Posted on 03/22/2018 9:00:10 AM PDT by Kaslin
So apparently you are incapable of seeing the difference. My sympathies.
I have no idea. I tend to doubt it since the suggestion is, patently, ridiculous. But if you have evidence that someone described the Constitution as a treaty between sovereign nations when it was first introduced or as it was being ratified then by all means bring it out and I will stand corrected.
You going to try to tell us Chase was not biased? What specific provision of the constitution granted the federal government the power to prevent secession? Let’s see it.
The international situation was quite different in 1861 from what it had been in 1775. Foreign calculations of legality didn’t enter into it.
The false distinctions are your lock, stock and barrel.
The states of course did not surrender all of their sovereignty. Madison and Hamilton were emphatic in the federalist papers that they were not doing as you claim.
They for example never agreed to surrender all of their vourts’ Powers as federal courts are courts of limited subject matter jurisdiction. It was up to each state to decide who qualified as a citizen. They retained their own commercial law, their own criminal law etc.
Even the US Supreme Court has ruled states sovereign in multiple cases and yes even in cases in the 20th century. You have no legal, historical or constitutional basis for claiming states surrendered all their sovereignty.
Madison did.
I did not say the New England states “tried” to secede. Their representatives were literally on the way to Washington DC when the war of 1812 ended.
If they were on their way to D.C. then it would have been to deliver the report from the Hartford Convention - Link
And nowhere in that does it threaten secession.
Legally secession and declaring independence are the same thing.
They quite openly reserved the right to secede. Nobody before or at the time argued they did not have that right.
Except that it was not rebellion. It was secession.....dissolving the union.
I require no sympathy for being correct. Thanks anyway.
Well sorry I don’t happen to have the quote handy.
Ah Invincible Ignorance! Never let reality get in your way ;’}
Madison did not say before or at the time publicly that a state’s ratification could not be accepted if it reserved the right to secede.
They didn’t propose secession. They discussed it and thought it their right. Some threatened to secede.
Your massive ignorance certainly hasn’t slowed you a bit I see.
Any history of the convention makes it clear that what secession proposals there where, and they were a few made by a small minority of the delegates, were not taken seriously and had not chance of being adopted. Confederate supporters love to point to the Harford Convention as acceptance of secession but overlook the fact that no secession was proposed by the convention much less attempted.
The importance of neither Madison nor anybody else even claiming before or at the time that a state could not secede is it shows the original intent of the parties. Agreements/contracts cannot be unilaterally altered by one or some of the parties after the fact.
And I will repeat that Madison did not say that states could not secede, certainly not later in life. The question is how that secession comes about and Madison believed that it must be done with the consent of the states that are staying as well as the states that are leaving. Unilateral secession as advocated by you makes a complete mockery of the Constitution.
States delegated their right to make separate treaties. So what? That is not a grant of irrevocable total power to the federal government.
Relinquished their right to make separate treaties. And decide on their own form of government. And the power to make their own currency. And their right to determine their own borders. And their power to raise their own armies. And the supremacy of their state judiciary. And the power to make war. And their ability to tax imports into their state. And every other power that makes a sovereign country a sovereign country. Yet you insist that they were. Amazing.
Article IV nowhere implies a state may not unilaterally secede.
(*sigh*) If a state is admitted only with the approval of Congress, and once in they cannot split or join or change their border by a fraction of an inch without the approval of congress, then it doesn't take a rocket scientist to recognize that implied in all that is that Congressional approval is required to leave as well.
You do understand any implication of ever more power for the federal government is exactly why a 10th amendment was added right? It was to deny any such implication.
If the 10th Amendment was meant to eliminate the possibility of implied powers then why didn't it say "The powers not expressly delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor expressly prohibited by it to the states..."? Why is the word "expressly" nowhere to be found in the entire Constitution or the Bill or Rights? It was in the Articles of Confederation but was dropped from the Constitution? Why, if not to allow implied powers?
I’ll take my “ignorance” over your idiocy any day.
Unless you have some evidence to support your claim, then yes.
What specific provision of the constitution granted the federal government the power to prevent secession? Let’s see it.
If you are going to claim that Chase was biased without even reading the Texas v. White decision they you are just weakening your case. Because it you had read the decision you would know that Chase never said secession was illegal.
The international situation was quite different in 1861 from what it had been in 1775. Foreign calculations of legality didn’t enter into it.
I've been going back and forth with you all afternoon and as near as I can tell you position is no legalities of any kind enters into it.
The states of course did not surrender all of their sovereignty. Madison and Hamilton were emphatic in the federalist papers that they were not doing as you claim.
They surrendered every power that made a state the sovereign nation you claim that they are.
They for example never agreed to surrender all of their vourts’ Powers as federal courts are courts of limited subject matter jurisdiction.
"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
Say what?
Even the US Supreme Court has ruled states sovereign in multiple cases and yes even in cases in the 20th century.
For example?
You have no legal, historical or constitutional basis for claiming states surrendered all their sovereignty.
They relinquished their sovereignty over anything that happened outside of their state borders and a lot of went on within them.
Madison did not say before or at any time publicly that a state's ratification was something to be accepted period. He said a conditional ratification was no ratification at all.
They didn’t propose secession. They discussed it and thought it their right. Some threatened to secede.
You really need to read up on the issues if you're going to make claims about them.
I didn't expect that you did.
And by the same token you could say illegal secession and rebellion are the same thing, too.
Which, you will note, the Southern states did NOT do before they left.
Divorce is a legal proceeding requiring both sides submit their case to a court of law and accept the verdict. How is that in any way like what the Southern states 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.