And why should you expect the Federal government to accept actions it saw as so completely illegal? If you were elected governor of Virginia and then banned future elections and proclaimed yourself governor for life should the Federal government accept that? If you announced that Virginia and South Carolina formed an alliance to prevent imports from New York should the Federal government accept that? Illegal actions are not to be ignored. And while we are on the subject how can you claim that the actions of the southern states in 1861 were 'popular acts' when only Texas of the original 7 states submitted the matter to a referendum?
Jurisdiction over secession is not expressly delegated to the Federal government, so that issue must rest with the States.
Jurisdiction over what was Constitutional and what was not was granted to the Supreme Court and every state knew that when they ratified it or accepted it as condition of statehood. And according to the Supreme Court the Union was permenant and unbreakable except with the agreement of 2/3rds of the parties involved. Chase made that clear in his decision. Nobody is saying that a state or state cannot leave the Union. But it must be done within the framework of the laws that all parties agreed to. And that framework is Article V.
No, this would violate Article IV, Section 4.
If you announced that Virginia and South Carolina formed an alliance to prevent imports from New York should the Federal government accept that?
No, this would violate Article I, Section 10.
Illegal actions are not to be ignored.
Indeed. And if the Federal government attempts an illegal action, I believe that true patriots should oppose it, peacefully, if it is possible. This is what Virginia did in 1861.
And while we are on the subject how can you claim that the actions of the southern states in 1861 were 'popular acts' when only Texas of the original 7 states submitted the matter to a referendum?
State Conventions represent the embodied sovereignty of the people of that State and are elected for that purpose. Would also claim that the State Conventions that ratified the Constitution were not popular? Wouldn’t you proposition undermine the legitimacy of the Constitution itself?
Jurisdiction over what was Constitutional and what was not was granted to the Supreme Court and every state knew that when they ratified it or accepted it as condition of statehood.
Au contraire, mon ami. Virginia, New York, and Rhode Island declared in their ratification declarations explicitly that the powers delegated could be recalled.
And according to the Supreme Court the Union was permenant and unbreakable except with the agreement of 2/3rds of the parties involved. Chase made that clear in his decision.
You know very well that Chase’s decision was a post-war one and could have no relevance to a discussion of pre-war constitutional debate.
Nobody is saying that a state or state cannot leave the Union. But it must be done within the framework of the laws that all parties agreed to. And that framework is Article V.
If what you say here is true, then why didn‘t the Union become established for all States once nine States had ratified the Constitution?
Two questions for you. When exactly did the Union become perpetual and indivisible? And is it possible for there to be an unconstitutional act if the President, the Congress, and the Supreme Court all say its constitutional?
Respectfully,
D J White