Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: OIFVeteran
The states did not form the federal government, the people did. That’s why it states “we the people ...” If the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and was formed by all the people of this land, no subset of those people can nullify it’s laws, or nullify the results of an election by simply declaring themselves to be an independent nation.

That's a common misconception, probably associated with the popular view of the country changing, from 'republic' to 'democracy'. The draft preamble (see the debates in the federal convention, August 6, 1787) stated:

"We the people of the States of New Hampshire, Massachussetts, 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."

So why was that draft language changed, to the familiar "We the people of the United States"? Did the basis of the proposed government change during the constitutional convention, from the sovereign people of each individual State, acting independently in each State (as under the Articles of Confederation), to a sovereign national populace acting as a single body?

The answer is found in Article VII of the Constitution:

"The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same."

Note - only nine States were required to ratify, in order to establish the new Constitution between them. The language of the preamble was changed, simply because no one knew which (if any) States might ratify, and which States might choose to 'go it alone'. The sovereign people of each individual State, acting in their States, are also the basis of other constitutional provisions, including the requirement that each State have equal representation in the US Senate, and the requirement that three-fourths of the States (not three-fourths of the national population) approve any amendments to the Constitution.

Remember the whole reason that the articles of confederation were scrapped is because the federal government was too weak under them. States could, and did, ignore laws from congress. This is also why the constitution explicitly states that it is the supreme law of the land and so are any laws or treaties based on it.

It's also worth remembering that the Articles of Confederation required unanimous agreement by the thirteen member States, before any changes could be made in the agreement. As noted above, however, the Constitution was officially adopted upon ratification of just nine States, NOT thirteen. How was that possible? The preeminant legal reference of the day (1803 edition of Blackstones Commentaries, see Appendix Note B) explains:

SECTION XIII. The dissolution of these systems happens, when all the confederates by mutual consent, or some of them, voluntarily abandon the confederacy, and govern their own states apart, or a part of them form a different league and confederacy among each other, and withdraw themselves from the confederacy with the rest. Such was the proceeding on the part of those of the American states which first adopted the present constitution of the United States, and established a form of federal government, essentially different from that which was first established by the articles of confederation, leaving the states of Rhode Island and North Carolina, both of which, at first, rejected the new constitution, to themselves. This was an evident breach of that article of the confederation,[57] which stipulated that those "articles should be inviolably observed by every state, and that the union should be perpetual; nor should any alteration at any time thereafter be made in any of them, unless such alteration be agreed to in the congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every state." Yet the seceding states, as they may be not improperly termed, did not hesitate, as soon as nine states had ratified the new constitution, to supersede the former federal government, and establish a new form, more consonant to their opinion of what was necessary to the preservation and prosperity of the federal union.

The Constitution was ratified by the sovereign people of the individual States, seceding from the previous self-proclaimed "perpetual" union. In similar fashion, the sovereign people of the southern States later withdrew from a union formed under the Constitution, which nowhere claimed to be "perpetual"...

201 posted on 12/28/2019 12:12:12 PM PST by Who is John Galt? ("He therefore who may resist, must be allowed to strike.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies ]


To: Who is John Galt?
” “SECTION XIII. The dissolution of these systems happens, when all the confederates by mutual consent, or some of them, voluntarily abandon the confederacy, and govern their own states apart, or a part of them form a different league and confederacy among each other, and withdraw themselves from the confederacy with the rest. Such was the proceeding on the part of those of the American states which first adopted the present constitution of the United States, and established a form of federal government, essentially different from that which was first established by the articles of confederation, leaving the states of Rhode Island and North Carolina, both of which, at first, rejected the new constitution, to themselves. This was an evident breach of that article of the confederation,[57] which stipulated that those “articles should be inviolably observed by every state, and that the union should be perpetual; nor should any alteration at any time thereafter be made in any of them, unless such alteration be agreed to in the congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every state.” Yet the seceding states, as they may be not improperly termed, did not hesitate, as soon as nine states had ratified the new constitution, to supersede the former federal government, and establish a new form, more consonant to their opinion of what was necessary to the preservation and prosperity of the federal union.

The Constitution was ratified by the sovereign people of the individual States, seceding from the previous self-proclaimed “perpetual” union. In similar fashion, the sovereign people of the southern States later withdrew from a union formed under the Constitution, which nowhere claimed to be “perpetual”... “

Your bringing these pertinent texts and comments to bear on the issues being discussed is as refreshing as it is helpful. Please don't be discouraged by those who have repeatedly balked at the concept “consent of the governed.”

Lead on.

205 posted on 12/28/2019 2:48:56 PM PST by jeffersondem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies ]

To: Who is John Galt?

The Supreme Court is the final arbiter on what is constitutional or unconstitutional in our system of government. In Cohens vs Virginia (1821) they made the determination that the Constitution was formed by all the people of the United States and could only be changed by all the people.

“The people made the constitution, and the people can unmake it. It is the creature of their will, and lives only by their will. But this supreme and irresistible power to make or to unmake, resides only in the whole body of the people; not in any sub-division of them. The attempt of any of the parts to exercise it is usurpation, and ought to be repelled by those to whom the people have delegated their power of repelling it.” [19 U.S. 264] 1821

Don’t like it, get an amendment passed to allow a state to leave, or the supreme court to reveres this ruling. That’s how our system works.


207 posted on 12/28/2019 4:17:23 PM PST by OIFVeteran
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies ]

To: Who is John Galt?
Almost forgot, there is one other way to break up our Union, through rebellion as our founding fathers did and succeded and the Southern Slavocracy tried and failed. Rebellion is a natural right and can be tried by anyone anytime for any reason. Even Abraham Lincoln recognized this.

"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable - a most sacred right - a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world."

So get yourself a group of like minded people that seem to hate the United States of America at the local, county, or state level and declare yourself a new country. I will volunteer to come out of retirement and grab an M-4 and teach you the error of your ways.

208 posted on 12/28/2019 4:26:43 PM PST by OIFVeteran
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson