You'll tell any kind of lie.
Jefferson wasn't the only framer. I notice you can't quote him.
It is just so funny on one level that this nonsense of legal secession is constantly put forward in the face of the facts, the clear words of the particpants, and just plain common sense. The president of the Constitutional Convention stated plainly that the goal of every true American was the consolidation of the Union. He presented the Constitution to the Continental Congress as a document binding on the states. The Judicary Act of 1789 gave the federal government clear power to strike down state laws. The Militia ct of 1792 gives the president the power to put down insurection against a state or the United States.
In the opinions in one of the very first cases to reach the Supreme Court in 1793, the Justices write:
"As to the purposes of the Union, therefore, Georgia is not a sovereign state."
And:
"We may then infer, that the people of the United States intended to bind the several states, by the legislative power of the national government...Whoever considers, in a combined and comprehensive view, the general texture of the constitution, will be satisfied that the people of the United States intended to form themselves into a nation for national purposes."
And:
"Here we see the people acting as the sovereigns of the whole country; and in the language of sovereignty, establishing a Constitution by which it was their will, that the state governments should be bound, and to which the State Constitutions should be made to conform."
Now it seems to me that when the Supreme Court, in one of its its very first cases, comes down so hard on the side of the federal government, that the States should act to protect their rights. But they did not. This states' rights nonsense did not rear its head until it suited certain factions in the south, and for the most heinous of reasons. And I know all about the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions, and the Hartford conventions and similar rumblings under the Constitution earlier than the civil war era. The point is you have the Supreme Court saying Georgia is not a sovereign state. Georgia's reaction in 1793? Zilch. Trying to break away 70 years later seems...sort of cheesy.
And interpreting the Constitution as a compact of sovereign states flies in the face of common sense. The Articles of Confederation were a failure. Of them Washington said:
"What stronger evidence can be given of the want of energy in our government than these disorders? If there exists not a power to check them, what security has a man of life, liberty, or property? To you, I am sure I need not add aught on this subject, the consequences of a lax or inefficient government, are too obvious to be dwelt on. Thirteen sovereignties pulling against each other, and all tugging at the federal head, will soon bring ruin to the whole; whereas a liberal, and energetic Constitution, well guarded and closely watched, to prevent encroachments, might restore us to that degree of respectability and consequence, to which we had a fair claim, and the brightest prospect of attaining..."
George Washington to James Madison November 5, 1786,
having said prior to the Constitutional Convention:
"I do not conceive we can exist long as a nation, without having lodged somewhere a power which will pervade the whole Union in as energetic a manner, as the authority of the different state governments extends over the several states. To be fearful of vesting Congress, constituted as that body is, with ample authorities for national purposes, appears to me to be the very climax of popular absurdity and madness."
George Washington to John Jay, 15 August 1786
A compact of sovereign states would have been even less efficient and less able to act that the the government under the Articles.
Old GW wasn't mincing his words. Makes you wonder how his image got shanghaied onto the greal seal of the CSA, doesn't it?
"It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that Resolves and Ordinances to that effect are legally void; and that acts of violence, within any State or States, against the authority of the United States, are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances."
3/4/61
Arguments for state's rights simply crumble when exposed to the words of the people of the day. Let me leave you with one last quote:
"It is idle to talk of secession." R.E. Lee 1861
Walt
You describe yourself, Walt, better than any other poster on this thread with that statement and your embarrassing recent behavior validates this. You fibbed when you claimed that ideas of secession were made up generations after the founders, when several cases exist where showing this to be in error. You may be mad that I called you on it or that others have called you on it, but that is no reason to project your fault of habitual dishonesty onto innocent others.
Jefferson wasn't the only framer. I notice you can't quote him.
Exactly what are you smoking, Walt? I quoted him directly in my previous post. Here it is again.
"The future inhabitants of the Atlantic & Missipi States will be our sons. We leave them in distinct but bordering establishments. We think we see their happiness in their union, & we wish it. Events may prove it otherwise; and if they see their interest in separation, why should we take side with our Atlantic rather than our Missipi descendants? It is the elder and the younger son differing. God bless them both, & keep them in union, if it be for their good, but separate them, if it be better." - Jefferson, August 12, 1803
It is just so funny on one level that this nonsense of legal secession is constantly put forward in the face of the facts, the clear words of the particpants, and just plain common sense.
Again, Walt, that you personally do not like the facts may make you mad, but that is no reason to project your fault of willful ignorance onto innocent others.
The president of the Constitutional Convention stated plainly that the goal of every true American was the consolidation of the Union.
And so he may have. What you fail to note, though, is the distinction between asserting a consolidated union to be a worthiable goal and asserting that union to be an unbreakable permanent fixture. Like it or not, Walt, you are notorious for taking quotes - any quote - from various founders where the word "union" is simply mentioned in any number of contexts or meanings, and upon the simple mention of that word you declare it to be a ringing endorsement of The Lincoln. That is called fraud, Walt, and you commit it daily.