Replies

In this and other threads when I or non-sequitor or Whiskey Papa post quotes from source documents, we’re called 'cut 'n paste artists' with no argument or rebuttal to our arguments. Now you come up with a quote, and that somehow makes every thing I say 'unsupported opinion.'

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!

;>)

Here’s the exchange.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To: WhiskeyPapa
The 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?