Posted on 06/06/2012 6:18:45 AM PDT by CNSNews.com
You conveniently ignore “Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery...”
“It says Congress has the right to prescribe the manner in which a state proves its acts. Secession is an act.”
Sure, and that’s all it says. It doesn’t say anything about dispossession of Federal property, or special conditions on proving secession acts, like you keep asserting. In fact, the words “general laws” directly contradict your assertion that a special process is needed for secession, which you still have not rebutted.
“Emotion has nothing to do with it. You said California would have the right to confiscate our federal warmaking ability on Dec 8, 1941.”
Yes, emotion has everything to do with how you framed the question. I simply stated a fact, that States have the right to secede. Then I elaborated that secession would always bring up a necessary problem of seizing immovable military assets, and that this problem is normally dealt with in a few different ways. You are the one who tried to frame the question to trap me into saying that I would support California seceding and following a particular path to handle that problem. If you read my answer, you’ll see I made no such assertion, I just said they have a right to secede at any time, as a general principle.
If you didn’t want to color the question with emotional baggage, then firstly, you would have picked a neutral scenario with no emotional connotations, and secondly, you wouldn’t have immediately gloated about your misinterpretation of my answer as if I had fallen into your emotionally-laden trap.
Not really.
Of course I rebutted it, when I said there is federal property involved. Secession is an act the requires the Congress to prescribe the manner in which it is proven.
Yes, emotion has everything to do with how you framed the question. I simply stated a fact, that States have the right to secede. Then I elaborated that secession would always bring up a necessary problem of seizing immovable military assets, and that this problem is normally dealt with in a few different ways. You are the one who tried to frame the question to trap me into saying that I would support California seceding and following a particular path to handle that problem. If you read my answer, you’ll see I made no such assertion, I just said they have a right to secede at any time, as a general principle.
It is what makes your position ridiculous. A state has the right to secede, yes, but they must allow Congress to prescribe the manner in which they do. It's ridiculous to assert that California could have sent a letter on Dec 8, 1941 saying they're out of here and all federal warmaking ability will be scrapped. Do you really think the founders were that stupid? That's a lot of what Article 4 is all about, to allow Congress to not allow a state to take the United States to suicide, nor to steal the property of all the states. All federal property is property of all the states, and the Congress must decide on how to deal with that property when a state wants to leave. A state can't just steal everything that's in it's borders that was paid for by all the states.
If you didn’t want to color the question with emotional baggage, then firstly, you would have picked a neutral scenario with no emotional connotations, and secondly, you wouldn’t have immediately gloated about your misinterpretation of my answer as if I had fallen into your emotionally-laden trap.
Emotion has nothing to do with it. It's a contingency that makes your position ridiculous. You would allow the suicide of the country over a state's whim of secession. It's why people like you are on the wrong side of a lot of issues. You can't think things through and you can't read what is right in front of you, the founders wisdom in letting Congress set the rules for a state's act to be proven.
“Of course I rebutted it, when I said there is federal property involved.”
No, you didn’t. Congress can only make general laws on how acts are proved. That means laws which apply to all acts, not a special law for this act, and that act, and oh, this act you have to bring before Congress for approval. You are just ignoring the plain language of the clause because you want it to say something else. You are still insisting that “prove” somehow is a concept equivalent to “approve”, which a basic grasp of the English language refutes.
“A state has the right to secede, yes, but they must allow Congress to prescribe the manner in which they do.”
This is a self-contradictory statement. The states have an inherent right to secede, or the most fundamental concept of American government, the right to self-determination, is a lie. If they can only secede by getting approval from the government they wish to separate from, then that is neither self-determination, nor an inherent right. Your position is equivalent to saying that we had no right to declare independence unless we got prior approval from King George or the British Parliament.
“That’s a lot of what Article 4 is all about, to allow Congress to not allow a state to take the United States to suicide, nor to steal the property of all the states.”
No, the section of Arcticle 4 that you are relying on in your arguments is not about that at all. It is simply about the States respecting or honoring the lawfully passed statutes of other states. There is not a single word in that section about what you are talking about, except perhaps in your imagination.
“All federal property is property of all the states, and the Congress must decide on how to deal with that property when a state wants to leave.”
According to you, but there is nothing in the Constitution that says this, despite your repeated misreadings of a few words to try and twist them to your argument. If there is a dispute over the Federal property, that is not sufficient to impair a state’s right to secede. It’s simply an issue that must be dealt with by some method between the two disputing parties. That’s why we have courts of law, diplomats, and armies.
“Emotion has nothing to do with it. It’s a contingency that makes your position ridiculous.”
I’m afraid you that you don’t seem to have a proper grasp on the concepts of natural rights and natural law that our country’s philosophy of government is founded on. One cannot assert that an absolute right is not absolute because in some circumstances, it will lead to some negative consequence. The only limitation on absolute rights is when they may impede on the absolute rights of others, and that is when you need the judicial system to step in and define where the boundary lies, or subordinate one right to the other. When you say that asserting a right is ridiculous because such a conflict arises, and so that right must not be absolute, you betray a fundamental misunderstanding of the concepts we are discussing. I’d suggest you go read some Hobbes, because he can explain it much more eloquently than I can.
I’m making a separate post to highlight the crux of the 2 flaws in your “Constitutional” argument, since these are the key points which demolish your entire argument, and you keep conveniently declining to answer my repeatedly pointing them out to you. If you won’t answer this post, then I’ll consider the argument over and I won’t respond to anymore of your posts, since a debate where one side evades the key issues is fruitless.
The first is your ignorance of the meaning of “general law”, the second, your misinterpretation of the word “prove”. These are legal terms, not subject to your personal interpretation, so I’m going to just go ahead and give you the legal definitions, in the hope that you will stop embarassing yourself and abandon these senseless lines of argument.
“General”
“Pertaining to, or designating, the genus or class, as distinguished from that which characterizes the spccics or individual. Universal, not particularized; as opposed to special. Principal or central; as opposed to local. Open or available to all, as opposed to select. Obtaining commonly, or recognized universally; as opposed to particular. Universal or unbounded; as opposed to limited. Comprehending the whole, ordirected to the whole; as distinguished from anything applying to or designed for a portion only. As a noun, the word is the title of a principal officer in the army, usually one whocommands a whole army, division, corps, or brigade. In the United States army, the rank of “general” is the highest possible, next to the commander in chief, and is only occasionally created. The officers next in rank are lieutenant general, major general,and brigadier general.”
Quoted from Black’s Law Dictionary
http://thelawdictionary.org/letter/g/page/5/
The key, in terms of the phrase “general law”, is “Universal, not particularized; as opposed to special.” Congress does not have the right to make particular or special laws concerning proving acts by the states. The laws governing the proving of an act of secession are, therefore, the same universal laws governing the proving of every other law.
“Prove”
“In a legal proceeding, to present evidence or logic that makes a fact seem certain.”
Quoted from NOLO’s Plain-English Law Dictionary
http://www.nolo.com/dictionary/prove-term.html
As you can see, prove does not carry any connotation of approval, but pertains only to demonstrating a fact, in this case demonstrating the laws, acts, statutes, etc that a State has passed. Your assertion that Congress must prove acts of State, is, in fact, completely backwards. Congress defines laws which tell States how to prove their laws to the other States. So it is not even Congress that must do the “proving”, it is the State!
“And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.”
Congress may prescribe the manner in which the acts shall be proved. Paraphrasing, since I know you have trouble with the word “prove”: Congress may prescribe the manner in which laws are demonstrated to be valid. Who is Congress prescribing this to? It is the States, since it is the States who must demonstrate their laws to the other States, so that they may give them full faith and credit. If Congress needed to prescribe something to itself, there would be no need to put that in the Constitution, since it would be an internal matter covered by parliamentary procedure.
Please, either refute these definitions or stop ignoring or misinterpreting them in order to prop up your faulty argument.
How do you feel about secession in order to get back to following the constitution?
"...and the effect thereof." means secession isn't a run-of-the-mill act. Therefore it requires Congress to set the rules for proving it as Article 4 says.
This is a self-contradictory statement. The states have an inherent right to secede, or the most fundamental concept of American government, the right to self-determination, is a lie. If they can only secede by getting approval from the government they wish to separate from, then that is neither self-determination, nor an inherent right. Your position is equivalent to saying that we had no right to declare independence unless we got prior approval from King George or the British Parliament.
No, I said a state has the right to secede. I didn't say a state has to get approval from Congress. A state can secede but first it must allow Congress to prescribe the manner in which secession is proven as Article 4 says.
No, the section of Article 4 that you are relying on in your arguments is not about that at all. It is simply about the States respecting or honoring the lawfully passed statutes of other states. There is not a single word in that section about what you are talking about, except perhaps in your imagination.
You're dead wrong about that. Article 4 also covers how a state is admitted. If Article 4 covers how a state is admitted, naturally it covers how a state secedes, and that is where allowing the Congress to prescribe the manner in which a state proves its acts comes in. You seem to think that Article 4 consists of one statement.
According to you, but there is nothing in the Constitution that says this, despite your repeated misreadings of a few words to try and twist them to your argument.
Article 4 says this plainly.
If there is a dispute over the Federal property, that is not sufficient to impair a state’s right to secede.
I'd say the Civil War proves you wrong there. Apparently there was a dispute over whether South Carolina could claim Fort Sumter. lol If it is so cut-and-dry as you think, why was there a struggle over Fort Sumter? A lot of people disagreed with this silly statement of yours.
It’s simply an issue that must be dealt with by some method between the two disputing parties. That’s why we have courts of law, diplomats, and armies.
No, that's why we have the Congress, as Article 4 says.
I’m afraid you that you don’t seem to have a proper grasp on the concepts of natural rights and natural law that our country’s philosophy of government is founded on. One cannot assert that an absolute right is not absolute because in some circumstances, it will lead to some negative consequence. The only limitation on absolute rights is when they may impede on the absolute rights of others, and that is when you need the judicial system to step in and define where the boundary lies, or subordinate one right to the other. When you say that asserting a right is ridiculous because such a conflict arises, and so that right must not be absolute, you betray a fundamental misunderstanding of the concepts we are discussing.
South Carolina agreed to the Constitution, including Article 4. Can they secede, yes, but there is a process that must be followed, and that is to allow the Congress to set the rules for secession.
I’d suggest you go read some Hobbes, because he can explain it much more eloquently than I can.
There's your problem right there. The two most important documents in history are the bible and the Constitution, in that order. I don't need a pope or most televangelists to tell me what the bible says, and I don't need any book writer to tell me what the Constitution says. Both are written to me and I can read them on my own. You should try it sometime.
For instance, since secession is such a momentous act, perhaps the Congress would require a referendum of all the voters in that state, or of super-majorities of the legislature. Perhaps Congress would have the neighboring states give their input on security matters and traffic and trade matters. There would certainly have to be restitution on federal property in the state's borders, restitution or perhaps an agreement like we have with Gitmo.
It's ridiculous to think the secessions of 1861 were legitimate secessions, there were no agreements on anything, just wanton stealing.
Let's see if you can answer questions on two topics:
#1 Does Article 4 cover the entry of states in the union? If so, wouldn't that be the most logical place to look to see how the exit of states is to be inferred? Naturally, Madison didn't explicitly write in the Constitution how to destroy the Constitution, so he wouldn't lay secession out step by step, but we can see that Congress is the controlling authority when it comes to relations between the states.
#2 If South Carolina would have allowed the congress to set the process for secession and then followed that process including restitution of federal property, then would there have been a squabble over Fort Sumter?
Liberals control Hollywood, the courts, television, the universities, most of the governorships, most religious institutions, Wall Street, the Federal Reserve, the presidency, and the Senate. Liberals hate the Constitution and refuse to follow it. They admire people like Stalin, and Mao. I think it may be necessary for most of the western, the midwestern, and the southern states to see what kind deal the congress may give us on secession. The liberals on the coasts may let us go on good terms, a "good riddance" type of situation. Walter Cronkite espoused this point of view before he went senile, wanting the southern states to separate from the rest of the country. Cronkite was your typical boneheaded liberal.
I believe once we separated we could take the constitution and amend everything that that caused this one to lose is power. Amendments I would support is simplication of taxes, just income and acreage and set the rates in stone. With these two taxes we could change the laws for citizenship and voting rights. A person applying for citizenship would have to agree on about ten political views regarding trade, taxation, Christianity, abortion, the role of government, etc. The top ten issues that make us hate each other now. All liberals could live in the liberal states that didn't leave, or live with us as non-voting citizens. Once a person gained citizenship he/she still couldn't vote until they owned a minimum one lot of land. They way the have full skin in the game with the income and acreage tax. Acreage taxes would be very low, just enough to make people think about their taxes and avoid a return to serfdom.
Anyway, I could go on and on but I'm getting too detailed. That's what I think and if this were to happen, I believe our success in strength and abundance would cause the rest of the states to eventually rejoin us and there would be a new birth of freedom with the principles of our constitution and the amendments to make it stick this time.
If the Congress wouldn't give us terms we can meet to secede then we may have to start small in another part of the earth. It's either than or continue living in a non-constitutional hellhole the liberals are driving us to.
count me in
There were, however, specific guaranties that states could LEAVE the union if it was not working out.
Imagine that the civil war was NOT about the federal government forcing the southern states to give up slavery, imagine it was about forcing the southern states to,... I dunno... buy health insurance.
There were, however, specific guaranties that states could LEAVE the union if it was not working out.
Imagine that the civil war was NOT about the federal government forcing the southern states to give up slavery, imagine it was about forcing the southern states to,... I dunno... buy health insurance.
All right, there's two. I wonder how many more we need to reach critical mass? :^)
“”General” would mean the process of secession would apply to all the states, and “prove” means that once a state gets the process and follows the directives then secession would be validated.”
Well, you’re getting close to the correct meaning, but your interpretation is still not valid. Don’t take my word for it, though. After all, if Congress has the authority to pass laws governing how the acts shall be proved, then they have already done so, and we can just look at what those laws say. Any speculations on your part as to what those laws would be, if they were never actually passed, are irrelevant. So, what laws did Congress pass implementing this clause?
“The Full Faith and Credit Clause—Article IV, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution—provides that the various states must recognize legislative acts, public records, and judicial decisions of the other states within the United States. It states that “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.” The statute that implements the clause, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1738...”
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Full+Faith+and+Credit+Clause
Let’s look at the US Code 28 U.S.C.A. § 1738 which implements the statute, since this is the “general law” that Congress passed, under authority of this clause, to implement the process described therein.
“28 USC § 1738 - State and Territorial statutes and judicial proceedings; full faith and credit
The Acts of the legislature of any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States, or copies thereof, shall be authenticated by affixing the seal of such State, Territory or Possession thereto.
The records and judicial proceedings of any court of any such State, Territory or Possession, or copies thereof, shall be proved or admitted in other courts within the United States and its Territories and Possessions by the attestation of the clerk and seal of the court annexed, if a seal exists, together with a certificate of a judge of the court that the said attestation is in proper form.
Such Acts, records and judicial proceedings or copies thereof, so authenticated, shall have the same full faith and credit in every court within the United States and its Territories and Possessions as they have by law or usage in the courts of such State, Territory or Possession from which they are taken.”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1738
(This is the current version of the law, but essentially the same law was in effect since 1790, only some wording which is inconsequential to our argument has been modified. You can see the original law here: http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a4_1s6.html)
That’s it. Nothing about special rules for secession, or submitting secession acts to Congress for to be “proved” under you definition of that word, or disposing of Federal property. Just, exactly as I have said, the State must follow one standard process, for any and all acts of the legislature, to certify that the law was validly passed, before it must be given full faith and credit by the other states. Your argument is demonstrated to be fallacious, so I’d suggest you abandon it and try some other line of attack before you make yourself look foolish.
“For instance, since secession is such a momentous act, perhaps the Congress would require a referendum of all the voters in that state, or of super-majorities of the legislature.”
Even if we stipulate that Congress had such authority under this clause, you are completely ignoring the fact that Congress would have to actually pass such laws BEFORE the states would have to honor them. Not only that, but the states could challenge the constitutionality of such laws in the courts, and they might not even be held to be valid. That’s moot, though, because no such laws were ever passed by Congress, therefore the States were not obligated to follow them. States are simply not bound by the products of your imagination, 150 years after the fact.
“It’s ridiculous to think the secessions of 1861 were legitimate secessions, there were no agreements on anything, just wanton stealing.”
They were passed lawfully by the state legislatures, and they were “proved” by the method specified by Congress, so they certainly were legitimate. Your continued attempt to confuse that issue with the issue of Federal property isn’t relevant at all as to whether the acts of secession were legitimate. You can argue that the seceded states acted unlawfully as regards the Federal property, but that has no bearing as to whether the acts themselves were valid.
“#1 Does Article 4 cover the entry of states in the union? If so, wouldn’t that be the most logical place to look to see how the exit of states is to be inferred? Naturally, Madison didn’t explicitly write in the Constitution how to destroy the Constitution, so he wouldn’t lay secession out step by step, but we can see that Congress is the controlling authority when it comes to relations between the states.”
Yes, Article 4 covers the entry of states into the union. It might be a logical place to look for information on how states could exit the union, but since there is nothing in the Article referring to this circumstance, it’s not logical to keep trying to find something in the Article that is not there. Also, I’d say that Congress is not a “controlling authority” on interstate matters, but a mediating authority. Confusing those two concepts is exactly what has led to many of the egregious federal overreachs that conservatives despise, especially the unlimited expansion of Federal authority through the interstate commerce clause.
“#2 If South Carolina would have allowed the congress to set the process for secession and then followed that process including restitution of federal property, then would there have been a squabble over Fort Sumter?”
South Carolina had no authority to allow or disallow Congress to make any laws. The Constitution is the only authority that governs what laws Congress is allowed to make. Congress chose not to make any laws governing secession, and Congress showed no intention of making any such law, so what exactly are you suggesting South Carolina should have done? Begged and pleaded for Congress to put restrictions on their right to secede?
If Congress had made such laws, and this is completely theoretical, then perhaps the dispossession of Federal property would have been covered by them, and then perhaps the issue could have been setted amicably. They didn’t do that, and have never done that since, so we are just degenerating into wild speculation here, which is pointless.
“”...and the effect thereof.” means secession isn’t a run-of-the-mill act. Therefore it requires Congress to set the rules for proving it as Article 4 says.”
“and the effect thereof” means... “and the effect thereof”. There is not a single word in that phrase about secession or “run-of-the-mill act”s. I can’t conceive of how you are reading that into the phrase, is it in one of the penumbras or the emanations?
Again, as I said in my other response, even if your reading were somehow accurate, Congress would have to pass such acts covering the “effect thereof” before the states would have to obey them, which they did not, so it’s a moot point.
“No, I said a state has the right to secede. I didn’t say a state has to get approval from Congress. A state can secede but first it must allow Congress to prescribe the manner in which secession is proven as Article 4 says.”
This is not valid Constitutional logic. If a state has a right, and it has not yet been limited by Congress, then it is free to exercise that right. It does not have to wait for Congress to pass any laws limiting or prescribing the manner in which it can exercise the right before it acts on that right. Perhaps you can argue that Congress should have passed laws covering this circumstance, but they did not, so you cannot expect states to be bound by laws that never were passed. I think your argument here is called “wishful thinking”.
“You’re dead wrong about that. Article 4 also covers how a state is admitted.”
I was not speaking of Article 4 as a whole, simply the full faith and credit clause, which is the section you originally referred to in order to support your assertion.
“If Article 4 covers how a state is admitted, naturally it covers how a state secedes...”
Naturally? Sorry, but naturally, Article 4 only covers what Article 4 says that it covers, and nothing in Article 4 says one single word specifically about secession. You admit as much in your other post, so I’m not going to let you claim otherwise now.
“Article 4 says this plainly.”
The only part of article 4 that talks about federal property is in Section 3, which deals with admitting new states. The language in this section is then, under standard legal principles, limited to the subject of the preceding statements in the section, and has always been understood to simply give Congress legal authority over territories and possessions of the US that are not within the boundaries of any existing state. You cannot magically make it apply to anything else, that’s just not how things work. If you don’t believe me, ask any lawyer, or post a thread here and ask one of the many lawyers on FR to weigh in with their learned opinions as to whether statements in laws are subordinated to and limited by the preceding statements in that section of the law.
“I’d say the Civil War proves you wrong there. Apparently there was a dispute over whether South Carolina could claim Fort Sumter.”
You are confusing practical ramifications of secession with a legal impairment to secession, which is what I was talking about. A legal, diplomatic, or military dispute that may arise from secession cannot impair the right of the state to secede. It might impair the state’s ability to exercise that right, but it does not change the legality of that right one bit.
“No, that’s why we have the Congress, as Article 4 says.”
“South Carolina agreed to the Constitution, including Article 4. Can they secede, yes, but there is a process that must be followed, and that is to allow the Congress to set the rules for secession.”
I think I’ve covered these arguments well enough in the other post.
“The two most important documents in history are the bible and the Constitution, in that order.”
Agreed.
“I don’t need any book writer to tell me what the Constitution says.”
Well, I was talking about concepts which predate the Constitution, underpin the Constitution, and in fact, supercede the Constitution. The reason natural rights supercede the Constitution is because they emanate from God, not from man, so they cannot be bound or modified by any acts of man, including the Constitution. Without these rights, we would not have had any right to make our own Constitution in the first place, so you cannot discount them and then refer to the Constitution as any kind of authority. The reason I refer to Hobbes is because I think he did the best job explaining these rights and their consequences, of which you seem to not be adequately informed. You may argue that you do not need to be informed of them, but you cannot properly understand the Constitution and the many complex issues surrounding it without understanding natural law and natural rights, any more than you could understand the Constitution without previously receiving some preliminary instruction in English grammar, vocabulary, and basic concepts like law and government.
If we were talking about the Bible, the argument that it is self-interpreting and able to stand on its own could be valid, but God did not write the Constitution, so the Constitution cannot be so perfect, complete, and self-interpreting. If it were, we would have no need of amendments and courts, and any child possessing a modicum of reason could opine eloquently about it. As it stands, most American adults do not properly understand many concepts in the Constitution, despite all of their education, including required courses in school specifically on the subject. If they did, we wouldn’t be in the mess that we are in as a country.
Congress has never prescribed the manner in which a state would prove its secession. A state that wants to secede must allow Congress to do that as Article 4 says.
Even if we stipulate that Congress had such authority under this clause, you are completely ignoring the fact that Congress would have to actually pass such laws BEFORE the states would have to honor them. Not only that, but the states could challenge the constitutionality of such laws in the courts, and they might not even be held to be valid.
Yes it would take a while. It took a while to join. Such a momentous move by a state should take a while to allow the people of the state to confirm secession is what they really want to do.
They were passed lawfully by the state legislatures, and they were “proved” by the method specified by Congress, so they certainly were legitimate.
They did not follow Article 4, they were not legitimate.
Yes, Article 4 covers the entry of states into the union. It might be a logical place to look for information on how states could exit the union, but since there is nothing in the Article referring to this circumstance, it’s not logical to keep trying to find something in the Article that is not there.
Oh, it's there. If South Carolina had followed Article 4, there would have been an agreement on Fort Sumter before the process of secession.
Also, I’d say that Congress is not a “controlling authority” on interstate matters, but a mediating authority. Confusing those two concepts is exactly what has led to many of the egregious federal overreachs that conservatives despise, especially the unlimited expansion of Federal authority through the interstate commerce clause.
The states agreed to allow Congress to pass general laws on proof of acts, not to mediate them. I'd call that controlling authority between states. When Congress abuses that from time to time, then vote them out. But there was no abuse in 1861 because the southern states didn't allow Congress to even get involved.
South Carolina had no authority to allow or disallow Congress to make any laws.
A four year Civil War says otherwise. The constitutional process should have been followed.
Congress chose not to make any laws governing secession, and Congress showed no intention of making any such law,...
South Carolina never gave the Congress the opportunity.
...so what exactly are you suggesting South Carolina should have done? Begged and pleaded for Congress to put restrictions on their right to secede?
No where have I said that a state has to beg. I've said all along a state can secede, but they have to follow Article 4 and take it to Congress to get terms of separation.
If Congress had made such laws, and this is completely theoretical, then perhaps the dispossession of Federal property would have been covered by them, and then perhaps the issue could have been setted amicably. They didn’t do that, and have never done that since, so we are just degenerating into wild speculation here, which is pointless.
The way secession was attempted in 1861 sure as hell didn't work. I suggest following Article 4 next time.
Your whole position now is reduced to saying that states have to wait for Congress to pass a law restricting their rights before they can exercise them. That’s an indefensible proposition, and certainly not a conservative one.
All it would take to remove that right completely, if your position were correct, would be for Congress to simply not act. POOF! The rights of the states are gone. Ludicrous.
Secession has security and property implications to other states, there are effects on other states. Therefore a state must allow the Congress to set the general laws of secession as Article 4 says.
Again, as I said in my other response, even if your reading were somehow accurate, Congress would have to pass such acts covering the “effect thereof” before the states would have to obey them, which they did not, so it’s a moot point.
The Congress wasn't weren't given the opportunity. That's what made the 1861 attempt illegitimate.
This is not valid Constitutional logic. If a state has a right, and it has not yet been limited by Congress, then it is free to exercise that right. It does not have to wait for Congress to pass any laws limiting or prescribing the manner in which it can exercise the right before it acts on that right. Perhaps you can argue that Congress should have passed laws covering this circumstance, but they did not, so you cannot expect states to be bound by laws that never were passed. I think your argument here is called “wishful thinking”.
No, its simple. If a state wants to secede it must allow Congress to pass the general laws of secession. The southern states didn't do this, therefore it was an illegitimate secession.
I was not speaking of Article 4 as a whole, simply the full faith and credit clause, which is the section you originally referred to in order to support your assertion.
If Article 4 covers how a state is admitted then naturally it covers how a state secedes or else it would have been in a different Article. You're married to your contention that that section has nothing to do with the rest of Article 4. That's a ridiculous way to think of how the Constitution is written. Article 4 covers relations between the states and the Congress. Of course that section covers how a state is to approach secession.
Naturally? Sorry, but naturally, Article 4 only covers what Article 4 says that it covers, and nothing in Article 4 says one single word specifically about secession. You admit as much in your other post, so I’m not going to let you claim otherwise now.
You're saying every act a state could have ever thought of passing should have been included in Article 4. That's a ridiculous way to look at it. If Madison would have mentioned every act a state could conceive of into perpetuity, Article 4 would have went on forever.
The only part of article 4 that talks about federal property is in Section 3, which deals with admitting new states. The language in this section is then, under standard legal principles, limited to the subject of the preceding statements in the section, and has always been understood to simply give Congress legal authority over territories and possessions of the US that are not within the boundaries of any existing state. You cannot magically make it apply to anything else, that’s just not how things work.
No, its simple. Article 4 says a state must allow the Congress to pass the general laws on how to prove their acts, and secession is an act, with effects.
If you don’t believe me, ask any lawyer, or post a thread here and ask one of the many lawyers on FR to weigh in with their learned opinions as to whether statements in laws are subordinated to and limited by the preceding statements in that section of the law.
Like I said earlier, I don't need the pope or most televangelists to tell me what the bible says, and I don't need any lawyer to tell me what the Constitution says since both were written to me. There have been plenty of lawyers on both sides of the issue since day one.
You are confusing practical ramifications of secession with a legal impairment to secession, which is what I was talking about. A legal, diplomatic, or military dispute that may arise from secession cannot impair the right of the state to secede. It might impair the state’s ability to exercise that right, but it does not change the legality of that right one bit.
Again, had South Carolina followed Article 4, there would have been an agreement on Fort Sumter. Article 4 was not followed, therefore there was no legitimate secession. Secession is an act of a state and therefore covered by Article 4.
Well, I was talking about concepts which predate the Constitution, underpin the Constitution, and in fact, supercede the Constitution. The reason natural rights supercede the Constitution is because they emanate from God, not from man, so they cannot be bound or modified by any acts of man, including the Constitution. Without these rights, we would not have had any right to make our own Constitution in the first place, so you cannot discount them and then refer to the Constitution as any kind of authority. The reason I refer to Hobbes is because I think he did the best job explaining these rights and their consequences, of which you seem to not be adequately informed. You may argue that you do not need to be informed of them, but you cannot properly understand the Constitution and the many complex issues surrounding it without understanding natural law and natural rights, any more than you could understand the Constitution without previously receiving some preliminary instruction in English grammar, vocabulary, and basic concepts like law and government.
That's where you're totally wrong. This worship of the "elites" where it's assumed they can tell us more than our own eyes is one of the biggest obstacles to keeping our freedoms. If people would think for themselves rather than wait for word from on high, the hucksters of the world would not get away with all the frauds they commit. You say a citizen cannot be an authority on the Constitution unless he is in agreement with your favorite author. That's outrageous to someone like me who loves freedom and knows that the constitution was written to me, and not just the lawyers and writers. Like I said, Madison wrote it simple, all the states have to do is follow it.
If we were talking about the Bible, the argument that it is self-interpreting and able to stand on its own could be valid, but God did not write the Constitution, so the Constitution cannot be so perfect, complete, and self-interpreting. If it were, we would have no need of amendments and courts, and any child possessing a modicum of reason could opine eloquently about it. As it stands, most American adults do not properly understand many concepts in the Constitution, despite all of their education, including required courses in school specifically on the subject. If they did, we wouldn’t be in the mess that we are in as a country.
No, the reason the bible and the Constitution are not followed is the same reason most people have never done right from the beginning of time...because they don't care. Since the beginning of time well less than half of any people throughout history have cared about such things. And of those, a small percentage look at it with the work it takes to understand it. You care enough about the Constitution to try to prove your favorite author correct, but you're not really looking at it for intent and truth, because you have a theory you're married to and won't let go no matter what you have to rationalize. I look at both in the simplicity in which they are written, knowing that both are written to me. There is intent and structure to both. Its why Jesus said that the bible is written in parables so that only his people would understand it. Of course the Constitution is not even written in parables so it should be simple. In the bible, if you start parsing every word not thinking about intent and structure, you can't get the parables. Lawyers are not looked at too kindly in the bible, for good reason...they screw up what should be simple.
There is a right to secede, but the Constitution that was agreed to by the states says that a state must allow the congress to pass the general laws of that act and the effects thereof. No right has been restricted, it was there from the beginning, and agreed to.
All it would take to remove that right completely, if your position were correct, would be for Congress to simply not act. POOF! The rights of the states are gone. Ludicrous.
The representatives of that state could bring secession up in the Congress and try to pass the way in a state secedes. If the Congress won't agree on a way or indefinitely waits, then there would be no argument that the process wasn't followed. But as it stands, that's never happened.
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.