[r9etb]

No, I am refuting your argument that the oath has anything to do in regards to secession. It has to do with the legislators and other elected officials taking an oath to uphold the Constitution (and the will of the People), which, for the most part, they do not.

The Constitution defines a form of government, in which the several states agree to operate under an over-arching federal government, as part of a single country. The states have reserved powers, but the states are also subject to the authority of the Federal government. If we assume that oaths mean anything at all, then an oath to uphold the Constitution is an oath to maintain that system of government -- and secession explicitly violates that oath.

This has been a discussion of whether or not the Constitution "allows" secession. It clearly does not, and the Constitution describes the authority by which the federal government may suppress an insurrection.

As a matter of governance under the Constitution, there is no real argument beyond the neo-confederate desire to obscure the real reasons for secession.

We can natter on all day about whether secession is morally justified -- it may or may not be. In the case of the Confederacy, however, there is no real question: the slave-holding roots of secession were utterly immoral.

And make no mistake: it was about slavery. Since you've brought up Texas, note that their referendum was an up or down vote on the Ordinance of Secession. Read it: you'll find that this document was absolutely clear that slavery was the leading cause for their action.

[bravedog]

The Constitution defines a form of government, in which the several states agree to operate under an over-arching federal government, as part of a single country.

Why do you think they did that? I would say that there were certain things that they thought were better handled as a group (protection, for one) so they let the federal government handle those things. They never said, "Hey, we submit to your will and we agree to everything you do." On the contrary, they restricted the federal government to a few select things.

If we assume that oaths mean anything at all, then an oath to uphold the Constitution is an oath to maintain that system of government -- and secession explicitly violates that oath.

There it is. The reason for the disagreement. I do do not believe that an oath to uphold the Constitution is an oath to always be a part of the union. If this were a legal contract, I think that it would be very hard to prove your case. For example, you take a job and promise to conform to company policies. You may even sign this promise. However, it would never interpreted to mean that you have to conform to those policies after you quit. Unless the company had a specific policy against quitting, you would not be violating that oath, nor would you be expected to conform to those policies after you found a new job.

There is no place in the Constitution that says that you can't quit, so there is no violation of the oath you are referencing.

I guess you could really stretch the meaning of the oath to mean you can't secede, but then that would be like saying that Obamacare comes under the Commerce clause... or that "general welfare" means anything you want it to.

It's intent that counts... or at least it should.