Replies

James Madison talks out both sides of his mouth. His actions contradict his own statements. James Madison was on the Virginia committee which created Virginia's ratification statement...

So your argument is that people can't "evolve" their thinking, that we are all locked into the things we said 40 years ago?

Didn't the Framers admit that the Constitution wasn't perfect and they may not have gotten it all correct, hence the amendment process to enable it to adapt to growth, technology advances, and social change?

There is other evidence, but this is all I wish to put forth off the top of my head, and what do you have to support your side? ...What i've put forth is better evidence, and more authoritative.

What about SCOTUS with Texas vs. White (1868)? See here and here.

-PJ

So your argument is that people can't "evolve" their thinking, that we are all locked into the things we said 40 years ago?

My argument is that Madison can think what he wants, but his evolution in thinking won't change what the legislature did in 1788. Madison was part of the body that wrote Virginia could leave. If he changes his mind about it later, so what? The legislature has already spoken.

Do you know of an amendment that prevents secession? If there isn't one, then the constitution allows it.

What about SCOTUS with Texas vs. White (1868)?

What about it? One arm of the government is justifying what another arm of the government wants. Did you think they would do otherwise?

I recall what chief Justice Salmon P. Chase said to federal prosecutors attempting to convict Jefferson Davis of "treason." He advised them against it.

"You will lose in court everything you won on the battlefield." and "Secession is not rebellion."

Of course he was presiding in Texas vs White so he was probably just bluffing about reversing what the army had gained.

So your argument is that people can't "evolve" their thinking, that we are all locked into the things we said 40 years ago? Didn't the Framers admit that the Constitution wasn't perfect and they may not have gotten it all correct, hence the amendment process to enable it to adapt to growth, technology advances, and social change?

The Constitution is a contract between states as well as states and the federal government. The only way it changes is the amending process. It doesn't "evolve". What matters is what states agreed to at the time that they ratified the constitution. Its clear they intended for states to have a unilateral right of secession. They openly said so at the time.

What about SCOTUS with Texas vs. White (1868)? See here and here.

What about it? This was an after the fact justification by a court the majority of whom were nominated by Lincoln. What did anybody expect them to say - that the federal government had been wrong all along?