Replies

DiogenesLamp: "You are seemingly not groking the nature of this "Monarchy" form of government.
It's funny that you are calling it a "Constitution" when it is in fact a "Charter", and this further demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding regarding the nature of a charter, as well.
What the King hath granted, the King can taketh away. :)"

Grocking? Don't you know, it's impossible to "grok" anything until after you've smoked a whole bunch of illegal sh*t!
So don't do it! ;-)

Sir, back in the good old days, back when America was still America, and we still had real education of children, I learned that what the Massachusetts colonists expected, wanted and thought they already had were the normal "rights of Englishmen", including some form of self-government, such as the Massachusetts charter of 1691 -- their form of "constitution".

In their minds that was "legitimate government", and when Parliament unilaterally abrogated it, "at pleasure", and militarily imposed a dictatorial government, Massachusetts citizens remained loyal to their original government.

Likewise in 1861, when Confederates unilaterally abrogated their Constitution, "at pleasure", and militarily seized Federal properties, Union citizens remained loyal to their original government.

DiogenesLamp: "Over the last few years of studying the "natural born citizen" issue, I have come to realize that Madison had a tendency to articulate support for one idea when it suited him, and support the opposite idea when it suited him."

Sir, please, I beg you, take my words here seriously and deep into your heart: if you disrespect our Founders, and their intentions for their Constitution, then you don't qualify for the term "conservative".
If you are not an "originalist", then you are something other than "conservative" which makes you a poser here on Free Republic.

So, I'm asking you to go deep into your own heart, and find the source for that mocking disrespect for our Founders and their Constitution, then strangle it.
Then your thinking will clarify, and you will be a welcome asset at Free Republic.

Now, let me repeat what I've posted here before: no Founder was ever expressly contradictory to the words of James Madison when he wrote:

"The compact can only be dissolved by the consent of the other parties, or by usurpations or abuses of power justly having that effect.
It will hardly be contended that there is anything in the terms or nature of the compact, authorizing a party to dissolve it at pleasure."

DiogenesLamp: "Madison was well known to oppose secession.
Of course he would assert that it is illegal, but then so was the US Secession from Britain."

Once again: colonists of Massachusetts believed that Brits had, in effect, unilaterally "seceded" from their original compact, the 1691 Charter, to which the colonists remained loyal.
Likewise, in 1861, Confederates unilaterally seceded from their original compact, the 1787 Constitution, to which Unionists remained loyal.

So the comparison is exact: between 1774 Brits and 1861 Confederates.

The problem with your discussion of the MA Charter is that it was granted by the King to the colony. It was not a compact between Britain and Massachusetts.

What the British could grant they could revoke, as they revoked the earlier 1629 charter in 1684.

To my mind the British behaved legally, for the most part, in the runup to the Revolution, though remarkably stupidly.

Americans at the time fervently believed that this was all part of some deep plot to enslave them. Historians since have comprehensively proven it was no such thing. British actions were precipitated by arrogance and ignorance, not malevolence.