[BroJoeK]

In his post #618 to OIFVeteran, Kalamata presents us with his inventory of Founders' secession-justifying quotes, a dozen in all.
These he tells us are all the justification needed for 1860 unilateral unapproved declarations of secession at pleasure.
Suppose we look at them.

1. Does any of them say exactly what Kalamata claims?
   No, but he says that if you combine several together, then they can be interpreted like he says.

2. Does any of them mention disunion?
   Yes, the Virginia, New York and Rhode Island signing statements.
   In each case disunion is tied to necessity, as from powers "perverted to their injury or oppression", like in 1776.
   None says or implies unilateral secession at pleasure.

3. From Federalist 81 Kalamata quotes Hamilton explaining the nature of sovereignty prevents citizens from suing their states for payment of debts.
   This Kalamata fantasizes somehow makes states immune from their obligations under the US Constitution.
   It doesn't.

4. The Constitution itself contains language regarding delegated rights of Federal government versus retained rights of states & citizens.
   Kalamata tells us this must include an unlimited "right of secession" -- does the Constitution itself, or any Founder ever say that?
   No, Founders said the opposite, but Kalamata finds such a "right" in the, ahem (as Justice Douglas said): "penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give [the Constitution] life and substance"!

   Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight!!

5. From Federalist 39 Kalamata quotes Madison cogently saying: "Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act.
   In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a federal, and not a national constitution."

   Those are important words, "a federal not a national constitution," do they imply that each state has an unlimited "right of secession" at pleasure?
   Not according to any Founder at the time, as Madison himself explained, many years later:

   "Nothing can be more clear than that the Constitution of the U. S. has created a Government, in as strict a sense of the term, as the Governments of the States created by their respective Constitutions."

   The Constitution makes Federal government as valid as any state government.

   "In forming this compound scheme of Government it was impossible to lose sight of the question, what was to be done in the event of controversies which could not fail to occur, concerning the partition line, between the powers belonging to the Federal and to the State Govts."

   Next Madison lists methods for resolving such issues:

   "The provision immediately and ordinarily relied on, is manifestly the Supreme Court of the U. S., clothed as it is, with a Jurisdiction "in controversies to which the U. S. shall be a party;" the Court itself being so constituted as to render it independent & impartial in its decisions; [see Federalist, no. 39] whilst other and ulterior resorts would remain in the elective process, in the hands of the people themselves the joint constituents of the parties; and in the provision made by the Constitution for amending itself.
   All other resorts are extra & ultra constitutional, corresponding to the Ultima Ratio [last resort] of nations renouncing the ordinary relations of peace."

   So read that again: going outside Constitutional provisions means war.

   "It is the nature & essence of a compact that it is equally obligatory on the parties to it, and of course that no one of them can be liberated therefrom without the consent of the others, or such a violation or abuse of it by the others, as will amount to a dissolution of the compact."

   "Applying a like view of the subject to the case of the U. S. it results, that the compact being among individuals as imbodied into States, no State can at pleasure release itself therefrom, and set up for itself.
   The compact can only be dissolved by the consent of the other parties, or by usurpations or abuses of power justly having that effect.
   It will hardly be contended that there is anything in the terms or nature of the compact, authorizing a party to dissolve it at pleasure."

   Sure, Madison's words here were written long afterwards, but the fact is that no words by any Founder ever directly contradict him, at least none that I've ever seen.

Kalamata to OIFVeteran: "Don't forget.
Lincoln approved the secession of West Virginia from Virginia, which destroyed that union.
So, he was also a hypocrite."

Nonsense, because West Virginia met both of our Founders' criteria for lawful disunion:

1. Absolute necessity caused by Virginia's unlawful secession and declared war against the United States.

2. Mutual consent by both the Virginia legislature and the US Congress.

By stark contrast, neither necessity nor mutual consent to secession existed in 1860.
It's also significant that Virginians themselves recognize the validity of West Virginia's independence.

Kalamata: "You have again taken Madison' statement completely out of context.
If your interpretation was correct, we would not have the Bill of Rights."

And that's just a flat-out lie, Kalamata demonstrating yet again that he was born with the mind of a Democrat, born to lie he resorts to lies whenever his own weak, weak arguments collapse.

Kalamata: "That same fellow, Alexander Hamilton, approved the New York Ratification document that stated:

"That the Powers of Government may be reassumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness."

The key word there is "necessary", "necessity" being the opposite of "at pleasure".
"Necessary" is the word our Founders used in their 1776 Declaration as justifying disunion, with a two-dozen strong parade of horribles to illustrate what "necessity" means.
No Founder ever suggested or supported an unlimited "right of secession" at pleasure.

Kalamata on Pinckney's anti-disunion quote: "He doesn't say what you say he said.
You spun his words from being a proposal into a done-deal.
You are not being a straight shooter."

And yet again, faced with the truth from Founder Pinckney, Kalamata simply lies about it -- a Democrat doing what Democrats naturally do.

Kalamata to OIFVeteran: "Why are you so desperate for our government to be all powerful?
Don't you realize how dangerous that is?
Besides, I thought you supported the Constitution?"

And now, having first lied his way through the facts, our Democrat Kalamata's grand finale is a barrage of false accusations.
Can anybody doubt that having a Democrat brain is a form of political mental illness?

[Kalamata]

>>BroJoeK wrote: “In his post #618 to OIFVeteran, Kalamata presents us with his inventory of Founders’ secession-justifying quotes, a dozen in all. These he tells us are all the justification needed for 1860 unilateral unapproved declarations of secession at pleasure. Suppose we look at them. Does any of them say exactly what Kalamata claims?
No, but he says that if you combine several together, then they can be interpreted like he says. Does any of them mention disunion? Yes, the Virginia, New York and Rhode Island signing statements. In each case disunion is tied to necessity, as from powers “perverted to their injury or oppression”, like in 1776. None says or implies unilateral secession at pleasure.”

That ranks up there as one of your most deceptive statements, Joey. You are insinuating those states did not believe they had the right to seceed at any time. I would say, “shame on you,” but you have no shame.

For the rest of you, this is the link to #618. Read it for yourself:

https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3802793/posts?page=618#618

Madison asserts in the 4th reference, pointing to Federalist No. 31, that the states are “invested with complete sovereignty.” In Federalist No. 40 Madison asserts the states are “independent sovereigns.”

Joey is insinuating Madison didn’t understand what he wrote. I, personally, believe James Madison had a better understanding of the Constitution than Joey. What do you think?

As soon as you realize that everything Joey writes is deceptive, he is more easily dismissed as the charlatan that he truly is.

Mr. Kalamata

[Kalamata]

>>BroJoeK wrote: “From Federalist 81 Kalamata quotes Hamilton explaining the nature of sovereignty prevents citizens from suing their states for payment of debts. This Kalamata fantasizes somehow makes states immune from their obligations under the US Constitution. It doesn’t.”

Joey fantasizes that the 10th Amendment doesn’t exist, and that Lincoln’s power-grab was somehow constitutional. It wasn’t. Dishonest Abe’s power-grab was a clear case of tyranny.

****************
>>BroJoeK wrote: “The Constitution itself contains language regarding delegated rights of Federal government versus retained rights of states & citizens. Kalamata tells us this must include an unlimited “right of secession” — does the Constitution itself, or any Founder ever say that?”

That is typical Joey misdirection. The question to ask is, “Did the states, via the the Constitution, give the Federal government the power to stop secession?”

The crystal clear answer is, No. Therefore, any federal interference in state secession is tyranny.

Mr. Kalamata

[Kalamata]

>>BroJoeK wrote: “From Federalist 39 Kalamata quotes Madison cogently saying: “Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a federal, and not a national constitution.”
>>BroJoeK wrote: “Those are important words, “a federal not a national constitution,” do they imply that each state has an unlimited “right of secession” at pleasure? Not according to any Founder at the time, as Madison himself explained, many years later”
>>BroJoeK quoting: “Nothing can be more clear than that the Constitution of the U. S. has created a Government, in as strict a sense of the term, as the Governments of the States created by their respective Constitutions.”
>>BroJoeK wrote: “The Constitution makes Federal government as valid as any state government.”

From a Constitutional perspective, that means that each state government is as valid as the federal government. Of course! The important distinctions are the authorized powers. The federal government’s powers are few and defined. Acting within that limited authority, the federal government is a valid government. Acting outside its authority (like Lincoln did) it is a tyranny — NOT VALID!.

****************
>>BroJoeK wrote: “Next Madison lists methods for resolving such issues: “The provision immediately and ordinarily relied on, is manifestly the Supreme Court of the U. S., clothed as it is, with a Jurisdiction “in controversies to which the U. S. shall be a party;” the Court itself being so constituted as to render it independent & impartial in its decisions; [see Federalist, no. 39] whilst other and ulterior resorts would remain in the elective process, in the hands of the people themselves the joint constituents of the parties; and in the provision made by the Constitution for amending itself. All other resorts are extra & ultra constitutional, corresponding to the Ultima Ratio [last resort] of nations renouncing the ordinary relations of peace.”
>>BroJoeK wrote: “So read that again: going outside Constitutional provisions means war.”

That is not what he said, but I will agree that sometimes war is necessary to maintain a Free Republic. It is sad that the several states remaining in the Union did not wrest the usurped, extra-constitutional powers away from that madman named Lincoln before a third of a million of their young men were slaughtered on a foreign battlefield called the Confederacy.

****************
>>BroJoeK wrote: “It is the nature & essence of a compact that it is equally obligatory on the parties to it, and of course that no one of them can be liberated therefrom without the consent of the others, or such a violation or abuse of it by the others, as will amount to a dissolution of the compact.”

That is correct. If there is a violation or abuse by other states or the general government, the states have a right to secede, even a duty.

****************
>>BroJoeK wrote: “Applying a like view of the subject to the case of the U. S. it results, that the compact being among individuals as imbodied into States, no State can at pleasure release itself therefrom, and set up for itself. The compact can only be dissolved by the consent of the other parties, or by usurpations or abuses of power justly having that effect.
It will hardly be contended that there is anything in the terms or nature of the compact, authorizing a party to dissolve it at pleasure.”

Madison left the States a lot of wiggle room with the words “at pleasure.”

You will notice if you study the history of that period, from the early 1800’s under the Jefferson administration until the Lincoln administration, that no state threatened secession “at pleasure.” There were some serious constitutional violations by the federal government in each case.

Mr. Kalamata

[Kalamata]

>>Kalamata wrote: “Lincoln approved the secession of West Virginia from Virginia, which destroyed that union.
So, he was also a hypocrite.”
>>BroJoeK wrote: “Nonsense, because West Virginia met both of our Founders’ criteria for lawful disunion: absolute necessity caused by Virginia’s unlawful secession and declared war against the United States. Mutual consent by both the Virginia legislature and the US Congress.

First, Virginia’s secession was Constitutional. Lincoln’s interference in their secession was tyranny.

Second, I have read that Union troops were camped out at polling booths in the seceeding counties to keep Confederate sympathizers away. How were they able to separate the Confederates from the Unionists? Perhaps they used colored ballots, like in Maryland; or perhaps the troops would simply throw the ballots away if they contained the “wrong” vote.

Third, I find it odd that the panhandle counties were included in the split, even though they supported the Confederacy. Could that be due to the railroad running through those counties was vital for the movement of Union troops. Something sounds fishy!

Fourth, from what I have read, the original state of Virginia never authorized the split, as the Constitution requires. Do you have a source for your assertion about “mutual consent”?

Frankly, Joey, it appears you are blowing smoke, again.

Mr. Kalamata

[Kalamata]

>>Kalamata wrote: "You have again taken Madison' statement completely out of context. If your interpretation was correct, we would not have the Bill of Rights."
>>BroJoeK wrote: "And that's just a flat-out lie, Kalamata demonstrating yet again that he was born with the mind of a Democrat, born to lie he resorts to lies whenever his own weak, weak arguments collapse."

Don't be silly, Joey. Madison's phrase, "in toto," was intended to mean ONLY that the original document (the words of the Constitution itself ) could not be altered. As for changes and "updates," the Constitution provides this method:

"Article. V. – Amendment: The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate." [Law, "Constitution of the United States and Amendments." 1787]

There have been 27 Amendments to the Constitution; but the document itself remains exactly it was adopted in 1787, in toto.

Mr. Kalamata

[Kalamata]

>>Kalamata wrote: “That same fellow, Alexander Hamilton, approved the New York Ratification document that stated: “That the Powers of Government may be reassumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness.”
>>BroJoeK wrote: “The key word there is “necessary”, “necessity” being the opposite of “at pleasure”. “Necessary” is the word our Founders used in their 1776 Declaration as justifying disunion, with a two-dozen strong parade of horribles to illustrate what “necessity” means. No Founder ever suggested or supported an unlimited “right of secession” at pleasure.”

The word necessary can mean many things to many people, Joey. For example, assume the politicians of the Northern manufacturing states found it “necessary” to push through targeted, protective tariffs, at the expense of the Southern agricultural states, to ensure the happiness of their crony supporters, such as Thaddeus Stevens. Now assume the Southern agricultural states found it “necessary” to tell the Northern states, “It’s been nice to know you!”

Mr. Kalamata

[Kalamata]

>>Kalamata on Pinckney’s anti-disunion quote: “He doesn’t say what you say he said. You spun his words from being a proposal into a done-deal. You are not being a straight shooter.”
>>BroJoeK wrote: “And yet again, faced with the truth from Founder Pinckney, Kalamata simply lies about it — a Democrat doing what Democrats naturally do.”

You can always tell when Joey is lying. He posts.

Mr. Kalamata

[Kalamata]

>>Kalamata wrote to someone besides Joey: “Why are you so desperate for our government to be all powerful? Don’t you realize how dangerous that is? Besides, I thought you supported the Constitution?”
>>BroJoeK wrote: “And now, having first lied his way through the facts, our Democrat Kalamata’s grand finale is a barrage of false accusations. Can anybody doubt that having a Democrat brain is a form of political mental illness?”

Joey has been a progressive, living-constitution Democrat his entire life, so when he accuses you of being a democrat, or accuses you of doing exactly what he does, it is nothing personal — he is just being a Democrat.

Mr. Kalamata

[jeffersondem]

“These he tells us are all the justification needed for 1860 unilateral unapproved declarations of secession at pleasure.”

Brother Joe continues to violate our informal rules against gratuitous pettifogging with pronunciations about “unilateral unapproved declarations of secession at pleasure.”

Over time, Brother Joe has developed that little spiel by cobbling one word to another, and then, yet another. But does it really mean anything?

Not really, but let's look at his reasoning anyway.

According to Brother Joe “unilateral unapproved declarations of secession at pleasure” is no good. Doesn't meet Brother Joe Muster.

Well, how about “multilateral unapproved declarations of secession at pleasure.” No good either; doesn't meet Brother Joe Muster because it, too, is unapproved.

So what good is the word “unilateral” in the first instance? If something is unapproved, it is unapproved. Unilateral was just a word Brother Joe threw into the mix probably because it sounded good at the time.

What then to make of the alternate concept “unilateral unapproved declarations of secession at necessity?” Even “at necessity” doesn't meet the Brother Joe Muster because . . . well, it is said to be unapproved.

“Unapproved” and its lurking opposite, “approved”, seem to be the foundation words in Brother Joe's string of words. And that leads to the obvious question: who is the authorized approver?

I say not the King of England; not even the Strong Man of the United States.

Look here for the answer: “. . . it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”