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.
"You are living in a fantasy land, Squat-to-Post."
"That is your infantile ‘argument.’ "
""A logical thought process" would do you wonders..."
"Look, Squat-to-Post, you can’t have it both ways."
"As I noted previously, you sound exactly like a liberal politician."
You sound to me like Stand Watie, PeaRidge, central_va and that whole crowd. Your arguments are not in any way "logical," they amount to nothing more than the old Rebel Yell battle cry. Yes, it defeated many a Union formation, but does not constitute a "logical argument."