Replies

Any laws made by a state (including secession ordinances) are subordinate to the constitution.

ZZZZZZttttt! Wrong!

So are you saying that state laws are superior to the constitution?

Hamilton from Federalist 32: The necessity of a concurrent jurisdiction in certain cases results from the division of the sovereign power; and the rule that all authorities, of which the States are not explicitly divested in favor of the Union, remain with them in full vigor, is not a theoretical consequence of that division, but is clearly admitted by the whole tenor of the instrument which contains the articles of the proposed Constitution. We there find that, notwithstanding the affirmative grants of general authorities, there has been the most pointed care in those cases where it was deemed improper that the like authorities should reside in the States, to insert negative clauses prohibiting the exercise of them by the States. The tenth section of the first article consists altogether of such provisions. This circumstance is a clear indication of the sense of the convention, and furnishes a rule of interpretation out of the body of the act, which justifies the position I have advanced and refutes every hypothesis to the contrary.

Dual sovereignty. Mutiple delegations of sovereignty. And to prevent the federal government AND the state from sharing a select few powers, the limitations in Article I, Section 10.

Not complete and utter federal sovereignty. Secession could not be a "like" power, delegated to the federal government and the states - congress did not ratify the Constitution, nor can it rescind it. Au contraire, it remains a state power, as the states are the ratifying agents.

Note that I never said that absolute sovereignty (or supremacy, if you will) rests with the federal gov. Rather, I said that sovereignty (or supremacy) rests with the constitution which stipulates what body politic gets what powers. Your quotes rather more proves my point that disprove it.

Basically, the federal government has powers which the states don't have and that the states are forbidden from exercising. Many of these powers are powers traditionally reserved only for sovereign powers (treaties, declarations of war, etc.) and can be exercised only by an authonomous and independant state. Therefore the states individually are not autonomous entities with sovereign powers of state. Those powers are delegated by the constitution to the federal authority. No state can usurp them. But by seceding, the southern states were doing exactly thatn.

Again, I note that no state laws (including secession ordinances) can possibly take precedence over the constitution given that Article VI, clause 2 saysthat all state laws are subordinate to the constitution and that no amendment overrules the supremacy clause.

Basically, the federal government has powers which the states don't have and that the states are forbidden from exercising.

Close. Read the 10th. The federal government has powers which have been delegated and enumerated, and those that the states are forbidden from exercising. Madison, in Federalist 45: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite."

Those powers are delegated by the constitution to the federal authority.

Wrong. The powers were delegated by the STATES (derived from the people of each state), and from the states to the federal government via the Constitution. The states existed before the union, they created the federal government. Or else you'd have to assert that the union created itself from the non-existing states.

No state can usurp them. But by seceding, the southern states were doing exactly that.

Wrong. No state in the union can usurp them. A seceded state is no longer part of the union. The states possessed those powers originally and delegated them to the federal government. They are not usurping the powers - they returned to the state when the political bonds between them and the federal governemnt were broken.

Again, I note that no state laws (including secession ordinances) can possibly take precedence over the constitution given that Article VI, clause 2 says that all state laws are subordinate to the constitution and that no amendment overrules the supremacy clause.

What, you think that if you repeat it a million times I'm finally going to agree with you? Pursuant. Don't forget the word. And exactly where does the supremacy clause state that no amendment can override it? Isn't an amendment part of the Constitution?