...I just realized Lincoln was the Hitler of the 19th century.

[Quantum Windbag]

alright, so now that I am slightly briefed on Texas v White, my question is what does it say on the books is the penalty for cutting ties with washington DC? The supreme court in that case says the constitution does not allow succession (But did not cite anywhere that would show this to be true) but does not say the consequence. So, that is my question.

there is no provision for terminating the relationship among the states. it was never considered to be anything but permanent.

the penalty is what any other treasonous act would be.

The Constitution makes clear that it must explicitly say what the states are not permitted to do, and the states are not prohibited from seceding by the Constitution.

Umm, no. The Constitution makes it clear what the Congress cannot do, and reserves any right not specifically given to Congress to the States.

 

[Liberty]

I'd like to see where betty is coming from, but I haven't seen much really. And after seeing the constitutional definition of treason, I am inclined to believe succession is not an act of treason assuming the succeeding state is peaceful about it.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

there is no provision for terminating the relationship among the states. it was never considered to be anything but permanent.

the penalty is what any other treasonous act would be.

The Constitution makes clear that it must explicitly say what the states are not permitted to do, and the states are not prohibited from seceding by the Constitution.

Umm, no. The Constitution makes it clear what the Congress cannot do, and reserves any right not specifically given to Congress to the States.

The Constitution must explicitly say what the Congress can do for them to be allowed to do it, but it must explicitly say what the states cannot do for them to be prohibited from doing it.

 

[jillian]

alright, so now that I am slightly briefed on Texas v White, my question is what does it say on the books is the penalty for cutting ties with washington DC? The supreme court in that case says the constitution does not allow succession (But did not cite anywhere that would show this to be true) but does not say the consequence. So, that is my question.

there is no provision for terminating the relationship among the states. it was never considered to be anything but permanent.

the penalty is what any other treasonous act would be.

War is the penalty for treason?

FYI
Under the constitution the only way to commit treason is to go to war with the United States. Secession is not treason. Maybe you should discuss the subtleties of this with your professors, you certainly are missing out on them here.

my 'professors' are quite a number of years in my past. but thanks.

at the end of the civil war, they wanted to strip the confederate soldiers of their guns for committing treason. lincoln felt it better to allow people to go on and try to mend fences once the war ended.

but that isn't a legal issue, per se. that's an historical issue.

and i'll tell you a secret, there isn't a lot of focus on the issue because it's fairly well disposed of.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Not to mention that if we accept the Court's ruling here, and I certainly don't, then where in the world was the authority of the federal government to force Reconstruction on the southern states to gain back their representation in the federal government?

kevin, you're a good kid. but this is where i want to smack you in the back of your head....

you HAVE TO ACCEPT THE COURT'S RULING.

This is where some people get confused concerning freedom. All he has to do is live with the consequences, and accept them if he chooses to actively reject the ruling, He does not have to accept it.

 

[Dr Grump]

I've told you multiple times that I'm only posting my opinions, but you've been convinced I think I'm some sort of constitutional scholar that the Supreme Court would actually take seriously.

No. They could have actually upheld the Constitution and said Lincoln was wrong.

Let's turn it around. You say nowhere in the constitution does it say they can't secede (as you understand it). Where in the constitution does it say they can? And if that particular base isn't covered, what is the right thing to do?

I ask this question because I can see in the next 100-150 years a couple of states seceding - Arizona, New Mexico and perhaps southern California as the Hispanic population takes hold. And not to Mexico either. I think a lot of the anti-immigration crowd fail to realise that just because an American citizen has a Latino surname they somehow want to become part of Mexico. I think most do not. They see it for the corrupt shithole that it is. However, I can see them wanting to break away from the US due to cultural issues once they become the majority...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Finally, you get it....

I'm pretty sure I've understood that distinction the entire time.

that didn't come across in your posts.

can you understand it was the only possible decision the Court could have made?

Of course it was, because the political climate demanded it. Does that make it right?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I've told you multiple times that I'm only posting my opinions, but you've been convinced I think I'm some sort of constitutional scholar that the Supreme Court would actually take seriously.

No. They could have actually upheld the Constitution and said Lincoln was wrong.

Let's turn it around. You say nowhere in the constitution does it say they can't secede (as you understand it). Where in the constitution does it say they can? And if that particular base isn't covered, what is the right thing to do?

I ask this question because I can see in the next 100-150 years a couple of states seceding - Arizona, New Mexico and perhaps southern California as the Hispanic population takes hold. And not to Mexico either. I think a lot of the anti-immigration crowd fail to realise that just because an American citizen has a Latino surname they somehow want to become part of Mexico. I think most do not. They see it for the corrupt shithole that it is. However, I can see them wanting to break away from the US due to cultural issues once they become the majority...

No where does the Constitution mention secession at all. It neither affirms nor denies secession. However, the Constitution was setup so that it had to list the powers of the federal government, and the prohibitions on the states. The 10th Amendment makes this clear. This means that if something is not explicitly stated as a power of the federal government, then the federal government is not authorized to do that. If a state is not explicitly prohibited by the Constitution from doing something, then it has the authority to do that. Basically, the Constitution works in an opposite way regarding federal and state governments.

Since the Constitution does not mention secession whatsoever, the federal government is not authorized to deny secession and the states are not prohibited from seceding.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The Constitution makes clear that it must explicitly say what the states are not permitted to do, and the states are not prohibited from seceding by the Constitution.

Umm, no. The Constitution makes it clear what the Congress cannot do, and reserves any right not specifically given to Congress to the States.

The Constitution must explicitly say what the Congress can do for them to be allowed to do it, but it must explicitly say what the states cannot do for them to be prohibited from doing it.

My apologies, I misread your post. Can you simply accept that I am not perfect and go on from there?

 

[Liberty]

I've told you multiple times that I'm only posting my opinions, but you've been convinced I think I'm some sort of constitutional scholar that the Supreme Court would actually take seriously.

No. They could have actually upheld the Constitution and said Lincoln was wrong.

Let's turn it around. You say nowhere in the constitution does it say they can't secede (as you understand it). Where in the constitution does it say they can? And if that particular base isn't covered, what is the right thing to do?

I ask this question because I can see in the next 100-150 years a couple of states seceding - Arizona, New Mexico and perhaps southern California as the Hispanic population takes hold. And not to Mexico either. I think a lot of the anti-immigration crowd fail to realise that just because an American citizen has a Latino surname they somehow want to become part of Mexico. I think most do not. They see it for the corrupt shithole that it is. However, I can see them wanting to break away from the US due to cultural issues once they become the majority...

No where does the Constitution mention secession at all. It neither affirms nor denies secession. However, the Constitution was setup so that it had to list the powers of the federal government, and the prohibitions on the states. The 10th Amendment makes this clear. This means that if something is not explicitly stated as a power of the federal government, then the federal government is not authorized to do that. If a state is not explicitly prohibited by the Constitution from doing something, then it has the authority to do that. Basically, the Constitution works in an opposite way regarding federal and state governments.

Since the Constitution does not mention secession whatsoever, the federal government is not authorized to deny secession and the states are not prohibited from seceding.

That's the kind of rational, logical, point that I like. Well done, I definitely agree.

 

[JakeStarkey]

After reading the pages and pages of opining, the conclusion is simple: secession is only viable if it succeeds; if it doesn't, then one is a traitor, not a successful secessionist.

Kevin and the others certainly argue their case, and I enjoy reading their posts.

Nonetheless, AL made the right decisions, told the Old South "no", and then crushed it when the region revolted against the constitutional and electoral process. Much good came from it: (1) the union was transformed into a nation, (2) the new inventions in technology and the modern industrial revolution propelled ever increasingly the growing transformation of America from a rural agricultural society to one of the new factory cities and immigration, and (3) slavery was forever ended by December 1865.

And, needless to say, a better society evolved from the nation than could have from the union.

 

[jillian]

Let's turn it around. You say nowhere in the constitution does it say they can't secede (as you understand it). Where in the constitution does it say they can? And if that particular base isn't covered, what is the right thing to do?

I ask this question because I can see in the next 100-150 years a couple of states seceding - Arizona, New Mexico and perhaps southern California as the Hispanic population takes hold. And not to Mexico either. I think a lot of the anti-immigration crowd fail to realise that just because an American citizen has a Latino surname they somehow want to become part of Mexico. I think most do not. They see it for the corrupt shithole that it is. However, I can see them wanting to break away from the US due to cultural issues once they become the majority...

No where does the Constitution mention secession at all. It neither affirms nor denies secession. However, the Constitution was setup so that it had to list the powers of the federal government, and the prohibitions on the states. The 10th Amendment makes this clear. This means that if something is not explicitly stated as a power of the federal government, then the federal government is not authorized to do that. If a state is not explicitly prohibited by the Constitution from doing something, then it has the authority to do that. Basically, the Constitution works in an opposite way regarding federal and state governments.

Since the Constitution does not mention secession whatsoever, the federal government is not authorized to deny secession and the states are not prohibited from seceding.

That's the kind of rational, logical, point that I like. Well done, I definitely agree.

very nice... except that it's simply wrong.

the constitution does not HAVE to mention secession because it wasn't ever anticipated. what the constitution did was say that acting against the U.S. was treason and gave both the courts and congress jurisdiction over that crime.

secession is acting against the U.S.

you can try to sugar coat it but that's what it is.

 

[jillian]

The Constitution must explicitly say what the Congress can do for them to be allowed to do it, but it must explicitly say what the states cannot do for them to be prohibited from doing it.

that's untrue. and you know it is. the general welfare clause and a number of other clauses make it so.

if the states were supposed to be as powerful as you pretend they are, the articles of confederation would still be in effect.

this construct you've created simply doesn't exist in any real world.

 

[Kalam]

The Constitution must explicitly say what the Congress can do for them to be allowed to do it

We have to disagree on this point -

Article I, Section 8, Clause 18:

"The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."​

 

[xsited1]

No where does the Constitution mention secession at all. It neither affirms nor denies secession. However, the Constitution was setup so that it had to list the powers of the federal government, and the prohibitions on the states. The 10th Amendment makes this clear. This means that if something is not explicitly stated as a power of the federal government, then the federal government is not authorized to do that. If a state is not explicitly prohibited by the Constitution from doing something, then it has the authority to do that. Basically, the Constitution works in an opposite way regarding federal and state governments.

Since the Constitution does not mention secession whatsoever, the federal government is not authorized to deny secession and the states are not prohibited from seceding.

That's the kind of rational, logical, point that I like. Well done, I definitely agree.

very nice... except that it's simply wrong.

the constitution does not HAVE to mention secession because it wasn't ever anticipated. what the constitution did was say that acting against the U.S. was treason and gave both the courts and congress jurisdiction over that crime.

secession is acting against the U.S.

you can try to sugar coat it but that's what it is.

Secession is treason? That reminds me of the last paragraph of the Declaration of Independence:

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

The Founders of the United States were definitely guilty of treason.

 

[hortysir]

Great thread, Liberty.
And I'm honestly impressed with people's replies.
This discussion has turned very ugly so often.

When did you have your "Aha moment", Liberty?

Reading through this thread, and looking at the "Thanks" given, it's easy to see who has been subjected to revisionist history.

Lincoln was the same kind of Republican so many accuse Bush of being.
Instead of being, "This war is about the oil", Lincoln's war was about the tobacco, the citrus, the cotton, the agricultural riches that the south had.

Lincoln fired the first shot.

He proposed an amendment that would have made slavery legal, and up to the states, and and worded in such a way as to make it permanent. His home state of Illinois was the first state to ratify it, but the war escalated before others could sign it.

Compare the number of slaves received in to northern ports to the number received in to southern ports.

Etched in stone, at the Lincoln Memorial, is his own words that say that his primary goal was to restore the Union.

"If I could free all the slaves and preserve the Union I would do that. If I could free none of the slaves and preserve the Union I would do that. If I could free some slaves and leave others is place and save the Union, I would do that also."

With so many negative opinions about the south and our affection for the Confederate flag, it's amazing that, after almost 200 posts, no one has said anything about the one in my avatar.
Most people only recognize the much vilified "X" shaped battle flag and attack it as a symbol of racism and slave-holders. But they don't educate themselves enough to recognize a real Confederate flag.

Keep up your reading, Liberty.
There's a LOT of fascinating stuff out there.

This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it. --- Abraham Lincoln

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The Constitution must explicitly say what the Congress can do for them to be allowed to do it, but it must explicitly say what the states cannot do for them to be prohibited from doing it.

that's untrue. and you know it is. the general welfare clause and a number of other clauses make it so.

if the states were supposed to be as powerful as you pretend they are, the articles of confederation would still be in effect.

this construct you've created simply doesn't exist in any real world.

Except that they actually don't. The framers didn't say at the Constitutional Convention that the general welfare clause or the interstate commerce clause should be interpreted in such a way as to give the federal government authority to do anything it wants.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The Constitution must explicitly say what the Congress can do for them to be allowed to do it

We have to disagree on this point -

Article I, Section 8, Clause 18:

"The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."​

Yes, the laws necessary to do what they are explicitly authorized by the Constitution to do.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Where in the Constitution did the Court find the language that says the states have no right to secede?

If she actually knows about what she is talking about she will know it didn't. They just looked at the issue after the war and declared that the south was wrong.

"The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible
Union, composed of indestructible States. ... Considered, therefore, as
transactions under the Constitution, the Ordinance of Secession, adopted
by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and
all the Acts of her Legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance,
were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. ... Our
conclusion, therefore, is, that Texas continued to be a State, and a State
of the Union, notwithstanding the transactions to which we have referred."

My bold....

Take a gander at that word in red. The fact that the court could point to nothing in the constitution to support its argument is pretty clear from the fact that they had to resort to conjecture to make their case.

 

[JWBooth]

Apparently you get destroyed. That's the precedent set by the Civil War.

That is not law then I suppose, since no amendment makes succession illegal or no law was created that made it illegal? It was just some court saying it, not putting it "on the books" as law of the land?

Of course. As I said, the Court was simply trying to justify Lincoln's actions during the war.

Chase had been in the cabinet during the war, others were Lincoln appointees. Given their ties to Lincoln, their employment during the war, is there any doubt that this case was decided the way it was? A legal justification for the northern war on southern secession was needed and the SC delivered.