Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: rockrr; Jacquerie
The ratification documents are artifacts, not legally-binding agreements. They did not, and do not have the force of law.

I assume that you can point to where others of the original 13 states objected back then to NY's, VA's, and RI's resume powers statements? Or did they accept those ratification documents? Forming a Union without New York and Virginia would have made a very impractical Union, IMO.

[Jacquerie]: The Constitution never would have been ratified if states thought they could not regain their sovereignty —; in a word, secede.

[rockrr]: There was much debate over this. In the end they all ratified the US Constitution.

The Charleston (SC) Daily Courier newspaper of May 17, 1861 reported that six delegates to the 1788 Virginia ratification convention who were elected to oppose ratification changed their minds to vote for ratification because the "powers might be resumed" provision was included in their ratification document. That provision made Virginia’s ratification possible, and similar statements in New York's and Rhode Island's ratifications probably did for their states as well.

As I remember, Rhode Island's populace voted ten to one against ratification (the only time the Constitution itself was voted on by a state's voting population rather than by convention delegates). A small RI convention later ratified the Constitution with a "Powers of Government may be reassumed" statement. I believe also, but may be wrong, that New York's ratification convention had more anti-federalists than federalists and that reassume powers statement may have made NY's ratification possible.

Four other states advocated Tenth Amendment like statements in their ratification documents (NC, SC, MA, NH), and Jefferson Davis cited the Tenth Amendment as justification/authority for secession [Link]. Those four states along with VA, NY, and RI, make a majority of the thirteen original states either reserving powers not delegated to the states or specifically reserving the right to resume powers. The Constitution did not give other states the power to block states from seceding from this experimental form of government.

Virginia's resume powers statement and those of New York and Rhode Island get conveniently ignored or dismissed by most secession opponents on these threads. By the way, Virginia cited their resume powers statement in their secession document of 1861. James Madison and John Marshall were on the committee that put together the Virginia ratification document including its resume powers statement.

New York's "Powers of Government may be reassumed" statement was followed by this:

... Under these impressions and declaring that the rights aforesaid cannot be abridged or violated, and that the Explanations aforesaid are consistent with the said Constitution ... We the said Delegates, in the Name and in the behalf of the People of the State of New York Do by these presents Assent to and Ratify the said Constitution.

That and the NY reassume powers statement were voted for by Alexander Hamilton and John Jay, two of the three authors of "The Federalist Papers" that explained the Constitution.

65 posted on 07/14/2015 2:05:59 PM PDT by rustbucket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies ]


To: rustbucket

New York was the eleventh state to ratify. Do you think that their insertion of unilateral terms and conditions could be binding upon the previous ten states who had already signed?


68 posted on 07/14/2015 2:16:41 PM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson