Please show me the word 'secession' in the Constitution.
• § 207. XIII. Another rule of interpretation deserves consideration in regard to the constitution. There are certain maxims, which have found their way, not only into judicial discussions, but into the business of common life, as founded in common sense, and common convenience. Thus, it is often said, that in an instrument a specification of particulars is an exclusion of generals; or the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another. Lord Bacon's remark, "that, as exception strengthens the force of a law in cases not excepted, so enumeration weakens it in cases not enumerated," has been perpetually referred to, as a fine illustration.
Justice Joseph Story on Rules of Constitutional Interpretation
-----
Licoln had every constitutional right and duty to defend the nation from rebellion, which is in the Constitution.
The major problem being 'rebellion' is an attempt to overthrow the legitimate authority. The South never tried to overthrow the Constitution, they merely wished to leave the Compact.
As I've already illustrated AND provided Constitutional sources - assistance for rebellions IN the State must come at the request OF the State.
While on the subject-
Article VI. - The United States
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
State Constitutions
THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION
Article 1 - BILL OF RIGHTS
Section 24 - MILITARY SUBORDINATE TO CIVIL AUTHORITY
The military shall at all times be subordinate to the civil authority
***
CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF KANSAS
BILL OF RIGHTS
Sec. 4. The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be tolerated, and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.
***
CONSTITUTION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
PART THE FIRST A Declaration of the Rights of the Inhabitants of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Article XVII. The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.
***
ALL the States haven this provision. To my knowledge, they always have.
-----
And ofcourse you guys always claim that you aren't 'for' slavery, but that is why the South were rebelling over what a noble cause you guys rally around!
Its called Right to Property. Like it or not, slaves WERE a specie of property acknowledged for over 250 years. Slave owners helped form the colonies. Slave-owners helped write the Constitution. Slave-owners helped fight the Revolution.
You may believe I'm cheerleading slavery if you wish, but it has more to do with holding the federal government to the terms of the Compact than it does with your perceptions.
The Constitution ISN'T Burger King....you don't get to have your Constitutional burger served up 'your way'.
-----
But I am sure you will regard Hillsdale college some 'leftwing' college and the lecturer as someone else who was brainwashed by the public school system.
ROFLMAO!
If Lincoln was adhering to Original Intent so closely, there should be a preponderance of evidence from the Founders to justify his actions.
Surely you can do better than posting some college professors lecture from 2008 as some type of rebuttal.
-----
Were the people regarded in this transaction as forming one nation, the will of the majority of the whole people of the United States, would bind the minority; in the same manner as the majority in each State must bind the minority; and the will of the majority must be determined either by a comparison of the individual votes; or by considering the will of a majority of the States, as evidence of the will of a majority of the people of the United States. Neither of these rules has been adopted. Each State in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation then the new Constitution will, if established, be a federal and not a national Constitution.
Federalist, no. 39, James Madison, 16 Jan. 1788
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.
The Federalist No. 45, January 1788, James Madison
Ok, fortheDeclaration, let's for the sake of discussion agree that I'm a racist (which I'm not, and for proof, my family was involved in the underground railroad in Peterboro, NY and I take GREAT offense at your accusation of be being otherwise) and let's further say that I agree with you that the South only wanted to secede because of the slavery issue. Ok, are we all in agreement now?
Let's fast forward to 2012 and 12 States want to withdraw from the compact. These 12 States hold State conventions to reflect the will of the PEOPLE (the only TRUE Sovereigns, unless of course you believe in the divine right of Kings which if you support Lincoln, you might). And lets say a super-majority of the PEOPLE decide they want their State to separate from the Union because their inalienable right to let's say property was being infringed or they BELIEVED it was being infringed. Maybe Washington DC doesn't.
They've tried every other peaceful means for redress and have been met with opposition from the national government. And the assembled legislators of these 12 States meet and solemnly agree to withdraw and forward correspondence to that fact to Washington DC.
Does President fortheDeclaration:
A. Assent to the wishes of the PEOPLE of those States and begin proposing and establishing embassies in this new country?
B. Begin war preparations against this new country with the intention of slaughtering as many PEOPLE of those States as necessary to compel them to stay in the Union AGAINST THEIR WILL? Even though the Declaration of Independence is what caused a separation between the PEOPLE of the 13 Colonies operating through their assemblies in 1776?
My suspicion is you will embarrassingly answer "B" and join the other tyrants of history who stopped people who sought freedom but could not attain it because of the likes of Lincolnian thinkers like yourself. And also because you contend that a State has no right to secede even though this was fully understood by the Ratifiers (read below). Your defense of your position is a video lecture you saw from Hillsdale College. Perhaps you should read Professor Kevin Gutzman's new book "James Madison and the making of America" before you write so authoritatively about what Madison did or did not believe about the Union and the Compact.
This is not hard fortheDeclaration, you are making it so. You have no facts to support your contention that Lincoln had Article II authority to wage war against the South. So you do your best to try and weave together an argument, again, buttressed with ZERO, ZIP, NADA Article II delegations of authority to do what he did. By the way, your latest post was very Lincolnian, very similar to his 1st Inaugural Address, you have read that I assume. He wasn't all that anti-slavery was he? And wow, his elucidation of contracts was well, stunning.
And again, I contend, you would be willing to slaughter me and my family if we lived in a State that joined other States and decided to withdraw from the Compact.
By the way, a little tidbit of history the guys at Hillsdale left out, are the ratification documents of NY, Rhode Island and Virginia. You've read them I assume and by the way, if not, they're VERY easy to find. Here's paragraph 4 of NY's (it will give you a little insight into how the Ratifiers thought about that quaint silly and anti-Lincolnian notion of secession):
"That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness; that every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the departments of the government thereof, remains to the people of the several states, or to their respective state governments, to whom they may have granted the same; and that those clauses in the said Constitution, which declare that Congress shall not have or exercise certain powers, do not imply that Congress is entitled to any powers not given by the said Constitution; but such clauses are to be construed either as exceptions to certain specified powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution.
Did you catch that first line? That the powers of government may be resumed...? They obviously weren't referring to the yet to be created new federal government were they? Hmmmm...so who could they have been referring to. I'll let you answer that.
Finally, I am not a "neo-confederate" friend. Though I am impressed it took you a while to get to name calling. Most people who lose arguments on FACTS jump to this much earlier. So I'm impressed you had the self-control. I don't think I'll benefit from that if I'm with a State that is seeking to secede...I continue to believe you'll shoot me.
That said, I am however:
1. Pro-Inalienable Rights
2. Pro-authority (Lincoln had none)
3. Pro-Rule of Law (Lincoln not so much)
4. Pro-habeas corpus (Lincoln not so much)
5. Pro-first Amendment (Lincoln not so much)
6. Pro-self governance (Lincoln not so much)
These are the FACTS and they cannot be disputed. That you don't like them tells me that you're probably a big-government conservative and no friend of Jefferson OR Madison (or Henry, Mason, Lee etc).
How about counties seceding from States, or cities from counties?
If any Constitution would have contained the words 'secession' in it it would have been the Confederate constitution, and it didn't have it either.
Gee, who is 'cutting and pasting' now?
The military is subordinate to the civilians in the Federal Government as well.
What does that have to do with anything?
You are defending those who attempted to leave the Union to keep their slaves.
And they were very clear that they believed that the idea of the Declaration of Independence of all men being created equal was a false one.
The American People are ONE People that operate under a federal system of checks and balances.
Only when a government attacks individual freedom do the People have a right to throw off their government.
That was not the case for the South.
Jefferson explained why the colonies were revolting and appealed to those rights being violated, which many Englishmen such as Edmund Burke, agreed with.
The South was in rebellion, Lincoln had, as President, every constiutional right and indeed it was his duty, to put down the rebellion.
The ones who had a right to rebel based on the Declaration of Independence were the slaves.
But I bet you wouldn't be so supportive of that now would you?