Posted on 12/03/2010 4:39:40 AM PST by Colonel Kangaroo
The powers delegated to the United States by the Constitution.
A very important point of consideration.
Prior to the Civil War, it was usual to refer to "these" United States. There was a clear implication that there were many states and that they were (in effect) on the same team.
Since the Civil War, we use the term "the" United States, implying that there is a single political entity and we all participate in it.
There is a very important distinction there.
Prior to, and during, the ACW many people were very clear that they cared only about their state. They were citizes of, let's say, Virginia. They fought for Virginia. If Virginia had an agreement to be in a union with NY, fine. If Virginia did not have an agreement to be in a union with NY (and MA, and CT, and ...) then that was OK too. The key fact was that the citizen was a citizen of Virginia.
The modern sensibility that we are all expected to grow up with is that the United States is the only thing that really matters and we are all citizens of the USA. It is vital to realize that this is an idea imposed on us all AFTER the Civil War and BECAUSE of the Civil War.
Such an ideology cannot be used to counteract the thinking of people prior to the Civil War on why they should be free to leave the union of the several states. They simply didn't think the way we think now.
What powers? You keep stating that the Constitution grants the United States powers that forbid States from leaving the Union. What are those powers and where are they listed?
I guess that would depend upon a person’s perspective. Many left-wingers feel as if capitalism is tyranny so I guess I could understand that you would think that as well.
The Founders despised the British system of governance and thought of it as tyrannical so I guess by the same token you are trying to claim (or admit) that those who defend the Confederates also despise the US Constitution similarly.
This was the point that I was trying to ram home. We are not merely citizens of the United States, but citizens of these United States and Commonwealths.
You cannot be a citizen of the United States without being a citizen of one of those States first.
They (delegated powers)are in the Constitution. The 10th Amendment states that the states retain rights NOT delegated to the United States by this Constitution. If you are going to try and use the 10th as a rationalization for secession you should at least read the full amendment and not just the part that you want to twist into an argument. Your silly questions as to what powers are delegated and from where are idiotic. We are discussing the 10th Amendment and it is written there for you to read in simple and clear language.
What Constitutional justification do you have for states to usurp powers delegated to the United States? The 10th clearly is not a justification at all.
The 10th clearly acknowledges ‘powers delegated to the United States’ and that the states and the people retain rights not delegated. It offers no Constitutional justification to usurp powers delegated by the Constitution to the United States.
Nope, not getting off that easy.
Under which article and section of the Constitution are the rights to determine the legality of secession granted to the United States?
If you cannot point to a specific article and section, then we are to conclude that, since it is not covered by the USC, that right is reserved to the individual States.
Either post a reference to the article and section of the USC that delegates this responsibility to the United States or admit that you don’t know.
Well, as flames go, that wasn’t too bad. Thing is, I didn’t say the 10th DID justify usurping powers already delegated, only that powers not delegated are reserved (a word I specifically used). The question that still appears to hang in the balance in your discussion is whether the power to prevent secession has been delegated and so would make any attempt an clear usurpation.
Do you have a text in mind to support such a contention?
First then answer if secession is only a group right or if it is an individual right in your opinion. Can any individual declare himself and his land no longer subject to the laws of the United States in your view?
Something about enforcing “Union” at the point of bayonet, suspending habeas corpus, imposing an income tax, etc.
I pretty sure that George Washington didn’t fight for those things.
However, since the word "secession" does NOT appear in the Constitution, then it MUST be a power which is retained by the states, per the 10th.
The Constitution specifies what the federal government can and cannot do. Those things (such as secession) which the Constitution does not talk about, are things which the states can do. That is precisely the point of the 10th.
The Founders did not “secede” - they rebelled. It was in all the papers.
But we are not a Democracy. We are a union of the several states. The United States, as a political entity, is a union of state governments and on that basis is a joining of groups.
Therefore, an individual has no standing to declare "my house is no longer subject to the laws of the United states." However, a state which has previously entered into a union with other states must retain the right to secede from that union, if it feels that the union no longer provides value.
Secession is a group right. Popular vote decides the matter.
No because the word ‘secession’ by definition deals with the delegation of powers regarding governance and the 10th makes it clear that the states retain the rights not delegated to the United States. The only way then for the states to secede is to usurp these rights and disregard the actual words of the 10th Amendment.
The colonies ere independent from each other.
I find that you are discussing this matter on a very low intellectual level, and I'm done with you.
What I want to ask these Yankee Yahoos is this; if you think Southerners are a bunch of racist KKK'ers and anarchists, why would you want them in your country? Don't you want them to leave?
As an individual, no, since you and I as individuals did not ratify the Constitution.
However, as individuals represented as a group by our individual States, yes we do have the right to require our State to seceed.
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.