Posted on 02/25/2004 11:52:26 AM PST by 4CJ
CONGRESS SET THE PROCESS OF PROOF IN 1790.
Secession is neither a Legislative nor Judicial Act. Secession is not a document. "Proving an Act" pursuant to Art 4, Sec 1, involves a showing that a document provided for use in court is authentic. For a Legislative Act, affixation of the official seal of the state is the prescribed method to "Prove an Act." The Congress not only MAY prescribe laws for states to prove their acts, CONGRESS ENACTED SUCH LAWS.
U.S. CONST. Art 4, Sec 1
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
The Act of May 26, 1790 (1 Stat. 122) states
"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
That the acts of the legislatures of the several states shall be authenticated by having the seal of their respective states affixed thereto:
That the records and judicial proceedings of the courts of any state, shall be proved or admitted in any other court within the United States, by the attestation of the clerk, and the seal of the court annexed, if there be a seal, together with a certificate of the judge, chief justice, or presiding magistrate, as the case may be, that the said attestation is in due form."
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/28/parts/v/chapters/115/sections/section%5F1738.html
United States Code
TITLE 28 - JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE
PART V - PROCEDURE
CHAPTER 115 - EVIDENCE; DOCUMENTARY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Code as of: 01/22/02
Section 1738. State and Territorial statutes and judicial proceedings; full faith and credit
The Acts of the legislature of any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States, or copies thereof, shall be authenticated by affixing the seal of such State, Territory or Possession thereto.
The records and judicial proceedings of any court of any such State, Territory or Possession, or copies thereof, shall be proved or admitted in other courts within the United States and its Territories and Possessions by the attestation of the clerk and seal of the court annexed, if a seal exists, together with a certificate of a judge of the court that the said attestation is in proper form.
Such Acts, records and judicial proceedings or copies thereof, so authenticated, shall have the same full faith and credit in every court within the United States and its Territories and Possessions as they have by law or usage in the courts of such State, Territory or Possession from which they are taken.
=================
Where do you get that from? There is nothing in the Constitution which prevents a state from being expelled, so your talk about secession and new republic is ridiculous. We aren't forming a new republic, we're expelling Massachusetts from our existing one. So we just do it. Tell Massachusetts that they are no longer a state, redo the flag, put customs posts around the border, cut off social security payments, etc., and it's done. Hell, we wouldn't need 49 states, just a majority vote in Congress to pass the legislation cutting off Massachusetts from the rest of us. Why isn't it as easy as that?
Article V - [N]o State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
You're wasting a lot of bandwidth to post the exact same novel 5 or 6 times.
If they are expelled then they are no longer a state, are they?
It is not a requirement, and if it were, it was already met.
Once again you've turned our republic on it's head. The Constitution acts as chains on the power of fedgov; the 10th Amendment thereto insures that it shall never be reversed. Expulsion of a state by federal action would be an unenumerated power and thus the only way it can exist would be if it were necessary and proper to carry out one of the enumerated powers. It is not.
This is the same bass-ackward interpretation of our system of government that you've used a hundred times in justifying suspension of habeus corpus. Expulsion of a state is an unenumerated power. Suspension of the writ is specifically delegated to the legislature. "It's not in there" is the admission that you make. What does the BOR say about powers that are "not in there?" How is it the most basic elements of Republican government escape you?
Others share your views of the Constitution. They are not to be found on a website dedicated to the advancement of conservatism.
For which constitutionally enumerated power is expulsion of a state necessary and proper?
Specifically, what part of "without its Consent" don't you understand? You think it's ok for a state to be kicked out against it's will, but wrong to leave voluntarily?
There is nothing in the Constitution mentioning expulsion. Since it is not enumerated then it is not forbidden to the states, is it? And there is nothing in the Constitution defining 'necessary and proper'. So why can't the states expel another state for any reason at all?
Specifically, what part of 'no longer a state' don't you understand? Only states are guaranteed representation in the Congress. If Massachusetts is expelled then they are not in the Union and cannot demand representation in Congress. Where is that forbidden?
You think it's ok for a state to be kicked out against it's will, but wrong to leave voluntarily?
And you think it is OK to leave without the consent of the other states, but not OK for the other states to expel one without its consent. Where is either one forbidden?
I'm not talking about Bush getting a wild hair up his butt and kicking out Massachusetts. I'm asking why the states, through a vote of their representatives in Congress, cannot expel another state? Where is that power forbidden to the states? And where is this Constitutional acid test that determines when action is 'necessary and proper' and when it is not?
Fess up... What country do you live in?
How can a state government expel another from the federal Union through unilateral action by the first at the state level?
Like #3, you get points for originality.
A vote of their representatives in Congress would be a federal act, and thus must fall within the enumerated powers of the federal legislature.
And where is this Constitutional acid test that determines when action is 'necessary and proper' and when it is not?
The Constitutional acid test that determines when action is constitutionally derived currently lies with the Supreme Court via their usurpation of this power in Marbury v. Madison.
Let me ask this again. What section of the Constitution prevents the states (plural) from expelling another state? Why could not the states, through a majority vote of their members in Congress, expel Massachusetts? What specifically forbids them from doing so? Where is this power explicitly denied the states? And if not denied them, then doesn't the 10th Amendment allows them to do it?
Like #3, you get points for originality.
I could never even hope to match your posts for originality.
"May" means they must be allowed to set the process for secession. Marriage was not secession, secession is a state act.
Why? Is it not the states in Congress assembled? Do they not represent the will of the people of those states? Such a vote would still express the will of the states and, since not forbidden, should be able to expel Massachusetts. Shouldn't it?
The Constitutional acid test that determines when action is constitutionally derived currently lies with the Supreme Court via their usurpation of this power in Marbury v. Madison.
Where did the Marbury v Madison decision state that?
You point is EXACTLY why the clause was added to Article V on 15 Sep 1787:
'Mr. Sherman expressed his fears that three fourths of the States might be brought to do things fatal to particular States, as abolishing them altogether or depriving them of their equality in the Senate.'Accordingly,
'M--Sherman moved according to his idea above expressed to annex to the end of the article a further proviso "that no State shall without its consent be affected in its internal police, or deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate."'Which failed 8-3, then Morris moved that it be changed to,
'"that no State, without its consent shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate"'Which passed without debate.
[non-seq] If they are expelled then they are no longer a state, are they?
Clearly the states of the Confederacy were out of the Union while the Radical Republicans prohibited their senators from being seated.
We have a precedent for kicking Massachusetts out.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.