Replies

1). A state joins the Union.

Three states explicitly reserve the right to leave.

By joining the Union, they automatically invalidated any laws which clashed with the constitution.

2). By so joining, she gives up her sovereignty and accepts the constitution as the supreme law of the land.

Only where the states have delegated sovereignty to the federal government.

By joining the Union, they delegated sovereignty powers as stated in Article I (and other places) in the constitution.

3). Any laws that she makes from ratification onwards are subordinate to the constitution. This includes any secessionist ordinances since they are also laws.

Only where the states have delegated sovereignty to the federal government.. The ratification agreements were not laws - secession ordinances are not laws - they simply rescind ratification. They are public acts of the state. Think of it as another ratifcication vote, only this one fails to accede.

If the secession ordinance was not a law, then the people of the state wherein such an ordinance had been approved would not have been bound in any way to secession. Therefore, secession was meaningless since it had no force of law.

OTOH, if the ratification of the constitution did not have the force of the law, then nothing in the constitution has force of law (including the 9th and 10th). Therefore the consitution was meaningless.

4). Any secessionist ordinance is a blatant attempt to put state laws above consitutional ones. This is because the state is trying to usurp the powers reserved specifically to the federal government in Article I of the constitution.

Nonsense. Once seceded, the state is no longer a member of the Union, and not bound by any restrictions. As noted previously, secession ordinances are not laws.

But if secession has not the force of law, it cannot undo any preexisting laws, therefore secession would be as meaningful as the "Conch Republic."

If secession does have the force of law, then it conflicts with the consitution. In the case of conflict, the constitution wins hand down.

5). The southern states admitted in most of their secessionist ordinances that they had no sovereignty under the constitution.

So? That doesn't change anything, even if true.

If they had no sovereignty, but declared their secession in defiance of the laws set forth in the constitution, then such a declaration is illegal.

6). Using your arguments would mean that it would be legal for one person to secede (with all of his property) from the state and the Union and set up his own country.

No. That's an issue for the state itself to decide, and is covered by the state constitutions and laws.

Here you want your cake and eat it too. If the state has the power to secede from the Union under the U.S. Constitution, likewise the individual has the selfsame power.

Sorry, but your arguments don't wash. ... Neither the 9th nor the 10th nor any other amendment or article of the constitution overrule the delegated federal authority listed in Article I. And that is exactly what a secession is trying to do.

Sorry, but your arguments don't wash. The 9th & 10th are part of the Constitution. The delegated authorities do not include a clause granting the federal government the ability to prohibit secession. The prohibitions enumerated do not include a clause limiting the states power to rescind their ratification.

But the delegated authorities do prohibit states from exercising certain sovereign powers and reserves such powers to the federal government. In order to secede, a state would have to regain these powers, which are prohibited it under the constitution. Therefore secession from the Union is illegal.

Of course, if you take the position that states rights trump the enumerated powers, you are welcome to your fantasy. To be consistent, then you would have to also take the position that individual rights trump state rights. Therefore individuals could secede from both the Union and the state - along with all their property.

Frume, you still pushing the "Suitors of Penelope" thesis? That once the doors swing shut, I can do to you anything I like, and call it a square deal, because you signed on the dotted line? That I can then bring in all sorts of inexplicit, secret provisions based only on a theory of my own devising, and abridge your contract rights by their imposition -- holding you to the letter of your signature, but reserving to myself (and myself alone) the right to invent, to reinterpret, to judge, and to bind? That's an interesting concept, but show me where it's supported anywhere in business law, that one party may set himself up to be the arbiter of all differences even when the contract doesn't give him that right or authority.

Sounds to me like you Northerners have had too much fun over the years, changing the rules to suit yourselves whenever you please, and assigning all criticism to anyone who objects. You've become complacent and arrogant -- bad combination. How's your Spanish, fellas? Ready for a few other changes that you didn't think of?