Posted on 12/10/2002 6:57:25 AM PST by billbears
The states collectively and severally created the FEDERAL government - not the other way around. Their decisions were unilateral - devoid of coercion.
As parties to the compact that created the federal government, the states are the final arbiter of decisions with respect to federal relations - NOT the federal Supreme Court, Legislature or Executive.
The legislature and executive have had laws and orders overturned by the courts, and decisions of the Supreme Court have been overturned by the people of the several states via Constitutional amendment 4 times in our history.
There is no process of legal secession under U.S. law except for the conflict resolution -in- the Constitution -- that is the amendment process.
The states are not completely sovereign under the Constitution. The Articles of Confederation had failed. When enough people realized that, something stronger was adopted. THAT was the Constitution with, as George Washington called it, "a coercive power". It was strong -enough- so that the government set up by the framers has existed from 1790 until today.
Walt
Nullification is the idea, pioneered by Thomas Jefferson and John C. Calhoun, that an American state has the right to "nullify" federal legislation that it believes violates the Constitution. As Virginian political thinker Abel Upshur put it, since no common umpire exists between the federal government and the states to render judgments on breaches of the Constitution, each state – as a constituent part and co-creator of the Union – has to make such determinations for itself.
Why stop at the federation? Apply the same to counties and states: since there is no common arbitration (allegedly) between the two, each county has to have the nullification power.
Don't stop at counties either: continue on to the cities and townships, individual school boards --- until you finally reached the individual. Since there is no common arbiter between you and the state, YOU should be able to nullify whatever state has decided --- whenever YOU deem something unconstitutional.
The problem arises, of course, because of the false premise, that the Supreme Court will not act on behalf of a state.
Judging by some of the responses, a few of them are here and posting.
And these idiots believe that the Tenth Amendment was thrown in there just cuz the quill had extra ink in it...
That is not true.
The Constitution was ratified in special conventions called for the purpose -- the states were bypassed.
Chief Justice Marshall said as much.
Now, one of you neo-rebs has --quoted-- Chief Justice Marshall's majority opinion in McCullough v. Maryland from 1819 in an attempt to skew perception of these events -- (I think it was you. If not, please deny.)
So you --know-- better and yet you persist in an interpretation that is ahistorical.
From McCullough:
"The convention which framed the constitution was, indeed, elected by the State legislatures. But the instrument, when it came from their hands, was a mere proposal, without obligation, or pretensions to it. It was reported to the then existing Congress of the United States, with a request that it might "be submitted to a convention of Delegates, chosen in each State, by the people thereof, under the recommendation of its legislature, for their assent and ratification." This mode of proceeding was adopted; and by the Convention, by Congress, and by the State Legislatures, the instrument was submitted to the people. They acted upon it, in the only manner in which they can act safely, effectively, and wisely, on such a subject, by assembling in Convention. It is true, they assembled in their several States; and where else should they have assembled? No political dreamer was ever wild enough to think of breaking down the lines which separate the States, and of compounding the American people into one common mass. Of consequence, when they act, they act in their States. But the measures they adopt do not, on that account cease to be the measures of the people themselves, or become the measures of the state governments."
The people ratified the Constitution, not the states.
Walt
The point made is that the people of every existing state did not - in unison - ratify the Constiutution. The people of EACH state individually (unilaterlly) assembled in convention to vote up or down. Given that 9 of 13 states' ratifications would give life to the new union (via secession from the old one) if my math is correct there would be 715 possible combinations of ratifications that would produce that result. The people of New York could not - and did NOT - vote for the people of Georgia.
For convenience only, as the Chief Justice indicated.
It's "We the people", not "we the states."
"But the measures they adopt do not, on that account cease to be the measures of the people themselves..."
Walt
You cited a portion of McCullough that was contradicted by the very next sentence in the ruling.
That is an attempt to skew the record, or if you like, the perception, of these events.
Walt
No one said they did or could.
But the statement you made in #21 is false.
And you knew it was false based on McCullough
Walt
I suppose you mean President Lincoln. I don't worship at his feet.
But care to expound on the reasons he might be called a "butcher"?
Walt
Your actions indicate otherwise, Walt.
In the meantime on this question of the union and its nature, I'll happily yield to Alexis de Tocqueville:
"If the Union were to undertake to enforce by arms the allegiance of the federated states, it would be in a position very analogous to that of England at the time of the War of Independence.
However strong a government may be, it cannot easily escape from the consequences of a principle which it has once admitted as the foundation of its constitution. The Union was formed by the voluntary agreement of the states; and these, in uniting together, have not forfeited their sovereignty, nor have they been reduced to the condition of one and the same people. If one of the states chose to withdraw its name from the contract, it would be difficult to disprove its right of doing so, and the Federal government would have no means of maintaining its claims directly, either by force or by right. In order to enable the Federal government easily to conquer the resistance that may be offered to it by any of its subjects, it would be necessary that one or more of them should be specially interested in the existence of the Union, as has frequently been the case in the history of confederations.
If it be supposed that among the states that are united by the federal tie there are some which exclusively enjoy the principal advantages of union, or whose prosperity entirely depends on the duration of that union, it is unquestionable that they will always be ready to support the central government in enforcing the obedience of the others. But the government would then be exerting a force not derived from itself, but from a principle contrary to its nature. States form confederations in order to derive equal advantages from their union; and in the case just alluded to, the Federal government would derive its power from the unequal distribution of those benefits among the states.
If one of the federated states acquires a preponderance sufficiently great to enable it to take exclusive possession of the central authority, it will consider the other states as subject provinces and will cause its own supremacy to be respected under the borrowed name of the sovereignty of the Union. Great things may then be done in the name of the Federal government, but in reality that government will have ceased to exist." - Democracy in America
Who I am sure would be glad to yield to Chief Justice Marhall:
"...there is certainly nothing in the circumstances under which our constitution was formed; nothing in the history of the times, which justify the opinion that the confidence reposed in the states was so implicit as to leave in them and their tribunals the power of resisting or defeating, in the form of law, the legislative measures of the Union."
Walt
You really do need some help. After you take your medicine, and before you put your sheet on, look in the yellow pages under mental hospitals and make the call.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.