Let's assume Marshall was correct in his opinion (God knows judges are frequently wrong). Marshall also wrote in Marbury vs Madison:
". . . the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument."
Now read this section of the South Carolina declaration of secession:
"By this Constitution, certain duties were imposed upon the several States, and the exercise of certain of their powers was restrained, which necessarily implied their continued existence as sovereign States. But to remove all doubt, an amendment was added, which declared that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people. On the 23d May , 1788, South Carolina, by a Convention of her People, passed an Ordinance assenting to this Constitution, and afterwards altered her own Constitution, to conform herself to the obligations she had undertaken.
Thus was established, by compact between the States, a Government with definite objects and powers, limited to the express words of the grant. This limitation left the whole remaining mass of power subject to the clause reserving it to the States or to the people, and rendered unnecessary any specification of reserved rights.
We hold that the Government thus established is subject to the two great principles asserted in the Declaration of Independence; and we hold further, that the mode of its formation subjects it to a third fundamental principle, namely: the law of compact. We maintain that in every compact between two or more parties, the obligation is mutual; that the failure of one of the contracting parties to perform a material part of the agreement, entirely releases the obligation of the other; and that where no arbiter is provided, each party is remitted to his own judgment to determine the fact of failure, with all its consequences.
In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.
The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.
This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.
The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.
The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.
South Carolina made a good case. The rebellious states were not the Southern states, but the Northern. I surmise Lincoln knew the South was right, which left him with three choices: (1) enforce the constitution and push the Northern states (the ones that elected him) back in line; (3) let the Southern states sedede; or (3) ignore his constitutional duties and wage war against the South. Lincoln chose the latter. His desire to maintain the Union was more powerful than his desire to support and defend the Constitution. The cost was over a half-million lives, the elimination of the Constitution as a viable restraint on tyranny, and the eventual moral, spiritual, and financial bankrupcy of our once great nation (coming soon).
None of the framers suggested the states were sovereign. That's why federalist James Wilson was beaten half to death during the ratification debates. Everyone -knew- it was permanently binding.
Why do you push the South Carolinians' lies?
Walt
The laws are also the supreme law of the land, including the Milita Act, which leaves the determination of when rebellion or insurrection exists to the sole discretion of the president.
No state can get out of the Union on its own mere resolve.
Walt
As Abraham Lincoln pointed out in his Cooper Union speech of 2/27/60, the framers' clear intent was to eventually end slavery. That is why they arranged to end the slave trade in 1808 and why they outlawed slavery in the territories. Lincoln showed in this speech that a clear majority of the framers were on record as favoring an end to slavery. That is when he became a marked man in the south.
When the slave power attempted to wrench the country away from this position, people in the north took issue. They deserve great credit for this.
The slave power deserves nothing but condemnation, but they have a ready defender in you.
A Constitution that condones slavery should be thrown down, don't you agree? The Republican Party had found a way to peaceably end slavery -- restrict it to the territory where it was, and it would die. The slave power --whom you defend-- were willing to fight tooth and nail to protect --human slavery--. You are making the connection here, right?
Walt
That is disgusting.
Walt