Will that be a first class ticket to London, or coach?
Ultimately, the point is moot. The Constitution was dead before the ink was dry. Might always makes right.
Not only does the actual text of the Constitution prohibit unilateral state secession, but the laws made in pursuance also do so. Specifically, the Militia Act of 1972 gives the president the clear power to enter any state and ensure that United States courts are operating.
Oddly enough, Jefferson Davis would have heartily agreed with your article.
He held that language in the constitution of the so-called CSA that was identical to the Costitution's language gave Congess the power to act in the common defense of the government, thus giving the lie to the complete state sovereignty that the so-called seceded states claimed to have. How about that?
See "Battle Cry of Freedom", by James McPherson, p. 433.
Wakt
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness
...or you don't. I do. You obviously don't. There is no just philosophy that empowers men to govern over those who do not consent to be governed by them.
That's right. CONGRESS. Not one man using an outdated Whiskey Rebellion Act to suppress an entire half of the nation. Or to abscond $2,000,000 from the US Treasury without the approval of Congress. Wait a minute!! Why didn't he ask Congress you say? Congress was out of session convienently while this was going on!! You'd think that something as important as going to war would have pushed lincoln to recall Congress, but of course he didn't for an additional 3 months!! Oh, BTW he also ordered the building of three ships and the purchase of additional four for the Navy. That's under the power of Congress as well
lincoln overstepped his bounds, destroyed the Republic, oh, but he kept the union together!! That's important, I guess..
Let's see
1)unconstitutional use of military tribunals
2)first federal taxation established, 1863
3)expanding the power of the executive branch to lengths unheard of before in the history of the US
4)helped to lay the groundwork for the public education system
just some of his great achievements, not to mention the war crimes committed during the War of Southern Independence.
Webster's defines insurrection as "an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government."
What happened was not a revolt against civil authority, it was civil authority, duly elected by the people of the States, voting to go their own way. The "established government" of each state decided to dissolve its link to the Federal government. To claim that a duly elected assembly could not vote to secede would indicate that the work of a similar group eighty years before, when voting to join that union, is invalid. Do any of you actually think that the States would have joined the union if they thought they'd never be able to dissolve it? Not a chance, and that's why there's no language preventing it in the document!
The rights and restrictions on the States are defined in Section 10 The secessionist states clearly violated almost every part of Section 10 -- especially that last clause -- and would by any standard be considered in a state of insurrection.
Since Article 10 in no place states a State cannot vote to leave the union, once it does, it's no longer a State, so violations of Article 10 become moot.
The actions of the people in secessionist states fit this definition of treason, and it is within the powers of the Federal Government to deal with them.
See above. If you've voted to leave the Union, you cannot commit treason against it.
The Constitution does not outline the steps needed to leave, but nothing exists in the Constitution to prevent any State from peacefully leaving. Sorry to burst the bubble.
LTS
This is one of my favorites. It basically says that if I owe the State money, I must pay in gold or silver coin, no substitutes, no gold/silver certificates, just coin. How does it compare to what the FRNs in your pocket read? This note is legal tender for all debts public and private. If that is not a contradiction, I don't know what is.
Import duties were at one time paid in gold and silver coin. Why? Because under the Constitution, there was no alternative. This part of the Constitution monetizes gold and silver by making people pursue it, and not something else such as Federal Reserve Notes, to pay taxes. Has this part of the Constitution ever been repealed? No. So whatever color of law under which the government is operating that lets it accept Federal Reserve money as tender for taxes, is clearly unconstiutional and a crime is being committed every time such tender takes place. So while y'all are busy arguing if secession is ok or not, the crime is happening right now of Americans being forced to use paper money that has no practical difference from the Continental, the Assignat, the Deutchmark of the Weimar Republic. America was supposed to be different from all the other BS nations that suffer from the abuses of paper money. And her difference begins right here with this clause. Why is it while everyone is arguing over whether or not secession (when now 1861? that's a current event) or bibles in the classroom is Constitutional, no one ever seems to take up the cause of this blatant violation? If not for the ability of the government to ignore this part of the Constitution, we would not have the IRS, bloated bureaucracies, tax rates that take 30-40% of your income.