Posted on 09/30/2003 12:19:22 PM PDT by sheltonmac
Sure it does, under certain circumstances. Read Article I, Section 10.
Wrong. There's no implication involved. The Constitution CLEARLY states, [t]he 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.' Their is no delegated power to prohibit secession, just as secession is not prohibited.
And the power to approve the admission of a state and any change in their status is a power CLEARLY delegated to the United States by the Constitution.
Good, you understand what Chase doesn't. The Articles were replaced! yadda yadda yadda
And none of that gives the power, explicitly or implicitly, to a state to unilaterally secede from the Union. Did the founders expect the Union to be perpetual? Probably, but regardless of that they did not say as much in the Constitution. So is secession possible? Probably. But did the Founders mean that the states could walk out unilaterally? No, there is no indication at all that they did. No evidence at all.
So what "law" prohibited secession? There's not one. What section of Article III delegates authority to the Supreme Court over states not members of the "union"? There's not one.
So what law allows unilateral secession? There's not one. And once in the Union, once they agreed to abide by the Constitution then the states were bound by the Constitution. And their acts of unilateral secession were not allowed and, in fact, were acts of rebellion. That didn't mean that they were not members of the "union" only that they were engaged in illegal actions.
Even then, the government must protect each of the states 'against Invasion', not as a pretext to invade.
And when the government of the state are leading the rebellion then the government is not required to wait for the request that obviously won't come. That's from the Militia Act of 1795, by the way.
Under specific circumstances. But there is no clause that states, "No state shall secede without permission." There is no clause that states, "Full Partial Faith and Credit shall may be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State."
And the power to approve the admission of a state and any change in their status is a power CLEARLY delegated to the United States by the Constitution.
Your version must be different than mine. Mine CLEARLY states: "New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States." It addresses only the ADDITION Of a new state. There is nothing in the Constitution prhobiting a state from leaving, or even from disposing of parts of its lands.
And none of that gives the power, explicitly or implicitly, to a state to unilaterally secede from the Union.
Sure it does. "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." Believe it or not, it is part of the Constitution.
So what law allows unilateral secession? There's not one.
Wrong again. "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."
And their acts of unilateral secession were not allowed and, in fact, were acts of rebellion.
Article IV, "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts". See above. Additionally, "no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate." Obviously, a state may refuse to elect and seat senators even while remaining in the union. Would that be rebellion? What would happen if enough states did so? Would that be rebellion?
And when the government of the state are leading the rebellion then the government is not required to wait for the request that obviously won't come. That's from the Militia Act of 1795, by the way.
Were their governments appointed or elcted? What part of the Constitution removes sovereignty from the people of each state? Isn't that what a "republican" government is - a government in which the people are sovereign, and can choose their own representaives and form of government? On 26 Jul 1787 Benjamin Franklin stated,
'It seems to have been imagined by some, that the returning to the mass of the people was degrading the magistrate [President]. This, he [Franklin] thought, was contrary to republican principles. In free governments, the rulers are the servants, and the people their superiors and sovereigns.'
"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government." That's from the Constitution by the way - which is supreme over federal laws.
That's what I said. But it was your contention that the Constitution did not say that the federal government must approve state acts. You were incorrect.
But there is no clause that states, "No state shall secede without permission."
Nor is there one that says "Any state may secede at will."
Mine CLEARLY states: "New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States."
You forgot the rest of it. "...without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress. It addresses only the ADDITION Of a new state. There is nothing in the Constitution prhobiting a state from leaving, or even from disposing of parts of its lands.
Without consent of Congress? I believe that such a requirement is clearly implied.
Sure it does. "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." Believe it or not, it is part of the Constitution.
Utter nonsense, since the power to add or alter the status of a state is clearly delegated to the United States and not the individual state itself.
Article IV, "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts".
And when those public acts are in violation of the Constitution, as the southern acts of secession were, then no faith or credit are due them. Same for any other unconstitutional act.
Were their governments appointed or elcted?
They were elcted. And then they entered into a rebellion against the federal government which prevented law and order from being established. The Militia Act gave the president the power to act in this case.
So the people of the South did not seceed? It was those eeeevil states? I would've guessed that with the "people" on their side, even the Lincoln administration could have put down the rebellion much sooner and with much less bloodshed than it did.
Falsehood because you say it is?
No, falsehood because it's false.
Sorry if I don't accept that on your word alone.
So before I post one (or more), would a counterexample disprove your truism? Normally a counterexample is considered an absolute, but I just don't want another, "Your exception proves the rule" fiasco. Who was it that came up with that one, anyway?
No, Chase didn't cite anything in Article IV. He cited verbage from a defunct document and claimed that it was intended to be strenghthend by it's elimination (odd one, that Chase) in the Constitution.
Was Chase too stupid to see the Constitution as clearly as NonSequitur?
My timeline must be broken - it says the Southern states entered into an armistice and attempted to negotiate debt and land cession while it was in effect.
And continues to be.
Nyah Nyah Na na Nyah.
Sorry, I just love that part.
It says "...provided the new nation..." and was written over two hundred years after the fact. In the 1780's, the United States was certainly a new nation, especially when compared to the European powers in excess of the day. Furthermore, when looking back from the 20th century, with an American national experience of over two hundred years, the nation could certainly have been considered "new" within the first 20 years or so (the first generation).
If the Constitution created a "new nation," as you apparently contend, let me ask you the same question I asked nolu chan (and which he refused to answer), "What is the birthdate of the United States of America?" Do you really believe it was March 4, 1789?
"G: Then they need to knock that crap off, no?"
We are in complete agreement. That's what the Ninth Amendment is for.
G: But then you hem and haw about how the gov't was correct in acting outside of those limits. So which one is it?
The first eight Amendments in the Bill of Rights dealt primarilly with prohibiting Congress from denying individual liberties and rights. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments dealt with the relationship and limits on both the federal and state governments. Where was the "heming and hawing"?
Where, for instance, in the Constitution do they discuss the right to manufacture and sell liquor?
Sounds to me like you're just a cheap shot artist. You are embarassing yourself again.
Some very good questions can be asked why certain language in the Articles was not carried over into the the new Constitution. Similar questions can be asked why the original Constitutional Convention declined to add a "Bill of Rights."
To answer these questions, you need to go back and look at what the Framers and the 1st Congress were saying, thinking, and deciding. This provides a glimpse at the legislative history and the original intent.
During the Constitutional Convention of 1787, a party was held in Philadelphia, to celebrate the 4th of July. The delgates to the Convention were feted. The toast was given: "The Grand Convention - May they form a Constitution for an eternal Republic."
This is just a short anecdote, but it does provide a glimpse. I don't think the concept of an eternal Republic is consistant with secession. It is safe to say that the delegates were not looking toward the dissolution of the Union, but rather, to strengthen it. I have read the "Constitutional Convention Debates" several times. I have yet to find mention of the "right of secession" being contemplated or discussed therein.
I am preparing a more thorough answer in response to WiJG? on a related matter. I hope this helps.
The key phrase is, "Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States." "Perpetual" modifies "Union." "Perpetual Union" not "perpetual Articles." Otherwise it would have been called the "Perpetual Articles of Confederation."
Your conclusions, therefore, in #(1) and #(5), do not reasonably follow from the premise of the Articles.
The "perpetual Union" carried on, only the operating document changed.
Let me ask you, what was the intent of the Framers for the Supreme Court and subordinate courts? Alexander hamilton answered that in Federalist No. 78
"The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution. By a limited Constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority; such, for instance, as that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex-post-facto laws, and the like. Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing."
Quick observation on this one. The power of amendment is not exclusively with the States. The Constitution is the people's document. It was originally ratified by the people in individual State conventions, rather than by the State legislatures. And if you re-read the passage you quote, you will see it refers to conventions (of the people) to propose and ratify amendments. You are quite correct, that an Amendment to the Constitution could change the form or function of the federal Government. for that matter, a Constitutional Convention could propose an entirely new document which could go into effect with ratification of 3/4th of the State legislatures or people of the States in convention.
I recall an attempt, a few years ago to authorize a Constitutional convention for the purpose of proposing a "balanced budget" amendment.
In 18th century political theory, there was a distinct difference. You could easliy have clarified the situation with a phrase such as, "national government, in the sense of Madison."
Madison tended to use the phrase "general government," but today that is considered archaic.
[CapnR #1613 ["... a brain insemination specialist ..."???
[CapnR #1613 Sounds to me like you're just a cheap shot artist. You are embarassing yourself again.
It sounds to me like you are a typical liberal whining crybaby who likes to dish it out, but who acts like Bill Clinton when somebody shoots back. Boo-hoo.
This, coming from a guy who did not understand what a "constitution" was??? What a joke.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.