Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

To: lentulusgracchus
Quote it. In full.

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.

253 posted on 04/17/2005 3:21:41 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 247 | View Replies ]


To: Non-Sequitur
[You, quoting the Tenth Amendment] "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."

I was thinking of Article IV, but show me how this Amendment prohibits the People of the States from resuming their powers as Sovereigns under God, and seceding. I don't see it. Did you post it in a very small font? In white?

Black letters, please.

Here, meanwhile, is your hero Hamilton, in Federalist 84, on the question in hand:

It has been several times truly remarked that bills of rights are, in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgements of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince. Such was MAGNA CHARTA, obtained by the barons, sword in hand, from King John. Such were the subsequent confirmations of that charter by succeeding princes. Such was the PETITION OF RIGHT assented to by Charles I., in the beginning of his reign. Such, also, was the Declaration of Right presented by the Lords and Commons to the Prince of Orange in 1688, and afterwards thrown into the form of an act of parliament called the Bill of Rights. It is evident, therefore, that, according to their primitive signification, they have no application to constitutions professedly founded upon the power of the people, and executed by their immediate representatives and servants. Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing; and as they retain every thing they have no need of particular reservations.[Emphasis supplied.]

That includes sovereignty, and the right to sit in convention as Sovereign, and the right to withdraw from the Union.

If the People didn't have the right to withdraw from the Union, to avoid oppression, why did Madison keep talking about secession?

Hamilton didn't think it was necessary, but he didn't say it was impossible or illegal: here he is in Federalist 85:

The zeal for attempts to amend, prior to the establishment of the Constitution, must abate in every man who is ready to accede to the truth of the following observations of a writer equally solid and ingenious:
"To balance a large state or society, says he, whether monarchical or republican, on general laws, is a work of so great difficulty, that no human genius, however comprehensive, is able, by the mere dint of reason and reflection, to effect it. The judgments of many must unite in the work; experience must guide their labor; time must bring it to perfection, and the feeling of inconveniences must correct the mistakes which they INEVITABLY fall into in their first trials and experiments."

These judicious reflections contain a lesson of moderation to all the sincere lovers of the Union, and ought to put them upon their guard against hazarding anarchy, civil war, a perpetual alienation of the States from each other, and perhaps the military despotism of a victorious demagogue, in the pursuit of what they are not likely to obtain, but from time and experience.
[Edited for small typos and added emphasis; the quote is from Hume's Essays.]

258 posted on 04/17/2005 9:49:03 PM PDT by lentulusgracchus ("Whatever." -- sinkspur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 253 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson