Replies

On what principle the Confederation, which stands in the solemn form of a compact among the States, can be superseded without the unanimous consent of the parties to it?

Mr. Madison's argument was mooted by the actual facts. The states ratified it unanimously, and the hypothetical never came into play. And, in ratifying it unanimously, the states also ratified the clause stating that the Constitution was the supreme law of the land, to which all state actions contrary to the Constitution and federal law, are explicitly voided....

Add to that the fact that all legislators and officers of the state government are required to provide an oath or affirmation to the effect that they will support and defend the Constitution. Among other things that means, to put it simply, that they cannot suddenly deny at their own convenience the clause of the Constitution that places the states in a subservient position to the Constitution and the Federal government it defines.

Honest people do not enter into binding agreements on the theory that it's only binding on those parties who feel themselves to be bound by them. In surrendering state sovereignty to the Constitution -- and make no mistake, that is EXACTLY what ratification meant -- the individual states entered into a binding contract that could not be abrogated by explicitly unconstitutional acts by the state governments.

States can, of course, try to secede by force; but to argue that they had the right to do so for free, is pure poppycock.

And of course, we cannot avoid the subtext here -- that if a state is going to go to war over its supposed sovereignty, it ought to have a good and moral reason for doing so. Protection of slavery is not a good reason.

Sez, you. Again, The States did not ratify the Constitution unanimously. They changed the original draft of the Constitution from this bellow :

WE the People of the States of New-Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New-York, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North-Carolina, South-Carolina, and Georgia, do ordain, declare and establish the following Constitution for the Government of Ourselves and our Posterity.

To it's current form because they didn't know which States would ratify it.

Mr. Madison's argument was mooted by the actual facts

-------------------------------------------------

Well, the States entered the agreement under false pretext, and it's void, if that's the case. There wasn't any sort of "argument", it was sold to the Several States. Mr. Madison was the architect, and if his words are nothing, then the Constitution is nothing.

***In surrendering state sovereignty to the Constitution***

They did not " surrender " their Sovereignty ! This is just plain silly. How on Gods Green Earth does the " agent ", the General Government become Sovereign ?

Again, Mr. Know-nothing Madison s/

Were the people regarded in this transaction as forming one nation, the will of the majority of the whole people of the United States would bind the minority, in the same manner as the majority in each State must bind the minority; and the will of the majority must be determined either by a comparison of the individual votes, or by considering the will of the majority of the States as evidence of the will of a majority of the people of the United States. Neither of these rules have been adopted. Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act.

the states also ratified the clause stating that the Constitution was the supreme law of the land, to which all state actions contrary to the Constitution and federal law, are explicitly voided....

Actually, the clause says:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

So ONLY federal laws that fall within the powers delegated to the federal government by the Constitution are actually the supreme Law of the Land. Contrary to popular belief, the states did not just hold up their hands and give up all of their rights to the federal government. They only gave specific powers to the federal government, and the Constitution was designed to restrict those powers.

Now, we have the case where makes laws, granting themselves power and control that is not in the Constitution (things like EPA, health care, gun control, and even Immigration.)

Take immigration for example. The Constitution grants Naturalization powers to the feds, but not immigration. Immigration is clearly a power of the states... this power was illegally wrested from the states with the passage of the Immigration Act. The federal government is clearly overstepping the bounds of their authority and breaking their contract (i.e. Constitution) with the states. The only people who can rule on the contract is the federal government. How can the federal government rule on itself whether they are breaking the contract?

If the federal government is going to continually assume powers that they do not have, then the contract has already been broken.

Secession is never illegal. When a government no longer serves the needs of its people, then why should people be forced into submission? Why are people in Texas forced to comply with the whims of a federal government which operates outside of their Constitutional authority?

The U.S. seceded from England, Texas seceded from Mexico... these things happen because it is the will of the people.

If you truly think that you need a "legal" reason to secede, then you need only look as far as the Constitution. The Constitution gives certain powers to the federal government. In no way is it needed to give powers to the states. To those of you who say that secession is not mentioned... there is a reason for that. It's covered under the 10th Amendment:

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.