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.' "
;-)
Look pal, you are making a specific argument here: that the US Constitution, or amendments, treaties, laws, supreme court rulings or regulations somehow make lawful, not just the vague & undefined terms of "powers" "reassumed (or resumed)" & "by the people" -- words found only in signing statements of three states, and nowhere else -- but specifically terms like: "unilateral secession" and "unapproved withdrawal from the union," which are found NOWHERE in ANY original Constitutional language.
But if you can show us where those specific terms ARE made lawful, I'll be most interested to see that.
WIJG: "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."
If terms like "unilateral secession" or "unapproved withdrawal from the Union" had been included in ANY of the original Constitutional language (i.e., Federalist Papers), and there noted favorably, then I would agree it might be considered part of the 10th Amendment. But nothing like that appears.
So consider what I've said before: the Constitution also does not specifically prohibit actions like unprovoked murders of federal officers. Does that in any way make such acts constitutional? Obviously not, and so with other serious acts, like secession.
Bottom line: you have challenged me to show where unilateral secession is forbidden, and I have challenged you to show where it was ever acknowledged as lawful. Now consider, in normal contract law, when such an impasse arises, the parties typically appeal to a judge for legal decision. I ask you: what appeal was ever made to any court on the subject of secession?
Isn't it entirely fair to say that the South, in 1861, appealed to the "court of arms" for a "trial by combat"?
How did Jefferson say it? "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants"? So exactly who were the tyrants in 1861 -- those who started war to defend their "peculiar institution" of slavery, or those who accepted war, eventually to free those slaves?
And is it not then fair to say the "court of arms" heard the South's "appeal" and rejected it?