The legal fiction that states can nullify US law persist in Texas

Austin American Statesman ^ | 2.6.2010 | Sanford Levinson

[Christian_Capitalist]

I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about 49 states that expel the 50th.

They can do that as individual States -- by leaving the present Union and forming their own.

If they wish to do so collectively, acting as a Union, to expel a member from the existing Compact, their Compact of Union must specify that they can do that -- because the Union only has such Powers as are specifically ceded to it by the individual States.

We're talking about the Constitution here, not some club. You've been talking about freedom of association and church membership and all the rest. Well then what part of the Constitution prevents the states from exercising their right of free association and booting a state out of the Union. It's still a simple question. Why not answer it?

Answered above.

No, it's more a question about your asinine "unilateral secession" ideology. You say that a state can walk out, at will, without permission, because the Constitution does not prevent it. Well then by extension a state can be kicked out, at will, without its permission, because nothing in the Constitution prevents that. Right? If not then what clause of the Constitution prevents it? And I doubt that the Constitution works the way you seem to want it to as well.

Unilateral Secession is how this Nation was founded.

I'm arguing for the 1776 rights of the States to secede from the British Union.
You're arguing for the 1776 right of the British Union to compel them to stay.

IOW, your position is directly opposed to the Founding Ideals of America.

[Las Vegas Ron]

Well, I tend to take the word of the victim over the word of the armed home invader.

Lol...great reply.

[crusty old prospector]

I think all Texans are proud that the Bush’s are Texans but their brand of “compassionate conservatism” does not represent the majority of the state’s constituents. As well, a degree from UT or A&M carries more water down here than one from Yale, which is the standard bearer for elitism.

[Mouton]

Good pick up about my spelling. My sense is my point was conveyed which is the goal of communication.

[OneWingedShark]

Let me remind you of something:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, 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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; [...]”

Note that they [the founders] admit, up front, that they are instituting/organizing a new government that best seems to secure the liberties of its people; they also state that the governments “long established” shouldn’t be changed lightly, the converse being that young-governments will have to be changed in order to resolve mistakes & oversights, most especially in relation to securing those rights.

[Idabilly]

“I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about 49 states that expel the 50th.”

I'd say expel Kansas ( Since you call it home ) But They are showing much promise - despite yourself,of course !

BTW, Are you planning that move yet? I'm sure your second cousin - Obama - Will not mind if you shack up in the Lincoln bedroom.

[Non-Sequitur]

So if you want to rebel and issue your own declaration explaining why then have at it.

[conimbricenses]

What, then, do you read? Because every delegate I listed plainly states something to the effect that conventions were the more certain route to go to achieve ratification. In modern parlance these are the arguments they made:

* Conventions make it less complicated to pass things than Legislatures (King)
* Conventions are more expedient (Gorham)
* Conventions avoid a conflict with the Articles of Confederation, which legislatures are sworn to (Butler)
* Conventions are more likely to favor the new national government (Wilson)
* Conventions aren't bound by the laws of some states that would prevent legislatures from ratifying, and they allow participation of the "ablest men" (e.g. governors, members of national congress etc.) who aren't presently members of the legislature (Williamson)
* Conventions are less susceptible that Legislatures to the opponents of ratification and, oh, by the way, the can do it in the name of "the people" (Madison)

Note that only Madison makes any explicit appeal to some mystical aura of "the people," and he does so after openly admitting that his real reason is making ratification more expedient. And also note that other delegates, including Morris (whose influence over the actual text of the Constitution probably carries more weight than any other single delegate), were basically indifferent and wanted to let the states pick.

The conclusion is pretty much unavoidable - they did it for political expediency. All that rhetoric about ratification being some solemn occasion of "the people" taking on some mystical aura of their philosophical authority to self-govern was, at most, an after thought at the convention. And it really didn't even come into vogue as an argument of its own until well after the Constitution had been drafted.

[conimbricenses]

The Confederation Congress continued to operate under the Articles until the last day of its final session: March 2, 1789. It's last full session was October 10, 1788.

This is notable because the Constitution "officially" took effect on June 21, 1788 when New Hampshire became the 9th ratifying state. When the Confederation Congress last met, only North Carolina and Rhode Island were holdouts.

That would seem to imply that for a very brief period of time, the U.S. actually had two concurrent national governments with the old transferring its power to the new. The non-ratifying states such as Rhode Island would presumably have been bound only to the old government until their ratification of the new.

[Non-Sequitur]

They can do that as individual States -- by leaving the present Union and forming their own.

That is not what I am asking. Can a state be expelled against its will by the other states? Yes or no? If not, what clause of the Constitution prevents it?

If they wish to do so collectively, acting as a Union, to expel a member from the existing Compact, their Compact of Union must specify that they can do that -- because the Union only has such Powers as are specifically ceded to it by the individual States.

Let me quote the 10th Amendment to you: "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." So what part of the Constitution prohibits the states from expelling another state against their will?

Answered above.

No, you haven't. In order to answer the question you need to tell me what clause in the Constitution prevents it.

Unilateral Secession is how this Nation was founded.

This nation was founded by starting and winning a rebellion against the British government. The Revolutionary War? 1776-1783? Perhaps you've heard of it?

I'm arguing for the 1776 rights of the States to secede from the British Union. You're arguing for the 1776 right of the British Union to compel them to stay.

OK, just so I'm clear here. What you are saying is that under British law the colonists had the legal right to peacefully leave the empire, to secede? And that King George was in the wrong for trying to prevent it? Is that what you want us to believe? Can you point to something that supports this?

IOW, your position is directly opposed to the Founding Ideals of America.

I honestly don't understand your position at all. You seem to be all over the board.

[kittykat77]

My neive friend, the SCOTUS merely needs to interpret the meaning of the First and Second amendments....

Sorry, but your used the word repeal, not interpret, in your original remark. Sure, the Supreme Court can interpret things up the wazoo, but they can't enact or repeal constitutional amendments.

[rustbucket]

Which would have to also mean that they were not out of the United States, right? Their political relationship may have been somewhat ambiguous but there was no complete severing of ties or explusion as Galt would have us believe. It that had been the case, if there was a complete severing of all bonds, then Article IV must apply.

The states that were sent the Constitution to ratify (or not) had all been members of the old union under the Articles of Confederation. If they ratified, they were in the new Union; if not, they weren't. There were no other conditions that I'm aware of.

As George Washington said of North Carolina in my quote above, "that State is not a member of the present Union." I figure since George Washington was the person who sent the states the Constitution to ratify in the first place, he would know what he was talking about. But I forget, you know better than Washington.

And if they were outside of the United States then how could they become states without consent of Congress per Article IV?

Bigun in post 560 answered you about that.

I figure the first Congress under the new Constitution knew what they were doing when they said products from North Carolina and Rhode Island imported INTO the United States were subject to duties as the goods of "any foreign state, kingdom, or country are made subject to." But obviously you know better than that first Congress did.

History according to non-seq beats the Jay Leno monologue every time.

[conimbricenses]

It would not be wise to read too much into the signatures on the Treaty of Paris. The diplomatic powers of the signatories on both sides were concurrent across multiple political entities. Britain, for example, claimed to be executing the authority in the name of George III as "King of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, Duke of Brunswick and Luneburg, Arch - Treasurer and Prince Elector of the Holy Roman Empire" even though his actual government was that of Great Britain and Ireland, and even though most of those other nations had separate governments that were non-signatory parties to the American part of the Treaty.

There were only 4 actual signatures on the Treaty of Paris: Adams, Franklin, Jay, and David Hartley (the British negotiator). A fourth American negotiator, Henry Laurens, did not sign.

The Treaty actually did identify the three American signatories as representatives of both the governments of their respective states and of the Continental Congress.

His Britannic Majesty on his part, David Hartley, esqr., member of the Parliament of Great Britain; and the said United States on their part, John Adams, esqr., late a commissioner of the United States of America at the Court of Versailles, late Delegate in Congress from the State of Massachusetts, and chief justice of the said State, and Minister Plenipotentiary of the said United States to their High Mightinesses the States General of the United Netherlands; Benjamin Franklin, esq`re, late Delegate in Congress from the State of Pennsylvania, president of the convention of the said State, and Minister Plenipotentiary from the United States of America at the Court of Versailles; John Jay, esq`re, late President of Congress, and Chief Justice of the State of New York, and Minister Plenipotentiary from the said United States at the Court of Madrid, to be the Plenipotentiaries for the concluding and signing the present definitive treaty

It is also noteworthy that the Treaty itself included corollary obligations from Spain, France, the Netherlands, and several other lesser European powers through a complex system of simultaneously executed documents. It was actually quite a feet to pull it all off as they did.

[Non-Sequitur]

The Treaty actually did identify the three American signatories as representatives of both the governments of their respective states and of the Continental Congress.

Well no it didn't. It identified them by former offices. "Late delegate", not "Delegate", "late Minister" not "Minister", etc. All three men represented the United States alone and not any individual state.

[wolfcreek]

In my mind, one thing is sure. If it gets to the point where Texas or Texas and other states are provoked into leaving the Union, all this legal mumbo jumbo won't amount to a hill of beans.

It's stated in the Texas Constitution we have an *inalienable* right to do so. Whether it's legal or not means very little at that point.

[conimbricenses]

They were "late delegates" of the Continental Congress as they had previously been appointed there. But the fact remains that the treaty identified the three American signatories both by their home states and as negotiators for the United States. The practice of recognizing them concurrently as representatives of both their home state state and of the national congress representing all states would also be consistent with the practices and conventions of the Articles of Confederation, which were in place at the time. Other treaties under the Articles used similar styles.

Treaty of Alliance with France, 1778

In faith where of the respective Plenipotentiaries, to wit on the part of the most Christian King Conrad Alexander Gerard royal syndic of the City of Strasbourgh & Secretary of his majestys Council of State and on the part of the United States Benjamin Franklin Deputy to the General Congress from the State of Pensylvania and President of the Convention of the same state, Silas Deane heretofore Deputy from the State of Connecticut & Arthur Lee Councellor at Law have signed the above Articles both in the French and English Languages declaring Nevertheless that the present Treaty was originally composed and concluded in the French Language, and they have hereunto affixed their Seals

Treaty of Commerce with France, 1778

The most Christian King, and the thirteen United States of North America, to wit, New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay Rhode island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania Delaware, Maryland, Virginia North-Carolina, South Carolina & Georgia, willing to fix in an equitable and permanent manner the Rules which ought to be followed relative to the Correspondence & Commerce which the two Parties desire to establish between their respective Countries, States, and Subjects, hi most Christian Majesty and the, said United States have judged that the said End could not b, better obtained than by taking for the Basis of their Agreement the most perfect Equality and Reciprocity, and by carefully avoiding all those burthensome Preferences, which are usually Sources of Debate, Embarrasment and Discontent; by leaving also each Party at Liberty to make, respecting Commerce and Navigation, those interior Regulations which it shall find most convenient to itself; and by founding the Advantage of Commerce solely upon reciprocal Utility, and the just Rules of free Intercourse; reserving withal to each Party the Liberty of admitting at its pleasure other Nations to a Participation of the same Advantages. It is in the Spirit of this Intention, and to fulfil these Views, that his said Majesty having named and appointed for his Plenipotentiary Conrad Alexander Gerard, Royal Sindic of the City of Strasbourg, Secretary of his Majesty's Council of State, and the United States on their Part, having fully impower'd Benjamin Franklin Deputy from the State of Pennsylvania to the general Congress, and President of the Convention of said State, Silas Deane late Deputy from the State of Connecticut to the said Congress, and Arthur Lee Councellor at Law

Treaty of Commerce with Prussia, 1786:

With this view his majesty the king of Prussia has nominated and constituted as his plenipotentiary, the baron Frederick William de Thulemeier, his privy counsellor of embassy, and envoy extraordinary, with their high mightinesses the states general of the United Netherlands, and the United States, have on their part, given full powers to John Adams, esquire, late one of their ministers ple- nipotentiary for negociating a peace, heretofore a delegate in Congress from the state of Massachusetts, and chief justice of the same, and now minister plenipotentiary of the United States with his Britannic majesty; doctor Benjamin Franklin, the minister plenipotentiary at the court of Versailles, and another of their ministers plenipotentiary for negociating a peace; and Thomas Jefferson, heretofore a delegate in Congress, from the state of Virginia, and governor of the said state, and now minister plenipotentiary of the United States at the court of his most christian majesty, which respective plenipotentiaries, after having exchanged their full powers, and on mature deliberation, have concluded, settled and signed the following articles.

To suggest otherwise is simply playing semantics.

[Soothesayer9]

I noticed the date at the bottom. 1865!

[wolfcreek]

Yep. I’m old school and a rebel.

[Bigun]

In my mind, one thing is sure. If it gets to the point where Texas or Texas and other states are provoked into leaving the Union, all this legal mumbo jumbo won't amount to a hill of beans.

That is possible but I wouldn't bet on it.

[Christian_Capitalist]

That is not what I am asking. Can a state be expelled against its will by the other states? Yes or no? If not, what clause of the Constitution prevents it?

They can do that as individual States -- by leaving the present Union and forming their own.

If they wish to do so collectively, acting as a Union, to expel a member from the existing Compact, their Compact of Union must specify that they can do that -- because the Union only has such Powers as are specifically ceded to it by the individual States.

As I've already told you.

OK, just so I'm clear here. What you are saying is that under British law the colonists had the legal right to peacefully leave the empire, to secede? And that King George was in the wrong for trying to prevent it? Is that what you want us to believe? Can you point to something that supports this?

It doesn't matter whether or not the American Colonists had "under British law... the legal right to peacefully leave the empire, to secede".

Any State has the right to secede from any Union at any time, for any reason or no reason whatsoever -- and may only be compelled to remain within a Union if the Compact of Union to which they have agreed specifically states that they may be compelled to remain.