Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Non-Sequitur
Your original question in Reply 540 was "...is the Federal government the sole rightful judge of the powers delegated to it?" And the answer to that is no. The Supreme Court is the sole judge of whether the governments actions are legal since the Constitution grants the Supreme Court jurisdiction in this matter.

The US Supreme Court is a part of the Federal government, so, I can only deduce that your answer to the question of whether the Federal government is the sole rightful judge of the powers delegated to it is 'yes.' Which leads back to my original question of Walt. According to unconditional Unionists, States have no recourse whatsoever, to opposing Federal usurpations which the States may find insufferable. This doctrine, I believe, would have been astounding to the Founding Fathers.

The individual states have no recourse except the Supreme Court and if they disagree with the court's decision then that is that. They all agreed to Article VI, Section II where is says: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Well, with respect, it says, that the Constitution is supreme, not the Federal government, which is a creature of the document.

If the individual states choose not to be bound by the Constitution then they have two choices: follow the provisions in Article V and get the required number of states to agree to amend the Constitution and let them withdraw, or enter into rebellion.

No, there is another. They can retract their ratifications, and leave the Union to those who find the percieved usurpations tolerable, which is, I believe the point of the matter.

Respectfully,

D J White

547 posted on 01/13/2002 12:50:18 PM PST by D J White
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 545 | View Replies ]


To: D J White
They can retract their ratifications, and leave the Union to those who find the percieved usurpations tolerable, which is, I believe the point of the matter.

They tried that 141 years ago and their illegal actions led to four years of civil war. Are you that anxious to go through that again?

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. And the Constitution gives the Supreme Court the duty to interpret the Constitution and rule on what violates it and what does not. The Supreme Court has that duty, not the states or their legislatures or their agitators. The states knew that when they ratified it in the first place or petitioned for admission as states. The rules haven't changed so there is no reason for them to be surprised. There are no provisions for secession nor are there any provisions for rescinding their ratification other than those provided for amending the Constitution. Sorry, but that's the way it is and the way it will be until a future amendment or Supreme Court ruling changes things.

548 posted on 01/13/2002 3:43:10 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 547 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson