We make progress.
If I remember correctly, the contention was that as of the adoption of the Declaration of Independence, a single country was formed and that the states were not separate, independent, soveriegn entities. We have now worked through the Declaration of Independence -- which clearly indicates that the states were independent entities and now the Treaty of Paris.
Shall we go on to the Articles of Confederation? Here it is even more plain. In fact, it is explicite. Article II says:
"Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled."
Notice how this foreshadows the 10th Amendment. No accident there.
Notice how this foreshadows the 10th Amendment. No accident there.
It doesn't foreshadow the 10th amendment because the word "expressly" was expressly left out of the latter.
Forgive the Dr. Suess-like sentence, but whether or not to include the word "expressly" WAS debated at the Constitutional Convention. And they left it out, expresssly for this reason:
"Even the 10th amendment, which was framed for the purpose of quieting the excessive jealousies which had been excited, omits the word "expressly," and declares that the powers "not delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the states are reserved to the states or to the people," thus leaving the question, whether the particular power which may become the subject of contest, has been delegated to the one government, or prohibited to the other, to depend on a fair reading of the whole instrument.
The men who drew and adopted this amendment had experienced the embarrassments resulting from the insertion of this word in the articles of confederation, and probably omitted it, to avoid those embarrassments. A constitution, to contain an accurate detail of all the subdivisions of which its great powers will admit, and of all the means by which they may be carried into execution, would partake of the prolixity of a legal code, and could scarcely be embraced by the human mind. It would probably never be understood by the public.
Its nature, therefore, requires, that only its great outlines should be marked, its important objectives designated, and the minor ingredients which compose those objects,, be deduced from the nature of the objects themselves. That is the idea entertained by the framers of the American constitution, is not only to be inferred from the nature of the instrument, but from its language. Why else were some of the limitations, found in the 9th section of the 1st article, introduced? ....
The subject is the execution of those great powers on which the welfare of the nation essentially depends. It must have been the intention of those who gave these powers, to insure, their beneficial execution. This could not be done, by confining the choice of means to such narrow limits as not to leave it in the power of congress to adopt any which might be appropriate, and which were conclusive to the end.
...any means adapted to the end, any means which tended drectly to the execution of the constitutional powers of the government are themselves constitutional."
-- Chief Justice John Marshall, 1819
The Congress is charged with providing for the general welfare and the common defense of the United States. Anything inimical to those ends are covered in Marshall's ruling. The Congress clearly is empowered to deal lwith them. This includes secession. The right to secession CANNOT be retained to the states because the right of perpetuity is retained by the federal government.
Walt