That hardly qualifies as 'admitting that he was violating his oath of office to defend the US Constitution,' now does it?
Sure reads like that to me..
Be specific: what article, section and clause of the Constitution was he proposing to violate? If there was no violation of the Constitution, then there was no violation of his oath...
He was preparing to renounce any tie to the US Constitution or the Republic he swore an oath to support & defend..
-- Rather, it is a declaration by a Southern legislator that the Constitution itself (Amendment X) reserved the right of secession to the States and their people...
Nothing in the 10th reserves the right to break an oath to defend our Constitution. They should have fought to preserve the Constitution in court, not to violate it by secession & war.
Again, please be specific: what article, section and clause of the United States Constitution prohibits secession? Hmm?
None do, as you well know. It is mindboggling that you would assume that our Constitution would encourage secession as a viable option to using the due process of Constitutional law to solve political problems.
Absent that prohibition, or a delegation of power to prevent State secession to the federal government (feel free to quote that article, section and clause as well – if you think it exists), the 10th Amendment does indeed reserve the right of secession to the States and their people...
'Secessions' only existence is in the minds of those who oppose our Constitutional principles.
Those principles can be applied to the Federal government, by the States, to force the feds to comply, or vice versa.
The people have never authorized any level of government the power to violate our Constitution, nor to secede.
I would have liked to see you explain that one to Southerners in 1861....I bet you would have taken a long fall at the end of a very short rope........
Sorry – but that’s not unconstitutional. If it was, it would be unconstitutional for veterans to emigrate...
;>)
WIJG: Again, please be specific: what article, section and clause of the United States Constitution prohibits secession? Hmm?
j: None do, as you well know. It is mindboggling that you would assume that our Constitution would encourage secession as a viable option to using the due process of Constitutional law to solve political problems... 'Secessions' only existence is in the minds of those who oppose our Constitutional principles... The people have never authorized any level of government the power to violate our Constitution, nor to secede.
A few points:
Your argument is internally inconsistent. On the one hand, you admit that “none” of the Constitution's written provisions prohibit secession. On the other hand, you imply that secession would somehow “violate our Constitution.”
You are also incorrect regarding the “option” of secession as a solution to “political problems.” If the federal government had not exceeded its constitutional authority by using military force to prevent the secession of the Southern States, almost three-quarters of a million American lives might have been saved, and the Union would likely have been restored in a peaceful manner. That sounds like a better “option” to me.
Third, you are wrong when you state that “[t]he people have never authorized any level of government... to secede.” The people of Texas, Virginia, and Tennessee voted to approve the secession of their States. Furthermore, your statement (“The people have never authorized any level of government the power to violate our Constitution”) assumes that secession somehow violates the Constitution – when you previously acknowledged that “none” of the Constitution’s provisions prohibit secession.
In summary, thanks for your opinion – but it doesn’t have much of a foundation...
;>)