Posted on 07/22/2020 3:14:43 AM PDT by Kaslin
The Confederacy has been the excuse for some of today's rioting, property destruction and grossly uninformed statements. Among the latter is the testimony before the House Armed Services Committee by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley in favor of renaming Confederate-named military bases. He said: "The Confederacy, the American Civil War, was fought, and it was an act of rebellion. It was an act of treason, at the time, against the Union, against the Stars and Stripes, against the U.S. Constitution."
There are a few facts about our founding that should be acknowledged. Let's start at the beginning, namely the American War of Independence (1775-1783), a war between Great Britain and its 13 colonies, which declared independence in July 1776. The peace agreement that ended the war is known as the Treaty of Paris signed by Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, John Jay, and Henry Laurens and by British Commissioner Richard Oswald on Sept. 3, 1783. Article I of the Treaty held that "New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and Independent States."
Delegates from these states met in Philadelphia in 1787 to form a union. During the Philadelphia convention, a proposal was made to permit the federal government to suppress a seceding state. James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, rejected it. Minutes from the debate paraphrased his opinion: "A union of the states containing such an ingredient [would] provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a state would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound."
During the ratification debates, Virginia's delegates said, "The powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression." The ratification documents of New York and Rhode Island expressed similar sentiments; namely, they held the right to dissolve their relationship with the United States. Ratification of the Constitution was by no means certain. States feared federal usurpation of their powers. If there were a provision to suppress a seceding state, the Constitution would never have been ratified. The ratification votes were close with Virginia, New York, and Massachusetts voting in favor by the slimmest of margins. Rhode Island initially rejected it in a popular referendum and finally voted to ratify -- 34 for, 32 against.
Most Americans do not know that the first secessionist movement started in New England. Many New Englanders were infuriated by President Thomas Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase in 1803, which they saw as an unconstitutional act. Timothy Pickering of Massachusetts, who was George Washington's secretary of war and secretary of state, led the movement. He said, "The Eastern states must and will dissolve the union and form a separate government." Other prominent Americans such as John Quincy Adams, Elbridge Gerry, Fisher Ames, Josiah Quincy III, and Joseph Story shared his call for secession. While the New England secessionist movement was strong, it failed to garner support at the 1814-15 Hartford Convention.
Even on the eve of the War of 1861, unionist politicians saw secession as a state's right. Rep. Jacob M. Kunkel of Maryland said, "Any attempt to preserve the union between the states of this Confederacy by force would be impractical and destructive of republican liberty." New-York Tribune (Feb. 5, 1860): "If tyranny and despotism justified the Revolution of 1776, then we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861." The Detroit Free Press (Feb. 19, 1861): "An attempt to subjugate the seceded States, even if successful, could produce nothing but evil -- evil unmitigated in character and appalling in extent." The New-York Times (March 21, 1861): "There is a growing sentiment throughout the North in favor of letting the Gulf States go."
Confederate generals fought for independence from the Union just as George Washington fought for independence from Great Britain. Those who label Robert E. Lee and other Confederate generals as traitors might also label George Washington a traitor. Great Britain's King George III and the British parliament would have agreed.
News Flash bozo: The South lost.
Actually the Supreme Court and the constitution is working just as the framers wanted it to. Here is Alexander Hamilton explaining how the federal court system will function under the constitution. As I’m sure you know the federalist and anti-federalist papers were widely read during the effort to ratify the constitution.
“The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents. . . .”
Alexander Hamilton Federalist No. 78
“I know damn well who Dwight Eisenhower was.”
I was just seeking confirmation.
Here’s something that warms my heart;
https://news.yahoo.com/veto-proof-senate-majority-passes-212026751.html
Now we can name these bases at American heroes instead of traitors.
I believe your hero, Nancy Pelosi, sponsored the bill.
I'm sure you will get an invitation to the dedication ceremony of Fort Fag.
As a matter of fact your cause lost.
I would probably disagree with 99% of everything that Nancy Pelosi supports, but even a broke clock is right twice a day.
Because of your sexual proclivities you may want to see it named Fort Fag. I on the other hand would be partial to Fort Eisenhower or Fort Patton. You know, American generals who were not traitors to their country and actually won their war.
The ConstitutionWe the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Notice there is no mention of the states in the constitution preamble. It is the People of the United States. The people of one country.
If that isn't proof enough for you. Here is the debate that ensued at the constitutional convention when a motion was passed to have the states (through their legislatures) ratify the constitution instead of the People (through state conventions) ratify the constitution.
Notes on the Constitutional Convention
Resol: 19. "referring the new Constitution to Assemblies to be chosen by the people for the express purpose of ratifying it" was next taken into consideration.
[...]
On the question on Mr. Elseworth's motion to refer the plan to the Legislatures of the States
N. H. no. Mas. no. Ct. ay. no. Pa. no. Del. ay. Md. ay. Va. no. N. C. no. S. C. no. Geo. no.
Notes on the constitutional convention July 23, 1787
As you can see from the notes there was much debate on whether the states or the people should ratify the constitution. In the end it was decided that the people would.
The link for the above is:
https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID+@lit(fr00227))
It is from Farrand's Records, Vol 2, starting at page 88, from the proceedings of July 23, 1787. It is from several months before the Committee on Style had created a preamble with the words We the people. The People ratified the Constitution AS STATES. The People referred to were the People organized and existing as political bodies, the States. The Constitution was approved when ratified by nine of the political commmunities, i.e. States. The new government was formed with approval of eleven political communities, i.e. States.
The Ellsworth plan to refer the Constitution to the STATE LEGISLATURES was defeated, and the plan to refer it to STATE CONVENTIONS representing the People of each State was approved. What was denied was referring the matter to STATE GOVERNMENT.
At no time in American history has there been a national, consolidated vote of all the People for any purpose. The sovereigns express their will as States, and only as States.
The final text of the preamble, with the change to We the people was made by the Committee on Style after the Convention. See Farrand's Records, Volume 2, pg. 590, Madison's annotated copy of the the Report of the Committee on Style, bearing the date Sept, 12, 1787
https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID+@lit(fr002175)):
The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 [Farrand's Records, Volume 2, p. 590]
Report of Committee of Style
Madison annotated his copy of the Report of Committee of Style with,
As Reported by Come. of revision, of Stile & arrangement. Sept. 12. consisting of Mr Johnson Mr Hamilton Mr. Morris, Mr. Madison & Mr King.
Farrand's Records at page 581 notes on September 11, 1787, "The report of the Committee on Stile & arrangement not being made & being waited for, the House adjourned.
Farrand's Records at page 582 notes on September 12, 1787, "The honorable Mr. Johnson from the Committee of revision informed the House that the Committee were prepared to report the Constitution as revised and arranged. The report was then delivered in at the Secretary's table—and having been once read throughout. Ordered that the Members be furnished with printed copies thereof."
In the Convention, the draft of the Constitution was transmitted to the Committee on Style (Mr Johnson, Mr Hamilton, Mr. Morris, Mr. Madison & Mr King) just before the convention delegates departed. The preamble did not origijnally contain the phrase We the People..
https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID+@lit(fr002167)):
The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 [Farrand's Records, Volume 2, pg. 565; proceedings of September 10, 1787] Proceedings of Convention Referred to the Committee of Style and Arrangement1
[Note 1: 1 Compiled by the editor from the proceedings of the Convention.]
We the People of the States of New-Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New-York, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North-Carolina, South-Carolina, and Georgia, do ordain, declare and establish the following Constitution for the Government and our Posterity.ARTICLE I.
The stile of this Government shall be, "The United States of America."[...]
That is what was reported as a draft at the Convention to the Committee on Style.
This was changed by the Committee on Style to "We the People".... The Committee on Style had the authority to clean up the grammar and usage; they had no authority to change the meaning of anything. The intended meaning is clear that the Preamble was referring to the people of the states, but only the people of the states that ratified. In this sense, the people of the states, and the people of the United States, are synonomous terms. The members of the union are the states that ratified. The delegates to the Convention were deputed by States. Ratifications were made by States. When George Washington was inaugurated, the Constitution had been ratified by eleven states. Article 7: "The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the same."
https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?hlaw:13:./temp/~ammem_jCMu::
The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 [Farrand's Records, Volume 2, at pg. 590, proceedings from September 12, 1787]
Report of Committee of Style
WE, the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, to establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.ARTICLE I.
Sect. 1. ALL legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.[...]
There is no right of the people to vote in national elections for President. Delegates to the Electoral College are selected as determined by State legislatures. The legislatures may choose directly or hold a popular vote.
Note also the original phrasing "declare and establish the following Constitution for our Government and our Posterity." The Constitution follows the Preamble. The Preamble is not part of the Constitution; it is an introductory paragraph, and the Constitution follows it. The Preamble has no force of law, and provides no legal rights or benefits.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_United_States_Constitution
DraftingThe Preamble was placed in the Constitution during the last days of the Constitutional Convention by the Committee on Style, which wrote its final draft, with Gouverneur Morris leading the effort. It was not proposed or discussed on the floor of the convention beforehand. The initial wording of the preamble did not refer to the people of the United States, rather, it referred to people of the various states, which was the norm. In earlier documents, including the 1778 Treaty of Alliance with France, the Articles of Confederation, and the 1783 Treaty of Paris recognizing American independence, the word "people" was not used, and the phrase the United States was followed immediately by a listing of the states, from north to south. The change was made out of necessity, as the Constitution provided that whenever the popularly elected ratifying conventions of nine states gave their approval, it would go into effect for those nine, irrespective of whether any of the remaining states ratified.
- - - - - - - - - -
Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 104 (2000)
The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College. U.S. Const., Art. II, §1. This is the source for the statement in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 , 35 (1892), that the State legislature’s power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself, which indeed was the manner used by State legislatures in several States for many years after the Framing of our Constitution. Id., at 28—33. History has now favored the voter, and in each of the several States the citizens themselves vote for Presidential electors. When the state legislature vests the right to vote for President in its people, the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental; and one source of its fundamental nature lies in the equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter. The State, of course, after granting the franchise in the special context of Article II, can take back the power to appoint electors. See id., at 35 (“[T]here is no doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power at any time, for it can neither be taken away nor abdicated”) (quoting S. Rep. No. 395, 43d Cong., 1st Sess.).
Neither women, nor men, have a right to vote except as provided by the state. The 19th Amendment did not give anyone the right to vote, rather it prohibited discrimination regarding voting based on sex. Where men are permitted to vote, women must also be permitted on an equal basis.
https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep197/usrep197011/usrep197011.pdf
Jacobsen v Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905)
MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court.We pass without extended discussion the suggestion that the particular section of the statute of Massachusetts now in question (§ 137, c. 75) is in derogation of rights secured by the Preamble of the Constitution of the United States. Although that Preamble indicates the general purposes for which the people ordained and established the Constitution, it has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments. Such powers embrace only those expressly granted in the body of the Constitution and such as may be implied from those so granted. Although, therefore, one of the declared objects of the Constitution was to secure the blessings of liberty to all under the sovereign jurisdiction and authority of the United States, no power can be exerted to that end by the United States unless, apart from the Preamble, it be found in some express delegation of power or in some power to be properly implied therefrom. 1 Story's Const. § 462.
- - - - - - - - - -
https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID+@lit(fr003117))
The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 [Farrand's Records, Volume 3]CIII. James Madison to Thomas Jefferson.
Philada. Sepr. 6. 1787.
As the Convention will shortly rise I should feel little scruple in disclosing what will be public here, before it could reach you, were it practicable for me to guard by Cypher against an intermediate discovery. But I am deprived of this resource by the shortness of the interval between the receipt of your letter of June 20, and the date of this. This is the first day which has been free from Committee service, both before & after the hours of the House, and the last that is allowed me by the time advertised for the sailing of the packet.
The Convention consists now as it has generally done of Eleven States. There has been no intermission of its Sessions since a house was formed; except an interval of about ten days allowed a Committee appointed to detail the general propositions agreed on in the House. The term of its dissolution cannot be more than one or two weeks distant. A Governmt. will probably be submitted to the people of the States, consisting of a president, cloathed with Executive power; a Senate chosen by the Legislatures, and another House chosen by the people of the States, jointly possessing the legislative power; and a regular judiciary establishment. The mode of constituting the Executive is among the few points not yet finally settled. The Senate will consist of two members from each State, and appointed sexennially. The other, of members appointed biennially by the people of the States, in proportion to their number. The Legislative power will extend to taxation, trade, and sundry other general matters. The powers of Congress will be distributed, according to their nature, among the several departments. The States will be restricted from paper money and in a few other instances. These are the outlines. The extent of them may perhaps surprize you. I hazard an opinion nevertheless that the plan, should it be adopted, will neither effectually answer its national object, not prevent the local mischiefs which everywhere excite disgusts agst. the State Governments. The grounds of this opinion will be the subject of a future letter. ...
Nothing can exceed the universal anxiety for the event of the meeting here. Reports and conjectures abound concerning the nature of the plan which is to be proposed. The public however is certainly in the dark with regard to it. The Convention is equally in the dark as to the reception wch. may be given to it on its publication. All the prepossessions are on the right side, but it may well be expected that certain characters will wage war against any reform whatever. My own idea is that the public mind will now or in a very little time receive anything that promises stability to the public Councils & security to private rights, and that no regard ought to be had to local prejudices or temporary considerations. If the present moment be lost, it is hard to say what may be our fate. ...
Mr. Wythe has never returned to us. His lady whose illness carried him away, died some time after he got home.
https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID+@lit(fr003118)):
The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 [Farrand's Records, Volume 3]
CIV. Jonas Phillips to the President and Members of the Convention.
SiresWith leave and submission I address myself To those in whome there is wisdom understanding and knowledge. they are the honourable personages appointed and Made overseers of a part of the terrestrial globe of the Earth, Namely the 13 united states of america in Convention Assembled, the Lord preserve them amen--
[...] Your Most devoted obed Servant
Jonas PhillipsPhiladelphia 24th Ellul 5547 or Sepr 7th 1787
https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID+@lit(fr003124)):
The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 [Farrand's Records, Volume 3]
CX. George Washington: Diary.
[September] Monday--17th.Met in Convention when the Constitution received the unanimous assent of 11 States and Colo. Hamilton's from New York (the only delegate from thence in Convention) and was subscribed to by every Member present except Govr. Randolph and Colo. Mason from Virginia -- & Mr. Gerry from Massachusetts. The business being thus closed, the Members adjourned to the City Tavern, dined together and took a cordial leave of each other. -- after which I returned to my lodgings -- did some business with, and received the papers from the secretary of the Convention, and retired to meditate on the momentous wk. which had been executed, after not less than five, for a large part of the time six, and sometimes 7 hours sitting every day, sundays & the ten days adjournment to give a Commee. opportunity & time to arrange the business for more than four months.--
Alexander Hamilton had no authority to act on behalf of the state of New York as the rest of the delegation had walked out early. Rhode Island refused to send a delegation. Once the delegates decided to exceed their mandate to draft amendments to the Articles of Confederation, and instead draft a proposed Constitution for an different system of government, only eleven states participated at the Convention.
Challenge it as Victor's Justice.Fact is, Texas v. White is becoming meaningless as you can see nightly in Portland.
Perhaps a look at the background of the case might be revelatory. Texas v. White is an entertaining legal case when viewing what happened. Were you aware that it was the State of Texas that argued that the State of Texas never left the union? Texas v. White gives off the unmistakable smell of eau de skunk.
The opinion concludes: "On the whole case, therefore, our conclusion is that the State of Texas is entitled to the relief sought by her bill, and a decree must be made accordingly." The State of Texas WON the case. No, really!
The full value of the bonds involved was $47,325. George W. Paschal was one of the attorneys who represented the Military Government of the State of Texas. As his fee, he claimed the full $47,325 -PLUS- another $17,577. This was upheld by Federal court and he collected his money. In 1869, Paschal opened a law office in Washington, D.C.
I have seen no report of attorney fees for the other side, but they would presumably have exceeded the full value of the bonds. Clearly, the Federally appointed Military Government of Texas and the Federal Government of the United States were not concerned about spending money to acquire a court ruling saying that secession was somehow unlawful or unconstitutional. Accordingly, they dropped the case against Jefferson Davis which would have been forcefully defended by a dream team of its day, and pursued the marvelous little case of Texas v. White which suited their purposes perfectly.
Andrew Jackson Hamilton, acting Military Governor, appointed George W. Paschal.
Andrew J. Hamilton met with President Lincoln in 1862 and accepted a commission as brigadier general of volunteers and an appointment as military governor of Texas. Hamilton accompanied an unsuccessful federal expedition into South Texas in late 1863 and spent most of the rest of the war in New Orleans, where his family joined him late in 1864. Hamilton played a leading role in the Texas Constitutional Convention of 1868-69 and served on the Republican National Executive Committee.
George W. Paschal was one of Sam Houston's supporters in opposition to secession and during the Civil War was jailed, threatened by a mob, and held for trial by a court-martial because of reports of his Unionist sympathies.
I have seen virtually no information about the background of George W. White of Tennessee. I can understand why the Government would spend limitless dollars pursuing a case purportedly over $47,325 worth of bonds, if it resulted in an opportunity for Salmon P. Chase to declare secession unconstitutional. However, what would motivate an individual (or corporation), who purports to be pursuing $47,325 worth of bonds, to pursue litigation costing more than the possible reward?
It certainly raises the question whether this entire lawsuit was manufactured for the purpose of giving the U.S. Government the opportunity to cover itself with a fig leaf after realizing that its case against Jefferson Davis could not be brought to trial for fear of losing the argument on secession.
The bill in the suit mentioned the following persons or corporations:
George W. White, of Tennessee
John Chiles, of New York
J. A. Hardenberg, of New York
W. F. Birch, of New York
Charles P. Shaw, of New York
Byron Murray, Jr., of New York
Samuel Wolf, of Kentucky
G. A. Stewart, of Kentucky
Bank of the Commonwealth of Kentucky
President Andrew Johnson, on June 17, 1865 appointed Andrew J. Hamilton as Provisional Governor of the State of Texas.
Mr. Hamilton appointed George W. Paschal, the financial agent of the state, to represent the state as counsel.
Mr. E.M. Pease, a subsequent governor appointed by General Sheridan, renewed the appointment of George W. Paschal as counsel.
The Federal appointee of the Military Government of Texas (provisional Governor Andrew J. Hamilton) appointed George W. Paschal, the financial agent of said Military Government of Texas, to represent said Military Government. And thus it came to pass that the attorney purportedly representing the State of Texas argued that said State had never left the Union.
When the case was over, all the bonds in question were turned over to the Texas representative. That would be George W. Paschal. Mr. Paschal then claimed the full value of the bonds, $47,325 plus another $17,577 for his legal fees.
Governor E.J. Davis refused Paschal's claim and then dismissed him as financial agent for the state.
Mr. Paschal sued and won. He not only got to keep the bonds, but also the added 17 thousand.
And so it came to pass that Texas would have saved 17 thousand bucks plus the cost of litigation to just pay White. (And that only considers one attorney in one phase of the litigation.)
In "winning" this lawsuit, it is a bit difficult to see how the State of Texas benefitted. But it would appear that neither the State of Texas, nor the people of the State of Texas, were the intended beneficiaries.
Moreover, it did allow the Federal Military Governor the opportunity to go to Federal Court and obtain a Federal decision saying Texas never ceased to be a state.
And so it came to pass that when the State of Texas sued White, the beneficiary was the Federal Government in Washington. George W. Paschal didn't do too bad either.
Mr. Grier, in dissent, capably analyzed the legal insanity perpetrated by the majority.
It is a matter of utter insignificance to the government of the United States to whom she makes the payment of these bonds. They are payable to the bearer.The government is not bound to inquire into the bona fides of the holder, nor whether the State of Texas has parted with the bonds wisely or foolishly.
And although by the Reconstruction Acts she is required to repudiate all debts contracted for the purposes of the rebellion, this does not annul all acts of the State government during the rebellion, or contracts for other purposes, nor authorize the State to repudiate them.
Now, whether we assume the State of Texas to be judicially in the Union (though actually out of it) or not, it will not alter the case.
The contest now is between the State of Texas and her own citizens. She seeks to annul a contract with the respondents, based on the allegation that there was no authority in Texas competent to enter into an agreement during the rebellion.
Having relied upon one fiction, namely, that she is a State in the Union, she now relies upon a second one, which she wishes this court to adopt, that she was not a State at all during the five years that she was in rebellion. She now sets up the plea of insanity, and asks the court to treat all her acts made during the disease as void.
Your really good at throwing a lot of S*&% at a wall and hoping it sticks, but your still wrong.
I posted the actual notes from the constitutional convention showing the debate on whether the states(through their legislatures) would ratify the constitution, or whether the people (through conventions held in their state) would ratify the constitution. Yet you say its a distinction without a difference.
It was the late 1800s do you think it was practical to have a huge group of representatives meet in one location?
Here’s the letter sent to the states by Congress with the constitution for it’s approval.
“Resolved unanimously, That the said report with the resolutions and letter accompanying the same be transmitted to the several legislatures in order to be submitted to a convention of delegates chosen in each state by the people thereof in conformity to the resolves of the Convention made and provided in that case.”
Congress transmittal letter to the states for ratification of the constitution
It clearly says that it is to be submitted to a convention of delegates chosen by the people in convention for ratification in conformity with the method provided in the constitution. Notice it doesn’t say for the state or the people of the state but the people.
All the states did was set up the election for the delegates to the convention and then transmit the results of the convention to congress. They did not ratify the constitution.
And in fact just five short years after ratification of the constitution the Supreme Court affirmed that the people had established the constitution. The chief justice of the Supreme Court at this time was John Jay, a founding father.
“We the people of the United States, do ordain and establish this Constitution. Here we see the people acting as sovereigns of the whole country, and, in the language of sovereignty, establishing a Constitution by which it was their will that the State governments should be bound, and to which the State Constitutions should be made to conform. Every State Constitution is a compact made by and between the citizens of a State to govern themselves in a certain manner, and the Constitution of the United States is likewise a compact made by the people of the United States to govern themselves as to general objects in a certain manner. By this great compact however, many prerogatives were transferred to the national government, such as those of making war and peace, contracting alliances, coining money, etc. etc.” – Chisholm v. Georgia, 1793
The supreme court made an even more explicit statement on the nature of the constitution and the relationship of the states to it 1819. The chief justice at the time was John Marshall, another founding father.
“The powers of the general government, it has been said, are delegated by the states, who alone are truly sovereign; and must be exercised in subordination to the states, who alone posses supreme domination.
“It would be difficult to sustain this proposition. The convention, which framed the constitution, was indeed elected by the state legislatures. But the instrument, when it came from their hands, was a mere proposal, without obligation, or pretensions to it. It was then reported to the then existing congress of the United States, with a request, that it might be submitted to a convention of delegates, chosen in each state by the people thereof, under the recommendation of its legislature, for their assent and ratification. This mode of proceeding was adopted; and by the convention, by congress, and by the state legislatures, the instrument was submitted to the people. They acted upon it in the only manner, in which they can act safely, effectively, and wisely, on such a subject, by assembling in convention. It is true, they assembled in their several states—and where else should they have assembled? No political dreamer was ever wild enough to think of breaking down the lines, which separate the states, and of compounding the American people into one common mass. Of consequence, when they act, they act in their states. But the measures they adopt do not, on that account, cease to be measures of the people themselves, or become the measure of state governments.
“From these conventions the constitution derives its whole authority. The government proceeds directly from the people; is ‘ordained and established’ in the name of the people; and is declared to be ordained ‘in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, and secure the blessings of liberty to them selves and to their posterity.’ The assent of the states, in their sovereign capacity, is implied in calling a convention, and thus submitting that instrument to the people. But the people were at perfect liberty to accept or reject it; and their act was final. It required not the affirmance, and could not be negatived, by the state governments. The constitution, when thus adopted, was of complete obligation, and bound the state sovereignties.”
McCullough v Maryland
He explicitly addresses why the people acted in their states instead of coming together in one mass.
“It is true, they assembled in their several states—and where else should they have assembled? No political dreamer was ever wild enough to think of breaking down the lines, which separate the states, and of compounding the American people into one common mass.”
Hell, even the enemies of constitutional ratification understood what it did.
“In short, consolidation prevades the whole constitution. It begins with an annunciation that such was the intention. The main pillars of the fabric correspond with it, and the concluding paragraph is a confirmation of it. The preamble begins with the words, “We the people of the United States,” which is the style of a compact between individuals entering into a state of society, and not that of a confederation of states...”
From the minority report of the Pennsylvania ratification assembly (December 1787):
No matter how much you distort, obfuscate, or misrepresent the history there is no denying the fact that the constitution was established by the people, all the people of the United States, and can only be unmade by all of them.
You certainly don’t seem to care what Supreme Court Chief Justices who were founding fathers said about who established the constitution so you probably won’t care what the father of the constitution said about who established it but here it is in his own words.
“The government of the United States relies on its own means for the execution of its powers, as the state governments do for the execution of theirs; both governments having, a common origin, or sovereign, the people; the state governments , the people of each state, the national government, the people of every state; and being amenable to the power, which created it. It is by executing its functions as a government, thus originating and thus acting, that the constitution of the United States holds the states together, and performs the office of a league. It is owing to the nature of its powers , and the high source, from whence they are derived, the people, that it performs that office better than a confederation, or any league, whichever existed, being a compact, which state governments did not form, to which they are not parties, and which executes its own powers independently of them.”
Source: Mr. Madison’s letter, North American Review, Oct. 1830.
Ah yes, White v Texas
It was Texas v. White, with the State of Texas being the complainant and George W. White being a defendant.
Note as well that Texas was not admitted like any other State, but was interestingly annexed.
https://www.loc.gov/law/help/statutes-at-large/28th-congress/c28.pdf
At page 721:
ACTS OF THE TWENTY-EIGHTH CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, Passed at the second session, which was begun and held at the City of Washington, in the district of Columbia, on Monday, the 2d day of December, 1844, and ended the 3d day of March, 1845.JOHN TYLER, President of the United States. WILLIE P. MANGUM, President of the Senate, pro tempore. JOHN W. JONES, Speaker of the House of Representatives.
TWENTY-EIGHTH CONGRESS. SESS. II, Res. 5,7,8. 1845.
Page 797-798
No. 8. Joint Resolution for annexing Texas to the United States,Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress doth consent that the territory properly included within, and rightfully belonging to the Republic of Texas, may be erected into a new State, to be called the State of Texas, with a republican form of government, to be adopted by the people of said republic, by deputies in convention assembled, with the consent of the existing government, in order that the same may be admitted as one of the States of this Union.
2. And be it further resolved, That the foregoing consent of Congress is given upon the following conditions, and with the following guarantees, to wit: First, Said State to be formed, subject to the adjustment by this government of all questions of boundary that may arise with other governments; and the constitution thereof, with the proper evidence of its adoption by the people of said Republic of Texas, shall be transmitted to the President of the United States, to be laid before Congress for its final action, on or before the first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and forty-six. Second, Said State, when admitted into the Union, after ceding to the United States, all public edifices, fortifications, barracks, ports and harbors, navy and navy-yards, docks, magazines, arms, armaments, and all other property and means pertaining to the public defence belonging to said Republic of Texas, shall retain all the public funds, debts, taxes, and dues of every kind, which may belong to or be due and owing said republic; and shall also retain all the vacant and unappropriated lands lying within its limits, to be applied to the payment of the debts and liabilities of said Republic of Texas, and the residue of said lands, after discharging said debts and liabilities, to be disposed of as said State may direct; but in no event are said debts and liabilities to become a charge upon the Government of the United States. Third. New States, of convenient size, not exceeding four in number, in addition to said State of Texas, and having sufficient population, may hereafter, by the consent of said State, be formed out of the territory thereof, which shall be entitled to admission under the provisions of the federal constitution. And such States as may be formed out of that portion of said territory lying south of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes north latitude, commonly known as the Missouri compromise line, shall be admitted into the Union with or without slavery, as the people of each State asking admission may desire. And in such State or States as shall be formed out of said territory north of said Missouri compromise line, slavery, or involuntary servitude, (except for crime,) shall be prohibited.
3. And be it. further resolved, That if the President of the United States shall in his judgment and discretion deem it most advisable, instead of proceeding to submit the foregoing resolution to the Republic of Texas, as an overture on the part of the United States for admission, to negotiate with that Republic; then,
Be it resolved, That a State, to be formed out of the present Republic of Texas, with suitable extent and boundaries, and with two representatives in Congress, until the next apportionment of representation, shall be admitted into the Union, by virtue of this act, on an equal footing with the existing States, as soon as the terms and conditions of such admission, and the cession of the remaining Texian territory to the United States shall be agreed upon by the Governments of Texas and the United States : And that the sum of one hundred thousand dollars be, and the same is hereby, appropriated to defray the expenses of missions and negotiations, to agree upon the terms of said admission and cession, either by treaty to be submitted to the Senate, or by articles to be submitted to the two houses of Congress, as the President may direct.
APPROVED: March 1, 1845.
They walked away from it.
The only federal property they are taking is that which is within their own territory.....their taxes paid to build federal installations too.
Then it would be jointly owned with the other states, would it not? Don't they get any reimbursement?
It seems like a fair trade.
Well when you're walking away from debt and taking everything you can get your mitts on it's a great trade. For the other side, not so much.
The other states have no claim on them - they are sovereign.
So you keep saying.
One spouse cannot force another to stay in a relationship they no longer wish to be a part of.
But ending the marriage and dividing the community property takes a legal process and is done through negotiations on both sides. What you are describing is one spouse walking out after running up debt and taking everything they can grab. That isn't legal.
I have read it and I don't see where some states have more rights than others. Perhaps you can show me where I'm wrong?
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"?
Once more in English please.
Actually it says that powers not delegated to the United States or prohibited to the states are reserved to the states. The power to admit states and approved changes in their status is a power reserved to the United States.
So, by default, secession is perfectly legal and enjoys constitutional sanction until otherwise specified by some potential future amendment.
Not so much, no. Not without the consent of a majority of the states.
Your really good at throwing a lot of S*&% at a wall and hoping it sticks, but your still wrong.I posted the actual notes from the constitutional convention showing the debate on whether the states(through their legislatures) would ratify the constitution, or whether the people (through conventions held in their state) would ratify the constitution. Yet you say its a distinction without a difference.
Your are absolutely exceptional at giving your version of what someone said without quoting them so that you can attribute your bullshit to them, and then argue against your bullshit.
Of course, I did not say the bullshit you attribute to me. I said quite the opposite.
First, I quoted your crap about the Preamble and the People, and your cut and paste of Framers from July 1777. I documented with cites, quotes and links that, at that time in 1777, the preamble did not exist. Nobody was talking about the content of the then-nonexistent preamble or its effect. I went on to document that when it did exist in the Convention, it did not contain "We the People" but a recitation of the States by name. The change by the Committee on Style after the delegates had departed could modify the wording, but not change the meaning. I also indicated that changing from the recitation of 13 names to "We the People" served the purpose of including the then-unknown States that would ratify, and not including the then-unknown States that would not ratify. It was a stylistic change the Committee of Style was authorized to make. It was not the unauthorized amendatory change you would imagine it to be.
You quoted Ellsworth:
Mr. ELSEWORTH moved that it be referred to the Legislatures of the States for ratification. Mr. PATTERSON 2ded. the motion.
You also quoted, in relevant part,
Mr. MADISON thought it clear that the Legislatures were incompetent to the proposed changes. These changes would make essential inroads on the State Constitutions, and it would be a novel & dangerous doctrine that a Legislature could change the constitution under which it held its existence. There might indeed be some Constitutions within the Union, which had given a power to the Legislature to concur in alterations of the federal Compact. But there were certainly some which had not; and in the case of these, a ratification must of necessity be obtained from the people.
I noted that referral to the Legislatures of the States was voted down. Of course, I did NOT say it was a distinction without a difference. I noted the very important and distinct difference. The State constitutions were sovereign acts of the people. Changing or replacing them required another sovereign act of the people. As Madison noted, acts of the legislature would lack the authority to override the existing State constitutions. The people had the sovereign authority and they exercised it by their acts in State conventions.
The intended meaning is clear that the Preamble was referring to the people of the states, but only the people of the states that ratified. In this sense, the people of the states, and the people of the United States, are synonomous terms. The members of the union are the states that ratified. The delegates to the Convention were deputed by States. Ratifications were made by States. When George Washington was inaugurated, the Constitution had been ratified by eleven states. Article 7: "The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the same."
The Constitution was not referred to the State Legislatures, the servant of the people of the States. It was referred to the sovereigns, the people of the States, to exercise their sovereign authority at State conventions, acting State by State, and the People always have when exercising their sovereign authority.
Referral to the Legislatures would have resulted in an act of the servant of the people which holds no sovereign power.
Referral to the People of the States, for consideration by their special agents or delegates chosen for that purpose, was to result in an act of the sovereign, or the acts of 13 sovereign States. Upon aproval of 9 states, the government was to be implemented between the States so ratifying.
As I stated:
The People ratified the Constitution AS STATES. The People referred to were the People organized and existing as political bodies, the States. The Constitution was approved when ratified by nine of the political commmunities, i.e. States. The new government was formed with approval of eleven political communities, i.e. States.
You stated:
“Resolved unanimously, That the said report with the resolutions and letter accompanying the same be transmitted to the several legislatures in order to be submitted to a convention of delegates chosen in each state by the people thereof in conformity to the resolves of the Convention made and provided in that case.” Congress transmittal letter to the states for ratification of the constitutionIt clearly says that it is to be submitted to a convention of delegates chosen by the people in convention for ratification in conformity with the method provided in the constitution. Notice it doesn’t say for the state or the people of the state but the people.
The people were the people of each State. Each State convention was comprised of delegates representing the people of the State for that special purpose. For the people, each State reported ONE result. The people of eleven states ratified, and the people of two states did not, before the new system of government was implemented.
When speaking of "the people" in this sense, the people of the state are the State. Or as Black's Law Dictionary puts in in defining people, "All the orginary residents of a country or state, as opposed to the government or ruling class." The distinction made was between the government of the people (the legislature of the State) and the people of the State (the State convention of delegates, special agents of the people for a specific purpose).
The consolidated mass of people never voted to ratify the Constitution. To the consternation of the hopes of Hillary Clinton's reelection campaign, the majority of all the people means nothing when the people elect a President. Amendments require approval of three fourths of the States, not three fourths of the people. Your ahistorical nonsense remains nonsense.
I will note that you did not quote a word I said, nor contest the veracity of anything I linked, cited, and quoted. Nor did you provide a single link to your quotes to aid verifying the veracity and context of your quotes.
“I would probably disagree with 99% of everything that Nancy Pelosi supports, but even a broke clock is right twice a day.”
So you agree with Nancy twice a day; 60 times per month.
I figured it was something like that.
Thanks
You know, I'm pretty sure that the central government was never delegated to power to secede from the US. So, no, the constitution doesn't transfer powers of self-determination to the FedGov.
Not so much, no. Not without the consent of a majority of the states.
I'm such a generous fellow, I'll provide space below in which you can provide a citation of the constitution to back up that claim:
The federal government was given the power to admit states and once admitted they were given the power to approve is a state wanted to split, combine with another state, or change their border at all. Implied in that is the power to approve their leaving entirely.
I'm such a generous fellow, I'll provide space below in which you can provide a citation of the constitution to back up that claim:
See above.
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.