US Constitution

[dread]

Actually The Supreme Court ruled in 1869 that the rebelling States had no right to withdraw from the Union. But thanks for playing.

What a crock of shit....This case and these judges used a NULL AND VOID
Articles of Confederation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation

As a basis to this....


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White


5-3 decision. Isn't interesting to note that 5 of the court justices were appointed by Lincoln?

 

[dread]

Do you get to interpret the Constitution? No you don't. Does it matter if you can't find where it says that? No, it doesn't. It only matters if the USSC does or does not find that.



They aren't making up a law, they are interpreting a law. And yes the USSC can pretty much make whatever it wants retroactive.



Whatever the USSC cited in their opinion made it illegal. They just didn't happen to spell it out until 1969.



How bout you read the thread since I've answered each of these asinine questions 5x over now instead of bombarding me with the same tired old shit and then saying "put up or shut up"?

So you cant name the law....GOTCHA

 

[Larkinn]

What a crock of shit....This case and these judges used a NULL AND VOID
Articles of Confederation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation

As a basis to this....

Is that the only thing they used? Nope. Care to try again?

5-3 decision. Isn't interesting to note that 5 of the court justices were appointed by Lincoln?

Were the 5 who approved the decision all appointed by Lincoln?

 

[Larkinn]

So you cant name the law....GOTCHA

Law is complicated. Learn a little bit of it and then come back to me.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Lets start with the Preamble shall we?

The Constitution of the United States of America

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.preamble.html

What "perfect Union" do they mean? One that can be disolved on a whim? One that can be broken by a State being upset over having to follow the laws and rules of that Union?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Section 10 of the first section of the Constitution.

Section 10. No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.

No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.

No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.

The entire section is meaningless if all a State need do is leave the Union when one of these prohibitions does not meet their desires. Waste of time to write and unable to be enforced if a State or States can blackmail the federal Government into not enforcing the rules by threatening to JUST leave the Union.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html#section10

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Then we have this gem.

Article IV

Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

Section 2. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

A person charged in any state with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee from justice, and be found in another state, shall on demand of the executive authority of the state from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the state having jurisdiction of the crime.

No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.This section removed by amendment

Section 3. New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.

Section 4. 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.

Clearly if the Congress is needed to admit a State and that State is formed from property given it BY the Federal Government, it is reasonable to infer the reverse is true, A State can not leave with out permission.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleiv.html#section3

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Another worthless part of the Constitution if in fact a State can pack it's bags and leave any time it chooses.

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.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlevi.html

 

[M14 Shooter]

The entire section is meaningless if all a State need do is leave the Union when one of these prohibitions does not meet their desires.

No, it's not. It applies to the states that remain in the union; those that leave the union are under no such restrctions.

The states are sovereign; they give up some of their sovereignty to form the union. They retain all the powers and rights that they did not give to the union. Nowhere in the constitution does it state that they gave up the right to leave the union.

 

[BrianH]

No, it's not. It applies to the states that remain in the union; those that leave the union are under no such restrctions.

The states are sovereign; they give up some of their sovereignty to form the union. They retain all the powers and rights that they did not give to the union. Nowhere in the constitution does it state that they gave up the right to leave the union.

man, you beat me to it. I was getting excited when I read RGS post. But I'll echo your post.

RGS
All that you've posted applies to states that are still members of the Union. If the states legally seceded (which they did), then they are no longer members of the Union and thereby not restricted by these powers given to the federal gov. There is no law prohibiting secession, therefore, the powers not prohibited to the state are reserved for the state "respectively."

Did anyone hear about Montana threatening to secede recently? If the Supreme Court ruled "the wrong way" on the 2nd Amendment, then they would secede. Their logic behind this was the fact that upon annexation, their contract of statehood garaunteed the right for all Montana citizens to bear arms. If the Supreme Court had ruled against the right to bear arms, then the Federal gov. would have breached the contract. I'm not sure they ever could, but they have a valid point.

 

[M14 Shooter]

All that you've posted applies to states that are still members of the Union. If the states legally seceded (which they did), then they are no longer members of the Union and thereby not restricted by these powers given to the federal gov.

Correct. The states that seceed might as well be Aruba.

Further... The idea that the states might be able to use secession as leverage is meaningless as an agrument that secession violates the constitution -- the states have a right to use whatever means available to them to get what they want/need from the federal government, that thry might be able to use secession as leverage doesnt in any way make secession against the constitution.

After all... the states, unquestionaly, can amend the constitution to nullify it and render it void; by the argument presented here such a thing would be unconstitutional because it could be used as leverage. This is, of course, silly.

What it does come down to is that there's nothing in the Constitition that specifically says states are prohibited from secession; absent such prohibiion, Amendment X takes hold.

 

[Ravi]

No, it's not. It applies to the states that remain in the union; those that leave the union are under no such restrctions.

The states are sovereign; they give up some of their sovereignty to form the union. They retain all the powers and rights that they did not give to the union. Nowhere in the constitution does it state that they gave up the right to leave the union.

Yep. I can't believe this argument.

 

[Larkinn]

man, you beat me to it. I was getting excited when I read RGS post. But I'll echo your post.

RGS
All that you've posted applies to states that are still members of the Union. If the states legally seceded (which they did), then they are no longer members of the Union and thereby not restricted by these powers given to the federal gov. There is no law prohibiting secession, therefore, the powers not prohibited to the state are reserved for the state "respectively."

This is an asinine argument. You are essentially saying "none of the provisions apply to the states. How do we know that? Because the seceded and therefore it doesn't apply to them. How do we know the secession was legal? Because none of the provisions apply to the states. How do we know that? Because they seceded and therefore it doesn't apply to them"...ad infinitum.

Did anyone hear about Montana threatening to secede recently? If the Supreme Court ruled "the wrong way" on the 2nd Amendment, then they would secede. Their logic behind this was the fact that upon annexation, their contract of statehood garaunteed the right for all Montana citizens to bear arms. If the Supreme Court had ruled against the right to bear arms, then the Federal gov. would have breached the contract. I'm not sure they ever could, but they have a valid point.

No they don't actually. In the contract THEY signed up for, it said that the USSC gets to interpret things. Where in the Constitution does it say Montanas interpretation of the Constitution is worth shit?

 

[BrianH]

This is an asinine argument. You are essentially saying "none of the provisions apply to the states. How do we know that? Because the seceded and therefore it doesn't apply to them. How do we know the secession was legal? Because none of the provisions apply to the states. How do we know that? Because they seceded and therefore it doesn't apply to them"...ad infinitum.



No they don't actually. In the contract THEY signed up for, it said that the USSC gets to interpret things. Where in the Constitution does it say Montanas interpretation of the Constitution is worth shit?

None of the provisions that RGS stated apply to states that have legally seceded. All of this boils down to the fact that the U.S. federal government to not legitimize the secession of the states, knowing good and well that it was legal.

Amendment 10 says it all. The Constitution does not prohibit secession, therefore the state had the right to exercise it. (no matter how many times the Supreme Court makes a crappy ruling on this issue, they are wrong). Just like they were wrong when they said that Separate but Equal was constitutional.

There was no rebellion, the North invaded the South. As soon as the South seceded and became the Confederacy, it was another nation (in a sense) and when federal troops refused to leave, that's when it hit the fan.

Slavery was legal until 1865, so you can't give the North credit for fighting for this noble cause to free the slaves.

Secession was also legal...since it is not prohibted in the Constitution.

 

[Larkinn]

None of the provisions that RGS stated apply to states that have legally seceded. All of this boils down to the fact that the U.S. federal government to not legitimize the secession of the states, knowing good and well that it was legal.

Just curious...does your opinion have the force of law?

Amendment 10 says it all. The Constitution does not prohibit secession, therefore the state had the right to exercise it. (no matter how many times the Supreme Court makes a crappy ruling on this issue, they are wrong). Just like they were wrong when they said that Separate but Equal was constitutional.

Oh, well your opinion of them being wrong means its not law.

Where in the Constitution does it give weight to BrianH's opinion of a USSC decision again?

 

[The_Hammer]

The Declaration of Independence trumps the Constitution.

Smoking the ganja.

 

[The_Hammer]

It was ok for Texas to do that when it seceded from Mexico. IT was also alright for the colonies to secede from England in the American Revolution. So because the war was actually won, it's justified? I see how this works.

According to the Native Americans, it wasn't ok to just come over and say, "nah...this is my country, not yours."

The secession was not illegal, nor was slavery at the time.

The Texan secession was illegal. The colonial rebellion was illegal. They were because the government which had authority over the territory did not permit it. Once they won it was up the to the losing governments to recognize it or not. If they didn't then the governments would still be illegitimate in a legal sense. The Brits chose to recognize the authority of the US and thus it became legal. I don't know if mexico recognized texas and the annexations of text but even if they didn't they lack the power to enforce their authority.

The native american issue one could say that the US had the right, as a sovereign nation, to wage war and annex territory. From a legal standpoint, Native American nations were on the same level as the US in terms of sovereignty. But they did, and now, lack the power to enforce their authority.

Power = the ability to do something. Authority = the right to do something. Power never turns into authority in the face of law, unless the law under which the power is subject permits it or the law somehow is invalidated (as in the collapse of a government).

The south lacked the power AND the authority for their rebellion. Wasn't much for them to do.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The Texan secession was illegal.

Which pre-1860 law prohibits secession?
Which part - article, section, clause - of the Constitution prohibits secession?

 

[The_Hammer]

Which pre-1860 law prohibits secession?
Which part - article, section, clause - of the Constitution prohibits secession?

I'm talking about the freaking texan secession from mexico fool. Did I quote anything talking about the civil war. No. You want to go with that, take it to the civil war thread.

I apologize to any posters whom I insult, but I'm part of a debate club and we have a really low tolerance for not listening to what the opposition says. You really have to dot your i's and cross your t's and pay attention.

 

[BrianH]

Just curious...does your opinion have the force of law?



Oh, well your opinion of them being wrong means its not law.

Where in the Constitution does it give weight to BrianH's opinion of a USSC decision again?

Touche....but your opinion is misguided by a law that took place AFTER the Civil War and was certainly not representative of the Constitution. You can make fun all you like, but the fact that the Supreme Court has been wrong before makes it perfectly legitimate to question it's "authority."

Like I said, until you find a clause, amdendment, and/or law in the Constitution that was in 1861, that clearly, or even remotely states that a state cannot secede, you don't have valid argument