>>OIFVeteran wrote: "Can you show any quotes or writings by the founding fathers during the time of the creation and adoption of the constitution talking about this supposed “retained power of secession”? From the federalist papers, letters to each other, etc. I mean this seems like a pretty important right, you can just leave the Union whenever you want. Seems the founders would have discussed it."
I already have. But these are a few:
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." [James Madison, Federalist No. 45, in Bailey, Bill, "The Complete Federalist Papers." The New Federalist Papers Project, pp.214-215]
Look in Article I, Sections 8 and 9. If the power over secession is not given to the federal government in Section 8, nor forbidden to the states in Section 9, then it belongs to the states. We know that from simple legal logic. But for the contentious, there are also these legal rules:
"Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
"Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
This is Alexander Hamilton:
"It may safely be received as an axiom in our political system, that the State governments will, in all possible contingencies, afford complete security against invasions of the public liberty by the national authority." [Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper No. 28, in Bailey, Bill, "The Complete Federalist Papers." The New Federalist Papers Project, p.132]
"It is inherent in the nature of sovereignty not to be amenable to the suit of any individual without its consent. This is the general sense and the general practice of mankind; and the exemption, as one of the attributes of sovereignty, is now enjoyed by the government of every State in the Union… The contracts between a nation and individuals are only binding on the conscience of the sovereign, and have no pretensions to a compulsive force. They confer no right of action, independent of the sovereign will. To… authorize suits against States for the debts they owe… could not be done without waging war against the contracting State…, a power which would involve such a consequence, would be altogether forced and unwarrantable." [Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 81, in Bailey, Bill, "The Complete Federalist Papers." The New Federalist Papers Project, p.364]
James Madison:
"The State governments, by their original constitutions, are invested with complete sovereignty." [James Madison, Federalist Paper No. 31, in Bailey, Bill, "The Complete Federalist Papers." The New Federalist Papers Project, p.143]
"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 Bailey, Bill, "The Complete Federalist Papers." The New Federalist Papers Project, p.178]
"Will it be said that the fundamental principles of the Confederation were not within the purview of the convention, and ought not to have been varied? I ask, What are these principles? Do they require that, in the establishment of the Constitution, the States should be regarded as distinct and independent sovereigns? They are so regarded by the Constitution proposed." [James Madison, Federalist Paper No. 40, in Bailey, Bill, "The Complete Federalist Papers." The New Federalist Papers Project, p.183]
If states are completely sovereign, as Madison claims, then they can do as the please regarding secession.
Excerpt from Virginia Ratification document:
"WE the Delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly, and now met in Convention, having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention, and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us, to decide thereon, DO in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will: that therefore no right of any denomination, can be cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified, by the Congress, by the Senate or House of Representatives acting in any capacity, by the President or any department or officer of the United States, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes: and that among other essential rights, the liberty of conscience and of the press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified by any authority of the United States." ["Virginia Ratification Convention." Avalon Project, June 26, 1788]
Excerpt from New York Ratification document:
"That the Powers of Government may be reassumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness; that every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the departments of the Government thereof, remains to the People of the several States, or to their respective State Governments to whom they may have granted the same; And that those Clauses in the said Constitution, which declare, that Congress shall not have or exercise certain Powers, do not imply that Congress is entitled to any Powers not given by the said Constitution; but such Clauses are to be construed either as exceptions to certain specified Powers, or as inserted merely for greater Caution." ["New York Ratification Convention." Avalon Project, July 26, 1788]
Excerpt from Rhode Island Ratification document:
"That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people, whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness:- That the rights of the States respectively, to nominate and appoint all State Officers, and every other power, jurisdiction and right, which is not by the said constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States or to the departments of government thereof, remain to the people of the several states, or their respective State Governments to whom they may have granted the same; and that those clauses in the said constitution which declare that Congress shall not have or exercise certain powers, do not imply, that Congress is entitled to any powers not given by the said constitution, but such clauses are to be construed as exceptions to certain specified powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution." ["Rhode Island Ratification Convention." Avalon Project, May 29, 1790, Chap.3]
Don't forget. Lincoln approved the secession of West Virginia from Virginia, which destroyed that union. So, he was also a hypocrite.
****************
>>OIFVeteran wrote: "I mean the quotes I’ve posted from the founders explicitly say the opposite. “The constitution must be adopted in toto and forever.” - James Madison"
>>OIFVeteran wrote: "I mean forever means, well, forever. You can’t at a future date say I’m out of the constitution now because you’ve adopted it forever. Maybe forever meant something else back then?
You have again taken Madison' statement completely out of context. If your interpretation was correct, we would not have the Bill of Rights.
****************
>>OIFVeteran wrote: "Or how about this one from the federalist papers. “Let the thirteen States, bound together in a strict and indissoluble Union, concur in erecting one great American system” Alexander Hamilton That’s pretty clear to me. Indissoluble means unable to be destroyed, lasting. You can’t have something indestructible when a state can just up and leave for any reason."
That same fellow, Alexander Hamilton, approved the New York Ratification document that stated:
"That the Powers of Government may be reassumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness."
That same fellow stated in the Federalists Papers:
"The contracts between a nation and individuals are only binding on the conscience of the sovereign, and have no pretensions to a compulsive force."
****************
>>OIFVeteran wrote: "Or how about good old Charles Cotesworth Pickney who stared at South Carolina’s constitutional ratification convention-"
>>OIFVeteran quoting: "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
>>OIFVeteran wrote: "He clearly says that the states are NOT separately and individually independent. Actually calls it a form of political heresy. If a state is not independent how can it then claim to be independent?"
He doesn't say what you say he said. You spun his words from being a proposal into a done-deal. You are not being a straight shooter.
Why are you so desperate for our government to be all powerful? Don't you realize how dangerous that is? Besides, I thought you supported the Constitution?
Mr. Kalamata
In
his post #618 to OIFVeteran,
Kalamata presents us with his inventory of Founders' secession-justifying quotes, a dozen in all.
These he tells us are all the justification needed for 1860 unilateral unapproved declarations of secession
at pleasure.
Suppose we look at them.
- Does any of them say exactly what Kalamata claims?
No, but he says that if you combine several together, then they can be interpreted like he says.
- Does any of them mention disunion?
Yes, the Virginia, New York and Rhode Island signing statements.
In each case disunion is tied to necessity, as from powers "perverted to their injury or oppression", like in 1776.
None says or implies unilateral secession at pleasure.
- From Federalist 81 Kalamata quotes Hamilton explaining the nature of sovereignty prevents citizens from suing their states for payment of debts.
This Kalamata fantasizes somehow makes states immune from their obligations under the US Constitution.
It doesn't.
- The Constitution itself contains language regarding delegated rights of Federal government versus retained rights of states & citizens.
Kalamata tells us this must include an unlimited "right of secession" -- does the Constitution itself, or any Founder ever say that?
No, Founders said the opposite, but Kalamata finds such a "right" in the, ahem (as Justice Douglas said): "penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give [the Constitution] life and substance"! Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight!!
- From Federalist 39 Kalamata quotes Madison cogently saying: "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." Those are important words, "a federal not a national constitution," do they imply that each state has an unlimited "right of secession" at pleasure?
Not according to any Founder at the time, as Madison himself explained, many years later:
"Nothing can be more clear than that the Constitution of the U. S. has created a Government, in as strict a sense of the term, as the Governments of the States created by their respective Constitutions." The Constitution makes Federal government as valid as any state government.
"In forming this compound scheme of Government it was impossible to lose sight of the question, what was to be done in the event of controversies which could not fail to occur, concerning the partition line, between the powers belonging to the Federal and to the State Govts."
Next Madison lists methods for resolving such issues:
"The provision immediately and ordinarily relied on, is manifestly the Supreme Court of the U. S., clothed as it is, with a Jurisdiction "in controversies to which the U. S. shall be a party;" the Court itself being so constituted as to render it independent & impartial in its decisions; [see Federalist, no. 39] whilst other and ulterior resorts would remain in the elective process, in the hands of the people themselves the joint constituents of the parties; and in the provision made by the Constitution for amending itself.
All other resorts are extra & ultra constitutional, corresponding to the Ultima Ratio [last resort] of nations renouncing the ordinary relations of peace."
So read that again: going outside Constitutional provisions means war.
"It is the nature & essence of a compact that it is equally obligatory on the parties to it, and of course that no one of them can be liberated therefrom without the consent of the others, or such a violation or abuse of it by the others, as will amount to a dissolution of the compact."
"Applying a like view of the subject to the case of the U. S. it results, that the compact being among individuals as imbodied into States, no State can at pleasure release itself therefrom, and set up for itself.
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."
Sure, Madison's words here were written long afterwards, but the fact is that no words by any Founder ever directly contradict him, at least none that I've ever seen.
Kalamata to OIFVeteran:
"Don't forget.
Lincoln approved the secession of West Virginia from Virginia, which destroyed that union.
So, he was also a hypocrite." Nonsense, because West Virginia met both of our Founders' criteria for lawful disunion:
- Absolute necessity caused by Virginia's unlawful secession and declared war against the United States.
- Mutual consent by both the Virginia legislature and the US Congress.
By stark contrast, neither necessity nor mutual consent to secession existed in 1860.
It's also significant that Virginians themselves recognize the validity of West Virginia's independence.
Kalamata: "You have again taken Madison' statement completely out of context.
If your interpretation was correct, we would not have the Bill of Rights."
And that's just a flat-out lie, Kalamata demonstrating yet again that he was born with the mind of a Democrat, born to lie he resorts to lies whenever his own weak, weak arguments collapse.
Kalamata: "That same fellow, Alexander Hamilton, approved the New York Ratification document that stated: "That the Powers of Government may be reassumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness."
The key word there is "necessary", "necessity" being the opposite of "at pleasure".
"Necessary" is the word our Founders used in their 1776 Declaration as justifying disunion, with a two-dozen strong parade of horribles to illustrate what "necessity" means.
No Founder ever suggested or supported an unlimited "right of secession" at pleasure.
Kalamata on Pinckney's anti-disunion quote: "He doesn't say what you say he said.
You spun his words from being a proposal into a done-deal.
You are not being a straight shooter."
And yet again, faced with the truth from Founder Pinckney, Kalamata simply lies about it -- a Democrat doing what Democrats naturally do.
Kalamata to OIFVeteran: "Why are you so desperate for our government to be all powerful?
Don't you realize how dangerous that is?
Besides, I thought you supported the Constitution?"
And now, having first lied his way through the facts, our Democrat Kalamata's grand finale is a barrage of false accusations.
Can anybody doubt that having a Democrat brain is a form of political mental illness? ![]()