It is true that the preambles to several of the certifications expressed the same theory that formed the basis for our own Declaration of Independence - that sovereignty rests with the people Thus, in Virginia, the certification began:
"We the Delegates of the People of Virginia...Do in the name and in behalf of the People of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression . . .”
How can you read that part which states that “the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States” and contend that the Virginians who ratified the Constitution did not understand that the government of the United States was being formed by the “people of the United States”? And how can you read that language and contend that it provides the state of Virginia (as distinguished from “the people of the United States”) with the authority to resume the powers being granted?
There are decent records of the actual debates that took place in at least a few of the state ratifying conventions. If you ever get a chance to read them, you will find that many of delegates voted against ratification because they knew that ratification was destructive to state sovereignty.
Sir, if “secession” is so clearly constitutional, don’t you think that your argument could be a lot shorter and less convoluted than it is?
I ask you:
Why couldn't South Carolina have submitted their proposal of disunion to the Congress?
And if the southern politicians genuinely believed in the legitimacy of their "secession" theory, why couldn't South Carolina have submitted its theory to the Supreme Court, the Court that decided Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) 60 U.S. 393?
Perhaps you should take the time to actually read the documents in question – some contained “recommendations,” others contained specific “reservations.” The critical point is this: were those ratification documents containing specific “reservations” accepted as valid, or not? Hmm? When a contract is modified by specific written conditions placed on the signature page, those conditions become a part of the contract upon acceptance by the parties. In fact, the ratification documents were the ‘signature pages’ of the Constitution, the ratifications in question were accepted as valid, and even the States which had specifically reserved the right of secession were admitted to the union. If the documents in question had been contested, you would have a case - not otherwise.
How can you read that part which states that “the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States” and contend that the Virginians who ratified the Constitution did not understand that the government of the United States was being formed by the “people of the United States”?
Quite easily – because I also note that the delegates acted only “in the name and in behalf of the People of Virginia,” something you obviously find it more convenient to ignore.
And how can you read that language and contend that it provides the state of Virginia (as distinguished from “the people of the United States”) with the authority to resume the powers being granted?
The only logical way to “read that language” is as a provision applying in a specific sense to the people of Virginia, and in a general sense to the delegates view of the nature of the compact as it related to the individual States. Are you suggesting that the delegates acted for “the people of the United States” rather than “in the name and in behalf of the People of Virginia?” Or would you suggest that the ratification is invalid and that the State of Virginia is not a member of the union?
I note that you have carefully avoided any mention of the ratification documents of New York and Rhode Island, that you fail to address Mr. Madison’s remarks contradicting your views, and that you have no answer for Mr. Justice Thomas’ careful analysis. Too much for you?
;>)
There are decent records of the actual debates that took place in at least a few of the state ratifying conventions. If you ever get a chance to read them, you will find that many of delegates voted against ratification because they knew that ratification was destructive to state sovereignty.
“If you ever get a chance to read” the records of the Philadelphia convention, you will find that the nationalist proposals of Hamilton and others - which would have effectively ‘destroyed State sovereignty’ – were debated and discarded (something John Taylor discussed at length in his writings). A federal plan was adopted instead. If the delegates to the State conventions feared a ‘destruction of State sovereignty,’ it was largely because they feared the new federal government would overstep the bounds placed upon it by the federal (not 'national') Constitution. Unfortunately, they were right.
Sir, if “secession” is so clearly constitutional, don’t you think that your argument could be a lot shorter and less convoluted than it is?
My argument can be summarized as follows: ‘the Constitution means what it says – no more, and no less.’ I find it most amusing that anyone would consider that argument “convoluted.”
I ask you:
Why couldn't South Carolina have submitted their proposal of disunion to the Congress? And if the southern politicians genuinely believed in the legitimacy of their "secession" theory, why couldn't South Carolina have submitted its theory to the Supreme Court, the Court that decided Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) 60 U.S. 393?
Are you suggesting that every time a State considers an action that is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution, and that is not even prohibited by federal law, that the State should ‘submit’ the matter to Congress? Or are you suggesting the State should ‘submit’ such matters to the Supreme Court? Which is it? It’s not surprising that you seem unable to decide between the two, given the fact that neither process is mentioned in the Constitution itself - quite the contrary, in fact, given the words of the Tenth Amendment. In any case, I guess we should not be surprised that both of your proposals represent extra-constitutional expansions of federal power...
;>)