[rdf]

I don't care much about the word, though it seems to me Williams and co, should. "Secession, withdrawal, separation," whatever. Just give me one or more Founders who assert that such an action is legal once the constitution is adopted. I don't say there are none, but Williams and others confidently assert "almost all." I find, almost none. I'd like to see whether I am wrong. And I have been asking for 7 days now.

Cheers,

Richard F.

[4CJ]

Apologies for combining responses, but I'm pressed for time this morning.

I was limiting my responses to comments and published responses before ratification of the BoR. What Madison, Hamilton et al said BEFORE ratification is different in many cases.

Hamilton in Federalist 84 wrote about the lack of need for BoR and the federal government is described as one of limited, ENUMERATED powers. He argued that speech could not be infringed upon because the federal government had never been DELEGATED the power to restrict it.

So to look for an explicit use of the word "secession" or anything similar will not be found in all likelyhood. The Constitution defined the powers the federal government possesed - not what the states retained.

But why enumerate the natural right of revolution? The states could always do that - so the 10th is not a legalization of revolution - its legalization of the right to resume the powers of self government.

FReegards,

4CJ