Posted on 03/22/2018 9:00:10 AM PDT by Kaslin
Not by a long shot - unless your notions of words and their meanings is entirely fluid.
The states did not surrender their sovereignty.....ever.
Yes they did - when they ratified the United States Constitution.
They DELEGATED (important word....it’s what a superior does with a subordinate) certain powers only to the federal government.
You're so close - and still wrong! The states (individual) didn't delegate anything - they lack the power to do so. The States (collective) delegated powers to the federal government through the constitution. That's because the States (collective) is the federal government!
The States (collective) delegated the power to control the disposition of the states (individual) to the federal government vis-à-vis Congress. Congress determines who joins - and who leaves. The Supreme Court articulated that in Texas v. White.
Yes, joining the union is voluntary. But it isn't like a magazine subscription - you can't just say "Today I feel dissatisfied" and quit. With membership comes commitment and responsibilities. But once you commit to joining the union you are bound to that commitment. The only two ways out are bilateral agreement or revolution.
You are apparently big on rebellion.
The two words mean the same thing.
States did not surrender their sovereignty. They only delegated certain powers. Read the federalist papers. Specifically #46 though several others say the same thing. I am quoting Madison and Hamilton - the Constitution’s two biggest proponents when I use the term delegate and “limited powers” and describe the states as sovereign.
The states collectively are not the federal government. It is an entirely different entity.
States can leave if they wish. The union is voluntary and based on consent. That’s how it was founded. Might does not make right.
Trying to rely on Texas V White to support your argument is a joke. Did anybody expect them to rule against the federal government after it had just fought a bloody war? The justices of the court would not have survived 24 hours if they had ruled that way....never mind that Chief Justice Salmon P Chase issued the ruling that the then treasury secretary was entirely in the right......a certain Salmon P Chase. Yes! Look it up if you doubt it. This was just an ex pist facto “might makes right” attempt at justifying the unconstitutional war they had already started and fought at great cost.
You are apparently big on oppression and tyranny.
And yet it stands as settled law (unless of course you would like to mount a legal challenge to it). States enter the union via congress and must leave the same way.
The confeds tried it the other way and learned they warn’t might or right!
Dred Scot was settled law at one time. So was Plessy vs Ferguson.
Might does not make right.
True enough - that’s why I included the invite to mount a challenge if you don’t like it. Right now it is the law. Ignore it at your peril.
Hence the 14th Amendment and Brown v. Topeka Board of Education, et.al.
Correct. So saying a Supreme Court ruling defines an issue forever and is always right and can never be disputed is simply false.
So the fact that Virginia added that disclaimer to her ratification document is meaningless if Virginia chose to resume those powers, i.e. secede, in a manner that was illegal under the Constitution she agreed to be bound by. As it happens, unilateral secession as practiced by the Confederate states was not legal. Madison said so long before the Southern rebellion. Chase said so in the Texas v. White decision after the rebellion was over.
As I said, the fact that the Chase court ruled that might makes right is not very persuasive.
The fact that a treaty or in this case was legally binding upon the citizens of the state in no way indicates that the state was agreeing to forever bind itself and surrender its sovereignty. Any law passed by the state government that does not conflict with the state constitution is binding upon the citizens.
It’s not my opinion that three states expressly reserved the right to secede or that the power to prevent secession is nowhere granted to the federal government in the constitution.
That’s why it was called a “perpetual union” and later a “more perfect union” - because it was meant to be enduring (AKA permanent).
And yes - the states (individually) DID surrender a portion of their sovereignty when they became members of the union.
Then why do you keep mindlessly repeating it?!
James Madison did, among others.
They hoped it would be enduring. Hoped. It was an experiment. A more perfect union means “better”. They hoped the constitution would improve things.
The states DELEGATED a portion of their sovereignty only...the enumerated powers and no more. They reserved all others and specifically reserved a right to secede.
The power to admit states is a power reserved to the federal government. Once allowed to join, the power to approve any combining of states, splitting of states, or changing the border of a state by a fraction of an inch is a power reserved to the federal government. Since the federal government approves every other change then the power to approve a state leaving altogether is certainly implied. Or, if you prefer, a power reserved to the states as expressed through a vote in Congress.
Not at the time. He only said that in the 1820s.....he never claimed the ratifications were defective because states reserved the right to secede at the time.
In any event, he was not one of the parties to the compact. The states were and they made their intent quite clear at the time of ratification.
Of course the did. That's why it's called the "American Secession" or the "Secessionary War".
The colonies didn't walk out. They fought their way out. That's rebellion.
Why do you keep mindlessly claiming states did not reserve that right when they clearly did?
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.