dcraelin
VIP Member
- Sep 4, 2013
- 2,553
- 136
- 85
I don't have to refute anything that has no facts or logic to support it. Your claim is supported by nothing other than your say-so.
Obvious nonsense. It has the constitution saying so. The Supremacy Clause is clear: the Federal government has jurisdiction over all of the United States. Which including the States. That jurisdiction is a constitutionally delegated power of the Federal government. Concurrent Jurisdiction goes all the way back to the Federalist Papers.
You don't even dispute this, as we both know its true. And it ends the debate. As secession would strip the federal government of a constitutionally delegated power.
The Supremacy Clause squashes this as well, recognizing the constitution as the Supreme law of the land. And the constitution delegates that power to the federal government. A state would thus be violating the constitution in stripping the federal government of a power delegated to the federal government by the constitution.
And the 10th amendment doesn't grant the States the power to violate the constitution.
Constitutionally powers are valid only so long as a state remains in the union.
Ah, but you forget: You can't leave the union unilaterally without violating the constitution. As both concurrent jurisdiction and the supremacy clause demonstrate, the territory within each state is ALSO federal territory. One party can't make decisions for both sovereigns. Nixing any claim that the constitution was the basis of secession. Secession is obviously a violation of the constitution. And thus, constitutionally invalid.
You're fucked. As your argument only works AFTER the constitution has been flagrantly violated by the State. As the State lacks the authority constitutionally to strip the federal government of any constitutionally delegated power. Which jurisdiction over every State obviously is.
There is no way around this. There's no way to unilaterally secede without violating the constitution. Thus, unilateral secession is constitutionally invalid.
Your problem is the fact that the Constitution doesn't say anything you claim it says.
Obvious nonsense. The Supremecy Clause is most definitely part of the constitution. Lets read it together:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
Supremacy Clause of the Constitution of the United States
And done. This establishes unambiguously that the Federal government has jurisdiction over all the States, as its laws made in pursuance of the constitution are the supreme law of the land. This establishes concurrent jurisdiction which the Federalist Papers go on at length about. Which Madison himself recognized. As Federal Law could not apply in any State if the Federal government didn't have jurisdiction in that State.
This Supremacy Clause renders jurisdiction of Federal law a constitutionally delegated power of the Federal government.
And you don't even deny it.
With that simple fact, your entire argument is over. As unilateraly secession would strip the federal government of a constitutionally delegated power. And thus violate the constitution. And the 10th amendment does not grant the States the power to violate the constitution. While the Supremecy Clause forbids it, recognizing both the Constitution and Federal law the Supreme Law of the land.
Nothing you claim has any documentation to support it.
You're confusing me with you. The 'right to secede' is never even mentioned in the constitution. Its not even insinuated. With Madison, the father of the constitution, explicitly rejecting the idea. Both during the ratification process (insisting that the constitution must be ratidifed in toto and forever) and after, in numerous letters on the topic. Worse, as demonstrated above, unilateral secession would violate the constitution's supremacy clause.
You have nothing backing your claim of the 'right to secede', nothing backing your imaginary bullshit of 'conditional ratification', nor is there any provision within the constitution that recognizes that one state would possess powers that another state would not.
You made all of that up. While the Supremacy Clause, Madison's rejection of your bullshit, and the undeniable jurisdiction of the federal government over the States is quite real.
Sorry, Brit.....you're fucked.
I think your wrong on Madison......or maybe he changed his mind as during the Adams administration he and Jefferson tried to get Virgina and I think at least one other state draw up resolutions saying they would secede if the alien and sedition laws were kept on the books.
I'm not.
Madison drew a firm distinction between what he called the 'Right to Revolution' (saying 'fuck all' and overthrowing the government) and the 'right to secession' (which he said didn't exist under the constitution). His letters on the matter are ludicrously clear. From his letter to Hamilton during the New York ratification process (where he rejected conditional ratification and secession and insisted that the consittution had to be ratified 'in toto and forever) to his latter letters in the 1830s, where he rejected unilateral session and nullification. He's also rejected a single state as representing 'the people' in a constitutional sense.
What you may be thinking of his his firm belief in the 'right to revolution'. He held that his entire life. The problem with the 'right to revolution' and secession is that secessionists are claiming the right to secede *under* the constitution. Which is obvious horseshit. No such right exists. Whereas the right to revolution is extra-constitutional. Its essentially the right of the people to overthrow the government.
You hAVE NOT explained his actions over the alien and sedition acts.....and the supposed clear as daylight writings I have not seen....post a few if you think they are ludicrously clear.