That assertion is explicitly contradicted by John Quincy Adams, whom you quote, and who in your own excerpt makes an explicit distinction between the states and the PEOPLE. He also says here in the same pasage::
Adams observed: "In the calm hours of self-possession, the right of a State to nullify an act of Congress, is too absurd for argument and too odious for discussion. The right of a state to secede from the Union, is equally disowned by the principles of the Declaration of Independence." Adams's fundamental argument was that no right of state secession or nullification existed under the Constitution because the right to revolution was a natural right of the people. "To the people alone is there reserved, as well the dissolving, as the constituent power, and that power can be exercised by them only under the tie of conscience,
The right to secede, According to JQA, belongs to the PEOPLE, not the states. The reason is that states do not have rights; they have POWERS. Only the PEOPLE have rights.
Cordially,
Don’t quote Adams. He was just another Yankee who thought “he knew better” and wouldn’t know what a republic was if it had bit him on the arse.
Obviously JQA either had a problem with interpreting what he read or had an agenda. Personally, I think it was the latter.
Lets take a look at what the language of the declaration itself stating with the title which is:
"The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America".(emphasis added)
In the document itself we find this also:
"We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do." (emphasis added)
Why would they use language identifying themselves as "free and independent states" unless that was EXACTLY what they meant themselves to be?
Some years later delegate to the Constitutional Convention Luthur Martin stated the fact of this outright when he said "At the separation from the British empire, the people of America preferred the establishment of themselves into thirteen separate sovereignties, instead of incorporating themselves into one." (Elliot's Debates, Vol 5, pp 217-218)
There are many other examples that prove their intent as well but folks like JQA wanted an Empire and finally got it when Mr. Lincoln and his armies converted the Republic into the mercantile empire we suffer today.
Here Mr. Adams is again wrong!
The free and independent states created the Constitution through their representatives at the convention and the STATES ratified that Constitution. There was never any intent by anyone that 9 judges be the sole arbiters of what is and is not Constitutional. Every member of both houses of congress and the president swear and oath that they will, to the best of their abilities, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States and the states who created the union have an absolute right to determine for themselves whether or not an act of congress is constitutional as well.
Adams observed: "In the calm hours of self-possession, the right of a State to nullify an act of Congress, is too absurd for argument and too odious for discussion. The right of a state to secede from the Union, is equally disowned by the principles of the Declaration of Independence."
This refers only to specific political acts, not secession.
Adams's fundamental argument was that no right of state secession or nullification existed under the Constitution because the right to revolution was a natural right of the people. "To the people alone is there reserved, as well the dissolving, as the constituent power, and that power can be exercised by them only under the tie of conscience,
This is politically impractical position. The people have need of an authoritative body to peaceably revolt. By your argument the only revolution or 'secession' must be bloody. By fortune we have such authoritative bodies in our states. If the contract has been violated, we may continue to adhere for expediency's sake and false peace. Nevertheless, we may with the fellow citizens of our sovereign state void the violated contract because each state is sovereign.
The other post was a bit hasty. Adam's is mistaken, not you. No right to secede? Secession is a form of unbloody revolution which is not governed by the Constitution (nor mentioned except perhaps in Amendment X). Certainly a breech of the Constitution by Federal government requires recourse other than the Courts and yet short of revolution. Moreover, it seems that the most effective kind of revolution can only be carried out through the States in order to maintain order.
You yourself seem to see this in your slip in mentioning the citizens right to secede.