>>Kalamata wrote: “what does the Constitution say about secession? It says that all states have the right to secede BECAUSE secession clauses of three of the states were accepted, as follows:
>>OIFVeteran wrote: “Except for the fact that those pronouncements had no force of law or any effect.”
Ratification documents are contracts, and have the force of law.
****************
>>OIFVeteran wrote: “As James Madison said in replying to Alexander Hamilton when Alexander told him about the conditional ratification that New York was proposing, “It must be adopted in toto and for ever.” This letter from Madison was read to the ratification convention. So as far as the father of the constitution was concerned that was just fluff.”
I see you are still obsessed with that phrase. Why not post all of the correspondence on that matter and let us take a look at it?
****************
>>OIFVeteran wrote: “No, the constitution is clear it is the supreme law of the land, and clearly stars so. “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.”
That is correct.
****************
>>OIFVeteran wrote: “And speaking of the constitution, can you show me where it gives the President, or congress, the power to recognize a state is no longer a state?”
Show me where the federal government is authorized to stop a state from seceding, and I will show you what you are looking for.
****************
>>OIFVeteran wrote: “I’d think the founders would have put such a procedure in there for such a momentous act, if they wanted state’s to be able to leave. I can’t seem to find it.”
You cannot find it because you don’t understand the 10th amendment; and, might I add, it doesn’t appear you don’t want to understand it.
Mr. Kalamata
In addition to that correspondence we have James Madison actual thoughts on secession at the time of the nullification crisis. Here is his letter to Daniel Webster.
I return my thanks for the copy of your late very powerful Speech in the Senate of the United S. It crushes "nullification" and must hasten the abandonment of "Secession." But this dodges the blow by confounding the claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression. The former answers itself, being a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged. The latter is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy. Its double aspect, nevertheless, with the countenance recd from certain quarters, is giving it a popular currency here which may influence the approaching elections both for Congress & for the State Legislature. It has gained some advantage also, by mixing itself with the question whether the Constitution of the U.S. was formed by the people or by the States, now under a theoretic discussion by animated partizans.
It is fortunate when disputed theories, can be decided by undisputed facts. And here the undisputed fact is, that the Constitution was made by the people, but as imbodied into the several states, who were parties to it and therefore made by the States in their highest authoritative capacity. They might, by the same authority & by the same process have converted the Confederacy into a mere league or treaty; or continued it with enlarged or abridged powers; or have imbodied the people of their respective States into one people, nation or sovereignty; or as they did by a mixed form make them one people, nation, or sovereignty, for certain purposes, and not so for others.
I'll go with the father of the constitution who clearly states; "the latter(secession) is just another name for revolution." and "...the constitution was made by the people."