Replies

And a comedian as well. Don't quit your day job.

And yet another non sequitur from Non-Sequitur.

Yawn...

There is nothing [in the Constitution] that prohibits secession. But Article IV says that a state can be admitted only with consent of the other states, as expressed through a vote in Congress. Once allowed to join, Article IV and Article I say that a state cannot partition or join with another state without approval of Congress and cannot change their border by a fraction of an inch without consent of Congress. Implied in this is the need to obtain the approval of the other states when leaving as well.

Please see Article I, Section 2, Clause 2:

"No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen."

Under your sorry substitute for rational thought, because the Constitution specifies requirements for the admission of an elected representative to Congress, the Constitution also 'implies' that the federal government can prevent (apparently under the threat of lethal, military force) the resignation of a representative from Congress.

Congratulations, on yet another non sequitur.

So you say that the Southern states claimed the compact was violated, and this gave them the right to leave. The Northern states say it was not, and their leaving was illegal. What made the Southern states right and the Northern states wrong?

If you are attempting to suggest that the Northern States proclaimed, in writing, in public, that their opposition to State secession was based upon Thomas Jefferson's view of State's rights, by all means please provide a citation.

So why should we believe his public writings express his true beliefs since you seem to believe he was merely trying to peddle the Constitution to a skeptical population?

Fine - let's skip the writings (public or private) of James Madison. Where's your argument without them (i.e., his later, "confidential," entirely private writings)? You are still left with your admission that "[t]here is nothing [in the Constitution] that prohibits secession."

You misunderstand me. By all the impacted parties I meant both sides of the equation, those leaving and those staying. I did not mean to imply that unanimous approval of all states would be needed.

Your argument is absolutely nonsensical - based on your reasoning (that the departure of a State from the union required the "approval" of "those leaving and those staying"), the first nine States to ratify the new Constitution were required to obtain the "approval" of the non-ratifying States to do so - where, precisely, was that requirement spelled out, in writing, in the Constitution? You might have an argument based on Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation, but that specific requirement was blatantly ignored by the specific written terms of the Constitution, by those promoting the adoption of the new Constitution, and by the ratifying States.

Just a suggestion, but you might try to find an argument that is not self-contradictory (of course, you are our own, beloved "Non-Sequitur" ;>)...