undone by those parties:
"A compact between independent sovereigns, founded on ordinary acts of legislative authority, can pretend to no higher validity than a league or treaty between the parties. It is an established doctrine on the subject of treaties, that all the articles are mutually conditions of each other; that a breach of any one article is a breach of the whole treaty; and that a breach, committed by either of the parties, absolves the others, and authorizes them, if they please, to pronounce the compact violated and void.""Should it unhappily be necessary to appeal to these delicate truths for a justification for dispensing with the consent of particular States to a dissolution of the federal pact, will not the complaining parties find it a difficult task to answer the MULTIPLIED and IMPORTANT infractions with which they may be confronted?"
In 1861 Southern states elected "Secession Conventions" which "pronounced the [Constitution] compact... void." But in what sense did they say it had been "violated"? Well really, in only one: some states were not enforcing Fugitive Slave laws:
On this, South Carolina, the first seceding state said:
"The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: 'No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.'"This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made..."
And Texas, the last of the original seven seceders specifically identified:
"...directly or indirectly violated the 3rd clause of the 2nd section of the 4th article [the fugitive slave clause] of the federal constitution, and laws passed in pursuance thereof; thereby annulling a material provision of the compact... "
So, in 1860, South Carolina didn't like other states' "nullification" of Fugitive Slave laws, but in 1832 South Carolina had declared its own right to nullify the "1828 Tariff of Abominations." Didn't South Carolina want it both ways?
Further, the Fugitive Slave situation in 1860 had not materially changed from what had been previously accepted for many decades, except in one respect: the new constitutionally elected President, Abraham Lincoln. So that was the REAL reason for secession, and it had nothing to do with supposed "violations" of the Constitution.
Nor were any legal efforts made to establish that "violations" had in fact occurred. Nor was any notice taken of the government's efforts in 1860 & 1861 to address such "violations" as might be proved.
Therefore, Madison's criteria for "dissolution of the federal pact," were not met in 1860, and so secession was not a legitimate remedy.
WIJG: "What on earth are you talking about? Extortion has been defined as the "illegal use of one's official position or powers to obtain property, funds, or patronage." If it's "illegal," then it by definition must violate some specific law. To which law are you referring?"
Actually, I do appreciate your taking time to look up specific clauses in the Constitution which may apply to my arguments about what, precisely, was or was not "prohibited to the States." But in every case, my point is valid and your mocking only proves that!
In each "example" I invented, the Constitution does not precisely, in so many words, prohibit such actions. However, no one -- not even a secessionist like WIJG -- would argue such actions are therefore ALLOWED. What ARE allowed -- reserved to the States -- are ONLY those recognized, legitimate and normal powers of government.
The debate here is: whether "unilateral secession" could be considered one of those? I've still seen nothing to suggest it is.
WIJG: "As I noted above, you're willfully ignorant."
Not in the least. You have simply misunderstood my argument, and in so doing, proved it correct. Thanks! ;-)
The Constitution does not, in so many words prohibit the examples I listed, but as you argue so well, that does not make them "powers reserved to the states." And the same is true for such terms as "secession" and "nullification," imho.
WIJG: "Please reread (and try to understand it, this time) 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."
Recognized, legitimate and usual "powers" of government did not then, do not now, include unilateral secession.
WIJG: "Thanks for posting another idiotic argument - in essence:
'insurrection is implicitly prohibited by the Constitution, making it illegal, and because I think the formal withdrawal of a State from the union is also illegal, even though it's not mentioned anywhere, it must be equivalent to insurrection.'
WIJG: "A logical thought process" would do you wonders..."
If you had a logical thought process of your own, that was not completely absorbed in trying to defend the indefensible, you'd have a bit more room to criticize.
In fact, I've argued repeatedly here that secession alone did not cause the Civil War, but that Insurrection, Rebellion, Invasion, etc, did, and without those, there could be no war.
And I think the core of your problem is, you can't or don't want to understand that. You imagine the South after secession was just sitting around when the North sent vast armies to conquer it. But in fact, the North did nothing of the kind, until the South began shooting, and declared war.
WIJG: "Oh, and by the way - care to post a copy of (or a link to) that 'formal declaration of war' by the Confederate States of America? I would love to add it to my references..."
The Confederacy's Declaration of War on the United States.
WIJG: "Ouch! Now you've hurt my feelings! Guess I'll just have to post a little piece from the Mises Institute:"
So YOU represent the Mises Institute! Well, glory hallelujah, now at least we know who you are and where you come from. So, for Chr*st's sake, pal, DROP THE "Who is JOHN GALT?"
You can be "Who is Ludwig von Mises?" It's a perfectly acceptable way to tell us just what kind of person we're dealing with -- having nothing to do with falsely suggesting some connection to Ayn Rand's John Galt.
WIJG: "You said "parties," Squat-to-Post (meaning both parties). Either you're an idiot (thanks again for calling your own opinion "another ridiculous argument" ;>) or... oh, heck, let's just face it - you're an idiot."
I'd say these insults just about sum up your whole argument. They put you in the same league with Stande Waitie and his bunch. These people live to insult, insult to live -- a debate like this is just a real good excuse for them to hurl more insults.
As I said before: the South could easily have appealed their "right of secession" to the Supreme Court, and given such previous decisions as Dred-Scott, may even have won and therefore have been officially recognized. A Union appeal to the Supreme Court after secession would have been meaningless.
But logic is not what you're looking for here, is it? No, what you want is just another opportunity to hurl invectives, and like Jefferson Davis & Fort Sumter, any little excuse is more than enough to start firing away, isn't it, pal? ;-)
Wrong again – as Mr. Madison noted in his Report on the Virginia Resolutions, it was up to the individual States (as parties to the compact), NOT the federal government, to decide.
But in every case, my point is valid and your mocking only proves that!
Actually, in every case, you were wrong – as usual.
In each "example" I invented, the Constitution does not precisely, in so many words, prohibit such actions. However, no one -- not even a secessionist like WIJG -- would argue such actions are therefore ALLOWED.
Actually, that is the exact rationalization (the Constitution does not precisely, in so many words, allow such actions) upon which you have based your opinion that State secession is unconstitutional – the word “secession,” you have noted repeatedly, does not appear in the Constitution, and the action is therefore (you claim) unconstitutional.
Thanks for proving my point – again.
What ARE allowed -- reserved to the States -- are ONLY those recognized, legitimate and normal powers of government.
Given that the ratifying States seceded from the union formed under the terms of the Articles of Confederation, State secession was indeed a 'recognized, legitimate and normal power of government.'
You have simply misunderstood my argument, and in so doing, proved it correct. Thanks! ;-)
The Constitution does not, in so many words prohibit the examples I listed, but as you argue so well, that does not make them "powers reserved to the states." And the same is true for such terms as "secession" and "nullification," imho.
You are living in a fantasy land, Squat-to-Post. Unlike you, I have not based my opinions on the presence, or absence, of specific words in or from the Constitution. That is your infantile ‘argument.’ Rather, I look at concepts: and the concept of formal State withdrawal from the federal union is nowhere prohibited by the Constitution.
If you had a logical thought process of your own, that was not completely absorbed in trying to defend the indefensible, you'd have a bit more room to criticize.
In fact, I've argued repeatedly here that secession alone did not cause the Civil War…
Like so many of your ‘arguments,’ the cause of the war is completely irrelevant to the question of the constitutionality of State secession. "A logical thought process" would do you wonders...
The Confederacy's Declaration of War on the United States
Actually, it’s simply ‘an act recognizing the existence of war between’ the two countries.
WIJG: "Ouch! Now you've hurt my feelings! Guess I'll just have to post a little piece from the Mises Institute"
BJ: So YOU represent the Mises Institute! Well, glory hallelujah, now at least we know who you are and where you come from. So, for Chr*st's sake, pal, DROP THE "Who is JOHN GALT?"
You can be "Who is Ludwig von Mises?" It's a perfectly acceptable way to tell us just what kind of person we're dealing with -- having nothing to do with falsely suggesting some connection to Ayn Rand's John Galt.
“Logic is not what you're looking for here, is it? No, what you want is just another opportunity to hurl invectives… and any little excuse is more than enough to start firing away, isn't it, pal?”
;-)
As I said before: the South could easily have appealed their "right of secession" to the Supreme Court...
Actually, what you have “said before” is that “"in normal contract law, when such an impasse arises, the parties typically appeal to a judge for legal decision."
A Union appeal to the Supreme Court after secession would have been meaningless.
Look, Squat-to-Post, you can’t have it both ways. Either the States (as parties to the compact) could decide for themselves the constitutionality of federal actions, as suggested by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson; or the federal high court (as is currently claimed) holds that power. Given that you claim State secession was unconstitutional, you obviously do not agree with Mr. Jefferson or Mr. Madison. But neither, apparently, do you believe that the federal high court holds the power to determine the constitutionality of such action – instead, you seem to be suggesting that the president’s personal opinion is sufficient.
As I noted previously, you sound exactly like a liberal politician.