Posted on 12/24/2001 4:25:26 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa
This is (to the best of my recollection) the first time we’ve debated. I’ve never referred to anyone as a “cut’n paste artist” (although given Walt’s apparent dependence upon anonymous ‘newsgroup’ sources it may be applicable in certain circumstances ;>). And, if you will review your posts addressed to me on this thread, I do not believe that you ever quoted a single source document. That’s your right – you are welcome to your (“unsubstantiated”) opinions. But, quite frankly, I am interested in history rather than opinion – I can get the latter by watching the network news... ;>)
Above I posted Article V of the Constitution to ask one of you where it implies a right to secede, as he had stated. I never got a reply to that post. It seems when you see the source you won't reply, and when we don't post source, you call us uninformed!
Thank you for the reference (to Post #362, I believe - not addressed to me). You state that the clause in question “has to do with amending the Constitution.” I was wondering: did you reach that conclusion from the location of the clause in Article V, rather than (for example) in Article I? Does the location of the clause have significance? Does the clause apply exclusively to Article V concerns (constitutional amendment)? Obviously, I am asking for your opinion, but feel free to quote any source documents upon which your opinion is based. Thanks!
;>)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: WhiskeyPapaThe original Union was voluntary. That's the one George Washington wanted. "Consent of the governed" with him was key. He was the Anti-Lincoln.
"No State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate." Article V, US Constitution. Now why do you suppose a state could consent to being denied their equal suffrage in the Senate? Could it be because they had the legal option under the Constitution to SECEDE?? [ Emphasis his]
Illinois motto: "State Sovereignty, National Union" Ole Abe was shot too soon. The 39th Congress wiped out half his state's motto. Walt cheers.
359 posted on 1/2/02 2:53 PM Pacific by H.Akston
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: H.Akston
ARTICLE V
MODE OF AMENDMENT
----------The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It has to do with amending the Constitution. All the members of the Senate had to be there unless their state said it was ok for them not to be. Where do you read a right to secession into that Article? Curious minds would like to know.
362 posted on 1/2/02 3:14 PM Pacific by Ditto
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This was my source for posting article V. http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/constitution/art5.html. It’s a straight ‘cut ‘n paste. He stated emphatically that Article V said that States had the right to secede. I posted Article V, verbatim, stated the nature of that article, and asked him to show me where it granted a right to secede. And as I said, I received no reply Askton. Zip, zero, nadda.
Now what exactly is your question to me? Are you suggesting that Article I supports secession? Show me where? Article V seems rather straight forward and does not even begin to say what Askton claimed. What is it you read in Article I that says otherwise?
Do you support what Taney did there--deny the legitimacy of secession?
Well?
You put forward Taney in Merryman. Will you honor him in the Prize Cases?
Walt
Well of course, I'd be delighted.
Congress, on the 6th of August, 1862, passed an Act confirming all acts, proclamations, and orders of the President after the 4th of March, 1861, respecting the army and navy, and legalizing them, so far as was competent for that body, and it has been suggested, but scarcely argued, that this legislation on the subject had the effect to bring into existence an ex post facto civil war, with all the rights of capture and confiscation, jure belli, from the date referred to. An ex post facto law is defined when, after an action, indifferent in itself or lawful, is committed, the Legislature then, for the first time, declares it to have been a crime and inflicts punishment upon the person who committed it. The principle is sought to be applied in this case. Property of the citizen or foreign subject engaged in lawful trade at the time, and illegally captured, which must be taken as true if a confirmatory act be necessary, may be held and confiscated by subsequent legislation. In other words, trade and commerce authorized at the time by acts of Congress and treaties may, by ex post facto legislation, be changed into illicit trade and commerce with all its penalties and forfeitures annexed and enforced. The instance of the seizure of the Dutch ships in 1803 by Great Britain before the war, and confiscation after the declaration of war, which is well known, is referred to as an authority. But there, the ships were seized by the war power, the orders of the Government, the seizure being a partial exercise of that power, and which was soon after exercised in full.The precedent is one which has not received the approbation of jurists, and is not to be followed. See W. B. Lawrence, 2d ed. Wheaton's Element of Int.Law, pt. 4, ch. 1. sec. 11, and note. But, admitting its full weight, it affords no authority in the present case. Here, the captures were without any Constitutional authority and void, and, on principle, no subsequent ratification could make them valid.
Upon the whole, after the most careful consideration of this case which the pressure of other duties has admitted, I am compelled to the conclusion that no civil war existed between this Government and the States in insurrection till recognized by the Act of Congress 13th of July, 1861; that the President does not possess the power under the Constitution to declare war or recognize its existence within the meaning of the law of nations, which carries with it belligerent rights, and thus change the country and all its citizens from a state of peace to a state of war; that this power belongs exclusively to the Congress of the United States, and, consequently, that the President had no power to set on foot a blockade under the law of nations, and that the capture of the vessel and cargo in this case, and in all cases before us in which the capture occurred before the 13th of July, 1861, for breach of blockade, or as enemies' property, are illegal and void, and that the decrees of condemnation should be reversed, and the vessel and cargo restored.
Mr. Chief Justice TANEY, Mr. Justice CATRON and Mr. Justice CLIFFORD, concurred in the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Nelson.
Thank you again Walt. I'm impressed that you consided Taney's opinion worthy of inclusion into the record.
Considering where and when it did occur, whether or not it was performed by Lincoln or the Congress, the court ruled it illegal.
Mr. Chief Justice TANEY, Mr. Justice CATRON and Mr. Justice CLIFFORD, concurred in the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Nelson.
Thank you again Walt. I'm impressed that you consided Taney's opinion worthy of inclusion into the record.
This is a clear attempt on your part to pervert the record.
The court ruled -unanimously- that the government had the right to put down the rebellion, referring to the insurgent area as the "so-called confederate states".
What you quote is the minority opinon on -who- can put down the rebellion, the president, or Congress. The court ruled 5-4 in -favor- of presidential power.
From the syllabus of the cases:
"A civil war exists, and may be prosecuted on the same footing as if those opposing the Government were foreign invaders, whenever the regular course of justice is interrupted by revolt, rebellion, or insurrection, so that the Courts cannot be kept open.
"The present civil war between the United States and the so-called Confederate States has such character and magnitude as to give the United States the same rights and powers which they might exercise in the case of a national or foreign war..."
Not very clever on your part.
Walt
Allow me to quote myself:
“You state that the clause in question ‘has to do with amending the Constitution.’ I was wondering: did you reach that conclusion from the location of the clause in Article V...? Does the location of the clause have significance? Does the clause apply exclusively to Article V concerns (constitutional amendment)?”
I count three questions. Each is quite simple. Care to answer any of them – or not? After all, I am only inquiring with regard to your “opinion”...
;>)
To quote one famous American ‘icon,’ “not hardly.” As I noted some time ago, on another thread:
"You may wish to review Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution, Blackstone's Commentaries of 1803, Chief Justice Marshall's opinion in Ex parte Bollman & Swartwout (1807), Justice Story's 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution, and Chief Justice Taney's opinion in Ex parte Merryman (1861). Each suggests that Mr. Lincoln's suspension of the writ of habeas corpus was thoroughly unconstitutional..."
196 Posted on 06/04/2001 14:17:21 PDT by Who is John Galt? (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
If you are unable to locate the references in question, I will be happy to provide links.
;>)
Actually, if one were to refer to the original post, one would note that I was not 'quoting' the amendment. I am quite careful about such things. Once again (and as usual), Walt got it wrong...
You still have not retracted this ‘whopper’:
”It wasn;t until the slave holders saw their power to control the national government slipping away that the these positions were challenged.”
405 posted on 1/4/02 2:23 AM Pacific by WhiskeyPapa
“Not very clever on your part” – after all, I can quote ratification documents from the late 18th century, I can quote Tucker’s Blackstone’s of 1803, and I can quote Rawle’s View of the Constitution to prove you dead wrong. Perhaps you should see if you can find ‘reverse’ - before you 'get stuck'...
;>)
My apologies for asking then. For a second there I thought you might actually be interested in learning something. Oh well, at least I tried.
Just thought I'd pass along an advance warning about what I can fairly safely assume to be one of the klansman justices you speak of: Walt's an FDR fan and New Dealer. Seeing as he willfully ignores history that he doesn't want to hear, notifying him of his other presidential hero's appointment of Hugo Black will likely only anger him into yet another state of historical denial. No word yet on how he'd react to the mention of FDR's "assistant president" and other interesting court appointment, not himself a klansman but generally considered the next closest thing...then again, rumors have long persisted that the assistant prez's replacement on the 1944 ticket himself may have enjoyed an extremely brief stint under a hood early in his life. And all of them were new deal democrats...go figure!
I saved it:
To: donmeaker
Under the terms of the 10th Amendment, powers not delegated or prohibited by the Constitution are reserved to the States or the people of the States - and the Constitution nowhere delegates or prohibits secession. 'So: there. No legal foundation to oppose secession. End of story.' As Harvard history professor William Gienapp recently noted, "the proponents of secession had a strong constitutional argument, probably a stronger argument than the nationalists advanced"...;>)
57 posted on 12/24/01 2:36 PM Pacific by Who is John Galt?
Don't try and weasel out.
Walt
”It wasn;t until the slave holders saw their power to control the national government slipping away that the these positions were challenged.” 405 posted on 1/4/02 2:23 AM Pacific by WhiskeyPapa
“Not very clever on your part” – after all, I can quote ratification documents from the late 18th century, I can quote Tucker’s Blackstone’s of 1803, and I can quote Rawle’s View of the Constitution to prove you dead wrong. Perhaps you should see if you can find ‘reverse’ - before you 'get stuck'...
;>)
But you don't quote them.
You still are avoiding either supporting Taney's actions on secession or disavowing them. But you have to, don't you?
So we see you saying, "Taney, Taney, Taney," over Merryman and effectively saying 'no comment' over the Prize Cases. Fine.
Why don't you show us in the sources you claim, a right to unilateral state secession. Just saying they support your position, based on your track record, I don't find very compelling. Of course this whole ACW vanity teapot tempest here on FR involves unsupported statements by the neo-confederates being refuted in the record by those with a better grasp of the facts anyway.
In any case, I didn't tell a whopper--was there a secession convention prior to 1860?
Of course you have to discredit me personally because the record doesn't support you. Taney and the other 8 justices ALL agreed that the so-called secession of the so-called seceded states was outside the bounds of the Constitution. That is an incovenient fact for your interpretation, but it remains.
What I am doing now is very graciously offering you the opportunity to renounce a perhaps honest mistake, but the excerpt you provided regarding the -minority- opinon in the Prize Cases can only be seen as an atttempt to pervert the record--to divert attention from really happened, and you should be ashamed of that.
Walt
Justice Marshall:
"The mischievous consequences of the construction contended for on the part of Virginia, are also entitled to great consideration. It would prostrate, it has been said, the government and its laws at the feet of every state in the Union. And would this not be the effect? What power of the government could be executed by its own means, in any states disposed to resist its execution by a course of legislation?...each member will possess a veto on the will of the whole...there is certainly nothing in the circumstances under which our constitution was formed; nothing in the history of the times, which justify the opinion that the confidence reposed in the states was so implicit as to leave in them and their tribunals the power of resisting or defeating, in the form of law, the legislative measures of the Union..."
Justice Story:
The constitution of the United States was ordained and established, not by the states in their sovereign capacities, but emphatically, as the preamble of the constitution declares, by "the people of the United States." There can be no doubt that it was competent to the people to invest the general government with all the powers which they might deem proper and necessary; to extend or restrain these powers according to their own good pleasure, and to give them a paramount and supreme authority. As little doubt can there be that the people had a right to prohibit to the states the exercise of any powers which were, in their judgment, incompatible with the objects of the general compact; to make the powers of the state governments, in given cases, subordinate to those of the nation, or to reserve to themselves those sovereign authorities which they might not choose to delegate to either."
Justice Taney didn't write the opinon is the Prize Cases but concurred with:
"A civil war exists, and may be prosecuted on the same footing as if those opposing the Government were foreign invaders, whenever the regular course of justice is interrupted by revolt, rebellion, or insurrection, so that the Courts cannot be kept open.
"The present civil war between the United States and the so-called Confederate States has such character and magnitude as to give the United States the same rights and powers which they might exercise in the case of a national or foreign war..."
You have to pick and choose what suits you because the whole record doesn't support your position. You know not a one of these Justices will support a right to unilateral state secession-- which all three of the Justices you name (but don't quote) were solidly on the record as opposing.
The slave holders didn't go to the Court because they knew they had no case. Your misrepresenting and cherry picking the record won't help you establish that they did have one.
Walt
Had there been such a thing as a confederate supreme court I wonder what they would have thought of the Davis suspension of habeas corpus. If they followed the same legal thinking of the U.S. Supreme court I would assume that they should have found Davis in violation of the constitution as well. But we'll never know.
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.