The reverse has never been in question, from the early days of the republic. To my knowledge no effort on the part of the individual states has ever succeeded in checking federal power. The WBTS being a prime example thereof.
All the states would not need to conspire to violate the Constitution, as they have the amendment process available to them. Unfortunately, it takes a simple majority with a willing accomplice in the oval office or the court to dominate the majority through extraconstitutional rule.
The water can't get any muddier than you are making it here. Revolution by secession? Talk about having your cake and eating it too! He clearly denounces secession and nullification as illegitimate doctrine.
I think Madison muddied the water with this line, then: "The latter (secession) is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy..."
Not exctly the resounding denunciation you're making it out to be. Did not Madison believe that revolution was a sacred right of the people?
Sectionalism, and its various interests, was the cause of the Civil War.
Sectionalism has taken on a new meaning in modern America; the 'red map' from the 2K election makes that clear. When urban political ideology begins to dominate all aspects of our lives, what peaceful recourse will we have? Let's all hope that one can be found and that our leaders have learned from lessons past.
Here is the problem. If we have to resort to violence to solve this problem of government abuse, then the American experiment is a failure.
I think you're assuming an outcome. Violence was not the desire of the South, separation was. Is cohesion implied in the American experiment? Perhaps, perhaps not. Since cohesion is, however, one of the most fundamental benefits of Union, it seems likely that any separation would be short-lived (even in the absence of domestic war).
I do not (and likely will never) advocate that heads roll in a bloody French-style revolution. What I see happening, though, is consolidation of political power within urban majorities. Will they be slow to abuse their power? Not likely, and returning government to its constitutionally limited role will preempt them from doing so.
All of those actors are elected and directly accountable to the people of their respective states. If there is abuse, it IS state-sanctioned abuse.
I think Madison muddied the water with this line, then: "The latter (secession) is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy..."
Not exctly the resounding denunciation you're making it out to be. Did not Madison believe that revolution was a sacred right of the people?
Madison does not dispute the right to revolt against "intolerable oppression." This is where I continue to say the Slave states utterly fail the test. His Notes on Virginia Resolutions go more into detail about Madison's thoughts on the subject. No time for it here.
Sectionalism has taken on a new meaning in modern America; the 'red map' from the 2K election makes that clear. When urban political ideology begins to dominate all aspects of our lives, what peaceful recourse will we have? Let's all hope that one can be found and that our leaders have learned from lessons past.
I agree with you about the blue-red map. Sectional interests are a danger, no question. It is not our leaders, however, who need to learn the lesson. This is self-government. It is we the people who need to learn to put their country ahead of sectional interests. If we do, our leaders will. Doesn't give much comfort to ponder, but that;s what I believe.
I think you're assuming an outcome. Violence was not the desire of the South, separation was.
I interpet their actions along the lines Lincoln used when he said "Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came."
Is cohesion implied in the American experiment? Perhaps, perhaps not. Since cohesion is, however, one of the most fundamental benefits of Union, it seems likely that any separation would be short-lived (even in the absence of domestic war).
Without rehashing the arguments that I trust you are familiar with, I follow the Unionist line in terms of implied powers, Constitutional supremacy, secession as extraconstitutional, perpetuation of the Union, etc etc. I don't believe the Framers themselves believed anything was guarenteed, whether or not they intended a thing or not. I believe they well knew it was up to us to follow it or not. But I believe the intent was that the government would hopefully last and improve in the spirit of liberty.
I do not (and likely will never) advocate that heads roll in a bloody French-style revolution. What I see happening, though, is consolidation of political power within urban majorities. Will they be slow to abuse their power? Not likely, and returning government to its constitutionally limited role will preempt them from doing so.
You may be right in your prognosis. The only quibble I would have would be this idea of "returning" to constitutional limited government. Don't misunderstand me. I am not advocating a "living" constitution as doctrine, but I am acknowledging that there has always always always been controversy over what is or is not in the Constitution. I would prefer we deal closer to reality and endeavor to simply limit the power of the Federal government. Ultimately, the will of the people will prevail, for good or ill.