Replies

Note that the constitution takes precedence over any laws instituted by state governments

Only those made "pursuant" (as in "conforming to") to the Constitution.

So are you saying that the constitution is not made in pursuant to the constitution?

By your continued unqualified definition no federal law could ever be unconstitutional. Article IV, Section 1 requires that the acts of the states be recognized by all parties to the Constitution: Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.

Uh huh. What has that got to say to anything? The very same section also says that congress may make general laws by which such acts shall be proved, and the effect of such acts. It's a stretch to use this clause to bolster your point, because it has to do more with the format of the the proceedings of each state - which congress can regulate.

Yes, and I have used, on occasion (and rather carelessly) unqualified definitions. But this is not what I meant. And from the context and from the fact that I have qualified the powers also, I thought it should have been clear what I meant. If there is some confusion about this, I apologize, for I definately mean "in pursance thereof" when I talk about laws and the constitution.

However, I have never (in this thread) discussed any federal laws (made in pursance thereof or otherwise) concerning the constitution. Concerning the legality of secession, I have used mainly the Constitution itself (Article VI, section 2; 9th amendment; 10th amendment) with some help from the constitutional convention of 1787 and secession documents of the southern states.

If you'll note, the sentence that you quote from me as being to unfettered federal laws is, in fact, quite different. I'm referencing the constitution itself.

The Declarations of Secession by the states were constitutional - unless you can cite something within the Constitution that prohibits secession. Which, according to Amendment X, means a posititve enumeration of a power specifically delegating the federal government the ability to prohibit secession, or or a clause that prohibits the states from seceding. Neither exist.

Now if I understand this aright, the supremacy clause basically states that the constitution (and laws made in pursuance thereof and treaties) stands as the supreme law of the land - even overriding any laws made by individual states. Nothing in any subsequent amendments take away this power. Secession, in this case, can be defined as breaking away from the federal government.

So here's your catch-22. The constitution gives us our form of government, the supremacy clause says that this form of government is supreme and secession says that it is not supreme.

Every state which seceeded (except Tennessee) asserted that state laws trumped federal laws. In fact, many of these states indicated that anything in the U.S. Constitution which didn't go contrary to state laws was okay - definitely backwards from the way the constitution was set up.

So what the Union was dealing with here was not a legal separation, but a bonafide rebellion instead.

...Which, according to Amendment X, means a posititve enumeration of a power specifically delegating the federal government...

Be careful with this. TwoDees believes that the 10th doesn't mean anything about federally enumerated powers. He has blasted me royally on this one. Take care. :)

The southern acts of secession were not constitutional just because my good and learned friend, 4ConservativeJustices, says they are. The southern acts of secession are not unconstitutional just because I, in my modest fashion, say that they are. The southern acts of secession were unconstitutional because the Supreme Court of the United States, in their wisom and by a 5 to 3 margin in an 1869 decision, says that they are. And until the Constitution is amended or a future Supreme Court modifies or overrules the decision in Texas v. White then the will remain unconstitutional.

Try this - pretend that you have a contract that contains only one solitary clause - the sumpremacy clause.

Now what rights and powers have been delegated, and what has been prohibited? None, on both counts - it's just a statement that asserts that this contract takes legal precedence over others.

May I be of assistance, suh? <still listening to "Dixie">

Now if I understand this aright, the supremacy clause basically states that the constitution (and laws made in pursuance thereof and treaties) stands as the supreme law of the land - even overriding any laws made by individual states.

Correctamundo.

Nothing in any subsequent amendments take away this power.

Not quite. All subsequent amendments modify everything that has been agreed to heretofore. But you are correct, the Supremacy Clause remains in place and was not repealed by any Amendment. Just beware that you don't walk on the reserved (undelegated) powers which are mentioned and warned about in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Which include the power of the People to act as Sovereign.

The question you will want to argue is, did the People of New York and Georgia give up their sovereignty, and cease to be a people -- cease to exist except as policy objects -- the minute they ratified the Constitution? Would you like to argue that the Constitution was like a locked room, in which the federal government replayed the scene of Odysseus and the suitors of Penelope, as soon as the doors closed behind them? Do you really want to argue that the Supremacy Clause gave the federal government, as soon as a State had ratified the Constitution, or joined the Union, the powers of a Roman paterfamilias, to cordon off a state, rope off and herd its people, cut them off and slay them, burn them down and take what was left to divide among the other states as spoil, because the States checked their sovereignty and their rights at the door, and that their rights -- and their fate -- became whatever today's triumphant faction in federal government said it was?

Think about this before you reply. I call it the "Penelope's Suitors" model of Union.

Secession, in this case, can be defined as breaking away from the federal government.

No. The word "government" isn't in it. Secession is a people-to-people political act, modeled on the Roman model in which the plebs physically removed themselves from the Roman civitas and passed, as a body, out of the jurisdiction of Roman law. They did so because they had the right to do so, because they weren't bound to the land, to the City, or to service.

The Southern States were Peoples, the same Peoples who had ratified the Constitution in the first place, and they didn't just legislate disunion like some pork-chop appropriations bill. They convened and sat, State by State, as a People, and exercised Sovereignty -- which cuts all deals, and trumps all powers and rights. Their act was above governments and constitutions. It was a sovereign act by a sovereign entity determining its own fate as if by revolution. The Southern States deliberated on various solutions to their discontents, and after more than 30 years of discussion, they went into convention, assumed their more awful aspect as the several Peoples, and seceded. They didn't rebel, as Lincoln trivialized their actions. What they did, they did by the highest right there is, for which they answered only to God Himself.

And then Abraham Lincoln conquered them, and made himself, as the First Magistrate of the United States Government, their master and Sovereign.

Pretty revolutionary, huh? I wonder if people in the People's Republic of Ohio ever got it. It's not too subtle -- like the difference between being your own person, and saying "sir" a lot.