The Constitution does not contain the word secession on way or the other. But the Constitution says that the states cannot enter into treaties, confederations or engage in war apart from the United States. Without the powers prohibited in Article 1, Section 10, secession would be no more than a bunch of power-grabbing politicians making useless noise. And in the end, the secessions produced nothing more lasting than hot air and a trail of misery.
"The Constitution flatly and clearly says that states may not exercise sovereign powers" - so long as they remain members of the union. Once a State retires from the union, that prohibition is obviously no longer applicable.
You're adding words to the Constitution again. There's nothing in the Constitution that limits its authority as the supreme law of the land to the a period of time that states remain in the Union. What I'm getting at with my awkward logic and prose, Lincoln got at clearly and more succinctly when he said no government contained provision for its own dissolution.
I will gladly limit myself to the specific written terms of the US Constitution of 1860 - which no where prohibits State secession.
Where is the provision for state secession in the Constitution in 1860? I see powers prohibited to the states in Article 1, Section 10. I see a 10th Amendment yielding the powers that have not been prohibited to the states. But Article 1, Section 10 has prohibited actions of sovereignty to the states so the 10th Amendment does not negate Article 1, Section 10. Where then in the Constitution is there a negation of the restriction contained in Article 1 Section 10?
Once a State had "retired" from the union, it was obviously not bound by those restrictions.
And in the end, the secessions produced nothing more lasting than hot air and a trail of misery.
Yes, I've heard it before here, on more occasions than I care to remember - 'Might Makes Right.'
You're adding words to the Constitution again. There's nothing in the Constitution that limits its authority as the supreme law of the land to the a period of time that states remain in the Union.
Oh, give me a break.
What I'm getting at with my awkward logic and prose, Lincoln got at clearly and more succinctly when he said no government contained provision for its own dissolution.
Sorry, my friend, but how freaking WRONG can you be? Allow me to refer you to Article V of the United States Constitution:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress...
There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that prevents the States from convening in a Constitutional Convention, and TERMINATING the existing federal government. I know that it is news to most Americans, but the federal government is a creature of the States; and the States and their people can completely eliminate it whensoever they choose...
Where is the provision for state secession in the Constitution in 1860? ...I see a 10th Amendment yielding the powers that have not been prohibited to the states.
there you go!
;>)
But Article 1, Section 10 has prohibited actions of sovereignty to the states so the 10th Amendment does not negate Article 1, Section 10. Where then in the Constitution is there a negation of the restriction contained in Article 1 Section 10?
Wrong - Article 1, Section 10 does not prohibit "actions of sovereignty;" it prohibits certain specified ('enumerated') actions - not including State secession...