[D J White]

Well, with respect, what you are arguing against is nullification, not secession. I would agree with you that nullification is problematical, in that the Constitution would potentially mean different things in different States. That is why I oppose nullification. For the record, so did Jefferson Davis.

Secession, however, is another matter. The sovereignty of the States was the States to delegate or not. If a States had refused to ratify (e.g. NC and RI up to their respective ratifications), then they were independent of the Union. This was recognized by the States themselves at the time, and by various Federal agents as well. I can provide the documentation if you like.

For one to accept your logic, one must believe that ratification was intended to be irrevocable. I believe that the power to withdraw one’s ratification subsequent to ratification was widely held, as evidenced by the ratification s of VA, NY, and RI. A declaration on the part of the new Federal government that such contingent ratifications were unacceptable and sending the these declarations of ratification back to the States for unconditional and irrevocable ratification would suffice, if you could provide the reference. The only statements I have seen that would contradict this view is a private letter from James Madison to Alexander Hamilton dated July 20th, 1788 (http://www.constitution.org/jm/17880720_hamilton.htm). While I can’t discount this view, given its source, when it conflicts with a declaration from a body elected to embody the sovereignty of States, I believe that the declaration of that body must take precedence. So I respectfully repeat the question, when did the Union become perpetual and indissoluble?

Respectfully,

D J White

[Non-Sequitur]

I've never suggested that entry into the Union was permenant under any and all circumstances, nor did the Chief Justice in the Texas v. White decision. The problem is with the manner in which the southern states tried to withdraw, arbitrary secession. Your position is that under the constitution a state can decide at any time that they want to leave the Union. But nowhere in the Constitution does a state have the right to act in an arbitrary manner where the rights of the other states are involved. Why should they have the power in this? If a state has the right to secede regardless of what the other states may say then should the other states have a right to expell a single state regardless of what that state may say? They do not.

The power to leave the union lies with Article V of the Constitution. If we think of the Constitution as any other legal partnership then that cannot be disolved with the approval of the majority or all of the people involved. Why should the Constitution be any different. Why would the founding fathers have gone to great lengths to ensure that the people in each state be represented and guaranteed a republican government and protected from government excess only to make it that simple for a state to leave the Union and the people be at the mercy of whoever took them out? That would contradict everything that they set out to do in the first place. Instead, they made it difficult for a state to leave; trusting that, if the state in question could make it's position clear and show the overwhelming support of it's residents, then the overwhelming majority of the other states would see that position and allow them to go their way in peace and harmony, not in bitterness and acrimony. Instead of following the first path, the south chose the second and paid the price.

Madison didn't support secession. He argued against it in several letters and documents. The first quote is from a letter he wrote to Daniel Webster:

"I return my thanks for the copy of your late very powerful Speech in the Senate of the United S. It crushes "nullification" and must hasten the abandonment of "Secession." But this dodges the blow by confounding the claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression. The former answers itself, being a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged. The latter is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy."

During the Constitutional Convention, Madison addressed New York's desire to ratify in part:

"My opinion is that a reservation of a right to withdraw if amendments be not decided on under the form of the Constitution within a certain time, is a conditional ratification; that it does not make New York a member of the new Union, and consequently that she could not be received on that plan. Compacts must be reciprocal: this principle would not, in such a case, be preserved. The Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and forever. In short, any condition whatever must vitiate the ratification. The idea of reserving a right to withdraw was started at Richmond, and considered as a conditional ratification, which was itself abandoned as worse than a rejection."

There are other quotes from Madison but I don't have them handy right now. But they all make clear his belief that the arbitrary secession was wrong.

In answer to your earlier question on Supreme Court rulings, I asked my counselor and drinking buddy about it. He said that Supreme Court decisions can be retroactive or prospective. Retroactive decisions invalidate convictions made under the law in question. In that case a person punished under the law can petition the local court for a reversal or dismissal. Normally a new trial is not involved. Furman v. Georgia was such a decision. If the decision is identified by the court as prospective then old convictions made under the law are not disturbed. I have no idea which case Miranda v. Arizona falls under, or Roe v. Wade or how the court chooses to decide which category the case falls under. Put it should be in the decision somewhere.