If At First You Don’t Secede
Posted on 02/07/2010 6:15:41 AM PST by wolfcreek
An unexpected feature of this year's gubernatorial race is the revival of certain political notions identified with early American history. Republican candidate Debra Medina in particular has made nullification a major aspect of her campaign, both in her two debates with U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison and Gov. Rick Perry and on her Web site, which includes, under the label "Restore Sovereignty," the message that the U.S. Constitution "divides power between the federal and state governments and ultimately reserves final authority for the people themselves. Texas must stop the over reaching federal government and nullify federal mandates in agriculture, energy, education, healthcare, industry, and any other areas D.C. is not granted authority by the Constitution."
She does not specify the mechanism by which nullification would take place, but, obviously, she appears to believe that the legal authority to nullify is unquestionable, making it only a question of political will.
(Excerpt) Read more at statesman.com ...
Oh, they’ll be rumblings from all the different legal experts and court system. I just wonder if anyone will be listening or following orders?
Our state dept. trys that crap with countries like NK and Iran. They just laugh at us.
OK we've gone around and around on this so let me sum your position up as I understand it. You're saying no, a state cannot be expelled against it's will. You cannot point to the clause in the Constitution with forbids it, therefore you're saying the 10th Amendment implies that certain powers are forbidden to the states above and beyond what are listed in the Constitution. Is that accurate?
It doesn't matter whether or not the American Colonists had "under British law... the legal right to peacefully leave the empire, to secede".
But didn't you say in reply 581 that you were arguing "... for the 1776 rights of the States to secede from the British Union." That would indicate to me that you felt that they had a legal right to leave peacefully and that the British were in the wrong for opposing it. I'm just curious where you found that right at. Magna Carta? Act of Parliament? What?
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.
And yet you cannot point to the clause in the Constitution which says either one.
No.
The question you are asking concerns the operations of 49 States acting as a Union to expel the 50th State from that Union.
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 have told you.
But didn't you say in reply 581 that you were arguing "... for the 1776 rights of the States to secede from the British Union." That would indicate to me that you felt that they had a legal right to leave peacefully and that the British were in the wrong for opposing it. I'm just curious where you found that right at. Magna Carta? Act of Parliament? What?
The Declaration of Independence.
The States' Right of Unilateral Secession is one of the most fundamental American Ideals.
You deny this, because the Federal Union is more important to you than the most fuindamental Ideals of America.
N-S: No, that's par for the course when dealing with you. You can twist things in more bizarre ways than any other person I've met on this forum.
Once again, that’s rich coming from ‘non sequitur’…
;>)
No, I will state for the record that in my opinion the Constitution makes it clear that the need for permission is implied.
Oh, that’s sweet! You’re suggesting that a war that killed almost ¾ of a million Americans was justified on the basis of ‘implications?’
How nice…
I haven't changed at all. It is you who seems to have some doubts in your position. To put it bluntly, I say permission is needed and you seem to say it might be needed. That's progress and shows a move from your untenable earlier position.
“I say permission is needed...” Prove it, sport – and we’re talking written, constitutional law here.
Well I'll defer to your expertise in bullshit.
That “expertise” was developed in response to your bullsh!t posts.
Thanks!
;>)
But can you at least answer my question? A state joins the Union. What are you joining when you send in your Publisher's Clearing House entry?
Still don’t care to address Article I, Section 2, as per my multiple posts (#448 & #532), do you?
You’re as amusing as always…
For your claim to be correct then wouldn't the Constitution require that they show up if requires that they get permission to leave?
What the h@ll are you talking about? You’re the “implied” powers guru – you’re the one suggesting that permission to depart is required, if admission criteria are specified, not I. YOU are suggesting that they would need federal “permission to leave” – not I.
Substantiate your own argument – idiot…
I've read the Constitution start to finish several times and I can find the part about how long a term is and how many senators a state is entitled to and how House representation is determined but I can't find the part that says a state is required to send congressmen and senators. I find nothing that says that congressmen and senators must show up.
Oh, that’s sweet. Guess you must have been reading the D@mocrat party version of the Constitution. Let me help you out, sport:
Section. 2. The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States…Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers…
Section. 3. The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof [Modified by Amendment XVII], for six Years…
Read the Law of the Land, just once, before you run your mouth here…
If a state is not required to send them, or if they're not required to show up in Washington even if elected, then how can you come to the conclusion that Congressional approval is needed for them to resign?
That’s your conclusion, not mine, sport – based on your ‘authority to control admission implies authority to control departure’ argument. I admit that it’s a stupid argument, but it’s all you’ve got…
;>)
Well, sorry to disappoint.
At least you’re consistent…
;>)
Ok, Madison is talking about the relations between states, not the relationship between ratifying states and former states.
COMPLETELY WRONG - allow me to refresh your memory:
2. What relation is to subsist between the nine or more States ratifying the Constitution, and the remaining few who do not become parties to it?
…The second question is not less delicate; and the flattering prospect of its being merely hypothetical forbids an overcurious discussion of it. It is one of those cases which must be left to provide for itself. In general, it may be observed, that although no political relation can subsist between the assenting [ratifying] and dissenting [non-ratifying] States, yet the moral relations will remain uncancelled. The claims of justice, both on one side and on the other, will be in force, and must be fulfilled; the rights of humanity must in all cases be duly and mutually respected; whilst considerations of a common interest, and, above all, the remembrance of the endearing scenes which are past, and the anticipation of a speedy triumph over the obstacles to reunion, will, it is hoped, not urge in vain MODERATION on one side, and PRUDENCE on the other.
Mr. Madison was specifically addressing “the relationship between ratifying states and former states.” In other words, you’re a bull sh!t artist – as I’ve noted before.
Nowhere in that quote does Madison say the state is removed from the Union. Nowhere does he say the bond is broken. Nowhere does he refer to them as 'former states'. Instead he says that the moral relationship continues, just not a political one. Which makes sense.
Obviously, you’re wrong (there can be no “reunion” without there having been ‘disunion’). But if you really want to claim that the union between the States is not legal in nature – and that the supposedly supreme authority of the federal government is therefore not based on specific, written law – go for it, sport…
If Rhode Island continued to send representatives to Congress in Philadelphia under the Articles of Confederation then nothing prevented that. They would not doubt be lonely and not accomplish anything but there was nothing that prevented it.
Oh, you betcha! And there’s nothing preventing Mozambique from ‘sending representatives to Congress,’ either – but it doesn’t prove your point, does it?
;>)
There was a political disconnect but that did not dissolve the United States or break all the bonds between the 13 states. Nothing in the Constitution said that it did
Wrong again:
Article. VII. The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.
The Constitution was not established between non-ratifying States – it was established “between the States so ratifying the Same.”
What problem do you have with written law?
Ok then let's cut to the chase. If Rhode Island was expelled from the United States, if it was "NOT a member of the Union" as you claim, then wouldn't they have to be admitted under the provisions in Article IV?
Rhode Island was obviously admitted under the terms of Article VII, not Article IV…
;>)
Your attempts at insults are getting more and more predictable. You need some new material.
Only because it's in response to the bull crap you’ve been spewing here, literally for years. Maybe “you need some new material...”
;>)
;>)
Best regards!
;>)
And...what...clause...of...the...Constitution...says...that?
As I have told you.
Yes, you've told me a lot of things. But you have not pointed to the clause of the Constitution that supports your claim. If a power that is not prohibited to the states by the Constitution is reserved to the state then where does the Constitution prohibit the states from expelling another state against their will? Can't you find it?
The Declaration of Independence.
Written after the colonies had launched an armed rebellion against the crown. You mean you're now telling us that peaceful secession from the crown was not legal? Bummer.
The States' Right of Unilateral Secession is one of the most fundamental American Ideals.
But a State's Right to Unilaterally Expel Another State is not a fundamental right? Mega bummer.
You deny this, because the Federal Union is more important to you than the most fuindamental Ideals of America.
I doubt a lot of the things you say because they seem to be based on nothing but your opinion.
Sorry, N-S: I'm so used to your endless 'non sequiturs' that I misread your post! My sincere apologies!
;>)
Certainly. The Confederation Congress actually spent the last days of its existence making preparations to hand over the reigns to the new government. They set the dates for the 1789 presidential election and scheduled the 1st Congress to meet (2 days after their last session closed). In effect, elections under the new government occurred concurrently with the closing of business under the old, and on the schedule prescribed by the old.
Thank you!
Seems that issue was solved in the 1860's. States do not have the right to leave the union.
Oh, that’s sweet! You’re suggesting that a war that killed almost ¾ of a million Americans was justified on the basis of ‘implications?’
Considering the war was started by the confederacy it appears that they killed three-quarters of a million Americans over an island in Charleston harbor.
“I say permission is needed...” Prove it, sport – and we’re talking written, constitutional law here.
Let's clear up your point first. Are you now back-tracking and saying permission is not needed? Because if you're waffling on that then I need to keep an eye on the other stuff you claim.
Still don’t care to address Article I, Section 2, as per my multiple posts (#448 & #532), do you?
Presently. First I'm trying to make sense of your comparison between the Constitution and the Publisher's Clearing House contest. What are you joining when you send in your PCH entry? You haven't said.
What the h@ll are you talking about? You’re the “implied” powers guru – you’re the one suggesting that permission to depart is required, if admission criteria are specified, not I. YOU are suggesting that they would need federal “permission to leave” – not I.
Again, you toss out these idiotic analogies and when pressed to clarify you change the subject. You feeling OK? You really are not at your best lately.
Oh, that’s sweet. Guess you must have been reading the D@mocrat party version of the Constitution. Let me help you out, sport...
No, the Constitution. You should try it sometime.
Section. 2. The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States…Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers…
Section. 3. The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof [Modified by Amendment XVII], for six Years…
Ok, congratulations. You have successfully found the part that defines the length of the terms for congressman and senators. Now, what forces a state to send them to Washington if they don't want to? Or what forces a congressman or senator to set foot in Washington once elected? Because only if they're forced to go would that mean that they would be forced to get permission to leave, right?
That’s your conclusion, not mine, sport – based on your ‘authority to control admission implies authority to control departure’ argument. I admit that it’s a stupid argument, but it’s all you’ve got…
No, that was your conclusion, way back in reply 522 you somehow made the connection between a state leaving and a congressman resigning and stumbled to the conclusion that if one required the approval of the other states then so must the other. How you managed to arrive there is a mystery to me. I guess I just don't have your imagination.
COMPLETELY WRONG - allow me to refresh your memory...
Because you say it's wrong. Well no big surprise there.
Oh, you betcha! And there’s nothing preventing Mozambique from ‘sending representatives to Congress,’ either – but it doesn’t prove your point, does it?
Well sure there is. Nothing in the Constitution or the Articles of Confederation gave Mozambique any representatives in Congress.
Wring again.
And exactly where did that break the bonds?
Look, you can settle the whole question very easily by answering the question I asked. If Rhode Island was expelled from the United States and was a separate political entity not connected in any way with the other states - same as if it had been Mozambique - as you claim it was, then why did it not have to meet the requirements of Article IV to be admitted to the Union? Why was it required only to ratify the Constitution, same as the other 12 states did? Vermont had to get Congressional approval. The 46 states admitted after that had to. Why not Rhode Island? If it really had been expelled from the Union and all. As you claim. Over and over again. Incorrectly.
Rhode Island was obviously admitted under the terms of Article VII, not Article IV…
Obviously. And what does Article VII say? "The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same." So I guess that must mean that Rhode Island was a state. So how could it be expelled from the Union and still be a state?
Only because it's in response to the bull crap you’ve been spewing here, literally for years. Maybe “you need some new material...”
Awwww, now you've gone and gotten yourself into a bad mood again. Darn.
If At First You Don’t Secede
Can't stand politics. So, of course, that is why I hang out here, right?
Offer me a General's star in the new Texas Army and I might go for it. You would get more for your money as well...
Article V
"and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."
I don't know - have you caught up on your meds?
;>)
Considering the war was started by the confederacy it appears that they killed three-quarters of a million Americans over an island in Charleston harbor.
If you can prove that State secession was unconstitutional, you will have made a point. Dream on...
N-S: “I say permission is needed...”
WIJG: Prove it, sport – and we’re talking written, constitutional law here.
N-S: Let's clear up your point first. Are you now back-tracking and saying permission is not needed? Because if you're waffling on that then I need to keep an eye on the other stuff you claim.
Actually, we're discussing your claim: “I say permission is needed...” (Post #536)
"If you're waffling on that then I need to keep an eye on the other stuff you claim."
;>)
WIJG: Still don’t care to address Article I, Section 2, as per my multiple posts (#448 & #532), do you?
N-S: Presently. First I'm trying to make sense of your comparison between the Constitution and the Publisher's Clearing House contest. What are you joining when you send in your PCH entry? You haven't said.
Still don’t care to address Article I, Section 2, as per my multiple posts (#448 & #532), do you?
Of course not...
;>)
WIJG: What the h@ll are you talking about? You’re the “implied” powers guru – you’re the one suggesting that permission to depart is required, if admission criteria are specified, not I. YOU are suggesting that they would need federal “permission to leave” – not I.
N-S: Again, you toss out these idiotic analogies and when pressed to clarify you change the subject. You feeling OK? You really are not at your best lately.
Hey, I'm 100% willing to stick to the specific, written words of the Constitution - no 'implications,' or 'penumbras,' or any other 'mumbo jumbo.' Of course, that would sink your argument, wouldn't it?
Sorry if I've not been 'at my best lately' - the continuous diet of bull sh!t you've been feeding us isn't exactly healthy...
;>)
No, the Constitution. You should try it sometime.
Say what? I'm happy to stick with the specific written terms of the Constitution - "You should try it sometime..."
Ok, congratulations. You have successfully found the part that defines the length of the terms for congressman and senators. Now, what forces a state to send them to Washington if they don't want to? Or what forces a congressman or senator to set foot in Washington once elected? Because only if they're forced to go would that mean that they would be forced to get permission to leave, right?
No idea what you're talking about, sport - I've never suggested that the States are required "to send [Representatives and Senators] to Washington if they don't want to." In fact, I have repeatedly cited William Rawle - who suggests the exact opposite:
...the term guarantee, indicates that the United States are authorized to oppose, and if possible, prevent every state in the Union from relinquishing the republican form of government, and as auxiliary means, they are expressly authorized and required to employ their force on the application of the constituted authorities of each state, "to repress domestic violence." If a faction should attempt to subvert the government of a state for the purpose of destroying its republican form, the paternal power of the Union could thus be called forth to subdue it.
Yet it is not to be understood, that its interposition would be justifiable, if the people of a state should determine to retire from the Union, whether they adopted another or retained the same form of government, or if they should, with the, express intention of seceding, expunge the representative system from their code, and thereby incapacitate themselves from concurring according to the mode now prescribed, in the choice of certain public officers of the United States.
William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States of America, 1825/1829
Keep on chasing your tail, sport...
No, that was your conclusion, way back in reply 522 you somehow made the connection between a state leaving and a congressman resigning and stumbled to the conclusion that if one required the approval of the other states then so must the other. How you managed to arrive there is a mystery to me. I guess I just don't have your imagination.
Obviously, the Constitution nowhere restricts the resignation of congressman from office, or the resignation of a State from the union.
What was your point, exactly?
;>)
WIJG: COMPLETELY WRONG - allow me to refresh your memory...
N-S: Because you say it's wrong. Well no big surprise there.
Actually, no - you're wrong because your claims fly in the face of historical fact. So let's review the facts, once again, just to rub a little more salt in your wounds.
From James Madison's Federalist No. 43:
2. What relation is to subsist between the nine or more States ratifying the Constitution, and the remaining few who do not become parties to it?
…The second question is not less delicate; and the flattering prospect of its being merely hypothetical forbids an overcurious discussion of it. It is one of those cases which must be left to provide for itself. In general, it may be observed, that although no political relation can subsist between the assenting [ratifying] and dissenting [non-ratifying] States, yet the moral relations will remain uncancelled. The claims of justice, both on one side and on the other, will be in force, and must be fulfilled; the rights of humanity must in all cases be duly and mutually respected; whilst considerations of a common interest, and, above all, the remembrance of the endearing scenes which are past, and the anticipation of a speedy triumph over the obstacles to reunion, will, it is hoped, not urge in vain MODERATION on one side, and PRUDENCE on the other.
Mr. Madison (in Federalist No. 43) was specifically addressing “the relationship between ratifying states and former states.” In other words, you’re a bull sh!t artist – as I’ve noted before.
Nothing in the Constitution or the Articles of Confederation gave Mozambique any representatives in Congress.
And nothing in the Constitution gave Rhode Island "any representatives in Congress," before they ratified the Constitution.
Or are you still on your mystical 'union outside the written law' kick?
Look, you can settle the whole question very easily by answering the question I asked. If Rhode Island was expelled from the United States and was a separate political entity not connected in any way with the other states - same as if it had been Mozambique - as you claim it was, then why did it not have to meet the requirements of Article IV to be admitted to the Union?
Why was it required only to ratify the Constitution, same as the other 12 states did? Vermont had to get Congressional approval. The 46 states admitted after that had to. Why not Rhode Island? If it really had been expelled from the Union and all. As you claim. Over and over again. Incorrectly.
Yet another non sequitur from Non-Sequitur. Please see my Post # 604.
WIJG: Rhode Island was obviously admitted under the terms of Article VII, not Article IV…
N-S: Obviously. And what does Article VII say? "The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same." So I guess that must mean that Rhode Island was a state. So how could it be expelled from the Union and still be a state?
What the h@ll are you talking about? You are obviously conflating the terms 'State' and 'member of the union.' The two are not identical - sport...
Awwww, now you've gone and gotten yourself into a bad mood again. Darn.
Gosh - having to deal with kool-aide-drinking, historical-revisionist, living-Constitution liberals (like you ;>) always spoils my mood. Sorry, everyone...
;>)
ping ...FYI
Just like some thieves who break and enter and rob and pillage and murder because they have the most force and defeat their victims -- the property owner's rights are not trumped by the invaders' use of force.
Might does not make right. Lincoln's invasion of the Southern States was illegal, unconstitutional and treason if one regards them as States still in the Union and outright unilateral invasion of a foreign sovereign country if one regards them as such.
The question was not solved in the Union's favor by use of force by Lincoln.
The constitutional thing to do was to offer amendments for ratification, NOT force ratification of amendments by the use of military tyranny.
But if a state is expelled then it's no longer entitled to equal suffrage in the Senate or representation in the House now is it? It's not a state any more.
Lordy! I was reading this thread the other day before it grew to over 600!
Obviously a consensus hasn’t been reached on being able to nullify.
On the other hand, I always heard that since Texas was a Republic before it was a state, it could again become an independent Republic. We have the oil and the beef and what ever else was mentioned in emails - ahh - the large Military forts.
This is not a statement, lol, it’s rambling through the windmills of my mind.....
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.