False again, despite my repeated efforts to correct you. What I've said is: the 10th Amendment means just what it says, as understood by the Founders at the time. The question is: whether terms like "unilateral secession" or "unapproved withdrawal from the Union" (or "nullification" for that matter) were understood by the Founders as included in "powers reserved to the states"? And I've seen no evidence they were.
But your continued argument on this point has got me wondering: what other "powers" are not specifically prohibited to States under the Constitution? There must be quite a few:
And with a little imagination, we could go on and on, and on, listing supposed "powers" that are not expressly prohibited to the States. But would anyone seriously suggest that all such "powers" were intended by the Founders under the 10th Amendment? I don't believe that for a second.
So, I think the 10th Amendment's word "powers" has to be understood as meaning "legitimate & usual powers of government," which while not there enumerated were well known to everyone. And I've seen no evidence suggesting those usual "powers" included secession.
WIJG: "I always find it amusing, when someone essentially proclaims 'the rule of common sense' (meaning their own, personal version of 'common sense,' naturally) in preference to the rule of law."
Of course, I'm no lawyer and we're talking personal opinions here. But as long as you are citing "THE LAW," perhaps you can cite for us a law which expressly legalized unilateral secession? Hmmmmm?
WIJG: "Actually, IIRC, Article IV, Section 3, clause 2 ("The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States") has been cited as the basis for federal legal authority in the various territories,and on federal properties."
Granted. My oversight.
But let's return to my list of supposed "powers" not expressly prohibited to the States, and add the "power" to declare it legal to murder federal officials -- or indeed anyone else. Would you claim that our Founders intended such by the 10th Amendment? No way am I going to believe that.
WIJG: "neither Mr. Lincoln's maintenance of forces inside South Carolina nor his declaration of an "insurrection" were constitutional, unless secession was UNconstituional - something you have yet to prove."
Nonsense. Nowhere does the Constitution require the Federal government to abandon its military installations for no good reason -- even if those forts suddenly find themselves in a "foreign country" nothing says the President has to automatically give them up. Your argument here is bogus.
WIJG: "So, you're back to conflating "insurrection" and secession, just as you conflated secession and nullification in your Post 2,052. You really should strive for a more "logical thought process." "
Here you're just blowing smoke. In fact, "secession" and "nullification" are both words not found in the Constitution or related documents, but which were later claimed as covered by the 10th Amendment. Both are strictly "penumbras" and "emanations," having no recognized legal validity.
I'll say again: where "secession" is not mentioned in the Constitution, words like "insurrection," "rebellion," "domestic violence," "treason," and "invasion," are listed and powers ENUMERATED for dealing with them, including but not limited to the power to declare war.
But the whole debate is bogus to the core, because three weeks after taking Fort Sumter -- and Lincoln (not Congress) declaring a state of Insurgency -- the Confederacy formally declared war on the United States.
So, it was the South which began shooting at Fort Sumter, not the Union. It was the South which then declared war, not the Union. It was the South which appealed to the "court of arms" for a "trial by combat," and they got exactly what they asked for. What is your problem with that? ;-)
WIJG: "(Apparently you are recognizing the Confederacy's sovereign right to do so - that doesn't exactly fit with the rest of your opinions... ;>)"
What a ridiculous argument. The Confederacy did in fact formally declare war on the United States. Whether it had a "sovereign right to do so," or not -- it did declare war, and so had no right to complain or blame someone else for the war which it officially started.
WIJG: "Really? Perhaps you can tell us how Mr. Lincoln received the southern peace delegation in 1861? Given your self-righteous pontificating (above, and "up to that point (March 1861), it might even be said that the Union had de facto acknowledged the states' secession. And as Lincoln said in his First Inaugural address, there COULD be no war, unless the South started it"), I have no doubt that you will be able to provide extensive transcripts of Mr. Lincoln's personal and passionate discussions with the southern peace commissioners, in his tireless efforts to avoid armed conflict. Please include the documentation in your next post..."
"Self righteous pontificating?" What's wrong with you, pal, are you sick?
Neither Buchanan nor Lincoln spent any serious time with "southern peace commissioners." But both informed the South that Fort Sumter would not be surrendered, period, and both made efforts to resupply it, the first in January, 1861.
I'll remind you, yet again, that after America's victory over Britain in 1781, the Brits maintained forts on American soil for the next 34 years, through several negotiations, the last Brits not finally removed until after the War of 1812. These British forts did not, by themselves, cause any wars between the US & Britain. In due time they were all negotiated away.
By contrast, the South announced in January, 1861 that ANY effort to resupply Fort Sumter was tantamount to war. Obviously, the Confederacy wanted a war of independence. And it got one. What's the problem?
WIJG: "And as I've noted before, Squat-to-Post, "John Galt" is an entirely different Freeper"
Whatever made you imagine that I don't or didn't understand your handle? Are you stupid? You are using the name "Who is John Galt" to post garbage that is insulting to "John Galt" and its creator, Ayn Rand. Unlike Ayn Rand you are not a philosopher, you are a partisan lost-causer, who will say anything and everything you can think of to defend your cause. Nothing wrong with that -- more power to you and your buddies. But you should stop misusing the name "...John Galt."
You sound exactly like a liberal politician - 'the Constitution means just what it says, subject to my understanding of what the Founders intended.' How nice...
The question is: whether terms like "unilateral secession" or "unapproved withdrawal from the Union" (or "nullification" for that matter) were understood by the Founders as included in "powers reserved to the states"? And I've seen no evidence they were.
Then you have not read Madison's Federalist No. 43, Jefferson's Kentucky Resolutions, or Madison's Virginia Resolutions and Report on the Virginia Resolutions. In other words, you're willfully ignorant...
But your continued argument on this point has got me wondering: what other "powers" are not specifically prohibited to States under the Constitution? There must be quite a few:
* The "power" of some States to invade other states is not expressly prohibited.
Really? Article I, Section 10, clause 3:
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress... engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
Looks like you're wrong - again.
* The "power" of some states to extort money from others is not prohibited.
What on earth are you talking about? Extortion has been defined as the "illegal use of one's official position or powers to obtain property, funds, or patronage." If it's "illegal," then it by definition must violate some specific law. To which law are you referring?
* The "power" of some states to enslave citizens of other states (or indeed of their own free citizens) is not prohibited.
Obviously you've never read Article IV, Section 2, clause 1:
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
And allow me to introduce you to the Fourth Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons... against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...
But wait - there's more! Allow me to also introduce you to the Fifth Amendment:
No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...
In other words, you're wrong... wrong... wrong.
* The "power" of some states to seize shipping from other states is not prohibited.
Obviously, you have never read Article I, Section 9, clause 6, either:
No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another; nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.
Even assuming that a State determined to "seize shipping from other states" that had voluntarily entered port, jurisdiction is specified by yet another portion of the Constitution with which you are unfamiliar - Article III, Section 2, clause 1:
The judicial Power shall extend... to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; ...[and] to Controversies between two or more States...
You're wrong again - and again.
* The "power" of some states to maintain forts in other states is not expressly prohibited.
Let me refer you, once again, to Article I, Section 10, clause 3:No State shall, without the Consent of Congress... keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace... or engage in War,unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
It would be literally impossible for a State to "maintain forts in other states" without troops, or warships, or engaging in war (which would result if the violated State elected to defend itself, in compliance with the same clause). In short, you're wrong again.
* The "power" of some states to nullify laws or unilaterally secede is not expressly prohibited.
Obviously, you are unaware that the States are prohibited from 'nullifying' the laws of other States - Article IV, Section 1:
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State...
As to 'nullification' and 'secession' as they relate to federal authority, you are yet again confusing entirely separate issues.
As I noted above, you're willfully ignorant.
And with a little imagination, we could go on and on, and on, listing supposed "powers" that are not expressly prohibited to the States.
Actually, I wish you had gone "on and on, listing supposed 'powers' that are not expressly prohibited to the States:" it would only have added additional proof of your mind-numbing ignorance.
Of course, I'm no lawyer and we're talking personal opinions here. But as long as you are citing "THE LAW," perhaps you can cite for us a law which expressly legalized unilateral secession? Hmmmmm?
Please reread (and try to understand it, this time) Amendment X:
The powers NOT DELEGATED to the United States by the Constitution, NOR PROHIBITED by it to the States, ARE RESERVED to the States respectively, or to the people.
You can not cite a 'delegation' of the power to prevent State secession to the federal government; nor can you cite a 'prohibition' of that power to the States. You have no argument - an ignorant opinion, most certainly, but no argument.
Nonsense. Nowhere does the Constitution require the Federal government to abandon its military installations for no good reason...
Just more of your same old "if it isn't specifically mentioned in the Constitution" opinion.
Yawn...
Here you're just blowing smoke. In fact, "secession" and "nullification" are both words not found in the Constitution or related documents, but which were later claimed as covered by the 10th Amendment. Both are strictly "penumbras" and "emanations," having no recognized legal validity.
And you are obviously "blowing smoke," when you deny that your 'argument' amounts to "if it isn't mentioned in the Constitution, it's illegal." That is the specific substance of your statements, in post, after post, after post. Obviously, you are as self-delusional as you are ignorant.
I'll say again: where "secession" is not mentioned in the Constitution, words like "insurrection," "rebellion," "domestic violence," "treason," and "invasion," are listed and powers ENUMERATED for dealing with them, including but not limited to the power to declare war.
Thanks for posting another idiotic argument - in essence:
'insurrection is implicitly prohibited by the Constitution, making it illegal, and because I think the formal withdrawal of a State from the union is also illegal, even though it's not mentioned anywhere, it must be equivalent to insurrection.'
"A logical thought process" would do you wonders...
But the whole debate is bogus to the core, because three weeks after taking Fort Sumter -- and Lincoln (not Congress) declaring a state of Insurgency -- the Confederacy formally declared war on the United States.
So, it was the South which began shooting at Fort Sumter, not the Union. It was the South which then declared war...
As I noted previously, only a sovereign state can issue a declaration of war. You claim, on the one hand, that the seceded States were engaged in an "insurrection," and were still members of the union. You claim, on the other hand, that they issued a declaration of war (an impossibility, unless the Confederacy was a sovereign and independent state). In other words, your opinions are self-contradictory - no big surprise there.
Oh, and by the way - care to post a copy of (or a link to) that 'formal declaration of war' by the Confederate States of America? I would love to add it to my references...
;>)
Whatever made you imagine that I don't or didn't understand your handle? Are you stupid? You are using the name "Who is John Galt"...
Give the kid a tootsie roll, and the newest edition of the 'Blue Avenger' comic book series! Congratulations! I really thought you were too "stupid" to get my name right! Wait - you still didn't get it right (you left out the question mark, "stupid" ;>)...
...to post garbage that is insulting to "John Galt" and its creator, Ayn Rand.
Ouch! Now you've hurt my feelings! Guess I'll just have to post a little piece from the Mises Institute:
"...(I)t is misleading to date the tradition of American liberty from the late 1780s, since the Constitution of the United States was in fact only the culmination of generations of practical self-government on the part of Americans. At the time of the framing of the Constitution and the formation of an allegedly "more perfect union," the colonists had precedents for challenging the powers of a confederation, as in the case of the Confederation of New England, for rejecting a confederation, as in the case of the Albany Plan of Union, and for bringing down a confederation by force, as in the case of the Dominion of New England. It can hardly be surprising, therefore, to learn that at the time of the ratification of the Constitution, three states [Virginia, New York, and Rhode Island] in acceding to the new confederation, explicitly reserved the right to withdraw from the Union at such time as it should become oppressive. In so doing they were only exercising the vigilance and libertarian principle that had animated the American experience during the colonial period.
"Thus when a union of polities becomes an end in itself, as it has in the minds of some since the days of Daniel Webster but certainly since Abraham Lincoln's revolution, the repudiation and indeed perversion of the colonial ideal is complete. Yet today, even self-proclaimed conservatives, whom one might expect to be engaged in preserving their country's tradition of liberty, cavalierly decry attachment to the principles embodied in the Confederate flag as "treason," even though the value of self-government vindicated by the South had been insisted upon since colonial times. The real traitors, however, are not the Confederates, but those who betray the real American tradition of independence and self-government in favor of the principle of unlimited submission to central authority. This is what the colonial period has to teach us."
Colonial Origins of American Liberty
- Thomas Woods, 2000
[Delivered at the Mises Institute conference, The History of Liberty, January 2000; Posted on Mises.org, March 3, 2000]
You ought to poke around Mises.org sometime. While you're there, do a search on "Ayn Rand" - you might actually learn something...
;>)
...you are a partisan lost-causer, who will say anything and everything you can think of to defend your cause.
Actually, all we have to do is look at the long list of "powers" that you erroneously claimed were NOT "prohibited to States under the Constitution" (your Post 2,215, and above) to verify that it is you "who will say anything and everything you can think of to defend your cause"...
"I ask you: what appeal was ever made to any court on the subject of secession" by Mr. Lincoln's government?"
Another ridiculous argument. There's just nothing you won't say, is there?
LOL! Glad you think it's "another ridiculous argument" - you're the one who made it, in Post 2,210:
"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?"
You said "parties," Squat-to-Post (meaning both parties). Either you're an idiot (thanks again for calling your own opinion "another ridiculous argument" ;>) or... oh, heck, let's just face it - you're an idiot.
;>)