”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
I have quoted them repeatedly – and you have ignored them repeatedly. But (since your memory is obviously failing ;>), here you go again:
Tucker’s Blackstone’s of 1803:
“The [Tenth Amendment] to the constitution of the United States, declares, that the powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
“The powers absolutely prohibited to the states by the constitution, are, shortly, contained in article 1. section 10...
“All other powers of government whatsoever, except these, and such as fall properly under the first or third heads above-mentioned, consistent with the fundamental laws, nature, and principle of a democratic state, are therefore reserved to the state governments...
“The federal government then, appears to be the organ through which the united republics communicate with foreign nations, and with each other. Their submission to its operation is voluntary: its councils, its engagements, its authority are theirs, modified, and united. Its sovereignty is an emanation from theirs, not a flame by which they have been consumed, nor a vortex in which they are swallowed up. Each is still a perfect state, still sovereign, still independent, and still capable, should the occasion require, to resume the exercise of it's functions, as such, in the most unlimited extent.
“But until the time shall arrive when the occasion requires a resumption of the rights of sovereignty by the several states (and far be that period removed when it shall happen) the exercise of the rights of sovereignty by the states individually, is wholly suspended, or discontinued, in the cases before mentioned: nor can that suspension ever be removed, so long as the present constitution remains unchanged, but by the dissolution of the bonds of union..”
Rawle’s A View of the Constitution of the United States of America (1829 edition):
“If a faction should attempt to subvert the government of a state for the purpose of destroying its republican form, the paternal power of the Union could thus be called forth [on the application of the constituted authorities of each state] to subdue it.
“Yet it is not to be understood, that its interposition would be justifiable, if the people of a state should determine to retire from the Union, whether they adopted another or retained the same form of government, or if they should, with the, express intention of seceding, expunge the representative system from their code...
“It depends on the state itself ...whether it will continue a member of the Union. To deny this right would be inconsistent with the principle on which all our political systems are founded, which is, that the people have in all cases, a right to determine how they will be governed...The states, then, may wholly withdraw from the Union...”
In other words, you’re wrong again. “Not very clever on your part.”
;>)
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.
LOL! Your position, not mine, is founded upon judicial opinion. And I am happy to quote any opinion that highlights your incredible hypocrisy. ‘Only the federal courts may interpret the Constitution,’ you intone – and then blithely ignore any federal judicial opinion that contradicts any of your ridiculous arguments. As for “effectively saying 'no comment' “ – are you ready to discuss the secession of the ratifying States from the so-called ‘perpetual union’ formed under the Articles? Or the ‘federal-judge-approved-but-entirely-unconstitutional’ Alien and Sedition Acts?
What’s that: “no comment?”
(Are all of your family members entertainers, or is it just you? ;>)
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.
I’ve quoted those sources above. And anything and everything I quote has more credibility than the anonymous ‘newsgroup’ postings you rely upon. But I’m willing to improve: perhaps if you provide the URL for your ‘newsgroup,’ I can post the same information there, anonymously and without references, and you will take it for ‘gospel’...
;>)
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.
Mr. ‘Newsgroup’ complaining about “unsupported statements?” And Mr. ‘I-Won’t-Discuss-Constitutional-Ratification’ referring to “the record” and “the facts?”
ROTFLMAO!
In any case, I didn't tell a whopper--was there a secession convention prior to 1860?
That was not what you stated. Allow me (once again) to assist you:
”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 ”
You did indeed “tell a whopper”...
;>)
Of course you have to discredit me personally because the record doesn't support you.
My position is consistent with and supported by the historical record: that’s why I post an extensive list of links to historical documents at my FR homepage. You quote anonymous ‘newsgroup’ sources. The difference is obvious.
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.
Precisely when did I post an “excerpt [from] the Prize Cases?” Provide a few details, and I will “graciously” address your concerns...
;>)