Southern history and the truth

[M14 Shooter]

Now you are really stretching.

How so?
Secession is to withdraw.
Withdrawal in no way necessiates insurrection or rebellion.

Regardless of whether you feel that secession is different than insurrection, it is clearly a reasonable interpretation to equate the secession with an insurrection.

Only if you can show that, in all cases, they are the same thing.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Denial: Not just a river in Egypt.

Yes. Hope you can swim.

The United States is sovereign over the member states.

On the contrary.
The states are soverign. They can dissolve the union any time they choose.
The reverse is not true.

 

[ReillyT]

Only if you can show that, in all cases, they are the same thing.

No. The USSC has never ruled on this, so I don't know what they would say. However, they would surely be empowered to interpret insurrection to include secession. They are empowered to do quite a bit.

 

[Rogue 9]

On the contrary.
The states are soverign. They can dissolve the union any time they choose.
The reverse is not true.

The Supremacy Clause clearly states that the Constitution and laws made pursuant to it are the supreme law of the land, even going so far as to say that this is true notwithstanding anything in the state constitutions or any state laws. I fail to see how it can get much more clear-cut than that.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The Supremacy Clause clearly states that the Constitution and laws made pursuant to it are the supreme law of the land, even going so far as to say that this is true notwithstanding anything in the state constitutions or any state laws. I fail to see how it can get much more clear-cut than that.

I believe I explained it to you.
The federal government exists at the pleasure of the states.
Thus, the states are sovereign.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No. The USSC has never ruled on this...

The SCotUS doesnt need to rule for you to understand that all of the words you specified have different meanings, none of which necesarily overlap -- especially where secession is concerned.

 

[Rogue 9]

I believe I explained it to you.
The federal government exists at the pleasure of the states.
Thus, the states are sovereign.

What is your basis for this claim?

Anyway, to try a different tack for a moment, let's find out of states' rights were really that important to the secessionists, or if it was just a smokescreen to cover their true aims. A look at the framework they chose for their government should do nicely.

It turns out that they pretty much ripped off the U.S. Constitution, with a few changes. Here is a comparison chart detailing these changes: filibustercartoons.com/CSA.htm You may note that none of them address secession, one change makes the constitution say that the Confederacy is permanent, and several actually expand federal power.

 

[M14 Shooter]

What is your basis for this claim?

Amendment XXVIII:
The Constititon, at the moment of ratification of this amendment, is null and void.

Anyway, to try a different tack for a moment, let's find out of states' rights were really that important to the secessionists, or if it was just a smokescreen to cover their true aims. A look at the framework they chose for their government should do nicely.

Irrelevant to the issue.

 

[ReillyT]

The SCotUS doesnt need to rule for you to understand that all of the words you specified have different meanings, none of which necesarily overlap -- especially where secession is concerned.

Who says that they must fully overlap? The USSC can interpret it any way they like. I think the clauses that Rogue pointed out definitely provide a basis for interpreting the Constitution to prohibit secession. Only the USSC can settle this issue of whether such an interpretation is the appropriate one.

 

[Rogue 9]

Amendment XXVIII:
The Constititon, at the moment of ratification of this amendment, is null and void.

By the amendment mechanism, yes. Did the members of the CSA use the amendment mechanism to effect their secession?

Irrelevant to the issue.

Is it? The title of this thread is "Southern History and the Truth." The truth about the Southerners' aims, I think, is most relevant.

 

[M14 Shooter]

By the amendment mechanism, yes. Did the members of the CSA use the amendment mechanism to effect their secession?

Irrelevant to the issue of who is sovereign.
You stated the federal government is sovereign. It isn't.

Is it? The title of this thread is "Southern History and the Truth." The truth about the Southerners' aims, I think, is most relevant.

Not in terms of if there is a right to seceed.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Who says that they must fully overlap? The USSC can interpret it any way they like. I think the clauses that Rogue pointed out definitely provide a basis for interpreting the Constitution to prohibit secession. Only the USSC can settle this issue of whether such an interpretation is the appropriate one.

Is it possible to seceed without rebelling or starting an insurrection?
Your answer MUST be "yes", if you have any degree of honesty.
As such, secession does not necessarily equate to insurrection or rebellion.

 

[Rogue 9]

Irrelevant to the issue of who is sovereign.
You stated the federal government is sovereign. It isn't.

The states have to ask the federal government for permission to do things that sovereign nations get to do; the reverse is not true. The fact that states need the consent of Congress to raise an army suggests that enforcement should be expected if they do so without said consent. If any one state (not three quarters of the states working in concert; just one) is more powerful politically than the federal government, then why does the Constitution bother putting limits on the states at all?

 

[M14 Shooter]

The states have to ask the federal government for permission to do things that sovereign nations get to do; the reverse is not true. The fact that states need the consent of Congress to raise an army suggests that enforcement should be expected if they do so without said consent. If any one state (not three quarters of the states working in concert; just one) is more powerful politically than the federal government, then why does the Constitution bother putting limits on the states at all?

Noen of this changes in any way that the Federal government, and any powers it may have, exists at the pleasure of the states.
Thus, the states are sovereign.

 

[ReillyT]

Noen of this changes in any way that the Federal government, and any powers it may have, exists at the pleasure of the states.
Thus, the states are sovereign.

No, the powers of the federal government exist due to a compact made between the states and the federal government. If 10 people make a contract, and then 9 of them want to change it, that is too bad. The contract remains so long as any party to the contract wishes to maintain it.

States governments, even acting in concert, can't change federal laws. Only federal legislatures can change federal laws.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No, the powers of the federal government exist due to a compact made between the states and the federal government. If 10 people make a contract, and then 9 of them want to change it, that is too bad. The contract remains so long as any party to the contract wishes to maintain it.

States governments, even acting in concert, can't change federal laws. Only federal legislatures can change federal laws.

Not sure how any of this negates my argument.

 

[ReillyT]

Not sure how any of this negates my argument.

You don't? I think it is pretty clear. Read it again and if you still don't get it, I will try to rephrase it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You don't? I think it is pretty clear. Read it again and if you still don't get it, I will try to rephrase it.

OK...

No, the powers of the federal government exist due to a compact made between the states and the federal government. If 10 people make a contract, and then 9 of them want to change it, that is too bad. The contract remains so long as any party to the contract wishes to maintain it.

Given that the states -can- dissolve the union w/o any input or consent from the federal government, and that the states -can- add and remove federal powers (and thus, laws) without any input or consent from the federal government, how can you be right, and how can the states NOT be sovereign?

 

[Rogue 9]

The states as a body (that is to say, the Union) are sovereign; the federal government exists as the collective governing body of the states. Individual states on their own are not. They gave that up when joining the Union; hell, Texas even admits to this in it's own Declaration of the Causes of Secession.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The states as a body (that is to say, the Union) are sovereign; the federal government exists as the collective governing body of the states. Individual states on their own are not.

Then you agree with my position that the states are sovereign.
Thank you.