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 ...
And what gives them the power to do that without the consent of the other states?
But you're not arguing the case of a mutual voluntary agreement, or voluntary withdrawal. You're arguing the case of forcible, involuntary expulsion.
Yep. Now tell us what in the Constitution says that the states cannot do that.
Ergo: Show me first any founding document, anywhere, which states, suggests, or even implies your argument that any State or group of States has any such Sovereignty, over the associations of any other State, in the first place.
Sure. "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 show me where the power to expel another state is denied the states by the Constitution.
Then, we can talk about whether or not the Constitution permits or forbids such actions.
But the Constitution does not forbid it, or at least you can't point to the part that says that. Your knowledge of that document is pitiful at best.
So, once again, here's the deal: At such time as you first demonstrate that any State or group of States does enjoy any such Sovereignty over another State's associations, then we can talk about whether or not the Constitution permits or forbids such an action.
So, once again here's the fact: you cannot answer the question and haven't the courage to admit it. A true Southron trait.
I'm waaaaaaaiting....
As am I. But it's obvious that you aren't going top answer because you can't. And all the silly games you care to play isn't going to change that.
{{{crickets chirping}}}
That echoing in that empty space between your ears must be getting annoying by now.
The USC is silent on the matter, EVEN after the reconstruction amendments were passed, THIS ISSUE IS STILL UNRESOLVED UFB....Yankees can't even win correctly.
If it is silent, then it must be permitted; isn't that the whole argument behind unilateral secession and the 10th Amendment? As you all are fond of telling me secession without the consent of the states is not forbidden, therefore it must be permitted. So since expulsion without the consent of a state is not forbidden then it must be permitted as well. Right?
Does the USC discuss currency? Can states issue their own currency? If the USC were silent on that issue then that (issuing a state currency) is permitted? What about state bank? Is that permitted? The USC is silent in may areas.
During WWII it was assumed that POW’s were going to try to escape. THe camp Komandant didn’t come out tell the POW’s you can try to escape if you want. The POW escape “clause” is implied. In like vein a state can “escape” the USA. It may start a war (because Yankees are warlike) but the “right” to escape is implied.
So if a state coins there own money then defacto it is not a following the USC? The IOU's given out by CA, is that not a form of currency? It seems that even the most simple things in the USC are bent in ways unimaginable. I guess an implied right (secession) is nothing then if not more honest.
Precedent.
Silly rabbit.
You've never shown that a State HAS such Sovereignty, over another State's associations, to be governed by the Tenth Amendment in the first place. The Tenth Amendment certainly doesn't declare whether the States have any such Sovereignty over eachother's associations.
So, once again, here's the deal: At such time as you first demonstrate that any State or group of States does enjoy any such Sovereignty over another State's associations, then we can talk about whether or not the Constitution permits or forbids such an action.
I'm waaaaaaaiting....
{{{crickets chirping}}}
No they can't - Article I, Section 10, Clause 1.
What about state bank? Is that permitted?
Sure since there is nothing in the Constitution that says otherwise, though I can't imagine why they would want to since they can't coin money.
The USC is silent in may areas.
And as the 10th Amendment tells us that which is not reserved to the U.S. or prohibited to the states is reserved to the states. So that must mean that the states have the power to expel another state against its will since that is not prohibited, right? Right?
(*sigh*) I suppose it would be useless to point out that the German POWs were not governed by the Constitution?
No, really. What prevents it?
And you'll continue to waaaaaaait since you have no understanding of the Constitution and probably have never read it to begin with. They sum total of your argument is that it's illegal because you say it is. No matter how often I quote the 10th Amendment or your Southron brethren you'll continue to offer your opinion as fact. So you'll continue to waaaaaaaait and that cricket chirp is from that empty spot where most people have brains. You obviously pawned your's somewhere along the line.
But I'll give you a last chance to demonstrate to your choir just how smart you are. With that voluminous knowledge of the founders that you claim you have then no doubt that you have a dozen quotes from them saying specifically that secession did not need the consent of the other states? Not that secession is permitted, that's a given. But specifically endorsing unilateral secession. How about that? Can you come up with something? I'm betting you can't. Just like you couldn't come up with something showing a state couldn't be expelled against their wishes.
Please read more carefully my post 806
A state in a republic can try to “escape” the Central Govt. if they want, just as a prisoner can try to “escape” from prison. It is implied, the whole purpose of a Federal govt is to contain states rights; -> the whole point of a prison is to contain the inmate. The implied escape attempt of either is a given, whether either the state or a prisoner actually tries or not to escape is up to the state or the prisoner, nothing need be said or codified.
No, it is not. It's no different than any other promissory note that a state or government might issue. California IOUs are not legal tender and cannot be used by the recipient to pay for anything, nor are they advertised as such by the state.
It seems that even the most simple things in the USC are bent in ways unimaginable.
Depends on how imaginative you choose to get with your arguments.
I guess an implied right (secession) is nothing then if not more honest.
What about the right to expel a state? Is that more honest as well?
For that analogy to make any sense whatsoever then the states would have to be captured and forced into the Union, and that is not the case. All states were admitted with the consent of the other states, and if there was a case of a state being admitted against its will then I'm not aware of it.
And save us all the excuse that the Southern states were forced into the Union against their will. They were states, freely admitted, before their rebellion. They were states after their rebellion. They were states during their rebellion.
Mr. Madison has the floor:
“It is an established doctrine on the subject of treaties, that all the articles are mutually conditions of each other; that a breach of any one article is a breach of the whole treaty; and that a breach committed by either of the parties absolves the others, and authorizes them, if they please, to pronounce the compact violated and void.”
”The other position involved in this branch of the resolution, namely, ‘that the states are parties to the Constitution,’ or compact, is, in the judgment of the committee, equally free from objection... It appears to your committee to be a plain principle, founded in common sense, illustrated by common practice, and essential to the nature of compacts, that, where resort can be had to no tribunal superior to the authority of the parties, the parties themselves must be the rightful judges, in the last resort, whether the bargain made has been pursued or violated. The Constitution of the United States was for
med by the sanction of the states, given by each in its sovereign capacity. It adds to the stability and dignity, as well as to the authority, of the Constitution, that it rests on this legitimate and solid foundation. The states, then, being the parties to the constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity that there can be no tribunal, above their authority, to decide, in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated; and consequently, that, as the parties to it, they must themselves decide, in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition.”
OWNED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thomas Jefferson has the floor
The future inhabitants of the Atlantic & Missipi States will be our sons. We leave them in distinct but bordering establishments. We think we see their happiness in their union, & we wish it. Events may prove it otherwise; and if they see their interest in separation, why should we take side with our Atlantic rather than our Missipi descendants? It is the elder and the younger son differing. God bless them both, & keep them in union, if it be for their good, but separate them, if it be better.
http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/P/tj3/writings/brf/jefl159.htm
“If any State in the Union will declare that it prefers separation with the first alternative, to a continuance in union without it, I have no hesitation in saying “let us separate.”
“determined…to sever ourselves from the union we so much value rather than give up the rights of self-government…in which alone we see liberty, safety and happiness.”
Lincoln's Daddy - Daniel Webster has the floor: If the South were to violate any part of the Constitution intentionally and systematically, and persist in so doing, year after year, and no remedy could be had, would the North be any longer bound by the rest of it? And if the North were deliberately, habitually, and of fixed purpose to disregard one part of it, would the South be bound any longer to observe its other obligations? I have not hesitated to say, and I repeat, that if the Northern States refuse, willfully and deliberately, to carry into effect that part of the Constitution which respects the restoration of fugitive slaves, and Congress provide no remedy, the South would no longer be bound to observe the compact. A bargain cannot be broken on one side and still bind the other side.
Owned - Like the B!tch you are!
Idabilly, you have the floor. (And well done, I might add).
And Mr. Madison still has the floor: "The characteristic distinction between free Governments and Governments not free is, that the former are founded on compact, not between the Government and those for whom it acts, but between the parties creating the Government. Each of those being equal, neither can have more rights to say that the compact has been violated and dissolved, than every other has to deny the fact, and to insist on the execution of the bargains."
Translation: The compact isn't violated merely because one side says it is.
OWNED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
In your dreams.
Thomas Jefferson has the floor.
And when Thomas Jefferson says, "God bless them both, & keep them in union, if it be for their good, but separate them, if it be better" then it is clear he's talking about a mutual decision. That having considered the options, a part of the country decided that the would be better off parted and the remainder of the country allowed them to go. How does that compare with the Southern acts of unilateral secession? Where is Jefferson saying, "States can leave without discussion and regardless of the impact on the remaining states?" Nowhere. Jefferson, as Madison and any other Founder you care to quote, spoke of the right of states to leave but nowhere do they imply that the decision could be one sided.
“If any State in the Union will declare that it prefers separation with the first alternative, to a continuance in union without it, I have no hesitation in saying “let us separate.”
Even when you take it out of context, as you have done here, Jefferson is clearly saying that the partition is a mutual decision done for the benefit of both parties. Nowhere does he say, "If a state gets pissed off it can walk out without discussion."
Once again, you Lost Causers cannot see the forest for the trees. You latch on to the option of leaving without any thought as to the process behind it. Nowhere in any of your quotes do Madison or Jefferson support the idea of unilateral secession.
Lincoln's Daddy - Daniel Webster has the floor...
And I yield my time to him so he may keep the floor:
"I hear with distress and anguish the word "secession," especially when it falls from the lips of those who are patriotic, and known to the country, and known all over the world, for their political services. Secession! Peaceable secession! Sir, your eyes and mine are never destined to see that miracle. The dismemberment of this vast country without convulsion! The breaking up of the fountains of the great deep without ruffling the surface! Who is so foolish, I beg every body's pardon, as to expect to see any such thing? Sir, he who sees these States, now revolving in harmony around a common centre, and expects to see them quit their places and fly off without convulsion, may look the next hour to see heavenly bodies rush from their spheres, and jostle against each other in the realms of space, without causing the wreck of the universe. There can be no such thing as peaceable secession. Peaceable secession is an utter impossibility. Is the great Constitution under which we live, covering this whole country, is it to be thawed and melted away by secession, as the snows on the mountain melt under the influence of a vernal sun, disappear almost unobserved, and run off? No, Sir! No, Sir! I will not state what might produce the disruption of the Union; but, Sir, I see as plainly as I see the sun in heaven what that disruption itself must produce; I see that it must produce war, and such a war as I will not describe, in its twofold character."
Owned - Like the B!tch you are!
Wrong - like the boob you are.
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.