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.
;>)
WIJG: "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..."
Did you really mean to make this argument? If the Constitution does not actually mean what the Founders intended, then pray tell, exactly what DOES it mean? ;-)
WIJG: "Then you have not read Madison's Federalist No. 43,"
Had not read Federalist 43 lately, so went back to review -- did I miss something the first time, years ago?
In Federalist 43, Madison compares the Constitution to a treaty amongst states, and that's true -- but only up to a point. Yes, State legislatures sent delegates to the Constitutional Convention in 1787. But specially elected ratifying conventions approved the Constitution in each state. Thus "roots" of the Constitution were sunk deeper into the US body politic than your usual "treaty."
Nevertheless, as Madison says: a "treaty" made by several parties can also be undone by those parties:
"A compact between independent sovereigns, founded on ordinary acts of legislative authority, can pretend to no higher validity than a league or treaty between the parties. It is an established doctrine on the subject of treaties, that all the articles are mutually conditions of each other; that a breach of any one article is a breach of the whole treaty; and that a breach, committed by either of the parties, absolves the others, and authorizes them, if they please, to pronounce the compact violated and void.""Should it unhappily be necessary to appeal to these delicate truths for a justification for dispensing with the consent of particular States to a dissolution of the federal pact, will not the complaining parties find it a difficult task to answer the MULTIPLIED and IMPORTANT infractions with which they may be confronted?"
In 1861 Southern states elected "Secession Conventions" which "pronounced the [Constitution] compact... void." But in what sense did they say it had been "violated"? Well really, in only one: some states were not enforcing Fugitive Slave laws:
On this, South Carolina, the first seceding state said:
"The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: 'No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.'"This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made..."
And Texas, the last of the original seven seceders specifically identified:
"...directly or indirectly violated the 3rd clause of the 2nd section of the 4th article [the fugitive slave clause] of the federal constitution, and laws passed in pursuance thereof; thereby annulling a material provision of the compact... "
So, in 1860, South Carolina didn't like other states' "nullification" of Fugitive Slave laws, but in 1832 South Carolina had declared its own right to nullify the "1828 Tariff of Abominations." Didn't South Carolina want it both ways?
Further, the Fugitive Slave situation in 1860 had not materially changed from what had been previously accepted for many decades, except in one respect: the new constitutionally elected President, Abraham Lincoln. So that was the REAL reason for secession, and it had nothing to do with supposed "violations" of the Constitution.
Nor were any legal efforts made to establish that "violations" had in fact occurred. Nor was any notice taken of the government's efforts in 1860 & 1861 to address such "violations" as might be proved.
Therefore, Madison's criteria for "dissolution of the federal pact," were not met in 1860, and so secession was not a legitimate remedy.
WIJG: "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?"
Actually, I do appreciate your taking time to look up specific clauses in the Constitution which may apply to my arguments about what, precisely, was or was not "prohibited to the States." But in every case, my point is valid and your mocking only proves that!
In each "example" I invented, the Constitution does not precisely, in so many words, prohibit such actions. However, no one -- not even a secessionist like WIJG -- would argue such actions are therefore ALLOWED. What ARE allowed -- reserved to the States -- are ONLY those recognized, legitimate and normal powers of government.
The debate here is: whether "unilateral secession" could be considered one of those? I've still seen nothing to suggest it is.
WIJG: "As I noted above, you're willfully ignorant."
Not in the least. You have simply misunderstood my argument, and in so doing, proved it correct. Thanks! ;-)
The Constitution does not, in so many words prohibit the examples I listed, but as you argue so well, that does not make them "powers reserved to the states." And the same is true for such terms as "secession" and "nullification," imho.
WIJG: "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."
Recognized, legitimate and usual "powers" of government did not then, do not now, include unilateral secession.
WIJG: "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.'
WIJG: "A logical thought process" would do you wonders..."
If you had a logical thought process of your own, that was not completely absorbed in trying to defend the indefensible, you'd have a bit more room to criticize.
In fact, I've argued repeatedly here that secession alone did not cause the Civil War, but that Insurrection, Rebellion, Invasion, etc, did, and without those, there could be no war.
And I think the core of your problem is, you can't or don't want to understand that. You imagine the South after secession was just sitting around when the North sent vast armies to conquer it. But in fact, the North did nothing of the kind, until the South began shooting, and declared war.
WIJG: "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..."
The Confederacy's Declaration of War on the United States.
WIJG: "Ouch! Now you've hurt my feelings! Guess I'll just have to post a little piece from the Mises Institute:"
So YOU represent the Mises Institute! Well, glory hallelujah, now at least we know who you are and where you come from. So, for Chr*st's sake, pal, DROP THE "Who is JOHN GALT?"
You can be "Who is Ludwig von Mises?" It's a perfectly acceptable way to tell us just what kind of person we're dealing with -- having nothing to do with falsely suggesting some connection to Ayn Rand's John Galt.
WIJG: "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."
I'd say these insults just about sum up your whole argument. They put you in the same league with Stande Waitie and his bunch. These people live to insult, insult to live -- a debate like this is just a real good excuse for them to hurl more insults.
As I said before: the South could easily have appealed their "right of secession" to the Supreme Court, and given such previous decisions as Dred-Scott, may even have won and therefore have been officially recognized. A Union appeal to the Supreme Court after secession would have been meaningless.
But logic is not what you're looking for here, is it? No, what you want is just another opportunity to hurl invectives, and like Jefferson Davis & Fort Sumter, any little excuse is more than enough to start firing away, isn't it, pal? ;-)