Replies

Let's break it down this way:

1). A state joins the Union.
2). By so joining, she gives up her sovereignty and accepts the constitution as the supreme law of the land.
3). Any laws that she makes from ratification onwards are subordinate to the constitution. This includes any secessionist ordinances since they are also laws.
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.
5). The southern states admitted in most of their secessionist ordinances that they had no sovereignty under the constitution.
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.

Sorry, but your arguments don't wash. If a local or state ordinance conflicts with the constitution, guess who wins?

Oh and BTW, it is exactly correct that the constitution takes precedence over state laws. Period. You keep telling me that this is true only if laws are made in pursuance to... I have never used "laws made in pursuance to..." as one of my arguments (although I could). I have made the constitution itself as the unconditionally supreme law of the land as my main argument (with some help from Madison and the CSA states themselves). 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.

Let's break it down this way:

1). A state joins the Union.

Three states explicitly reserve the right to leave.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.