[Colonel Kangaroo]

Why then does the 10th amendment say: “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.”

Article 1, Section 10 DOES prohibits necessary expressions of sovereignty to the states

Tell me if you associated revolution with that of the Deceleration of independents tell me how it is that theses Decelerations and/or Ordinances are any different?

That's simple. The Founders won, the secessionists lost.

There is nothing in the Constitution enabling Lincoln to recognize secession or coddle rebellion. Lincoln, to remain true to his oath, had to limit himself to what the Constitution mandated him to do. That is the Supreme Law, not secession ordinances often obtained through political dishonesty and not reflecting the overwhelming will of the people needed to sustain a revolution.

[Who is John Galt?]

That's simple. The Founders won, the secessionists lost.

Oh - so you're a man of principle? Bravo!

;>)

There is nothing in the Constitution enabling Lincoln to recognize secession or coddle rebellion. Lincoln, to remain true to his oath, had to limit himself to what the Constitution mandated him to do.

Actually, there was nothing in the Constitution prohibiting State secession. Read it again, and tell me otherwise. Mr. Lincoln's actions represent nothing more than the imposition of one person's passions on an entire nation. Nearly three quarters of a million Americans died as a direct result...

[Who is John Galt?]

Article 1, Section 10 DOES prohibits [sic] necessary expressions of sovereignty to the states

Article 1, Section 10 prohibits certain specific actions by the States. No where does it proclaim any blanket prohibition of "expressions of [State] sovereignty." If it had in fact done so, the Constitution would never have been ratified...

;>)