Posted on 04/22/2009 7:12:17 AM PDT by AmericanHunter
Would you kill people from your own state who had chosen to freely and peaceably leave a union that no longer served their interest, and in fact was doing great harm to their well being? I wouldn’t.
***Implied in that it the power to approve leaving as well.***
No it isn’t. You don’t need permission to leave a group you voluntarily joined even if it took approval of that group to get in. I can quit my job any time I please even though my employer had to “admit” me. Unless there is some provision in the contract that says I owe X amount of days or must provide X days of notice. And there isn’t in the Constitution.
The fact remains that secession is not denied to the states and is thus protected by the 10th Amendment.
How do you figure? Only the federal government has the right to interpret the document made between it and the states?
Others would disagree with you.
The fact remains that secession is not denied to the states and is thus protected by the 10th Amendment.
Not unilaterally no.
Article VI, Clause 2 of the Constitution.
Yes, I know. Thanks.
***Others would disagree with you.***
On what grounds? I don’t have the right to voluntarily leave an association that took an admission process to get in that doesn’t have a clause that prevents me from leaving?
***Not unilaterally no.***
If any power isn’t denied to the states then it is reserved to them.
From Article VI:
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made IN PURSUANCE THEREOF [my emphahsis]... shall be the supreme Law of the Land.”
So an unconstitutional law is not supreme just because the federal government passed it. If it is outside the federal government’s delegated powers, then the law is unconstitutional and therefore null. If the feds don’t see it that way, then the states have an obligation to nullify that law, that is refuse to enforce it.
The federal government can’t be the sole arbiter on the Constitutionality of laws because it will always act in its own interest and in whatever way gives it more power.
On the grounds that there are two sides to every equation. And that the Constitution protects all states, not just those who want to leave. And since all states are equal then no one state has any more power to say that the compact is broken than any single state has to say it has been not.
James Madison said that a rightful secession requires the consent of all parties involved. The only way for secession to be accomplished without acrimony is for all areas of contention to be resolved before the separation. Which requires negotiation and agreement on both sides. Anything else leads to the kind of conflict that doomed the confederacy in 1861.
If any power isn’t denied to the states then it is reserved to them.
The power to interfere with the interests of the other states, to join the Union unilaterally, and to change status once allowed to join are powers denied to the states.
States do not have the power to decide what is constitutional and what is not. That power is vested in the Supreme Court per Article III which gives it jurisdiction in this area.
The federal government can’t be the sole arbiter on the Constitutionality of laws because it will always act in its own interest and in whatever way gives it more power.
It isn't. The court system is.
Having an un-American, non-American President is un-American.
***And since all states are equal then no one state has any more power to say that the compact is broken than any single state has to say it has been not.***
Which is why those states may stay in the union if they so please. If the federal government levied a 10% sales tax in Idaho, then the federal government would have a breach of contract with Idaho only. Why should the other states have a say in what Idaho does at that point?
***James Madison said that a rightful secession requires the consent of all parties involved.***
And yet secession is still not denied to the states.
***Anything else leads to the kind of conflict that doomed the confederacy in 1861.***
Right, because Lincoln HAD to invade the South and burn it to the ground.
***and to change status once allowed to join are powers denied to the states.***
To change as a state, not as a member of the union. It says nothing about whether they may leave or not, only if they can change their territory (either by junction of two or more or by erecting one state from the jurisdiction of an existing one).
Such a tax would be a clear violation of Article I of the Constitution, and Idaho would have recource through the court system.
Why should the other states have a say in what Idaho does at that point?
Because Idaho doesn't exist in a vaccuum, and actions she take can have a negative impact on the interests of other states. And the same Constitution that prevents Idaho from being levied with that tax also prevents Idaho from imposing on another state's interests.
And yet secession is still not denied to the states.
Secession without the consent of the other states is, as the Supreme Court ruled in 1869.
Right, because Lincoln HAD to invade the South and burn it to the ground.
The confederacy started the war when they bombarded Sumter.
To change as a state, not as a member of the union.
Both.
***States do not have the power to decide what is constitutional and what is not. That power is vested in the Supreme Court per Article III which gives it jurisdiction in this area.***
It’s done a fabulous job hasn’t it?
Nullification would be unconstitutional if the Supreme Court has a monopoly on interpretation. Article III says:
“The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States...”
While this grants the Supreme Court the ability to review the Constitutionality of all laws, it doesn’t prohibit the states from reviewing it either. On a philosophical level, why would the states agree to a contract which they have no say about? If the federal government passes a law, how does it make sense that the federal government (though a different branch) gets to determine the Constitutionality of the law, as a final say? It has a vested interest in giving itself more power.
***It isn’t. The court system is.***
Gee, I didn’t realize the court wasn’t part of the federal government.
More often than not? Yes.
While this grants the Supreme Court the ability to review the Constitutionality of all laws, it doesn’t prohibit the states from reviewing it either.
It does in Article III, Section 2: "In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."
On a philosophical level, why would the states agree to a contract which they have no say about?
They have a lot of say about it - in Congress, through the courts, through their legislatures and the amendment process.
***Such a tax would be a clear violation of Article I of the Constitution, and Idaho would have recource through the court system.***
Clearly, and so the contract has been broken. If the court finds in favor of Idaho, then no problem. If not, the contract is broken and Idaho has no obligation to stay unless it wants to put up with the tax. The 10th Amendment still reserves the right for Idaho to leave.
***Because Idaho doesn’t exist in a vaccuum, and actions she take can have a negative impact on the interests of other states. And the same Constitution that prevents Idaho from being levied with that tax also prevents Idaho from imposing on another state’s interests.***
That’s exactly the kind of logic the government has used to increase it’s power under the commerce clause (well such and such action here will affect interstate commerce therefore the government can regulate it). Are you seriously suggesting that anything Idaho does has to be run by all other states before it can act on it? That’s insane. If Idaho doubles taxes then people are likely to leave which affects other states. If it cuts all taxes to bare minimum, it is likely to see an influx of people which affects other states. The assertion that Idaho or any state can’t take an action because it may or may not affect another state is ridiculous.
***Secession without the consent of the other states is, as the Supreme Court ruled in 1869.***
A policy backed by force, not law. Where is secession prevented? It isn’t. The 10th Amendment didn’t stop applying just because a court said it does (in essence). The Supreme Court has also ruled that everyone has a right to abortion and that the 1st Amendment is “incorporated” even though it clearly says “CONGRESS shall make no law... [my emphasis]”
***The confederacy started the war when they bombarded Sumter.***
A foreign army was on their land. They offered repeatedly to pay for its safe transport back. They attacked when Lincoln sent a resupply ship after previously promising not to. No one was killed. Lincoln proceeded to annihilate the South. Call me crazy, but that doesn’t add up to me.
***Both.***
No it clearly says nothing about whether a state may leave or not. Here’s the text:
“New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.”
Nothing about leaving/secession.
“Nullification is not constitutional.”
According to Madison and Jefferson they had that right
“The constitution of the United States was formed by the sanction of the states, given by each in its sovereign capacity. It adds to the stability and dignity, as well as to the authority, of the constitution, that it rests upon this legitimate and solid foundation. The states, then, being the parties to the constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity that there can be no tribunal above their authority to decide, in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated and consequently that, as the parties to it, they must themselves decide, in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition.”
***They have a lot of say about it - in Congress, through the courts, through their legislatures and the amendment process.***
In Congress? When did the 17th Amendment get repealed?
Leave my State alone...L.O.L
I surely hope Obama keeps adding States {57}soon to be 60+..With any good luck he'll miss us in his next “counting” while we quietly leave!
You can say that again. They're all for a seceded Hispanic Southwest, secession by "Native Americans," and the Left has even supported the idea of a seceded Southern Black confederacy.
The answer, as always, lies in the Hegelian dialectic. If it helps the "thesis" to perform its "historic mission," they're all for it. If it helps the "antithesis" impede that "mission," they're against it.
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.