The following states ratification documents included NO signing statements or suggested amendments: Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia, Connecticut, Maryland, South Carolina & Vermont.
The following states ratification documents included a total of over 200 paragraphs of suggested amendments, Bills of Rights and signing statements: Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Virginia, New York, North Carolina & Rhode Island. Of these 200+ paragraphs, three use the words "reassumed" or "resumed" and "powers," but all three in relation to the people, not a state. And none use terms like "secession" or "withdrawal from the Union."
Of those 200+ signing paragraphs & recommended amendments, some were duplicates or later combined to make up the Constitution's Bill of Rights. ALL the rest, including "reassumed powers," have no legal standing whatever. That's my argument.
Now, you can easily refute my argument by simply providing links to Founding Documents which specifically recognize that any of those non-accepted recommendations have ANY standing in United States law.
Indeed, a logical thought process (which a disciple of Ayn Rand will surely appreciate) might proceed as follows: can words like "secession," or any of the three states' paragraphs referring to "reassumed powers" be found in:
So what are we really talking about here? Well, seems pretty obvious to me: secessionists' w*t dr**ms, or as the Disney folks might say: Constitutional Imagineering -- analagous to our liberals claims of finding stuff in its "penumbras & emanations." ;-)
BJ: ALL the rest, including "reassumed powers," have no legal standing whatever. That's my argument.
First, Post 2,206 was yours, not mine. You can't even get the simple facts straight.
Second, as I asked in Post 2,207: can you show us a document that supports your Post 2194 claim, that "[e]specially rejected was any language referring to powers 'reassumed,' or 'resumed,' by the people, or suggesting the possibility of states' unilateral secession?" The answer is, obviously not.
Now, you can easily refute my argument by simply providing links to Founding Documents which specifically recognize that any of those non-accepted recommendations have ANY standing in United States law.
"Recommendations?" We are discussing specific, written reservations of rights, not "recommendations." As I noted in Post 2,206, "your conflation of Virginia's reserved rights... with suggested amendments (clearly labeled as such) in the following paragraphs, is nothing but crude historical revisionism." You are simply repeating your previous revisionist efforts in this post.
Furthermore, you continue to ignore the Tenth Amendment, which declares (in short) that powers not delegated or prohibited by the Constitution are reserved to the States and their people. And the Constitution nowhere prohibited State secession.
So what are we really talking about here? Well, seems pretty obvious to me: secessionists' w*t dr**ms, or as the Disney folks might say: Constitutional Imagineering -- analagous to our liberals claims of finding stuff in its "penumbras & emanations." ;-)
Wrong again. I am talking about a government of limited, delegated powers, and the rule of written, constitutional law. You are talking about a government of unlimited powers - totalitarian "w*t dr**ms," or as Thomas Jefferson warned: making the Constitution a blank paper through construction -- absolutely identical to "our liberals claims of finding stuff in its 'penumbras & emanations.' "
;-)