Xenophobe3691 wrote:Rogue 9 wrote:
And the power of secession means... one state can block the whole process up. So you're saying there was really no point. Duly noted.
Congratulations for missing the forest for the trees. In seceeding, a state loses the protection offered to it by the Union. Thus Secession isn't an issue to be taken lightly, unlike vetoing an amendment under the Articles and keeping all those nice perks.
Well this is new. You may be the first secessionist I've ever come across whose position didn't involve "The states >>>>>>>>>>>>> than the Feds and can do whatever they feel like" at some point.
So you're saying that the Convention intended for a state to be able to hold the Union hostage against enforcement of 1.10. Which is retarded.
No, I'm saying that a state can leave because it has a grievance that the Union will not address, and its people are willing to address this grievance on their own.
In such a case they have grounds to secede and possibly the moral right, but that doesn't translate into law. Again, secession gives the states a bargaining chip that the United States as a whole cannot ignore, override, or continue existence with. All a state has to do is declare that it feels like having the federal government cater to its every want or it will take its ball and go home. Such fractiousness would destroy the nation.
If the states leave, the Union ends along with the United States. That's not true of parents; in fact, children are intended to leave in due time.
Slippery Slope fallacy. There is nothing that says that all of the other states will leave if one leaves, because that's the only way the Union ends.
The one leaving wouldn't be the trigger; the trigger is the power to leave. Every state has had its grievances at one point or another; there would be no Union today if casual withdrawal from the so-called "treaty" that is the Constitution were possible.
You contradict yourself. Treaty organizations are not sovereign and do not remove sovereignty from their members. The Constitution is quite clearly intended as the charter document of a nation, not some analogue to the North Atlantic Charter.
And you miss my point entirely, in the words "The United States
were". Besides that, it doesn't matter if it's the charter document, this still does not prohibit a clause to secede.
No, the fact that it's a charter document doesn't, but the fact that the thing it is chartering is a nation does.
Ah yes, Canada, dominion of the British Empire. Imperial territories and integral parts of a single nation are entirely separate things.
Canada is no more a dominion of the British Empire than the United States. The only thing they share with Great Britain is the same monarch. An analogous situation from English History would be the kingdoms of England and Scotland, while being quite separate, having the same Monarch from 1603 to 1707.
Still part of the Commonwealth. Besides, Canadian law has jack to do with U.S. law; they can self-destruct all they want. Not my problem. The United States disintegrating is.
Erm... Section 8 is limited to naval activity?
What do:
1.) Collecting taxes
2.) borrowing money
3.) regulating commerce
4.) establishing laws of naturalization and laws relating to bankruptcy (by the by, are you saying that bankruptcy is obviously a function of naturalization by virtue of the two being in the same clause as well?)
5.) coining money
6.) punishing counterfeiting
7.) establishing post offices and post roads
8.) copyright and patent law
9.) establishing courts
10.) governing DC
and
11.) making all necessary and proper legislation to execute the powers of the government
have to do with naval activity?
Congratulations on nitpicking. You've still not mentioned where one may not leave.
Yes I have, several times. Violating the territorial integrity of a nation is an offense against the Law of Nations, which Congress provides for punishing.
Such as that of 1860-65...
Again, wrong. South Carolina seceeded in 1860, and the U.S. Government didn't do a damn thing till Lincoln was inaugurated in 1861.
Buchanan was an indecisive jackass, but he didn't quite do nothing. There was the whole mess with the
Star of the West and he recalled naval vessels from foreign stations.
No, quite the opposite. That's like saying that since the original signers are dead, they can't change their minds about it.
The Constitution is a document between States,
Did you have some point here?
Yes. When you said:
What part of "sovereign nation" do you not understand? Also, if you're going to hammer Amendment 10 like this, explain to me why a private landowner cannot secede from the Union while we're at it. After all, it says reserved to the states or to the people. Hey, I've got an idea! I can go murder someone, declare my house and yard an independent nation, and refuse to deport myself! Go me!
I was saying why you can't. Because you're not a state.
I am, however, one of "We the people," who the 10th Amendment also applies to.
... So you're saying the Constitution which gives those powers and the ability to enforce them supersedes itself? Erm...
No, I'm saying that the Constitution gives the Federal Government certain powers over the States. And if secession is legal, then the Constitution does
not give the Federal Government power to stop a state from seceeding.
If a state can avoid any and all federal power through secession then, de facto, the federal government really has no power except on paper. That's my entire angle on 1.10 right there.
Yeah, you'll note that the Hartford Convention got precisely nowhere and in fact was self-defeating, destroying the very party that represented the states sponsoring it. Hmmmmmmmm...
And you'll notice that no one went tried them for treason, no one told them that what they did was illegal, no one told them that they couldn't secede. Hmmmmmmmm...
Can't try them for treason unless they actually do something about it.
Yeah, thanks for your support. Or did you fail to notice that Jefferson was saying that we can let those who want to dissolve the Union keep talking because they're plainly idiots, only in more polite terms?
I put that in reply to your stupid rant about how "treasonous" I was.
So you trade traitor for idiot. Doesn't get you much of anywhere as far as this is concerned.
And he contradicts himself here, but then Jefferson was the undisputed master of self-contradiction, rivaled perhaps by Calhoun.
Yet he was one of the men who wrote the Constitution. Maybe he knows more about what it's supposed to do than you are...
Possibly, though the circumstances surrounding the campaign against the Barbary Corsairs and the Louisiana Purchase kind of suggest otherwise. Anywho:
Thomas Jefferson, writing of George Washington wrote:My letter to the President [May 23, 1792] , directed to him at Mount Vernon, came to him here [Philadelphia] . He told me of this, and that he would take occasion of speaking with me on the subject. He did so this day [July 10] . He began by observing that he had put it off from day to day, because the subject was painful, to wit, his remaining in office, which that letter solicited. He said that the declaration he had made when he quitted his military command, of never again acting in public life, was sincere. That, however, when he was called on to come forward to set the present government in motion, it appeared to him that circumstances were so changed, as to justify a change in his resolution; he was made to believe that in two years all would be well in motion, and he might retire. At the end of two years he found some things still to be done. At the end of the third year, he thought it was not worth while to disturb the course of things, as in one year more his office would expire, and he was decided then to retire. Now he was told there would still be danger in it. Certainly, if he thought so, he would conquer his longing for retirement. But he feared it would be said his former professions of retirement had been mere affectation, and that he was like other men, when once in office he could not quit it. He was sensible, too, of a decay of his hearing; perhaps his other faculties might fall off, and he not be sensible of it. That with respect to the existing causes of uneasiness, he thought there were suspicions against a particular party, which had been carried a great deal too far; there might be desires, but he did not believe there were designs to change the form of government into a monarchy; that there might be a few who wished it in the higher walks of life, particularly in the great cities, but that the main body of the people in the eastern States were as steadily for republicanism as in the southern. That the pieces lately published, and particularly in Freneau's paper, seemed to have in view the exciting opposition to the government. That this had taken place in Pennsylvania as to the Excise law, according to information he had received from General Hand. That they tended to produce a separation of the Union, the most dreadful of all calamities, and that whatever tended to produce anarchy, tended, of course, to produce a resort to monarchical government. He considered those papers as attacking him directly, for he must be a fool indeed to swallow the little sugar plums here and there thrown out to him. That in condemning the administration of the government, they condemned him. for if they thought there were measures pursued contrary to his sentiment, they must conceive him too careless to attend to them, or too stupid to understand them. That though, indeed, he had signed many acts which he did not approve in all their [Col 2] parts, yet he had never put his name to one which he did not think, on the whole, was eligible. That as to the Bank, which had been an act of so much complaint, until there was some infallible criterion of reason, a difference of opinion must be tolerated. He did not believe the discontents extended far from the seat of government. He had seen and spoken with many people in Maryland and Virginia in his late journey. He found the people contented and happy. He wished, however, to be better informed on this head. If the discontent were more extensive than he supposed, it might be that the desire that he should remain in the government was not general.
Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1794 wrote:I can scarcely contemplate a more incalculable evil than the breaking of the union into two or more parts.
That's nice. Let me know when the Federalist Papers become law as opposed to propaganda pieces.
They were also written by someone who not only helped write the Constitution, but was also the first Vice President and the second President of this country. And had a legal education. He should know more about how the Constitution works than you, no?
Yeah, so let's get his opinion on the matter:
James Madison wrote:An inference from the doctrine that a single State has the right to secede at will from the rest is that the rest would have an equal right to secede from it; in other words, to turn it, against its will, out of its union with them. Such a doctrine would not, till of late been palatable anywhere, and nowhere less so than where it is now most contended for.
Catching the barb in there?
James Madison, [url=http://www.constitution.org/jm/18330312_rives.htm]Letter to William Rives[/url] wrote:To William Cabell Rives
Montpr, March 12, 1833
Dear Sir,
I have recd your very kind letter of the 6th, from Washington, and by the same mail a copy of your late Speech in the Senate, for which I tender my thanks. I have found as I expected, that it takes a very able and enlightening view of its subject.
I wish it may have the effect of reclaiming to the doctrine & language held by all from the birth of the Constitution, & till very lately by themselves, those who now Contend that the States have never parted with an Atom of their sovereignty, and consequently that the Constitutional band which holds them together, is a mere league or partnership, without any of the characteristics of sovereignty or nationality.
It seems strange that it should be necessary to disprove this novel and nullifying doctrine, and stranger still that those who deny it should be denounced as Innovators, heretics & Apostates. Our political system is admitted to be a new Creation — a real nondescript. Its character therefore must be sought within itself, not in precedents, because there are none, not in writers whose comments are guided by precedents. Who can tell at present how Vattel and others of that class, would have qualified (in the Gallic sense of the term) a Compound & peculiar system with such an example of it as ours before them.
What can be more preposterous than to say that the States as united, are in no respect or degree, a Nation, which implies sovereignty, altho' acknowledged to be such by all other Nations & Sovereigns, and maintaining with them, all the in ternational relations, of war & peace, treaties, commerce, &c, and, on the other hand and at the same time, to say that the States separately are compleatly nations & sovereigns, although they can separately neither speak nor harken to any other nation, nor maintain with it any of the international relations whatever and would be disowned as Nations if presenting themselves in that character.
The milliners it appears, endeavor to shelter themselves under a distinction between a delegation and a surrender of powers.
But if the powers be attributes of sovereignty & nationality & the grant of them be perpetual, as is necessarily implied, where not otherwise expressed, sovereignty & nationality according to the extent of the grant are effectually transferred by it, and a dispute about the name, is but a battle of words. The practical result is not indeed left to argument or inference.
The words of the Constitution are explicit that the Constitution & laws of the U. S. shall be supreme over the Constitution & laws of the several States, supreme in their exposition and execution as well as in their authority. Without a supremacy in those respects it would be like a scabbard in the hand of a soldier without a sword in it. The imagination itself is startled at the idea of twenty four independent expounders of a rule that cannot exist, but in a meaning and operation, the same for all.
The conduct of S. Carolina has called forth not only the question of nullification, but the more formidable one of secession. It is asked whether a State by resuming the sovereign form in which it entered the Union, may not of right withdraw from it at will. As this is a simple question whether a State, more than an individual, has a right to violate its engagements, it would seem that it might be safely left to answer itself. But the countenance given to the claim shows that it cannot be so lightly dismissed. The natural feelings which laudably attach the people composing a State, to its authority and importance, are at present too much excited by the unnatural feelings, with which they have been inspired agst their brethren of other States, not to expose them, to the danger of being misled into erroneous views of the nature of the Union and the interest they have in it. One thing at least seems to be too clear to be questioned, that whilst a State remains within the Union it cannot withdraw its citizens from the operation of the Constitution & laws of the Union. In the event of an actual secession without the Consent of the Co States, the course to be pursued by these involves questions painful in the discussion of them. God grant that the menacing appearances, which obtruded it may not be followed by positive occurrences requiring the more painful task of deciding them?
In explaining the proceedings of Virga in 98-99, the state of things at that time was the more properly appealed to, as it has been too much overlooked. The doctrines combated are always a key to the arguments employed.
It is but too common to read the expressions of a remote period thro' the modern meaning of them, & to omit guards agst misconstruction not anticipated. A few words with a prophetic gift, might have prevented much error in the glosses on those proceedings. The remark is equally applicable to the Constitution itself.
Having thrown these thoughts on paper in the midst of interruptions added to other dangers of inaccuracy, I will ask the favor of you to return the letter after perusal. I have latterly taken this liberty with more than one of my corresponding friends. And every lapse of very short periods becomes now a fresh apology for it.
Neither Mrs. M. nor myself have forgotten the promised visit which included Mrs. Rives, and we flatter ourselves the fulfilment of it, will not be very distant. Meanwhile we tender to you both our joint & affecte. salutations.
P. Script. I inclose a little pamphlet rec. a few days ago, which so well repaid my perusal, that I submit it to yours, to be returned only at your leisure. It is handsomely written, and its matter well chosen & interesting. A like task as well executed in every State wd. be of historical value; the more so as the examples might both prompt & guide researches, not as yet too late but rapidly becoming so.
I think this paragraph from the above letter bears repeating by itself:
James Madison wrote:The conduct of S. Carolina has called forth not only the question of nullification; but the more formidable one of secession. It is asked whether a State by resuming the sovereign form in which it entered the Union, may not of right withdraw from it at will. As this is a simple question whether a State, more that an individual, has a right to violate its engagements, it would seem that it might be safely left to answer itself. But the countenance given to the claim shows that it cannot be so lightly dismissed. The natural feelings which laudably attach the people composing a State, to its authority and importance, are at present too much excited by the unnatural feelings, with which they have been inspired against their brethren of other States, not to expose them, to the danger of being misled into erroneous views of the nature of the Union and the interest they have in it. One thing at least seems to be too clear to be questioned; that whilst a State remains within the Union it cannot withdraw its citizens from the operation of the Constitution and laws of the Union. In the event of an actual secession without the Consent of the Co-States, the course to be pursued by these involves questions painful in the discussion of them. God grant that the menacing appearances, which obtruded it may not be followed by positive occurrences requiring the more painful task of deciding them!
And as long as we're appealing to authority on the Constitution, let's try the president of the Convention:
George Washington, June 8, 1783 wrote:It is indispensable to the happiness of the individual states, that there should be lodged somewhere, a supreme power to regulate and govern the general concerns of the...republic, without which the Union cannot be of long duration. That there must be a faithful and pointed compliance on the part of every state, with the...proposals and demands of Congress, or the most fatal consequences will ensue; that whatever measures have a tendency to dissolve the Union, or contribute to violate or lessen the sovereign authority, ought to be considered as hostile to the liberty and independency of America, and the authors of them treated accordingly....[W]ithout an entire conformity to the spirit of the Union, we cannot exist as an independent power.
George Washington to John Jay, August 1786 wrote:I do not conceive we can exist long as a nation without having lodged somewhere a power, which will pervade the whole Union in as energetic a manner, as the authority of the state governments extends over the several states.
George Washington, November 1787 wrote:"[T]here are characters who prefer disunion, or separate confederacies to the general government which is offered to them...but as nothing in my conception is more to be deprecated than disunion, or these separate confederacies, my voice, as far as it will extend, shall be offered in favor of [the Union]."
George Washington, in relation to the Whiskey Rebellion wrote:If the laws are to be trampled upon with impunity, and a minority is to dictate to the majority, there is an end put, at one stroke, to republican government.
George Washington wrote:"To me this is so demonstrable, that not a particle of doubt could dwell on my mind relative thereto, if our citizens would advocate their own cause, instead of that of any other nation under the sun; that is, if, instead of being Frenchmen or Englishmen in politics they would be Americans, indignant at every attempt of either or any other powers to establish an influence in our councils or presume to sow the seeds of discord or disunion among us."
George Washington, Circular to the States wrote:There are four things, which I humbly conceive, are essential to the well being, I may even venture to say, to the existence of the United States as an Independent Power:
1st. An indissoluble Union of the States under one Federal Head.
2dly. A Sacred regard to Public Justice.
3dly. The adoption of a proper Peace Establishment, and
4thly. The prevalence of that pacific and friendly Disposition, among the People of the United States, which will induce them to forget their local prejudices and policies, to make those mutual concessions which are requisite to the general prosperity, and in some instances, to sacrifice their individual advantages to the interest of the Community.
These are the Pillars on which the glorious Fabrick of our Independency and National Character must be supported; Liberty is the Basis, and whoever would dare to sap the foundation, or overturn the Structure, under whatever specious pretexts he may attempt it, will merit the bitterest execration, and the severest punishment which can be inflicted by his injured Country.
On the three first Articles I will make a few observations, leaving the last to the good sense and serious consideration of those immediately concerned.
Under the first head, altho' it may not be necessary or proper for me in this place to enter into a particular disquisition of the principles of the Union, and to take up the great question which has been frequently agitated, whether it be expedient and requisite for the States to delegate a larger proportion of Power to Congress, or not, Yet it will be a part of my duty, and that of every true Patriot, to assert without reserve, and to insist upon the following positions, That unless the States will suffer Congress to exercise those prerogatives, they are undoubtedly invested with by the Constitution, every thing must very rapidly tend to Anarchy and confusion, That it is indispensable to the happiness of the individual States, that there should be lodged somewhere, a Supreme Power to regulate and govern the general concerns of the Confederated Republic, without which the Union cannot be of long duration. That there must be a faithful and pointed compliance on the part of every State, with the late proposals and demands of Congress, or the most fatal consequences will ensue, That whatever measures have a tendency to dissolve the Union, or contribute to violate or lessen the Sovereign Authority, ought to be considered as hostile to the Liberty and Independency of America, and the Authors of them treated accordingly, and lastly, that unless we can be enabled by the concurrence of the States, to participate of the fruits of the Revolution, and enjoy the essential benefits of Civil Society, under a form of Government so free and uncorrupted, so happily guarded against the danger of oppression, as has been devised and adopted by the Articles of Confederation, it will be a subject of regret, that so much blood and treasure have been lavished for no purpose, that so many sufferings have been encountered without a compensation, and that so many sacrifices have been made in vain. Many other considerations might here be adduced to prove, that without an entire conformity to the Spirit of the Union, we cannot exist as an Independent Power; it will be sufficient for my purpose to mention but one or two which seem to me of the greatest importance. It is only in our united Character as an Empire, that our Independence is acknowledged, that our power can be regarded, or our Credit supported among Foreign Nations. The Treaties of the European Powers with the United States of America, will have no validity on a dissolution of the Union. We shall be left nearly in a state of Nature, or we may find by our own unhappy experience, that there is a natural and necessary progression, from the extreme of anarchy to the extreme of Tyranny; and that arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of Liberty abused to licentiousness.
George Washington wrote:"To the efficacy and permanency of your Union, a government for the whole is indispensable. No alliances however strict between the parts can be an adequate substitute. They must inevitably experience the infractions and interruptions which all alliances in all times have experienced...[the federal government] has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true liberty...the Constitution which at any time exists, 'till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government."
George Washington wrote:It now rests with [Congress]...to make this country great, happy, and respectable; or to sink it into littleness; worse perhaps, into anarchy and confusion; for certain I am, that unless adequate powers are given to Congress for the general purposes of the Federal Union that we shall soon moulder into dust and become contemptible....We are known by no other character among nations than as the United States; Massachusetts or Virginia is no better defined, nor any more thought of by foreign powers than the County of Worcester in Massachusetts...or Glouster County in Virginia...yet these counties, with as much propriety might oppose themselves to the laws of the state in [which] they are, as an individual state can oppose itself to the Federal Government, by which it is, or ought to be bound. [When counties] come in contact with the general interests of the state, when superior considerations preponderate in favor of the whole, their voices should be heard no more; so it should be with individual states when compared to the Union....I think the blood and treasure which has been spent [in building the nation] has been lavished to little purpose, unless we can be better cemented; and that is not to be effected while so little attention is paid to the recommendations of the sovereign power.
George Washington wrote:[W]hen the band of Union gets once broken, every thing ruinous to our future prospects is to be apprehended; the best that can come of it, in my humble opinion, is that we shall sink into obscurity, unless our civil broils should keep us in remembrance and fill the page of history with the direful consequences of them.
George Washington wrote:[T]he United States came into existence as a nation, and if their citizens should not be completely free and happy, the fault will be entirely their own...it is in their choice, and depends upon their conduct, whether they will be respectable and prosperous, or contemptible and miserable as a nation...[it would be an] ill-fated moment for relaxing the powers of the Union, annihilating the cement of the confederation, and exposing us to become the sport of European politics, which may play one state against another to prevent their growing importance, and to serve their own interested purposes.
George Washington wrote:It is only in our united character...that our independence is acknowledged, that our power can be regarded, and our credit supported among foreign nations.
George Washington wrote:That to impress these things it might, among other things be observed, that we are all the Children of the same country; a Country great and rich in itself; capable, and promising to be, as prosperous and as happy as any the Annals of history have ever brought to our view. That our interest, however, deversified in local and smaller matters, is the same in all the great and essential concerns of the Nation. That the extent of our Country, the diversity of our climate and soil, and the various productions of the States consequent to both, are such as to make one part not only convenient, but perhaps indispensably necessary to the other part; and may render the whole (at no distant period) one of the most independant in the world. That the established government being the work of our own hands, with the seeds of amendment engrafted in the Constitution, may by wisdom, good dispositions, and mutual allowances; aided by experience, bring it as near to perfection as any human institution ever aproximated; and therefore, the only strife among us ought to be, who should be foremost in facilitating and finally accomplishing such great and desirable objects; by giving every possible support, and cement to the Union.
George Washington wrote:Citizens by birth or choice of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of American, which belongs to you in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation derived from local discriminations."
Last Will and Testament of George Washington wrote:I, George Washington of Mount Vernon,
a citizen of the United States and lately President of the same, do make, ordain and declare this instrument, which is written with my own hand and every page thereof subscribed with my name, to be my last Will and Testament, revoking all others.
George Washington wrote:I clearly foresee that nothing but the rooting out of slavery can perpetuate the existence of our union by consolidating it in a common bond of principle.
That and they didn't like to follow orders.
