That's interesting. What we do know is that a minority of the states attempted to overthrow the federal government between 1860-65, but they failed.
The federal government belongs to all the people. As long as a majority will defend it, it will endure.
Walt
Wrong again. The Militia Act states that it is only applicable “in any state” of the union which is subject to the laws of the United States – which would quite obviously not include any State that had retired from the union. And it nowhere mentions secession.
By the way, the Militia Act must have been “made in pursuance” of some specific provision of the Constitution, or the “supremacy clause” you cited would be completely irrelevant. Care to name the clause, and show us how it supposedly prohibits the formal withdrawal of a State from the union?
;>)
WIJG: ...show which specific clause of “this Constitution” expressly prohibits State secession...
WP: Show which clause expressly allows it.
The Tenth Amendment reserves ALL powers not delegated or prohibited by the Constitution, to the individual States or their people. Since you can show no constitutional delegation or prohibition of the power of secession, that power is therefore reserved.
;>)
The Supreme Court referred to the secessionists as traitors.
And under the terms of the federal Sedition Act, Supreme Court justices tried, convicted, and sentenced American citizens simply for criticizing the president. The judges of the high court may be well intentioned (or not ;>), but they are certainly not infallible - no matter what you may believe.
All your blue smoke and mirrors won't make secession legal under U.S. law.
I’m still waiting for you to cite a federal law that prohibited secession in 1861, “made in pursuance” of some specific clause of the Constitution. Or are you referring to some kind of ‘unwritten law?’ Where do you find your ‘unwritten laws:’ written in “blue smoke” on your magical “mirrors?”
;>)
The federal government belongs to all the people.
Really?
”The Constitution simply does not recognize any mechanism for action by the undifferentiated people of the Nation.”
Justice Clarence Thomas, 'U. S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton', 1995
As I said, judges are not infallible. In this case, however, a judge adopted an impregnable position, built on a mountain of documented, historical fact. But by all means, feel free to prove Mr. Justice Thomas wrong...
;>)