US Constitution

[RetiredGySgt]

WEll shit....that's already been established. I thought Loki was bringing a "different" argument to the table. Numerous posters have already brought up the whole Congress route. And don't make assumptions about my level of education. I don't make assumptions about yours.

Damn Loki, RGS summed it up in once sentence. But this has already been established. You seem to contradict yourself some.

The South did not make all of the state's secede, nor encourage the northern states to secede. And the South did not "Get up in the Grill" of the North. It was the other way around. And your opinion that secession is not a power is strictly that, an opinion...Much like my opinion of secession being a power would be an opion. SO really, we're right where we started.

You're assuming just as much as I am.

The South most definately did " get up in the grill" of the North. Seizing forts, arsenals and Naval Bases that were FEDERAL property NOT State property. And then attacking a Federal Fort. Forming Armies and training those armies.

 

[BrianH]

Ok, it's obvious that this debate is all about POV. We will not resolve this debate. The North feels like the South did something illegal. And the South feels like they didn't do anything illegal. Simple as that. If you wish to continue this debate, by all means we can continue. I'm just going to point out that we're going to talk in circles for the next few weeks.

 

[LOki]

So you are saying they can only secede if the entire country votes to let them.

No. It's legal only if the rights of all involved parties are considered. This consideration is accomplished through legislative action, passage, and ratification, by the rules of the Constitution--you know; due process.

A State can up and secede tomorrow if that's the will of it's People, but if they ignore due process, then they are seceding illegally--they are committing an insurrection or an act of sedition; treason maybe.

 

[jillian]

No. It's legal only if the rights of all involved parties are considered. This consideration is accomplished through legislative action, passage, and ratification, by the rules of the Constitution--you know; due process.

A State can up and secede tomorrow if that's the will of it's People, but if they ignore due process, then they are seceding illegally--they are committing an insurrection or an act of sedition; treason maybe.

I'll presume you're being hypothetical and playing with concepts since certainly the Constitution says nothing of the sort, right?

State's aren't entitled to "due process"...that would be something guaranteed to people by the 5th and 14th Amendments.

And no, the Supreme Court already said States CAN'T secede regardless of the will of its people. Already been tried and was pretty much a failure. Certainly you can argue whether you agree with the Court's determination, but as of now, it stands.

 

[LOki]

I'll presume you're being hypothetical and playing with concepts since certainly the Constitution says nothing of the sort, right?

What?

State's aren't entitled to "due process"...that would be something guaranteed to people by the 5th and 14th Amendments.

Bad choice of words to convey the notion that there's a lawful means of considering the rights and interests of all parties that find themselves in dispute--I'll admit to playing a bit fast and loose with the term "due process" if you admit that persons in The States are People who are entitled to due process--even if they don't belong to a State considering secession.

And no, the Supreme Court already said States CAN'T secede regardless of the will of its people.

What do you think I said?

Already been tried and was pretty much a failure. Certainly you can argue whether you agree with the Court's determination, but as of now, it stands.

Texas v White did not establish that there are no legal avenues for State secession (quite the opposite)--just that the various secessions (Texas' in particular) did not persue legal avenues.

Since the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people, a State can up and secede tomorrow if that's the will of it's People, but if they do so without the consent (established through the powers of the Congress) of the remainder of the Nation, then they are seceding illegally.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I'll presume you're being hypothetical and playing with concepts since certainly the Constitution says nothing of the sort, right?

State's aren't entitled to "due process"...that would be something guaranteed to people by the 5th and 14th Amendments.

And no, the Supreme Court already said States CAN'T secede regardless of the will of its people. Already been tried and was pretty much a failure. Certainly you can argue whether you agree with the Court's determination, but as of now, it stands.

The court left open a mutual split, read the case.

 

[jillian]

The court left open a mutual split, read the case.

We were not talking about anything mutual.

I know the case.

 

[jillian]

What?

You used the term consideration in dealing with the issue of secession. I asked if you were toying with the concept of united states as contract obligation. I did the same in an earlier post, so was curious

Bad choice of words to convey the notion that there's a lawful means of considering the rights and interests of all parties that find themselves in dispute--I'll admit to playing a bit fast and loose with the term "due process" if you admit that persons in The States are People who are entitled to due process--even if they don't belong to a State considering secession.

We're talking about different concepts. Individuals are entitled to due process. There's no such provision with respect to the States. And I don't see the State as as synonym for "the people". But for purposes of this argument we can certainly agree that some type of process would be appropriate even though I don't think there are any circumstances (but for mutual agreement) whereby secession would be permitted.

What do you think I said?

If I knew, I wouldn't have asked. It was a bit of a long way around to any kind of point. But that's ok.

Texas v White did not establish that there are no legal avenues for State secession (quite the opposite)--just that the various secessions (Texas' in particular) did not persue legal avenues.

I disagree. While the court may have been divided, it was it found that the Constitution does not permit secession. In fact, the majority said clearly "acts in furtherance or support of rebellion against the United States, or intended to defeat the just rights of citizens, and other acts of like nature, must, in general, be regarded as invalid and void.", Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1968).

I think that makes secession illegal under any circumstances. In fact, it appears that the Court likened it in the statement above to an act of treason.

Since the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people, a State can up and secede tomorrow if that's the will of it's People, but if they do so without the consent (established through the powers of the Congress) of the remainder of the Nation, then they are seceding illegally.

The Court found otherwise. I see you disagree, and certainly there have been holdings with which I've been unhappy. But it seems clear that whether the Constitution would otherwise permit it or not, it's not possible for it to be considered legal just from the perspective of what happens if states just up and decide to leave? That would be chaos.

Sometimes there are simply practicalities which override our best philosophizing. But it does go to my belief that there is no such thing as an inherant right and rights only exist to the extent they are enforced.

 

[LOki]

You used the term consideration in dealing with the issue of secession. I asked if you were toying with the concept of united states as contract obligation. I did the same in an earlier post, so was curious

I think that it's a fair argument that in joining a union of states, reciprocal responsibilities and obligations are assumed by the joining State.

We're talking about different concepts. Individuals are entitled to due process. There's no such provision with respect to the States. And I don't see the State as as synonym for "the people". But for purposes of this argument we can certainly agree that some type of process would be appropriate even though I don't think there are any circumstances (but for mutual agreement) whereby secession would be permitted.

I'll take your first point in-so-far as the Constitution does not explicity equate the States to The People, however, the Constitution treats The States and their Governments differently, which implies that when the Constitution adresses the States, they are addressing the People of thes States rather than the Governent of the States.

Secondly I'll remind you that I recognize that I chose my terms poorly--insert instead "granting the appropriate consideration to the rights of all the parties invovled that they are entitled to by reciprocal recognition their rights and obligations within their relationship." So I think we will agree.

If I knew, I wouldn't have asked. It was a bit of a long way around to any kind of point. But that's ok.

Well you didn't ask, but I'll tell you anyway; I said, "A State can up and secede tomorrow if that's the will of it's People..."

It is MONUMENTALLY inappropriate for a State to secede without the consent of its People.

Note, that I made no claim to the legality of the venture...just that they could do it.

I disagree. While the court may have been divided, it was it found that the Constitution does not permit secession. In fact, the majority said clearly "acts in furtherance or support of rebellion against the United States, or intended to defeat the just rights of citizens, and other acts of like nature, must, in general, be regarded as invalid and void.", Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1968).

I think that makes secession illegal under any circumstances. In fact, it appears that the Court likened it in the statement above to an act of treason.

<blockquote>74 U.S. 700 Texas v. White
<i>"When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an 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, <b>except</b> through revolution or <b>through consent of the States.</b></i></blockquote>Feel free to continue to disagree.

The Court found otherwise. I see you disagree, and certainly there have been holdings with which I've been unhappy. But it seems clear that whether the Constitution would otherwise permit it or not, it's not possible for it to be considered legal just from the perspective of what happens if states just up and decide to leave? That would be chaos.

It looks to me like the Court agreed with me entirely--you see, I never said (not even once, or even implied) secession, even if it is a right, is neccessarily legal.

Sometimes there are simply practicalities which override our best philosophizing. But it does go to my belief that there is no such thing as an inherant right and rights only exist to the extent they are enforced.

That's a different topic.

 

[jillian]

I think that it's a fair argument that in joining a union of states, reciprocal responsibilities and obligations are assumed by the joining State.

I found it interesting, myself.

I'll take your first point in-so-far as the Constitution does not explicity equate the States to The People, however, the Constitution treats The States and their Governments differently, which implies that when the Constitution adresses the States, they are addressing the People of thes States rather than the Governent of the States.

That's an interesting point. How do you think the government of the States and the States themselves are treated differently?

Secondly I'll remind you that I recognize that I chose my terms poorly--insert instead "granting the appropriate consideration to the rights of all the parties invovled that they are entitled to by reciprocal recognition their rights and obligations within their relationship." So I think we will agree.

We do.

Well you didn't ask, but I'll tell you anyway; I said, "A State can up and secede tomorrow if that's the will of it's People..."

It is MONUMENTALLY inappropriate for a State to secede without the consent of its People.

Note, that I made no claim to the legality of the venture...just that they could do it.

If it isn't legal, then there isn't a circumstance where it would be legitimate to consent (other than mutual agreement).

<blockquote>74 U.S. 700 Texas v. White
<i>"When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an 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, <b>except</b> through revolution or <b>through consent of the States.</b></i></blockquote>Feel free to continue to disagree.

The Court said no secession....

"There was no place for reconsideration or revocation"

I agree with that.

<b>except</b> through revolution or <b>through consent of the States.</b></i></blockquote>

Well, if the confederacy had won the civil war, the case would have been decided differently, I presume.

And I think we already agreed that if it were mutual, then that's a whole other issue.

It looks to me like the Court agreed with me entirely--you see, I never said (not even once, or even implied) secession, even if it is a right, is neccessarily legal.

It appeared you were arguing the right of secession by relying on the rights reserved to the States. The holding of Texas v. White, which, ultimately finds that it wasn't possible for Texas to seceed, puts the argument to bed at least in terms of actual reality. I also think it was the only decision that could have been made in order to keep the union together after the Civil War.

That's a different topic.

I look forward to it.

Have a nice evening.

 

[Dogger]

A country without Texas? No warmongering Bushes or LBJ? Kennedy doesn't go to Dallas? All of those GOP electoral votes simply vanish? Nice.

A man can dream, can't he?

 

[BrianH]

I found it interesting, myself.



That's an interesting point. How do you think the government of the States and the States themselves are treated differently?



The Court said no secession....

"There was no place for reconsideration or revocation"

I agree with that.

<b>except</b> through revolution or <b>through consent of the States.</b></i></blockquote>

Well, if the confederacy had won the civil war, the case would have been decided differently, I presume.

And I think we already agreed that if it were mutual, then that's a whole other issue.



It appeared you were arguing the right of secession by relying on the rights reserved to the States. The holding of Texas v. White, which, ultimately finds that it wasn't possible for Texas to seceed, puts the argument to bed at least in terms of actual reality. I also think it was the only decision that could have been made in order to keep the union together after the Civil War.



I look forward to it.

Have a nice evening.

WEll the argument was about the right of secession based on the Constitution, and the reserved rights of the state (considering secession is not prohibited). And not the Supreme Court decision. We all recognize that it is illegal based upon the 1869 SC decision. I recognize that it is law based upon the SC, however, I would not have viewed it legal in 1861 by simply reading the Constitution. I do not hold the states accountable for illegal activity, because by reading the Constitution-they had the right to secede. And they had no way of travelling into the future to see if the 1869 Supreme Court would dub it illegal. A southerner in 1861 would have viewed this as legal, based on the Constitution as it existed in 1861.

 

[jillian]

WEll the argument was about the right of secession based on the Constitution, and the reserved rights of the state (considering secession is not prohibited). And not the Supreme Court decision. We all recognize that it is illegal based upon the 1869 SC decision. I recognize that it is law based upon the SC, however, I would not have viewed it legal in 1861 by simply reading the Constitution. I do not hold the states accountable for illegal activity, because by reading the Constitution-they had the right to secede. And they had no way of travelling into the future to see if the 1869 Supreme Court would dub it illegal. A southerner in 1861 would have viewed this as legal, based on the Constitution as it existed in 1861.

The Supreme Court isn't allowed to issue advisory opinions. There has to be an actual case and controversy in front of it. Had this same issue been put to the Cout in 1861, the result would have been exactly the same....and for the same reasons.

 

[BrianH]

The Supreme Court isn't allowed to issue advisory opinions. There has to be an actual case and controversy in front of it. Had this same issue been put to the Cout in 1861, the result would have been exactly the same....and for the same reasons.

Well I agree. But that doesn't mean that I have to agree with it's decision or it's motives. It's not suprising that a primarily northern Supreme Court would rule the South's act illegal. Much like I know it would not have done the South any good to go through Congress. I feel like the 1869 decision was much like the plessy v. ferguson decision. And you're right, had it been done in 1861, the result would have been the same. But, much like the plessy v. ferguson decision, it was obviously misguided and not representative of the Constitution IMO. Sure, it's law, and based on the decision, secession was/is illegal. But anyone reading the Constituion in 1861 would never have known this based on the Constitution and it's laws.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Well I agree. But that doesn't mean that I have to agree with it's decision or it's motives. It's not suprising that a primarily northern Supreme Court would rule the South's act illegal. Much like I know it would not have done the South any good to go through Congress. I feel like the 1869 decision was much like the plessy v. ferguson decision. And you're right, had it been done in 1861, the result would have been the same. But, much like the plessy v. ferguson decision, it was obviously misguided and not representative of the Constitution IMO. Sure, it's law, and based on the decision, secession was/is illegal. But anyone reading the Constituion in 1861 would never have known this based on the Constitution and it's laws.

Except the precedent was set by PREVIOUS Presidents. South Carolina was making talk like it would leave earlier and Andrew Jackson ( as I recall it was he ) told them they would be in rebellion if they did and that HE would forceably prevent that from happening.

George Washington put down a rebellion in Pennsylvania, he led the Army personally while President. Using your logic those Counties that tried to leave had the right, after all I do not know many State Constitutions that say counties can not leave the State.

 

[LOki]

That's an interesting point. How do you think the government of the States and the States themselves are treated differently?

The Constitution guarantees the States a Republican Government--it can't make this guarantee to a Government, but can do so for the People.

I think that even the opinion in Texas v White expresses the notion that a State Government in an enhancement of the State, but not so much the State as it's People are.

Further, it appears that in the Constitution, The States are referred to when The People are being addressed as political collectives (Source of Delegated Powers), and it refers to The People when adressing persons of the United States of America (Retainers of Rights).

The Court said no secession....

The Court said there was no secession.

"There was no place for reconsideration or revocation"

I agree with that.

Yet they noted an exception through consent of the States.

<b>except</b> through revolution or <b>through consent of the States.</b></i></blockquote>

Well, if the confederacy had won the civil war, the case would have been decided differently, I presume.

I doubt there would have been a case at all.

And I think we already agreed that if it were mutual, then that's a whole other issue.

I am unaware of any such agreement--my postion through this entire discussion has been that the secession of the Southern States <i>could</i> have been accomplished legally through consent of the United States, but it wasn't.

It appeared you were arguing the right of secession by relying on the rights reserved to the States.

That is BrianH's argument, and I see no rights that are reserved to the States--only those retained by The People.

The holding of Texas v. White, which, ultimately finds that it wasn't possible for Texas to seceed, puts the argument to bed at least in terms of actual reality. I also think it was the only decision that could have been made in order to keep the union together after the Civil War.

The holding of Texas v. White, which, ultimately finds that it wasn't possible for Texas to have seceeded by the means it used, puts the argument to bed at least in terms of actual reality.

Secession is still an excersizable right.

Have a nice evening.

Have a nice day.

 

[BrianH]

Except the precedent was set by PREVIOUS Presidents. South Carolina was making talk like it would leave earlier and Andrew Jackson ( as I recall it was he ) told them they would be in rebellion if they did and that HE would forceably prevent that from happening.

George Washington put down a rebellion in Pennsylvania, he led the Army personally while President. Using your logic those Counties that tried to leave had the right, after all I do not know many State Constitutions that say counties can not leave the State.

Thanks for the history lesson. I find it suprising that the President (at any time) would be willing to keep the country together during his presidency. (Sarcasm ). What president wants the country to fall apart during his presidency? None...so is it really more about saving face than Constitutional law?
Counties were not annexed into the state. The entire territory was fought over and gained. Then the counties were divided into counties to be governed. Big difference.

As far as this argument. Like I said, it's all POV. The British government condemned the colonies when they revolted...claiming it to be illegal under the British Monarchy. The only difference, is that the colonists won. Had the South won, we'd all be singing a different tune. The South felt like it was the right thing to do, the North obviously felt like it was the wrong thing to do. We simply disagree.

 

[BrianH]

The Constitution guarantees the States a Republican Government--it can't make this guarantee to a Government, but can do so for the People.

I think that even the opinion in Texas v White expresses the notion that a State Government in an enhancement of the State, but not so much the State as it's People are.

Further, it appears that in the Constitution, The States are referred to when The People are being addressed as political collectives (Source of Delegated Powers), and it refers to The People when adressing persons of the United States of America (Retainers of Rights).



The Court said there was no secession.



Yet they noted an exception through consent of the States.



I doubt there would have been a case at all.



I am unaware of any such agreement--my postion through this entire discussion has been that the secession of the Southern States <i>could</i> have been accomplished legally through consent of the United States, but it wasn't.



That is BrianH's argument, and I see no rights that are reserved to the States--only those retained by The People.




The holding of Texas v. White, which, ultimately finds that it wasn't possible for Texas to have seceeded by the means it used, puts the argument to bed at least in terms of actual reality.

Secession is still an excersizable right.



Have a nice day.

So you completely blow off the 10th Amendment...because "reserved to the states" is a direct quote from that amendment regarding state powers. I see you're argument, but I don't see how "you can't see rights that are reserved to the states." Because it states it blatantly.

 

[jillian]

The Constitution guarantees the States a Republican Government--it can't make this guarantee to a Government, but can do so for the People.

I think that's doing a bit of contortion. Article IV, Section 4 states "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence".

It seems to me that "state" is viewed as a separate entity, separate from its "people" or "government". I think that's what they're saying. Of course, there may be caselaw construing it differently. I don't know offhand.

I think that even the opinion in Texas v White expresses the notion that a State Government in an enhancement of the State, but not so much the State as it's People are.

I think that might be reading too much into it, unless I'm missing what you're referring to.

Further, it appears that in the Constitution, The States are referred to when The People are being addressed as political collectives (Source of Delegated Powers), and it refers to The People when adressing persons of the United States of America (Retainers of Rights).

I think it just views the States as a separate entity in the same manner that a corporation is a separate entity under the law. But yes, there is a distinction between "the States" and "the people".

The Court said there was no secession.

Yes. But they also implied that any breaking away would be construed as being tantamount to treason.

Yet they noted an exception through consent of the States.

Yes... but all? Or some? I would think it would have to be unanimous.

I doubt there would have been a case at all.

Well, there might have been disputes between the U.S. and the confederate States, so the issue may have come up in some form.

I am unaware of any such agreement--my postion through this entire discussion has been that the secession of the Southern States <i>could</i> have been accomplished legally through consent of the United States, but it wasn't.

I thought it was more of a tacit agreement than an articulated one.

That is BrianH's argument, and I see no rights that are reserved to the States--only those retained by The People.

I think the States have rights as discussed above.

The holding of Texas v. White, which, ultimately finds that it wasn't possible for Texas to have seceeded by the means it used, puts the argument to bed at least in terms of actual reality.

Secession is still an excersizable right.

I disagree... except with agreement of all the other states.

Have a nice day.

Ciao!

 

[LOki]

So you completely blow off the 10th Amendment...because "reserved to the states" is a direct quote from that amendment regarding state powers. I see you're argument, but I don't see how "you can't see rights that are reserved to the states." Because it states it blatantly.

Read it again, fucktard. There are no rights reserved to the States in the 10th.