Well then let's just a look at what YOU posted.
I'm not sure whether everyone is properly getting St. George Tucker's drift. Tucker was an abolitionist, seeking a manner to choke off slavery, albeit without calamitous injury to the slave-holding states.
"Whilst America hath been the land of promise to Europeans and their descendants, it hath been the vale of death to millions of the wretched sons of Africa…Whilst we were offering up vows at the shrine of Liberty... whilst we swore irreconcilable hostility to her enemies... whilst we adjured the God of Hosts to witness our resolution to live free or die; we were imposing on our fellow men, who differ from us in complexion, a slavery ten thousand times more cruel than the utmost extremity of those grievances and oppressions, of which we complained".Tucker isn't arguing that the sovereignty of the states can be grasped back from the federal government; he is arguing that the sovereignty is not diminished while they operate within the federal government, since their union was voluntary.
OK!
Your quote is not relating to the issue of secession, but is an explanation of the tenth amendment. In fact, your citation is a misquote:
The portion I quoted was taken directly from the source with modification of any kind!
The twelfth article of the amendments to the constitution of the United States, declares, that 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.Funny, how your citation missed the part about the sovereignty being now united with the other states, united and modified.The powers absolutely prohibited to the states by the constitution, are, shortly, contained in article 1. section 10. viz.
1. No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance or confederation.
2. Nor grant letters of marque and reprisal.
3. Nor coin money.
4. Nor emit bills of credit.
5. Nor make any thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts.
6. Nor pass any bill of attainder.
7. Nor any expost facto law.
8. Nor any law impairing the obligation of contracts.
9. Nor grant any title of nobility. . . . Concerning all which, we shall make some few observations hereafter.
All other powers of government whatsoever, except these, and such as fall properly under the first or third heads above-mentioned, consistent with the fundamental laws, nature, and principle of a democratic state, are therefore reserved to the state governments.
What do you imagine that he meant by this? I maintain that he meant EXACTLY what he said in plain English! i.e. that their powers were diminished ONLY to the extent they had agreed to in the above listed items.
From this view of the powers delegated to the federal government, it will clearly appear, that those exclusively granted to it have no relation to the domestic economy of the state. The right of property, with all it's train of incidents, except in the case of authors, and inventors, seems to have been left exclusively to the state regulations; and the rights of persons appear to be no further subject to the control of the federal government, than may be necessary to support the dignity and faith of the nation in it's federal or foreign engagements, and obligations; or it's existence and unity as the depositary and administrator of the political councils and measures of the united republics. . . . Crimes and misdemeanors, if they affect not the existence of the federal government; or those objects to which it's jurisdiction expressly extends, however heinous in a moral light, are not cognizable by the federal courts; unless committed within certain fixed and determinate territorial limits, to which the exclusive legislative power granted to congress, expressly extends. Their punishment, in all other cases, exclusively, belongs to the state jurisprudence.
I suggest that you read the above paragraph VERY carefully and try to understand what he says therein!
The federal government then, appears to be the organ through which the united republics communicate with foreign nations, and with each other. Their submission to it's operation is voluntary: it's councils, it's engagements, it's authority are theirs, modified, and united. (but only to the extent that they have expressly agreed to modify and unite them. I find no article, item or phrase within the Constitution which grants the federal government the power to hold anyone in that voluntary union at the point of a bayonet! Perhaps I missed that and you will be kind enough to show that to me!) It's sovereignty is an emanation from theirs, not a flame by which they have been consumed, nor a vortex in which they are swallowed up. Each is still a perfect state, still sovereign, still independent, and still capable, should the occasion require, to resume the exercise of it's functions, as such, in the most unlimited extent.
(Did you perhaps miss this VERY important sentence?)But until the time shall arrive when the occasion requires a resumption of the rights of sovereignty by the several states (and far be that period removed when it shall happen) the exercise of the rights of sovereignty by the states individually, is wholly suspended, or discontinued, (Why did you conveniently neglect to include the words immediately following this in those that you bolded? Here! Let me correct that for you!) in the cases before mentioned: nor can that suspension ever be removed, so long as the present constitution remains unchanged, but by the dissolution of the bonds of union. An event which no good citizen can wish, and which no good, or wise administration will ever hazard.
I missed no such thing! I simply have the ability to read and correctly interpret the plain English language of the text.
"But isn't he still recognizing the right to secede? He says it cannot be removed except by the dissolution of the bonds of union?," you ask. "Does he not reserve the right of administration to be foolish? Or of a citizen to be bad?"
He does not write that "no correct citizen" could wish for dissolution; rather, he states that "no good citizen" could wish for it. To wish for dissolution, in other words, is to be inherently a bad citizen. Thus, we can imagine that the union is not to be broken by legal secession, but may be against the desire of the sovereignties by calamity, such as invasion, treachery, or unimaginable calamity.
No good citizen may wish for any number of things but that does not mean that events won't force him to undertake those very things in the future if he wishes to remain FREE!
Really? Try this one on for size. Article 1, Section 8:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, ...to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress insurrections...Keep reading that one over and over again. Congress has the expressly stated authority to call forth the military to execute the Laws of the Union.
>> What do you imagine that he meant by this? I maintain that he meant EXACTLY what he said in plain English! i.e. that their powers were diminished ONLY to the extent they had agreed to in the above listed items. <<
And one of the listed items was "No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance or confederation... nor any law impairing the obligation of contracts." (Aside: "Marriage reform" laws -- that is, "no-fault divorce" laws -- are unconstitutional!)
>> What do you imagine that he meant by this? I maintain that he meant EXACTLY what he said in plain English! i.e. that their powers were diminished ONLY to the extent they had agreed to in the above listed items. <<
You mean like here:?
The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.Perhaps you don't understand "ratification." Once an agreement is ratified, it must be honored, except under the terms for withdrawal under the agreement. Otherwise, contracts, treaties, constitutions, etc., are meaningless.
>> Why did you conveniently neglect to include the words immediately following this in those that you bolded? Here! Let me correct that for you!)<<
I published them. I did not have to delete any portions because I found them destructive to my argument.
>> I missed no such thing! I simply have the ability to read and correctly interpret the plain English language of the text <<
And to remove entirely, without elision, the portions that disprove your case? Your citation lacked entirely the phrase, "it's councils, it's engagements, it's authority are theirs, modified, and united."
dangus - Perhaps your reference to a misquote is directed to me? If so, for the sake of bandwidth, I would direct you back to Bigun's post 242.