You contradict yourself: we should debate issues like abortion and segregation even though SCOTUS has ruled, but debating the legality of secession is off the table because SCOTUS has ruled? I’m not arguing that based on current law and jurisprudence, that secession is legal. Clearly not. I’m debating two points: 1. The SCOTUS handed down the decision on secession AFTER the war. Before the war, there was no law, court decision, or Constitutional language forbidding secession. Further the states were sovereign entities that voluntarily entered an agreement to delegate some of their sovereign powers to a central government. By what legal rationale can we conclude the the Southern sTate’s lacked the power to leave that compact?
2. I think we can agree that a SCOTUS decision, while carrying the weight of law, can be in error. Dred Scott, Plessy v Ferguson, and Roe v Wade are some examples. Does Texas v White fall into that category?
Don’t try to tell me that SCOTUS has decided secession is illegal. I know that. I also know that there’s no clause in any article or amendment in the Constitution that either allows or prohibits secession. The SCOTUS seems to have created law in this case, as it often does. The default of the Constitution would seem to be given by the Tenth Amendment, which says that when the Constitution is silent on an issue, it’s up to the sovereign states to make a decision on the matter.
And yes, the states are the legally sovereign entities, at least in the original conception of the FedGov. The FedGov derives it’s powers from the voluntary delegation of those powers to it. For example, the state of Virginia, prior to the ratification of the Constitution, had the power to negotiate treaties with foreign governments. The other newly independent states had the same power. These states agreed that it would be beneficial to yield that power to the Feds. The Feds only have said power because the states gave it to them. Thus, the state governments are a higher power than the Fed.
I said “in the original conception” above because I realize that our political system has evolved away from this concept. The real point is that by 1860, this had not yet occurred. In 1860, the states truly were the higher authority. The question of secession truly was open at the time. When I posted earlier of a fundamental transformation of America as a result of the war, that’s what I meant. The war transformed America from a union of multiple independent and sovereign states into a true nation. (And obviously the war also effected another fundamental transformation in the abolition of slavery).
Debate it all you want. Secession as practiced by the southern states violated the Constitution. What are you planning on doing about it? People are challenging Roe v. Wade all the time, without success so far but that doesn't stop them from continuing to try. So how will you challenge Texas v. White.
I think we can agree that a SCOTUS decision, while carrying the weight of law, can be in error. Dred Scott, Plessy v Ferguson, and Roe v Wade are some examples. Does Texas v White fall into that category?
I agree with your contention that Supreme Court decisions can be in error. I disagree with your belief that Texas v. White falls into that category.
Don’t try to tell me that SCOTUS has decided secession is illegal.
As I believe I have stated several times, the Supreme Court has not decided secession is illegal. Secession with the agreement of the states is completely legal. Secession as practiced by the southern states, i.e. walking out without discussion, is not.
And yes, the states are the legally sovereign entities, at least in the original conception of the FedGov.
Only if you make up your own definition of 'sovereign'. States are separate political entities. The Constitution vests in them many powers, specific and implied. They can pretty much run their own show within their own borders and the federal government, for the most part, can't interfere. But they are not sovereign in the generally accepted political definition of the word.
For example, the state of Virginia, prior to the ratification of the Constitution, had the power to negotiate treaties with foreign governments.
Not without consent of Congress they didn't.
The Feds only have said power because the states gave it to them. Thus, the state governments are a higher power than the Fed.
The Supremacy clause would dispute that.
I said “in the original conception” above because I realize that our political system has evolved away from this concept.
Or at least in your opinion.