Posted on 07/22/2020 3:14:43 AM PDT by Kaslin
No, they too have a right to unilateral secession anytime they choose to exercise itIn Jefferson's first inaugural he clearly visualized states leaving with the agreement of the other states. Madison said, "A rightful secession requires the consent of the others, or an abuse of the compact, absolving the seceding party from the obligations imposed by it."
You are flat wrong about Jefferson. He said if a state chose to separate, let them separate. He said nothing about them requiring a permission slip from other states. As for Madison, he did not express those views until decades after the Constitution was ratified. He certainly never said such things before the constitution was ratified.
Nothing in the constitution forbade unilateral secession. The 10th Amendment reserved to the states any powers not delegated to the federal government. Since secession is not mentioned, that is a power reserved to the states. In addition to that, Madison never said at the time of ratification that the express provisos of 3 states reserving the right to unilateral secession were in any way inconsistent with the constitution.
This is a tangent......that said in some cases, yes. There was clearly some "victor's justice" going on. For example Alfred Jodl's conviction for "waging aggressive war". He was carrying out the orders of his internationally recognized head of state. By this logic several American generals could have been convicted and executed for various wars America has engaged in.
Another example is Karl Doenitz. He waged unrestricted submarine warfare. So did everybody else.....but the Allies forbade defense lawyers from pointing out examples of the Allies doing the exact same things as the Axis did. His lawyers were clever and managed to get around that by arguing that waging unrestricted submarine warfare was the international norm in WWII. Admiral Nimitz wrote a letter to the court on Doenitz's behalf saying that the US Navy had done the exact same thing (which it clearly had) in the Pacific War. Doenitz's lawyers managed to get him sentenced to only 10 years in prison for......nothing.
Most of the other convictions were fully justified.
Yes I was dumbass.
Because my loyalty is to the United States. A foreign concept to you, I know.
But no rights against any harm inflicted on them by those leaving. Like I said, in your world the Constitution protects those leaving and is a club for them to beat up those staying. Makes perfect sense. </sarcasm>
You are flat wrong about Jefferson. He said if a state chose to separate, let them separate.
What he said was, " We leave them in distinct but bordering establishments. We think we see their happiness in their union, & we wish it. Events may prove it otherwise; and if they see their interest in separation, why should we take side with our Atlantic rather than our Missipi descendants? It is the elder and the younger son differing. God bless them both, & keep them in union, if it be for their good, but separate them, if it be better." How do you accomplish that without discussions and agreement on the separation? Nowhere does Jefferson indicate he supports your plan of walking out and screwing over those remaining on your way out.
No, to commit treason, you must be a United States citizen.
Mitsui Fuchida did not commit treason, Tokyo Rose did.
Where has it been determined, in U.S. Law, that the secession of the Confederate States was legal. If that has not been legally established, those men that served the Confederate Army and State remained citizens of the United States and could have been charged with treason.
They're not "beating up those staying" as you claim. They're simply leaving. Other states do not own a sovereign state. The citizens of each state own it.What he said was, " We leave them in distinct but bordering establishments. We think we see their happiness in their union, & we wish it. Events may prove it otherwise; and if they see their interest in separation, why should we take side with our Atlantic rather than our Missipi descendants? It is the elder and the younger son differing. God bless them both, & keep them in union, if it be for their good, but separate them, if it be better." How do you accomplish that without discussions and agreement on the separation? Nowhere does Jefferson indicate he supports your plan of walking out and screwing over those remaining on your way out.
Your whole premise that those leaving somehow screw over those staying is wrong. Each state is a separate sovereign entity that is free to choose for itself what is in its own best interests.
That's not even remotely how law works. Things are not illegal by default until found legal. Besides, the Tenth Amendment very specifically says that any power not denied to states is retained by states. So, by default, secession is perfectly legal and enjoys constitutional sanction until otherwise specified by some potential future amendment.
They're walking out, repudiating any responsibility for debt or other national responsibilities, taking every piece of federal property they could get their hands on, and all the remaining states were expected to sit back and take it. Where is their protections? Doesn't the Constitution provide them with any rights?
Your whole premise that those leaving somehow screw over those staying is wrong.
On the contrary.
Well, the document itself is still perfectly legible. Why don't you read it and tell us what it says about this specific issue. While your working on that, I'd like to issue a general challenge to your whole latitude: If a formerly unknown part of the constitution were suddenly discovered, perhaps something written in disappearing/reappearing ink, or something written on the back of a page which, hilariously, had never been turned over before, which specifically stipulated that on a certain date the US military was to used to used to wage war on the civilians of a certain part of the country and that every atrocity of war was to be employed, would you just "follow orders"?
I'll call this my first argumentative challenge.
Read White v. Texas to determine the legality of secession.
The Supreme Court of the United States does not agree with your judicial ruling.
Your correct that the supreme court has been wrong before. But in our system once the supreme court rules that is the law, until another case comes before it and they reverse the decision, or a constitutional amendment is passed overturning it. It matters not one whit if you or I think the decision is right, it is still the law.
Texas v White is still alive an well and was cited as precedent as recently as 2010 by the Alaskan Supreme Court in the Kohlass v Lt Governer of Alaska case. Kohlass attempted to get a ballot initiative put on that would allow Alaskans to vote on seceding from the Union and become their own country. It was not allowed on the ballot because the Alaskan law says you can not put issues on the ballot that are unconstitutional. He appealed to the Supreme Court of Alaska who ruled that since secession is unconstitutional it was correct for the Lt Governor to keep it off the ballot.
I’m going to make a little wager with you. I am so sure that secession is unconstitutional that if you start a petition in your state to have it secede from the Union and if your case reaches the US supreme court and if the Supreme Court doesn’t rule 9-0 that secession is unconstitutional I will give you my military retirement pay. Not one pay, but all of it for the rest of my life.
Ah yes, White v Texas, the prize case that every one of you has heard of but obviously never read. The party appearing before the bench claiming that the secession of Texas was illegal and that the government of Texas, at the time of the issuance of some bonds he had purchased, was consequently still part of the US and therefore subject to a compulsion to honor and reimburse, LOST the case. This is because the Supreme Court at the time was seduced by the “states suicide” theory of secession which held that there was no legal reality to the existence of sovereign states outside the scope of constitutional jurisdiction that courts within their purview were obligated to recognize. Well, no shit. Absent some treaty mechanism to create legal recognition within a foreign legal framework, no nation is obligated to recognize the legal creation of governments outside their domestic power to do so. Texas v White turned the issue of Texas’ external existence into a Schroedinger’s cat of no certain fate.
Bump
They're not repudiating any responsibility for debt. The only federal property they are taking is that which is within their own territory.....their taxes paid to build federal installations too. It seems like a fair trade. The other states have no claim on them - they are sovereign. The citizens of other states "protections" lay in the sovereignty of their own state.>/p> On the contrary.
Yes, its wrong. Those staying have no claim on those who are leaving. One spouse cannot force another to stay in a relationship they no longer wish to be a part of. Your employer cannot force you to continue to work for them. Self determination is the most basic of rights we all have.
After the overthrow of the original constitution and the usurpation of power by the federal government it the sovereign states never agreed to give it, we are all forced to live under the edicts of the unelected black robed deities of the supreme court. That does not mean their rulings are always just or constitutional. Nor are we required to bow down in subservience to them and not criticize their usurpations of power, convoluted legal reasoning, unjust legislating from the bench, etc. Texas V White is one such case. They completely ignored the 9th and 10th amendments as well as the original intent of the Founders - not surprising considering who appointed most of the justices.
[woodpusher]: It may cause some consternation that two states were out of the union, while it was impossible for any state to have ever left the indestructible, indissoluble union. And then there was Vermont who up and formed an independent state from 1777-1791.[jeffersondem]: Your constant presentation of facts, facts, facts will cause some here to eventually cry out - “Is there a revolver in the house?
What you are doing with the presentation of facts is beyond brutal. Sir, you are mean.
LOL. Kudos to both of you.
Jesus Christ, as many times as take you Lost Cause Losers to understand the South went to war to preserve it. And don’t try and tell me they didn’t THEY DID! And don’t you dare call me a revisionist pal, you’re the revisionist here. The South went to war to preserve slavery and lost.
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.