Replies

the states also ratified the clause stating that the Constitution was the supreme law of the land, to which all state actions contrary to the Constitution and federal law, are explicitly voided....

Actually, the clause says:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

So ONLY federal laws that fall within the powers delegated to the federal government by the Constitution are actually the supreme Law of the Land. Contrary to popular belief, the states did not just hold up their hands and give up all of their rights to the federal government. They only gave specific powers to the federal government, and the Constitution was designed to restrict those powers.

Now, we have the case where makes laws, granting themselves power and control that is not in the Constitution (things like EPA, health care, gun control, and even Immigration.)

Take immigration for example. The Constitution grants Naturalization powers to the feds, but not immigration. Immigration is clearly a power of the states... this power was illegally wrested from the states with the passage of the Immigration Act. The federal government is clearly overstepping the bounds of their authority and breaking their contract (i.e. Constitution) with the states. The only people who can rule on the contract is the federal government. How can the federal government rule on itself whether they are breaking the contract?

If the federal government is going to continually assume powers that they do not have, then the contract has already been broken.

Secession is never illegal. When a government no longer serves the needs of its people, then why should people be forced into submission? Why are people in Texas forced to comply with the whims of a federal government which operates outside of their Constitutional authority?

The U.S. seceded from England, Texas seceded from Mexico... these things happen because it is the will of the people.

If you truly think that you need a "legal" reason to secede, then you need only look as far as the Constitution. The Constitution gives certain powers to the federal government. In no way is it needed to give powers to the states. To those of you who say that secession is not mentioned... there is a reason for that. It's covered under the 10th Amendment:

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.

Now, we have the case where makes laws, granting themselves power and control that is not in the Constitution (things like EPA, health care, gun control, and even Immigration.)

Air Force, NASA, Food and Drug Administration, air traffic control system, etc., etc.

The Constitution grants Naturalization powers to the feds, but not immigration. Immigration is clearly a power of the states... this power was illegally wrested from the states with the passage of the Immigration Act.

Nonsense. Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the power to "...make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution..." If the Constitution gives Congress, and not the states, the power to establish rules of naturalization then the ability to control immigration is necessary to carry out that power. Likewise, Article I gives Congress, and not the states, the power to regulate foreign commerce and enter into agreements with foreign powers. Who would be allowed to immigrate would fall under those.

Secession is never illegal.

Secession as practiced by the Southern states is. Or so the Supreme Court found in 1869.

The U.S. seceded from England, Texas seceded from Mexico... these things happen because it is the will of the people.

And both were followed by periods of unplesantness known as the American revolution and the Texas revolution. As was the Southern attempt. The difference was, of course, that the South lost their rebellion while Texas and the colonies did not.

Secession is never illegal.

Secession as practiced by the Southern states is. Or so the Supreme Court found in 1869.

The Constitution gives certain powers to the federal government.

And one of those is the power to admit states to the Union and approve any change in their borders or their status once they are allowed in. Implicit in that is the approval to leave.

You really need to look at the whole of Article VI.

The clause you quoted is generally known as the Supremacy Clause. It says that, if a state makes a law or changes its constitution in a way that conflicts with the Constitution, then the Constitution is binding.

"Shall be bound" is the strongest legal language -- where there are conflicts between the actions of the states and the Constitution, there is no choice: the Constitution is the ruling document. Obviously, a state action that totally denies the Constitution is covered by that clause ... it's simply not allowed under the Constitution.

Not to mention that such actions would be "insurrection," in the suppression of which the Federal Government is explicitly empowered (Article I, Section 8) to employ force.

There is also the final clause of Article VI,

... the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution...

Again, "shall be bound" -- and as applied to officers and legislatures of the states, they are not allowed (and the states ratified this) to go against the Constitution, as secession definitely does.