Replies

I also am aware of the existence of Robert Toombs' self-serving and poorly reasoned farewell address, as well as of the proceedings of the ratifying conventions, and of Madison's and Jefferson's surreptitiously written Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions (and their abject failure in their objects) and finally of Tucker's commentaries (which although cited by the US Supreme Court as valuable historical material are not some sort of "official" key to the US Constitution nor can they be).

I am likewise aware, "sport", that you have mentioned them purely as an exercise in namedropping without actually making a reasoned argument utilizing them as sources.

I am further aware that your inability to do so is based on the fact that there is no unitary and consistent argument to be found animating all these sources univocally. Any argument for secession using them would be cobbled together, by definition.

So spare us the empty, supercilious speechifying.

I also am aware of the existence of Robert Toombs' self-serving and poorly reasoned farewell address

Wrong again. Mr. Toombs' address was most certainly more rational than your posts here. If you take exception to any portion of it, please feel free to provide a citation, and a specific explanation of your grounds for disagreement. In fact, your unsubstantiated opinions 'take the cake' when it comes to "self-serving and poorly reasoned."

...as well as of the proceedings of the ratifying conventions, and of Madison's and Jefferson's surreptitiously written Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions (and their abject failure in their objects) and finally of Tucker's commentaries (which although cited by the US Supreme Court as valuable historical material are not some sort of "official" key to the US Constitution nor can they be).

I must assume, then, that your irrational opinions are based on willful ignorance.

I am likewise aware, "sport", that you have mentioned them purely as an exercise in namedropping without actually making a reasoned argument utilizing them as sources.

I'll allow Mr. Jefferson to make 'a reasoned argument' for me:

That the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a General Government for special purposes, -- delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force; that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.

In fact, sport, it is you who offer unsubstantiated opinions, and I doubt you've ever read the documents in question.

LOL! I'll make it easy for you, sport - tell us where Mr. Jefferson was wrong (please see the citation above). If you can 'cobble together' some kind of rational argument, perhaps we can move on to the other documents. If not (which is no doubt the case), you're wasting my time.

So spare us the empty, supercilious speechifying.

I have a better suggestion: spare us your ignorant, irrational opinions - it'll help save energy...