What we see is “congressional approval required” for certain specific changes. If the Founders had wished, they could phrased the clause exactly as you did – “congressional approval [is] required for every change in a state's status.” They did not do so, probably because such a blanket authorization of congressional power would have caused some States to refuse to ratify.
Speaking for the Founders again? If the founding father's did not mean for congressional approval for every change then why did the go into such detail. If two states wished to combine and both of the legislatures agreed to it then why should congressional approval be needed? The obvious answer is that the interests of the other states could be affected and congressional approval was a way of safe-guarding those interests. And if the people of California decide to split into two states then why should that require congressional approval? For the same reason. And if a state decides that it wants to leave the Union then why shouldn't Congress be expected to approve in order to ensure that the interests of other states are not protected?
Please note: “the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned” was required as well. The clause hardly describes the type of unlimited federal power implied by your statement.
I'm not advocating unlimited federal power. Once a state becomes a state Congress cannot unilaterally take any actions that affect its status. Why should the legislatures be allowed to take unilateral action that affects its status? The clear meaning of the Founders is that the approval of both would be necessary.
Finally, please note the absence of any reference to secession.
Once again, the Constitution does not specifically forbid secession and it also does not specifically allow secession, either. Your sole claim that that right exists lies with the 10th Amendment. My claim is that the right of unilateral secession is not granted by that Amendment or any other.
Finally, an analogy: even though your approval is required before anyone may enter your home, allow me to suggest that such approval is hardly required before your guests may leave.
Your analogy is rather lame because we are not talking about you asking me to leave your house. We are joint tenants in the same house. A better analogy would be if you wanted to cut off the one wing of the house you happen to live in and move it. Since we own the whole property jointly that should require the approval of both of us.
That may be true – but I, at least, do not have to base my argument upon vague implications.
No, you base your argument on your belief that the Constitution requires congressional approval for every thing affecting the status of a state - except unilateral secession. That the Constitution either forbids or requires congressional approval for other actions by states where the interests of the other states may be impacted - but somehow allows for unilateral secession. It is your argument which seems to be vague to me.
More to the point, apparently the court need not issue rulings unless it so desires.
No, the court issues a ruling on matters which comes before it. While it is true that the Supreme Court can chose not to hear a case, I am not familiar with any instance where the Alien and Sedition act was brought before the court and the court refused to hear it. Unless that happened then your claim that the Supreme Court ignored the matter is ridiculous.
and in the words of Mr. Justice Antonin Scalia...
Article III Section 2, Clause 1 says, among other things, that the judicial power of the Supreme Court extends to all cases, in law and equity, arising under the Constitution, and to the laws of the United States made under it. Clause to says that the jurisdiction of the court is either original or appellate, depending on the parties involved. The definition of 'jurisdiction' is the power to interpret and apply the law for a specific area. Justice Scalia's quote nowhere says that it is not the duty of the Supreme Court to interpret laws made under the Constitution. Nor does he say who the last word on what the Constittion means is. Until he specifies that I'll continue to depend on the Supreme Court.
You suggest that “congressional approval for every change” is implied by a short list of specific changes. Apply your reasoning to Article I: ‘If the founding father's did not mean for Congress to “make laws to bind us in all cases whatsoever,” then why did they go into such detail in enumerating specific powers?’ Your claim is ridiculous.
And if a state decides that it wants to leave the Union then why shouldn't Congress be expected to approve in order to ensure that the interests of other states are not protected?
Because, my friend, unlike the other examples you provided, such approval is not required by the Constitution.
I'm not advocating unlimited federal power.
Really? You seem to be attempting to add an awful lot of words to the Constitution that are not in fact there – and your ‘unwritten’ additions seem (without exception ;>) to increase federal power.
The clear meaning of the Founders is that the approval of both would be necessary.
The Founders were quite capable of using the language of your ‘interpretation’ – and they did not. They could have included another enumerated requirement for congressional approval of State secession – but they did not. I would suggest that they meant precisely what they said – nothing more, and nothing less. You apparently disagree.
By the way, what were you saying about “speaking for the Founders?”
;>)
Once again, the Constitution does not specifically forbid secession and it also does not specifically allow secession, either. Your sole claim that that right exists lies with the 10th Amendment. My claim is that the right of unilateral secession is not granted by that Amendment or any other.
Actually, my “claim” is based upon much more than just the Tenth Amendment. As Mr. Madison observed:
“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”
My claim is supported – and yours is contradicted - even by Mr. Madison, a Federalist and an advocate of national government. But let’s not stop there. Thomas Jefferson stated:
“(T)hat the several States composing the United States of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes — delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government...
”That the Constitution of the United States, having delegated to Congress a power to punish treason, counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, piracies, and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations, and no other crimes, whatsoever; and it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that ‘the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,’ therefore the [Alien & Sedition Acts]...(and all their other acts which assume to create, define, or punish crimes, other than those so enumerated in the Constitution), are altogether void, and of no force; and that the power to create, define, and punish such other crimes is reserved, and, of right, appertains solely and exclusively to the respective States, each within its own territory...
”That it is true as a general principle, and is also expressly declared by one of the amendments to the Constitution, that ‘the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people’; and that no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, and were reserved to the States or the people...
”That alien friends are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the State wherein they are: that no power over them has been delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the individual States, distinct from their power over citizens. And it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that ‘the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,’ the [Alien Act] which assumes powers over alien friends, not delegated by the Constitution, is not law, but is altogether void, and of no force.
”That the construction [i.e., interpretation] applied by the General Government (as is evidenced by sundry of their proceedings) to those parts of the Constitution of the United States which delegate to Congress a power ‘to lay and collect taxes, duties, imports, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,’ and ‘to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution, the powers vested by the Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof,’ goes to the destruction of all limits prescribed to their powers by the Constitution: that words meant by the instrument to be subsidiary only to the execution of limited powers, ought not to be so construed as themselves to give unlimited powers...
My claim is supported – and yours is contradicted - by Mr. Jefferson. But wait, there’s more:
“ The [Tenth Amendment] to the constitution of the United States, declares, that the powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
”The powers absolutely prohibited to the states by the constitution, are, shortly, contained in article 1. section 10...All other powers of government whatsoever, except these, and such as fall properly under the first or third heads above-mentioned, consistent with the fundamental laws, nature, and principle of a democratic state, are therefore reserved to the state governments...
”The federal government then, appears to be the organ through which the united republics communicate with foreign nations, and with each other. Their submission to its operation is voluntary: its councils, its engagements, its authority are theirs, modified, and united. Its sovereignty is an emanation from theirs, not a flame by which they have been consumed, nor a vortex in which they are swallowed up. Each is still a perfect state, still sovereign, still independent, and still capable, should the occasion require, to resume the exercise of its functions, as such, in the most unlimited extent.
”But until the time shall arrive when the occasion requires a resumption of the rights of sovereignty by the several states (and far be that period removed when it shall happen) the exercise of the rights of sovereignty by the states individually, is wholly suspended, or discontinued, in the cases before mentioned: nor can that suspension ever be removed, so long as the present constitution remains unchanged, but by the dissolution of the bonds of union...”
St. George Tucker’s Blackstone’s Commentaries (which is still being cited by the federal court ;>) supports my “claim” and contradicts yours. There is more, of course, but I’ve posted the references before, and this post is growing too lengthy. In summary, my “claim” is historically consistent - and your “claim” is nothing but blatant historical revisionism.
Your analogy is rather lame because we are not talking about you asking me to leave your house. We are joint tenants in the same house. A better analogy would be if you wanted to cut off the one wing of the house you happen to live in and move it. Since we own the whole property jointly that should require the approval of both of us.
Actually, my analogy was highly appropriate – the right to refuse admittance in no way necessitates or presupposes a right to refuse departure. It is your analogy that is “rather lame” – neither the federal government nor the other States “own” the territory of any given State. This is just another example of your attempts to expand federal authority beyond the bounds of the Constitution.
No, you base your argument on your belief that the Constitution requires congressional approval for every thing affecting the status of a state - except unilateral secession.
Please reread my post:
”I don’t believe I have ever made that argument...”
You seem to be willing to put words in my mouth that were never spoken. Not surprising, given your continual attempts to put powers in the hands of the federal government that were never delegated.
No, the court issues a ruling on matters which comes before it. While it is true that the Supreme Court can chose not to hear a case...
Which is it: must the court issue “issues a ruling on matters which comes before it,” or can the court “chose not to hear a case?” If the latter, then you have made my point for me.
Article III Section 2, Clause 1 says, among other things...
Care to answer the following questions? I have asked repeatedly, and you have refused to answer – repeatedly:
“The word supreme is used twice in the constitution, once in reference to the superiority of the highest federal court over the inferior federal courts, and again in declaring ‘that the constitution, and laws made in pursuance thereof, shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby.’ Did it mean to create two supremacies, one in the court, and another in the constitution? Are they colateral, or is one superior to the other? Is the court supreme over the constitution, or the constitution supreme over the court? Are ‘the judges in every state’ to obey the articles of the union, or the construction of these articles by the supreme federal court?”
Let me guess: you’re on your way to see a man about a horse, and don’t have time to answer – again...
;>)