In other words, on the doctrine of secession they promoted a "Living Constitution." May as well throw the Constitution in the trash can.
Legal documents, such as the Constitution, are themselves precedent. Additional constructions that give the general government powers not specifically authorized by the Constitution constitute usurpations of power, which is tyranny. A common form of usurpation is called Stare Decisis, or judicial precedent.
Regarding secession, this is what I consider to be the correct understanding of the natural right of secession:
"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. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much of the territory as they inhabit."
Do you agree, or disagree?
*****************
>>OIFVeteran wrote: "That the constitution was adopted by all the people, not a subset of people in a state. Where did this idea come from? It came from the Constitution where it states “We the people...”. It came from the writings of the founders at the constitutional convention. This view was also upheld by the U.S. Supreme court as early as 1821 in the Cohens vs Virginia decision;"
>>“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"
The phrase "We the people" has been treacherously abused, and especially by that ruling which was just another power grab by the Marshall court. The original Preamble read:
"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."
It was soon realized that some of those states might not ratify the Constitution; so the preamble was changed to the more generic form, "We the people." The claim that the Constitution was adopted by "the whole people" is false.
Madison expounded the Preamble in Federalist No. 39:
"On examining the first relation, it appears, on one hand, that the Constitution is to be founded on the assent and ratification of the people of America, given by deputies elected for the special purpose; but, on the other, that this assent and ratification is to be given by the people, not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong. It is to be the assent and ratification of the several States, derived from the supreme authority in each State, the authority of the people themselves. The act, therefore, establishing the Constitution, will not be a national, but a federal act."
"That it will be a federal and not a national act, as these terms are understood by the objectors; the act of the people, as forming so many independent States, not as forming one aggregate nation, is obvious from this single consideration, that it is to result neither from the decision of a majority of the people of the Union, nor from that of a majority of the States. It must result from the unanimous assent of the several States that are parties to it, differing no otherwise from their ordinary assent than in its being expressed, not by the legislative authority, but by that of the people themselves. 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. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a federal, and not a national constitution."
[James Madison, Federalist No. 39, in Bill Bailey, "The Complete Federalist Papers." The New Federalist Papers Project, p.178]
A difficult Amendment process, which requires requires ratification by at least three-fourths of the states, was included in the Constitution as the lawful avenue of change.
Mr. Kalamata
Stare Decisis is not a usurpation but has been a part of our English common law and our legal system from prior to the adoption of the US Constitution, the same as judicial review.
I do believe in a natural right to rebellion. It is what the founding fathers did in our revolution. However, they were under no delusion that what they had legal authority under the British system and expected to be hanged if it failed.
Yes, I agree the Lincoln quote you posted. However, there is one big caveat in that quote that I have bolded and underlined for you.
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.
Abraham Lincoln
Now just because you have a natural right doesn't mean you will use it for a good purpose. People can rebel for good or bad reasons and we, as moral creatures, can look at the reasons they rebelled and decide for ourselves if it was for a good cause or not.
Your wrong. The constitution was adopted by all the people and no subset of the people can break it. The Supreme Court ruled on this as early as 1821.
“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
James Madison, the father of the constitution, did say that. He also said this in a letter to Alexander Hamilton.
From James Madison to Alexander Hamilton
N. York Sunday Evening [20 July 1788]
My Dear Sir
Yours of yesterday is this instant come to hand & I have but a few minutes to answer it. I am sorry that your situation obliges you to listen to propositions of the nature you describe. My opinion is that a reservation of a right to withdraw if amendments be not decided on under the form of the Constitution within a certain time, is a conditional ratification, that it does not make N. York a member of the New Union, and consequently that she could not be received on that plan. Compacts must be reciprocal, this principle would not in such a case be preserved. The Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever. It has been so adopted by the other States. An adoption for a limited time would be as defective as an adoption of some of the articles only. In short any condition whatever must viciate the ratification. What the New Congress by virtue of the power to admit new States, may be able & disposed to do in such case, I do not enquire as I suppose that is not the material point at present. I have not a moment to add more than my fervent wishes for your success & happiness.
James Madison
"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. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much of the territory as they inhabit."
Do you agree, or disagree?
I agree with what Lincoln wrote. But I don't believe it means what you believe it means.
Reasonable, honorable, and prudent people seek resolution to problems. Intemperate or dishonest people seek advantage. Lincoln's invocation of our natural rights is tempered with the recognition that reasonable people exhaust all avenues before they resort to rebellion. He also acknowledges the reality that such ventures do not have guaranteed outcomes and that opposing parties may be willing to exercise their natural rights as well.
In other words, on the doctrine of secession they promoted a "Living Constitution."
Wrong.
May as well throw the Constitution in the trash can. May as well throw the Constitution in the trash can.
No thanks.