Posted on 06/05/2013 7:52:32 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
PS: The Louisiana Purchase was probably unconstitutional too, nobody at the time complained to the SCOTUS about the best real estate deal millennium.
NASA could possibly be unconstitutional, again it could be folded back into the Army. Air traffic control is interstate commerce so that passes constitutional muster. The VA is a Army-Navy off shoot therefore it passes also.
Nice try, not!
Why do you Lost Cause Losers lean on that so heavily? You know the answer yet you trot that out as though it was some sort of coup de grâce.
It isn't.
The Constitution is silent on the issue of secession. That means it neither prohibits it nor offers guidance on its process. But you already knew that. So what?
That doesn't excuse what the insurrectionists did. As a matter of fact there was a whole bunch of people who didn't agree with what the rebels tried to do. When the rebs didn't get what they wanted they waged war on their own country. It was in all the papers. Those rebs got their butts whooped - both on the battlefield and in the courtroom.
As a direct result we have precedent that spells it out pretty clearly - if y'all want to split the sheets, you'd best not try it that way.
A letter that admits it is unsigned, undated and verified as being from Madison only by a third party by the name of Alexander Rivas? From the New York Times no less? Really?
What are you whining about? The NY Times has always been a leftist rag. They supported the democrats, the confeds, - you know - your people.
The Louisiana Purchase was decidedly unconstitutional and Jefferson was fairly brazen about admitting it in a sort of “so what are ya gonna do about it?” fashion.
What I am saying is I don't know if the USAF is unconstitutional. IMO A case can be made either way. But since there is no plaintiff trying to get the USAF found unconstitutional, we will never have an official ruling from the SCOTUS. All laws are deemed constitutional until found otherwise. Like In criminal law we are assumed innocent, laws have that defacto assumption if created by the duly elected legislature. If someone or group has a case against a law on constitutional grounds then they can pursue it.
Toomey has a 100% rating from the ACU. You want more than that?
No, just wanted to hear you say it. So if you're not going to make a case of it then how can you complain about any other Constitutional infractions, by Obama or anyone else. No plaintiff, no foul and all.
Where does the Constitution explicitly grant Congress the authority to explore space? Or control air traffic or any other traffic? Or establish hospitals and a health system? Nowhere. You say all those agencies are constitutional because you find the authority for them implied in the Constitution. Under the commerce clause or as part of defending the country. But implied powers do not exist, or so we've been told.
In reply 159 you said that since secession was not included in the Constitution then it is reserved to the states. I've said all along that the need for states to get permission from the other states to leave is implied in the Constitution itself. Either powers are implied or they are not. Which is it?
No, I said the Constitution did not prohibit that.
To-may-to, to-mah-to. Either the Constitution treats all states equally or it does not. If it does, then the means by which the Southern states chose to walk out is not protected by the Constitution.
Why would their be? All of the States took the same risk....equally, when they joined the Compact. They they all had the right to stay or leave....equally.....it's part of that 'voluntary' thing.
But as I pointed out, most states didn't join. They were allowed in, and only after getting permission from a majority of the other states through a vote in Congress. Why shouldn't they be consulted about leaving as well?
LOL! Nowhere has any Founder said anything about their being a different standard for States admitted after the original 13. Your statement is patently false.
No they did not. So all states labor under the same requirements. As Madison said, a true secession requires the consent of the other states.
A letter that admits it is unsigned, undated and verified as being from Madison only by a third party by the name of Alexander Rivas? From the New York Times no less? Really?
Read it again. The Rives letter was unsigned. Madison's letter was. Here's a better link, from an online version of Galliard Hunt's Volume 9 of Madison's papers: Link
But until such justifications can be pleaded the compact is obligatory in both cases.
Pleaded to whom? The other states? I think this is nothing more than the sentiment Madison later expressed in that same letter to Rives: "Each of these being equal, neither can have more right to say that the compact has been violated and dissolved than every other has to deny the fact and to insist on the execution of the bargain."
Again, please show me the Constitutional Article Section and Clause that says a State cannot secede from the Union.
Again, please show me where I ever said they couldn't?
Mirror meet mama.
You're not listening, all of the things you mention COULD be unconstitutional. Nobody has made a case against any of those things on Constitutional grounds so we may/will never find out.
Whether I complain or not is moot, many legal foundations have many different Constitutional cases making there way up to the SCOTUS. Here is a link to one that Marl Levin is associated with : \landmarklegal.org
True
-----
I've said all along that the need for states to get permission from the other states to leave is implied in the Constitution itself.
Yes, and your evidence is a letter from Madison that begins:
A rightful secession requires the consent of the others, or an abuse of the compact absolving the seceding party from the obligation imposed by it.
The northern states were continually and willingly abusing the compact, thus releasing the south from the Constitutional Compact. This abuse is verified by the US Court of Appeals Jack vs Martin as well as a floor speech of Daniel Webster both previously posted.
Not to mention that Madison wrote a multitude of essays and literally hundreds of letters in his lifetime. To my knowledge, this is the only letter that contains this proviso:
Having many reasons for marking this letter confidential, I must request that its publicity may not be permitted in any mode or through any channel. Among the reasons is the risk of misapprehensions or misconstructions,
Madison not wanting to have his opinion publicly known? Wazzup with that?
(BTW – I’ve searched for this ‘letter signed “A Friend of Union and State Rights”’ in the past so that I may read Madison’s commentary in context. If anyone has come across it, I’d appreciate a link)
-----
Either powers are implied or they are not.
Implied powers can only exist if their is a viable connection to an expressed power.
§ 1075 ...........(snip) The question comes to this, whether a power, exclusively for the regulation of commerce, is a power for the regulation of manufactures? The statement of such a question would seem to involve its own answer. Can a power, granted for one purpose, be transferred to another? If it can, where is the limitation in the constitution? Are not commerce and manufactures as distinct, as commerce and agriculture? If they are, how can a power to regulate one arise from a power to regulate the other? It is true, that commerce and manufactures are, or may be, intimately connected with each other. A regulation of one may injuriously or beneficially affect the other. But that is not the point in controversy. It is, whether congress has a right to regulate that, which is not committed to it, under a power, which is committed to it, simply because there is, or may be an intimate connexion between the powers. If this were admitted, the enumeration of the powers of congress would be wholly unnecessary and nugatory. Agriculture, colonies, capital, machinery, the wages of labour, the profits of stock, the rents of land, the punctual performance of contracts, and the diffusion of knowledge would all be within the scope of the power; for all of them bear an intimate relation to commerce. The result would be, that the powers of congress would embrace the widest extent of legislative functions, to the utter demolition of all constitutional boundaries between the state and national governments.
Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution
-----
To-may-to, to-mah-to.
Mock all you like, but words have meaning and the Founders used the words they did for a reason.
-----
They were allowed in, and only after getting permission from a majority of the other states through a vote in Congress. Why shouldn't they be consulted about leaving as well?
So you have to ask permission of the oppressor in order to leave an abusive relationship? How likely is that?
-----
As Madison said, a true secession requires the consent of the other states.
I've shown a letter where he says otherwise and posted from Tucker's View of the Constitution which says a State can leave at will.
-----
Again, please show me where I ever said they couldn't?
Let me rephrase -
Please show me the Constitutional Article Section and Clause that says a State cannot secede from the Union should it feel the other parties are failing to uphold the compact.
------
Yet another Founder's words on willful secession -
A proclamation was issued by the President, commanding the insurgents to disperse, while quotas of militia were called for from Pennsylvania, Virginia, Maryland, and New Jersey. These Governor Mifflin, of Pennsylvania, who seemed to be in sympathy with the insurgents, hesitated to call out. He was, however, forced either to do so, or to break with the central government, and the militia volunteered in greater numbers than were wanted, even members of the "Society of Friends" joining the force.
The Whiskey Rebellion of 1794 , Alexander Hamilton
Remember this little gem?
Article 4 section 4
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
Hamilton words clearly state that Governor Mifflin could have severed Pennsylvania's ties to the Union right to President Washington's face as he stood outside the State's boundary....simply because the State had made NO REQUEST for assistance from the federal government......
AS PER the Constitution.
Yep....how about one who will not work with the dems for national background checks and registration for guns?
Probably because most people understand and accept the concept of implied powers.
But I will note that somebody did make a case against the constitutionality of secession as performed by the Southern states and that was ruled unconstitutional. Are you saying you accept that?
Except it doesn’t mean what you say it means. Yes, the federal government can help a state with domestic violence. It can also put down insurrections with out the application of a governor or state legislature.
This book points out that Lee put sharp shooter companies behind each brigade not just to shoot deserters, but also to shoot stragglers.
Certainly the states after the original 13 were created by the federal government, from a territory or possession, with the possible exceptions of Texas, California which requested entry into the US. Texas requested it more than once, so with Texas, its entry was certainly voluntary.
Hawaii also requested entry at a state more than once, but spent quite a while as a possession.
Yes it does. Evidence has been provided to support the contention.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.