You know as well as any that the United States Constitution is silent on the matter of secession or deconstruction of the union. That was for reason. Although many whispered “what if it doesn’t survive?” “What if it turns out worse than what we had before?” and there were many side conversations a secession clause never made it into the union. This was by design.
The 10th Amendment doesn’t apply here because the constitution defined the mechanism for admission and consent authority for the construction and definition of the states to the Congress in Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1.
Respectfully, I don’t GAD what jefferson said or thought - my attention is on what he did - and that was commit treason against the United States.
The signing statements of those states are interesting artifacts but totally irrelevant. They have zero force of law.
“You are talking about Texas v. White, whose decision was written by a former member of Lincoln’s cabinet who had helped conduct the war against the seceded states and had dealt with the Texas bonds in question in this case when he was Secretary of the Treasury.”
I don’t care about the circumstances regarding how he came to be a sitting member of that case but his decision stands. I have nothing but contempt for justice taney but he was the legitimate chief justice and his ruling, however idiotic and divisive, stand as well.
The Constitution talked about the admission of states. What it said there doesn't apply to exits. You make a very big logical leap by asserting that it applied to the opposite of what it covered. Since it didn't address secession, nor did anywhere else in the Constitution, the Tenth amendment which covers powers not prohibited to the states.
The NY and VA ratifications of the Constitution only occurred after the reassume or resume powers of government statements were added to the ratification documents.
In case you've forgotten, Jefferson Davis, a better Constitutional scholar than you, was never tried for treason. Treason against the United States only applies to what someone did while a citizen of the United States. Davis was no longer that during the war.
I have nothing but contempt for justice taney
I respect the unanimous decision of Chase et al after the war in Ex Parte Milligan that said the Constitution was for all times, including war. That decision was a rebuke to Lincoln's actions during the war, or at least what he permitted his military to do. That unanimous decision was delivered by Lincoln's close friend on the court, an executor of Lincoln's will.
It is a shame the Court did not have the moxie to reign in Lincoln's military during the war, like a Confederate District Court did the Confederate military. On the other hand, Lincoln would have probably thrown the Court into jail if they had done that. Court members probably remembered the threat to arrest Chief Justice Taney for opposing Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus and holding people in jail for more than a year without charges..
Chase's opinion in Texas v. White does have the force of law like we have both said, but I think it is one of the most wrongheaded decisions in the Court's history and an assault on the Founder's Constitution.
Well, I can see we live on different planets. Enough said. Be well, rockrr
Stop. Just stop saying stupid things.
The Declaration of Independence, which is the *FOUNDATION OF OUR GOVERNMENT* makes any such conjecture silly.
All members of the Constitutional convention regarded it as an inherent foundational assumption that a states had a right to independence, because their very own legitimacy was based on this as a prerequisite.
They did not put in such a clause because the very idea of banning secession would not even have been regarded by them as a rational idea. It was completely contradictory to what they had just themselves done.
It would require a level of hypocrisy astounding in it's scope and irony.