Posted on 04/03/2002 9:52:50 AM PST by r9etb
And you'd be in the right if the Constitution had a provision disallowing secession, meaning the Supremacy Clause would have something to put its teeth into. But there isn't such a clause. Even a "one note pony", if the "one note" is an unequivocal truth, can finish the show.
One other point. I don't care what act you trot out, if it is patently unconstitutional, it is irrelevant no matter how many stacked courts claim otherwise. Read the document in question. If it allows something, or does not disallow something, then it can be done.
LTS
You meant to say Amendment X, of course.
However, insurrection, treason, and many other things that the Confederate states did, are among those things that are explicitly prohibited, and the Federal Government is granted the power to deal with such things.
Your argument seems to rest on the idea that Secession is not insurrection. This runs counter the language in Article VI, which explicitly makes the laws and constitutions of the several states inferior to the Constitution.
Not to mention the fact that the specifics of the actual secession cannot be viewed as anything other than an insurrection.
Only after the 14th Amendment. The supremacy clause was in a different context before that. Tell me, what kind of idiots would elect a government that had more power over them than then the founding states themselves?
The Constitution clearly states that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and superior to the laws and constitutions of the states.
The states, through their duly-elected goevnerments, are required by the Constitution to swear an oath to that effect.
In ratifying the Constitution, the states bound themselves to be governed by the Constitution.
Lincoln instituted military tribunals; the confederacy held humans in bondage.
Lincoln instituted a federal tax; the confederacy held humans in bondage.
Lincoln expanded the power of the executive; the confederacy held humans in bondage.
Lincoln laid the groundwork for public education; the confederacy held humans in bondage.
If a State self-determines its way out of the Union, is that okay?
I see no apples, nor oranges, I merely refuted your single point rebuttal to my question. If despotism is a "moral" prerequisite, of which there are more than one, and the British Empire didn't qualify, that's still an unmet prerequisite.
LTS
Then you disagree with Robert E. Lee.
Walt
Lincoln introduced paper money; the confederacy held humans in bondage.
Lincoln wanted to try many southern leaders on charges of treason for seceding from the Union but NOT ONE PERSON WAS EVER TRIED and all charges were eventually dropped! Why not? Because almost every constitutional scholar of the time advised him that the prosecution WOULD LOSE. It would no doubt have been appealed to the Supreme Court and there the Union would have lost, too. What would that mean? Basically what we Southerners have always held, Lincoln conducted a war of agression and conquest.
BTW, the definition of a "civil war" is a war fought for control of a country. The Confederacy wanted only to control itself and the Union could do whatever it wanted.
Who is to say that secession is inimical to that? How so? If Congress can justify any act as being against the "general welfare" just by saying so, then the 10th amendment has no meaning and has been written out of the Constitution. I believe that attemping to prevent secession by force of arms is and was much more inimical to the general welfare of the country than peaceful secession ever could be.
I'm just reading the Constitution. Please explain to us how the act of secession -- and the actions of the seceeding states -- do not qualify as insurrection?
I'm not saying the system is, or ever was, perfect. But it must always be administered by real people. That is what CSA apologists like you would deny.
The Supreme Court has the power, and they shot down all these secession arguments, at least implicitly, with their ruling in the Prize Cases. There is just no two ways about it.
Walt
OTOH, if the sole basis for government is "consent," then the rule of law becomes meaningless.
I disagree completely. The colonists revolted over a level of excise taxation you and I would pay without batting an eye. They were free to purchase, without restriction, opium, tobacco, alcohol, and whatever arms they desired. There were no government schools, no subsidies to business, no welfare transfer payments, no forced participation in socialist Ponzi schemes. Colonial money was, literally, "as good as gold."
Our government purports to justify itself by assuming that a majority of the electorate can legitimately shift the burden of public largesse to the minority. This premise is false--our current government is morally bankrupt. As Dr. Williams says, "It's time to part company."
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.