Replies

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 But you are correct, the Supremacy Clause remains in place and was not repealed by any Amendment.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.

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?

That's not the question I'm arguing. To say that when the individual states gave up their sovereignty that they ceased to be a people is doing it too brown to put it mildly.

You will note that the constitution is mainly a check on the powers of the federal government. The federal government is given certain limited powers, but these limited powers (as defined in the constitution) take precedence over any individual state's in the same area. For example, no state has the power to conclude treaties, to declare war, or to set aside the federal form of government. Yet this is precisely what the southern states did.

While the federal government can't tromp on state's rights, neither can states tromp of federal rights.

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

I suppose that one must have one's personal opinion on Mr. Lincoln, but calling him the "First Magistrate" is perhaps a wee bit too much, since he never took it upon himself to become the Chief Judge. But, to be fair, if you want to hit on Lincoln, I suggest that you also slam Adams, Jackson and Buchanon, since they were at least as 'bad'. In fact, Buchanon, in many ways, resembles a southern version of Lincoln. From my readings, it appears that Lincoln was constantly restraining his allies from doing unconstitutional things. If you don't believe this, then consider the horrors unleashed upon the south after the civil war. It was far worse than the war itself in terms of liberties lost. For all practical purposes, the south was enslaved for a good decade, because president Johnson was too weak politically (although he tried) to do anything about it.

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.

What I said was "in this case." The actual definition is:

Secede \Se"cede"\ (?), v. i. [imp. & p. p. Seceded; p. pr. & vb. n. Seceding.] [L. secedere, secessum; pref se- aside + cedere to go, move. See Cede.]
To withdraw from fellowship, communion, or association; to separate one's self by a solemn act; to draw off; to retire; especially, to withdraw from a political or religious body.

secede v : withdraw from an organization or communion [syn: splinter, break away]

They seceded or "broke away" from the federal government. This is what I'm talking of. And no, they didn't have the sovereignty to do so. I reiterate, that they gave up their powers to conclude treaties, declare war, and change the federal government when they joined the federal government. By doing any one of the three, they were in violation of the Constitution. However, they were guilty, at minimum of violating all three.