Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: sheltonmac
It was a criminal idea to start with...

"Criminal idea?" Exactly which clause of the federal Constitution did State secession violate? Funny how these foaming-at-the-mouth unionists never manage to cite a specific constitutional provision that was violated by the Southern States.

Obviously, they prefer some sort of 'unwritten law.' And (IMHO ;>) government officials that give priority to their own personal 'unwritten law' over the United States Constitution should be fired - and jailed...

;>)

517 posted on 10/02/2003 5:00:57 PM PDT by Who is John Galt?
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]


To: Who is John Galt?
Exactly which clause of the federal Constitution did State secession violate?

The supremacy clause.

Walt

523 posted on 10/02/2003 6:39:22 PM PDT by WhiskeyPapa (Virtue is the uncontested prize.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 517 | View Replies ]

To: Who is John Galt?
He lives!
528 posted on 10/02/2003 11:41:06 PM PDT by capitan_refugio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 517 | View Replies ]

To: Who is John Galt?
"Exactly which clause of the federal Constitution did State secession violate?"

Perhaps the following from Chief Justice Salmon Chase in Texas vs White will be of help.

"The representatives of the State (of Texas - ed.) in the Congress of the United States were withdrawn, and as soon of the seceded States became organized under a constitution, Texas sent Senators and Representatives to the Confederate Congress.

In all respects, so far as the object could be accomplished by ordinances of the Convention, by Acts of the Legislature, and by votes of the citizens, the relations of Texas to the Union were broken up, and new relations to a new government were established for them. The position thus assumed could only be maintained by arms, and Texas accordingly took part, with the other Confederate States, In the war of the rebellion, which these events made inevitable. During the whole of that war there was no governor, or judge, or any other state officer in Texas, who recognized the national authority. Nor was any officer of the United Stated permitted to exercise any authority whatever under the National Government within the limits of the State, except under the Immediate protection of the national military forces. Did Texas, in consequence of these Acts, Cease to be a State? Or, if not, did the State cease to be a member of the Union?

"It is needless to discuss, at length, the question whether the right of a State to withdraw from the Union for any cause, regarded by herself as sufficient, is consistent with the Constitution of the United States. The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form, and character, and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual" And when these articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union." It is, difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?

"But the perpetuity and indissolubility of the Union by no means implies the loss of distinct and individual existence, or of the right of self government by the States. Under the Articles of Confederation each State retained its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right not expressly delegated to the United States. Under the Constitution, though the powers of the States were much restricted, still, all powers not delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States respectively to the people. And we have already had occasion to remark at this term, that "the people of each State compose a State, having its own government, and endowed with all the functions essential to separate and independent existence," and that "without the States in union, there could be no such political body as the United States." Lane Co. v. Oregon [infra, 101]. Not only, therefore, can there be no loss of separate and independent autonomy to the States, through their union under the Constitution, but it may be not unreasonably said that the preservation of the States, and the maintenance of their governments, are as much within the design and care of the Constitution as the preservation of the Union and the maintenance of the National Government.

The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States, When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into a indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The Act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the Union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States."

FReepmail me when you get a chance.

529 posted on 10/03/2003 12:02:27 AM PDT by capitan_refugio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 517 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson