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
WP: 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.
Me? “Weasel out?” Now, that is quite humorous coming from Mr.-I-Won’t-Discuss-The-Secession-Of-The-Ratifying-States-Or-The-Alien-&-Sedition-Acts! You are a comedian! But I will nevertheless be happy to discuss the subject. A few points:
1) I was not “quoting” the amendment.
2) My statement (that the Tenth Amendment refers to the people of the States) was both rational and consistent with the historical documents of the era...
;>)
WINSTON BRYANT, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ARKANSAS, PETITIONER 93-1828
v.
BOBBIE E. HILL et al. on writs of certiorari to the supreme court of arkansas
[May 22, 1995]
“Justice Thomas, with whom The Chief Justice, Justice O'Connor, and Justice Scalia join, dissenting...
“Nothing in the Constitution deprives the people of each State of the power to prescribe eligibility requirements for the candidates who seek to represent them in Congress. The Constitution is simply silent on this question. And where the Constitution is silent, it raises no bar to action by the States or the people.
I
“Because the majority fundamentally misunderstands the notion of -reserved- powers [which you obviously share, friend Walt... ;>], I start with some first principles. Contrary to the majority's suggestion, the people of the States need not point to any affirmative grant of power in the Constitution in order to prescribe qualifications for their representatives in Congress, or to authorize their elected state legislators to do so.
A
“Our system of government rests on one overriding principle: all power stems from the consent of the people. To phrase the principle in this way, however, is to be imprecise about something important to the notion of -reserved- powers. The ultimate source of the Constitution's authority is the consent of the people of each individual State, not the consent of the undifferentiated people of the Nation as a whole.
“The ratification procedure erected by Article VII makes this point clear [you remember Article VII – I refer to it time after time, and time after time you ignore it... ;>]. The Constitution took effect once it had been ratified by the people gathered in convention in nine different States. But the Constitution went into effect only -between the States so ratifying the same,- Art. VII; it did not bind the people of North Carolina until they had accepted it. In Madison's words, the popular consent upon which the Constitution's authority rests was -given by the people, not as individuals com- posing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong.- The Federalist No. 39 [which I have referenced repeatedly, and which you have repeatedly ignored ;>], p. 243 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (hereinafter The Federalist). Accord, 3 Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution 94 (J. Elliot 2d ed. 1876) (hereinaf- ter Elliot) (remarks of James Madison at the Virginia convention).
“When they adopted the Federal Constitution, of course, the people of each State surrendered some of their authority to the United States (and hence to entities accountable to the people of other States as well as to themselves). They affirmatively deprived their States of certain powers, see, e.g., Art. I, 10, and they affirmatively conferred certain powers upon the Federal Government, see, e.g., Art. I, 8. Because the people of the several States are the only true source of power, however, the Federal Government enjoys no authority beyond what the Constitution confers: the Federal Government's powers are limited and enumerated. In the words of Justice Black, -[t]he United States is entirely a creature of the Constitution. Its power and authority have no other source.- Reid v. Covert, 354 U. S. 1, 5-6 (1957) (plurality opinion) (footnote omitted).
“In each State, the remainder of the people's powers- -[t]he powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States,- Amdt. 10-are either delegated to the state government or retained by the people. The Federal Constitution does not specify which of these two possibilities obtains; it is up to the various state constitutions to declare which powers the people of each State have delegated to their state government. As far as the Federal Constitution is concerned, then, the States can exercise all powers that the Constitution does not withhold from them. The Federal Government and the States thus face different default rules: where the Constitution is silent about the exercise of a particular power-that is, where the Constitution does not speak either expressly or by necessary implication-the Federal Government lacks that power and the States enjoy it.
“These basic principles are enshrined in the Tenth Amendment, which declares that all powers neither delegated to the Federal Government nor prohibited to the States -are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.- With this careful last phrase, the Amendment avoids taking any position on the division of power between the state governments and the people of the States: it is up to the people of each State to determine which -reserved- powers their state government may exercise. But the Amendment does make clear that powers reside at the state level except where the Constitution removes them from that level. All powers that the Constitution neither delegates to the Federal Government nor prohibits to the States are controlled by the people of each State.
“To be sure, when the Tenth Amendment uses the phrase -the people,- it does not specify whether it is referring to the people of each State or the people of the Nation as a whole. But the latter interpretation would make the Amendment pointless: there would have been no reason to provide that where the Constitution is silent about whether a particular power resides at the state level, it might or might not do so. In addition, it would make no sense to speak of powers as being reserved to the undifferentiated people of the Nation as a whole, because the Constitution does not contemplate that those people will either exercise power or delegate it. The Constitution simply does not recognize any mechanism for action by the undifferentiated people of the Nation...”
Obviously, this is a minority opinion (Justices Thomas, O'Connor, and Scalia, siding with the Chief Justice). Equally obvious, however, is one simple fact: given that you (by your own definition) side with the majority, it becomes apparent that you should change your voter registration card to read ‘Democrat’...
Bon appetit!
;>)
“To be sure, when the Tenth Amendment uses the phrase -the people,- it does not specify whether it is referring to the people of each State or the people of the Nation as a whole. But the latter interpretation would make the Amendment pointless...it would make no sense to speak of powers as being reserved to the undifferentiated people of the Nation as a whole, because the Constitution does not contemplate that those people will either exercise power or delegate it. The Constitution simply does not recognize any mechanism for action by the undifferentiated people of the Nation...”
Just wondering if you were going to call Justice Thomas, the Chief Justice, Justice O'Connor, and Justice Scalia 'liars:' after all, they have stated, in print (quoted above for your edification ;>), that the people referred to by the Tenth Amendment are "the people of each State." Or will you continue to proclaim your "pointless" and 'nonsensical' argument that the amendment refers to "the people of the Nation as a whole?"
The world wonders...
;>)