To: rockrr
and there were many side conversations a secession clause never made it into the union. This was by design. 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.
467 posted on
07/08/2016 8:40:06 AM PDT by
DiogenesLamp
("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
To: DiogenesLamp
The DOl isn’t the foundation of our government you dolt - it was a quit notice to the Brits.
The Articles of Confederation and later the United States Constitution are the foundations of our government.
You moron.
468 posted on
07/08/2016 8:51:32 AM PDT by
rockrr
(Everything is different now...)
To: DiogenesLamp; rockrr
All members of the Constitutional convention regarded it [the DoI] 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.Agreed. Furthermore, that assumption of Independence -- personal as well as state and feral -- was a natural right acknowledged by our Founders that IT is bequeathed to all by our Creator.
FWIW, *neither* of you is a moron. If you were Dems, Progs, or the usual MSM suspects, that moniker *would* indeed apply.
;-)
To: DiogenesLamp; rockrr
DiogenesLamp:
"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." Our Founders demonstrated, twice, by their actions what they believed were legitimate and valid methods of secession:
- In 1776 they declared independence from Britain, not "at pleasure", but of absolute necessity after a long list of "usurpations" and "abuses of power" by Brits, including the fact that England had already declared and launched war against Americans.
In 1776 it was in no way a declaration of choice, but of necessity in the face of certain hanging from failure.
- In 1787 they thoughtfully met in a convention of the states to draw up a new Constitution, in effect a 2.0 version of the old Articles of Confederation.
Though now at peace, they again followed all the niceties of procedure and law, electing representatives, voting on various articles and ratifying by states.
- In their new Constitution they also allowed for new states to be approved by Congress and for Constitutional Amendments in cases of major change.
Any of these processes could reasonably be used for legitimate disunion.
But no Founder ever suggested that unilateral unapproved declarations of secession "at pleasure" were acceptable, lawful or constitutional.
513 posted on
07/11/2016 7:46:36 AM PDT by
BroJoeK
(a little historical perspective...)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson