Posted on 05/09/2006 8:33:28 PM PDT by stainlessbanner
Oh nonsense. The Constitution that I've read and that I understand places a lot of restrictions on the states. A state will have a Republican form of government. No other form is allowed regardless. A state will not enter into a treaty, alliance, or confederation with a foreign government. It will not coin money or pass certain kinds of laws or grant a title of nobility. It will not, without consent of the other states, enact certain kinds of taxes or keep an army or navy or enter into any sort of agreement or compact with another state or deal with a foreign country at all. A state cannot send a 20 year old to Congress or decide how many representatives if will send, those decisions are made for it. If another state wants a person delivered up for trial then the Constitution says the state where his is must give him up. I guess you mean that the Constitution imposes no restrictions on the states except those, right? Oh wait, I suppose you will have us believe that these are "authority relinquished" not "restrictions imposed". Well if you take that tack then any act not authorized by the Constitution, be it expressed or implied, is "authority relinquished", right?
...the die hard FEDERALIST James Madison...
I like Madison, too. Madison once posed the question, "An inference from the doctrine that a single State has the right to secede at will from the rest is that the rest would have an equal right to secede from it; in other words, to turn it, against its will, out of its union with them." Is Madison wrong? What part of the Constitution forbids it?
Oh, give me a break. One doesn't need to read every source available to the Philadelphia convention in order to understand the plain language of the US Constitution. Should I consult "Scottish Law" as well?
They needed no permission. Just like you ask permission to join an organization, yet do not have to have its permission to leave. If you have to have permission, you are no longer free to associate.
South Carolina solemnly swore to uphold and abide by the US Constitution when it joined the Union. Article 3 Section 2 of said document states that
"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;"
Are you prepared to blithely tell us that South Carolina's withdrawal from the Union (based on it's interpretation of the US Constitution) was just a formality and NOT a legal matter involving the entire United States?
The States possess these rights of freedom of association as well.
Nonsense. The States were prohibited in numerous way from "freely associating" with each other and with other countries. A little more review of the US Constitution and a little less reliance 16th century French philosophy would greatly help your analysis.
Because a territory is an unorganized State, Congress can do as it wishes.
Agreed, and the Federal government had done nothing with regard to restricting slavery where it existed. South Carolina had no legitimate complaint of Federal abuse when it withdrew. In fact, it was the Northern States burdened with the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 who could legitimately complain that their "states rights" were being stepped on.
Where is the Amendment that says a State must stay? Where is the Amendment that allow morality to supersede the Constitution? Where does it give the federal government or any other States the ability to force their will on another state?
Hmm, I'm curious to know if you think the proposed "marriage amendment" to the Constitution is a means of some States "forcing their will" on other States, or allowing "morality to supersede the Constitution"?
What was it?
And really, if you get right down to it, secession was legal or no, depending on the viewpoint
I'll concede the legality of secession, if you'll concede that it was indeed a matter of Constitutional law. The Taney court had just upheld slaveholders rights in the Dred Scott decision, and there was no reason to think it wouldn't uphold them again in the matter of South Carolina viz. The United States...provided there was a Federal abuse the secessionists could point to.
The point I'm making is that the Federal government was meeting its obligations to the State. It wasn't trying to abolish slavery as some here have asserted, so there was no justifiable reason for South Carolina to withdraw.
I guess you mean that the Constitution imposes no restrictions on the states except those, right?
BINGO!
-----
Well if you take that tack then any act not authorized by the Constitution, be it expressed or implied, is "authority relinquished", right?
If that were the case, why did the Founders bother enumerating anything?
Why not just say "We hereby created the United States...THE END!"
It would have taken up a whole helluva lot less of their time!
(GEESH!)
-----
"An inference from the doctrine that a single State has the right to secede at will from the rest is that the rest would have an equal right to secede from it; in other words, to turn it, against its will, out of its union with them."
Odd that putting your direct quote into Google pulled up 2 sites.
One is an anti succession website and the other is a chat board.
Unless you have another source? A Federalist paper? A letter? Any kind of PROOF Madison said that?
Hmmmmm?
We agree on that point perfectly. The truth is that Lincoln promised not to abolish slavery in states where it already existed. (of course, wether he would have kept his word is a point of conjecture, after all, he WAS a politician)
But....now there was another issue that was related: The issue being wether or not the Southern states felt threatened by the fact that Lincoln wasn't going to allow the spread of slavery, meaning that the South would eventually have been out-represented in Congress.....
Odd that putting your direct quote into Google pulled up 2 sites. One is an anti succession website and the other is a chat board. Unless you have another source? A Federalist paper? A letter? Any kind of PROOF Madison said that? Hmmmmm?
684 MamaTexan
Whether Madison posed the question is immaterial; -- the question remains valid..
Could the USA force a State out of the Union for implementing a non-republican form of government? [as California is close to doing] -- Obviously not.
The recourse to stop a rogue State, like CA, from violating our Constitution, -- is intervention to enforce Constitutional due process and the rule of law.
As I have been posting for quite some time to a FReeper who doesn't source anything, it is VERY MUCH material, thank you.
-----
Could the USA force a State out of the Union for implementing a non-republican form of government?
Yes, as the State would be in breech of contract.
(If you want to get technical, though, most states nowadays operate under the laws of a democracy more that a Republic, so they're all in breech of contract)
:-)
The Constitution guarantees us neither life, nor liberty.
Please explain the source of these rights as well as how they are guaranteed even though they are not specifically mentioned in the document.
-----
"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;"
The branches are separate, but equal. This means equal in ALL things.
Federal jurisdiction is defined in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17:
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
The Articles governing the legislature are first, because it is the most powerful branch. What regulates the first, regulates the rest.
Also, please see post #680
-----
The States were prohibited in numerous way from "freely associating" with each other and with other countries.
Please show me the Article and Clause that prohibits the States from 'freely associating' with one another.
-----
A little more review of the US Constitution and a little less reliance 16th century French philosophy would greatly help your analysis.
Or perhaps increase yours.
The Federalist Papers No. 78, Alexander Hamilton:
There is no position which depends on clearer principles than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.
-----
South Carolina had no legitimate complaint of Federal abuse when it withdrew.
And who is the judge of its 'legitimacy'? The federal government?
LOL!
-----
I'm curious to know if you think the proposed "marriage amendment" to the Constitution is a means of some States "forcing their will" on other States, or allowing "morality to supersede the Constitution"?
Morality can have no effect, as it is a purely artificial construct created by semi artificial constructs, or the 'States'.
A marriage amendment would be unconstitutional because the establishment of religion clause keeps the government from using a Biblical tenant as a basis for law....unless Congress acknowledges our rights come from nature, not government. Homosexuality is against natural law as it cannot provide for the perpetuation of the species.
(BTW- The States were never prohibited from acknowledging a religion, but the religion clauses were removed from State Constitutions during the glory of 'Reconstruction')
--- Please show me the declaratory clause in the Constitution that gives the government the authority to force a State to stay in the Union.
Non-Sequitur:
How about the Constitution itself? If the method that the southern states chose to leave was not allowed by the Constitution then those actions were, by definition, and insurrection. And the Constitution allowed the government to suppress insurrection.
And, -- the Constitution empowers Congress to enforce Art VI, Sec 4, to guarantee a Republican form of Government. -- Citizens deprived of our Constitutional form of government by a rogue State's insurrection can be protected by federal intervention.
Yes, as the State would be in breech of contract.
Would you like to source that unsupported opinion in Constitutional terms?
(If you want to get technical, though, most states nowadays operate under the laws of a democracy more that a Republic, so they're all in breech of contract) :-)
That's a not very humorous excuse, [everybody's doing it] -- instead of an argument.
So you do admit that the Constitution imposes restrictions on the states. Now you're arguing only those restrictions explicitly stated in the Constitution are allowed, ignoring Chief Justice Marshall's ruling on implied powers as outlined in McCullough v Maryland. And I guess there it dies, because I place the opinions of Marshall over yours. And you think you know more than John Marshall. And apparently nothing will every convince you different.
If that were the case, why did the Founders bother enumerating anything?
Where did the founders say they enumerated EVERYTHING? If they had then why the need for a Supreme Court and it's juristiction over the Constitution? Oh, I forget. In your world we're dealing with that pesky unconstitutional Air Force and Coast Guard, not to mention that run away congress with their crazy ideas that they have any authority outside of the District of Columbia.
A Federalist paper? A letter? Any kind of PROOF Madison said that?
"The Writings of James Madison", Galliard Hunt edition, Vol. 9, page 497. OK?
Who decides it's in breech of contract?
Don't forget about that unconstitutional paper money.
As the Republican form of government is GUARENTEED AND ENUMERATED in the US Constitution's Article. IV, Section. 4, the federal government.
-----
And you still haven't sourced Madison's quote OR answered my question.
"--- why did the Founders bother enumerating anything? ---"
WHO'S AFRAID OF ENUMERATED RIGHTS?
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1635527/posts
You are correct for noticing my misstatement.
The US Constitution enumerates those powers designated to it by the States, who are thereby no longer authorized to exercise them.
Those enumerations being listed in Article I Section 8 of the Constitution.
-----
Where did the founders say they enumerated EVERYTHING?
ROFL!
Except one of the criteria for a legal contract is that all the terms have to be contained IN the contract.
That's why it's called FULL DISCLOSURE!
Keeps people from changing a contract after the fact, donchknow.
Your source is an edited version of Madison unavailable online.
Do you have an online source for the quote?
Does the federal government decide every breech of contract case?
What about Section 9? And Section 7? What about Article IV and Article V. Don't those count? And what about that pesky majority decision in McCullough v Maryland anyway?
Except one of the criteria for a legal contract is that all the terms have to be contained IN the contract.
If true then wouldn't the ability to leave without the approval of the other parties need to be contained IN the contract?
Keeps people from changing a contract after the fact, donchknow.
Isn't that the purpose of the Supreme Court?
Just websites that reference it and give the Hunt edition as it's source.
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.