Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Non-Sequitur
"The idea that the constitution supports unilateral secession is ridiculous."

I have been unable to find any language supporting your claim in the Constitution, and I have been looking for years.

Kevin Gutzman wrote in "the Politically Incorrect guide to the Constitution" (2007) the following regarding secession:

"Initially, many northerners conceded the validity of secession. In fact, some abolitionists had been calling for northern secession for years. In Congress, several Congressmen from northern states proposed amendments to limit the right of secession, de facto conceding that the right of secession already existed.

Yet, in his inaugural address, Lincoln called secession an impossibility. Representative Otis S Ferry of Connecticut must hate been surprised at this, as he had only weeks before proposed an amendment to the Constitution forbidding secession without the consent of Congress, the president, and the other states. Still Lincoln said that states could not secede."

Dr. Gutzman also quotes Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas as saying "At the constitutional level where we work, 90 percent of any decision is emotional. The rational part of us supplies the reasons for supporting our predilections".

Wow, quite a statement from a S.C. Justice! Well, at least he's honest.

In Texas v. White I suspect the quote from Justice Douglas was in full force for those in the majority. Gosh their very jobs could have depended on the decision. Interestingly, 3 Justices held the minority opinion in the Texas v. White case!

123 posted on 08/15/2007 7:02:30 PM PDT by Rabble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies ]


To: Rabble
I have been unable to find any language supporting your claim in the Constitution, and I have been looking for years.

Look a little harder. States are admitted to the Union only with the consent of the other states as expressed through a vote in Congress. Once allowed in, states cannot combine or split without consent of Congress. They cannot change their border by a fraction of an inch without consent of Congress. Why is it so hard to expect that leaving shouldn't require consent of Congress as well.

States cannot take any actions that might impact the interests of the other states without consent of Congress. They are forbidden from acting in such a manner unilaterally. Why should that restriction be dropped merely because they wanted to leave?

"Initially, many northerners conceded the validity of secession. In fact, some abolitionists had been calling for northern secession for years. In Congress, several Congressmen from northern states proposed amendments to limit the right of secession, de facto conceding that the right of secession already existed.

James Madison, who wrote the Constitution and knew a thing or two about it, said unilateral secession was not allowed. Why is he wrong?

Dr. Gutzman also quotes Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas as saying "At the constitutional level where we work, 90 percent of any decision is emotional. The rational part of us supplies the reasons for supporting our predilections".

And your point is?

In Texas v. White I suspect the quote from Justice Douglas was in full force for those in the majority. Gosh their very jobs could have depended on the decision. Interestingly, 3 Justices held the minority opinion in the Texas v. White case!

So? Five held for the majority.

125 posted on 08/15/2007 7:11:06 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur (Save Fredericksburg. Support CVBT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson