Well duh.
Something done against your will is NOT a 'voluntary act' since you have no choice or control over the situation.,,What is it about the word voluntary you seem to have so much trouble with?
This part. I don't understand the logic behind your contention that the 'voluntary' aspect of the relationship is on the part of the individual state itself. In your world a state can 'voluntarily' combine with the other states, but once in the other states are stuck. They lose their voluntary rights and are forced to tolerate that state. They cannot end their association with it. Where is the sense in that? At 100 posts, that question has been answered ad naseum on this thread, but I'll humor you one last time.
That's your idea of intolerable oppression? Not taxation without representation? No lack of sufferage? No occupying army? The southern states dominated the govenment for most of this country's existence prior to the rebellion, they had a disproportionate level of representation in Congress, and all of that was 'intolerable oppression'. You insult our founding fathers and any other people who rose up against their rulers with nonsense comparisons like that.
What you imagine to be 'legal notification' isn't legal because you say it is. If I whip up a legal document that says I own your home that doesn't automatically transfer title to me. The underlying act has to be valid in the first place, and as the Supreme Court ruled in 1869 the southern acts of unilateral secession were not Constitutional.
The federal government expanded itself into a national power outside its constitutional boundaries by forcing the South to stay in the Union.
So you keep saying. But putting down the Southern rebellion was not outside the Constitutional boundaries of the governments power.
If that were a power of the federal government, it would BE IN THE CONSTITUTION as part of the full disclosure of the compact. Since it is not, it is one of the powers RESERVED to the States.
Only if you believe that only explicit powers are granted by the Constitution, which would make the Air Force an illegal organization. But there are implied powers granted by the Constitution, something the Supreme Court ruled on in McCulloch v. Maryland.
But if you are correct in your claim that vrings us back to my original question. Since there is nothing in the Constitution that says the states may not expel another state it must be legal, right? Right?
Don't get smarmy with me just because I patiently answered the question YOU kept asking.
-----
In your world a state can 'voluntarily' combine with the other states
If it has rescinded its position with the larger collective, yes. It cannot, however, be a member of 2 different organizations at the same time.
----
but once in the other states are stuck. They lose their voluntary rights and are forced to tolerate that state.
Horsehocky! I never said the other States lost their voluntary rights. No state is 'forced' to tolerate another. They have just as much right to leave the collective if a state's presence becomes too much to tolerate.
For that matter, all the Northern states could have left and reformed into another government if that was their wish.
-----
That's your idea of intolerable oppression?
Being financially bled dry and denied your guaranteed right to property isn't enough for you?
-----
What you imagine to be 'legal notification' isn't legal because you say it is.
Blackstone said it was. The 3 methods of legal notification can be found in his Commentaries.
-----
The underlying act has to be valid in the first place, and as the Supreme Court ruled in 1869 the southern acts of unilateral secession were not Constitutional.
(snort)
I wonder why?
The federal government, then, appears to be the organ through which the united republics communicate with foreign nations, and with each other. Their submission to its operation is voluntary: its councils, its sovereignty is an emanation from theirs, not a flame by which they have been consumed, nor a vortex in which they are swallowed up. Each is still a perfect state, still sovereign, still independent, and still capable, should the occasion require, to resume the exercise of its functions, as such, in the most unlimited extent.
But until the time shall arive when the occasion requires a resumption of the rights of sovereignty by the several states (and far be that period removed when it should happen) the exercise of the rights of sovereignty by the states, individually, is wholly suspended, or discontinued, in the cases before mentioned: nor can that suspension ever be removed, so long as the present constitution remains unchanged, but by the dissolution of the bonds of union. An event which no good citizen can wish, and which no good, or wise administration will ever hazard.
St. George Tucker, "View of the Constitution of the United States
(Tucker was commissioned by Congress to help explain the new Constitution to the People)
-----
But putting down the Southern rebellion was not outside the Constitutional boundaries of the governments power.
ROFLMAO!
I've already shown you where we have (or HAD) a government with limited authority that was created by the States.
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.
James Madison, Federalist #45
There was no 'rebellion'. The South did not attack the north or try to overthrow the federal government.
It seems now you're having the same trouble with understanding the word 'rebellion' as you do the word 'voluntary'.
-----
But there are implied powers granted by the Constitution
Yes, there are. Those implied powers do have to have a relation to an expressed power, just like implied and expressed rights.
Trying to justify something by the use of 'implication' when there is NEVER an expression isn't an implied right or power, it's just pulling something out of your arse.
Like the authority to promote property to person.
-----
Since there is nothing in the Constitution that says the states may not expel another state it must be legal, right? Right?
Since there is nothing in the Constitution that says a the state may not LEAVE, so it must be legal, right? Right?
*****
The opposition of the federal government, or the interposition of federal officers, would but inflame the zeal of all parties on the side of the State, and the evil could not be prevented or repaired, if at all, without the employment of means which must always be resorted to with reluctance and difficulty. On the other hand, should an unwarrantable measure of the federal government be unpopular in particular States, which would seldom fail to be the case, or even a warrantable measure be so, which may sometimes be the case, the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand. The disquietude of the people; their repugnance and, perhaps, refusal to co-operate with the officers of the Union; the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State; the embarrassments created by legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions, would oppose, in any State, difficulties not to be despised; would form, in a large State, very serious impediments; and where the sentiments of several adjoining States happened to be in unison, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter.
But ambitious encroachments of the federal government, on the authority of the State governments, would not excite the opposition of a single State, or of a few States only. They would be signals of general alarm. Every government would espouse the common cause. A correspondence would be opened. Plans of resistance would be concerted. One spirit would animate and conduct the whole. The same combinations, in short, would result from an apprehension of the federal, as was produced by the dread of a foreign, yoke; and unless the projected innovations should be voluntarily renounced, the same appeal to a trial of force would be made in the one case as was made in the other. But what degree of madness could ever drive the federal government to such an extremity.
James Madison, Federalist #46
It was obviously inconceivable to the Founders that several states would join the federal government in order to deny the people in certain other states their right to property.
----
But there are implied powers granted by the Constitution, something the Supreme Court ruled on in McCulloch v. Maryland.
The finding in McCulloch v. Maryland:
We are unanimously of opinion, that the law passed by the legislature of Maryland, imposing a tax on the Bank of the United States, is unconstitutional and void.
The State was trying to tax the new national bank. Please show me where I ever said there was no such thing as an implied power.
-----
It's obvious you don't understand the brilliance of the Constitution. The type of law it welds actually switches depending on the jurisdiction it exercises.
The first is its civil jurisdiction. This is exercised in the federal enclave and other areas designated as areas of exclusive legislation enumerated in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17.
The second type is Administrative jurisdiction. This is where the federal government exercises its national aspect. The regulation of commerce among the several states, seeing to it that the Militias were armed and organized, etc.
As Madison said:
The proposed Constitution, therefore, [even when tested by the rules laid down by its antagonists,][1] is, in strictness, neither a national nor a federal Constitution, but a composition of both. In its foundation it is federal, not national; in the sources from which the ordinary powers of the government are drawn, it is partly federal and partly national; in the operation of these powers, it is national, not federal; in the extent of them, again, it is federal, not national; and, finally, in the authoritative mode of introducing amendments, it is neither wholly federal nor wholly national.
James Madison Federalist #39
-----
If you think the Constitution was so carefully crafted to allow government to do whatever it wished as long as it could justify it to itself, all the time the Founders spent writing it was wasted.
They made it clear (and I've given you several quotes) where they said the parties to the compact were STILL sovereign outside the few enumerated powers they had given to the general government.
The problem is that you just don't want to believe it. All the quotes, precedents and legal writings will not convince you, because your mind is closed to facts contrary to what you've always believed. To whit;
The South had slaves. Slavery is evil, therefore the South was evil and whatever was done to them is justifiable.
That's your mindset, enjoy it at your leisure.
==================================================
I've responded to your repeated questions, yet you still ask them in an apparently lame attempt to get me to change the answer.
You continually 'rephrase' what I've said in an attempt to change the meaning to something I never said.
You have glossed over ALL the sources I've supplied, because you cannot refute their content.
You obviously have either never read or cannot comprehend the various documents, treaties and writings left by the Founders and concerning Constitutional construction, nor any of the Commentaries concerning the law or Constitutional operation.
Your 'sources' are still lacking and your replies all consist of "Yadda, yadda, yadda, you're just wrong." without a shred of substantiating evidence to bolster your assertions.
Your debating skills are quite puerile since you don't discuss, you just dictate.
If you have no wish to read the available information and discover the original intent, that is your choice, but I really can't one single, viable reason why I should continue this conversation with someone who doesn't have enough intellectual honesty to objectively look at the evidence presented.