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

To: Non-Sequitur
And perhaps you could tell me what Federal law or Constitutional passage they were interpreting? Walt has already admitted there wasn't any prohibition against a state withdrawing from the Union. Are you picking up his flag and continuing the charge?
799 posted on 05/02/2003 12:51:20 PM PDT by HenryLeeII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 797 | View Replies ]


To: HenryLeeII
OK, normally I'm not one to do large scale cut-and-pastes like my friend Walt or your cohort nolu chan but since you don't want to look it up on your own:

The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." And, when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union."

But the perpetuity and indissolubility of the Union by no means implies the loss of distinct and individual existence, or of the right of self-government by the States. On the contrary, it may be not unreasonably said that the preservation of the States and the maintenance of their governments are as much within the design and care of the Constitution as the preservation of the Union and the maintenance of the National government. The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union composed of indestructible States.

When Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.

Considered as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention, and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union.

So the basis of his decision seems to be Chief Justice Chase's belief that the preamble's direction to 'form a more perfect union' meant maintaining and strengthening the perpetuity of the union called for by the Articles of Confederation. But his observation that the exit from the Union was possible either by rebellion or the consent of the states is no doubt a recognition of the Constitutional power given Congress to determine the status of states.

Happy?

802 posted on 05/02/2003 1:19:07 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 799 | 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