Irrefutable legal arguments supporting the right of secession

[JakeStarkey]

The South fired on federal property it had ceded to the feds some twenty years earlier.

The South started the war.

 

[gipper]

Okay Jake I have tried to be patient in the hopes that you could complete your task without further instruction. You have proven incapable. So, here is an example for you.

James Madison was a founding father and considered the author of the Constitution. This is his statement on secession during the 1787 constitutional convention in which a proposal was made to allow the federal government to suppress a seceding state:
"A union of the states containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a state would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound."

See how easy that was Jake. Now its your turn.

If you think Madison was saying secession is legal, then you are an idiot.

Here is the entire context. I will bold the parts you conveniently left out:

Mr. Madison, observed that the more he reflected on the use of force, the more he doubted the practicability, the justice and the efficacy of it when applied to people collectively and not individually.--, A Union of the States containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force agst. a State, would look more like a declaration of war, than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound. He hoped that such a system would be framed as might render this recourse unnecessary, and moved that the clause be postponed. This motion was agreed to nem. con.

Who is an idiot?

He clearly is stating it is not, which is why I posted it.

 

[gipper]

The South fired on federal property it had ceded to the feds some twenty years earlier.

The South started the war.

Jake post just one Founding Father who claimed secession is illegal.

 

[g5000]

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, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution;

 

[JakeStarkey]

G5000 gives the full statement, and Gibberish, who has been acting nervously all morning, flips out.

What a Founder thinks is immaterial.

What is immaterial is that the Constitution does not provide for secession.

 

[g5000]

The Constitution had to be ratified by 9 of the 13 states. Upon ratification by 9 states, all 13 were bound by it.

 

[Camp]

The South fired on federal property it had ceded to the feds some twenty years earlier.

The South started the war.

And once that happened the chances of settling the issue through legislative, judicial or executive negotiations were taken off the table and dissolved. Add the confederate army marching take positions within cannon and even rifle shot of Washington, DC and the opportunity for peace was destroyed.

 

[gipper]

G5000 gives the full statement, and Gibberish, who has been acting nervously all morning, flips out.

What a Founder thinks is immaterial.

What is immaterial is that the Constitution does not provide for secession.

Just one Founder Jakey...just one...you can do it!!!

 

[Fishlore]

There is one irrefutable argument why no state will secede in our lifetime: it would be bad for business. The legal, historical and philosophical arguments make a lot of sense but overlook the reality that ours is a capitalist economy controlled by a very small number of very wealthy people. It is they, not the democratic chatter, which controls the destiny of the USA.

The transition from Articles of Confederation to United States was driven by the interests of capital. Dixie secession, started by the capitalist (slave owning) class was trumped by the growing superior economic power of the North. This is not to say that breakup and reorganization of the USA can never happen, but it will never happen until the ruling elite is convinced that such a move would be in its self-interest

 

[JakeStarkey]

G5000 gives the full statement, and Gibberish, who has been acting nervously all morning, flips out.

What a Founder thinks is immaterial.

What is immaterial is that the Constitution does not provide for secession.

Just one Founder Jakey...just one...you can do it!!!

Not material. Keep gibbering, Gibberish, you amuse me.

 

[g5000]

Okay Jake I have tried to be patient in the hopes that you could complete your task without further instruction. You have proven incapable. So, here is an example for you.

James Madison was a founding father and considered the author of the Constitution. This is his statement on secession during the 1787 constitutional convention in which a proposal was made to allow the federal government to suppress a seceding state:
"A union of the states containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a state would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound."

See how easy that was Jake. Now its your turn.

If you think Madison was saying secession is legal, then you are an idiot.

Here is the entire context. I will bold the parts you conveniently left out:

Mr. Madison, observed that the more he reflected on the use of force, the more he doubted the practicability, the justice and the efficacy of it when applied to people collectively and not individually.--, A Union of the States containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force agst. a State, would look more like a declaration of war, than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound. He hoped that such a system would be framed as might render this recourse unnecessary, and moved that the clause be postponed. This motion was agreed to nem. con.

Who is an idiot?

He clearly is stating it is not, which is why I posted it.

He is in no way saying secession is legal. He is saying using force against a state is impractical. He also states he hoped such a system would be framed such that violence against a state would be unnecessary.

That in no way is saying secession is legal. You are a fool for interpreting it that way.

James Madison is my favorite Founder. I am very familiar with his writing and thought process.

 

[gipper]

Okay Jake I have tried to be patient in the hopes that you could complete your task without further instruction. You have proven incapable. So, here is an example for you.

James Madison was a founding father and considered the author of the Constitution. This is his statement on secession during the 1787 constitutional convention in which a proposal was made to allow the federal government to suppress a seceding state:
"A union of the states containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a state would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound."

See how easy that was Jake. Now its your turn.

If you think Madison was saying secession is legal, then you are an idiot.

Here is the entire context. I will bold the parts you conveniently left out:

Mr. Madison, observed that the more he reflected on the use of force, the more he doubted the practicability, the justice and the efficacy of it when applied to people collectively and not individually.--, A Union of the States containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force agst. a State, would look more like a declaration of war, than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound. He hoped that such a system would be framed as might render this recourse unnecessary, and moved that the clause be postponed. This motion was agreed to nem. con.

Who is an idiot?

He clearly is stating it is not, which is why I posted it.

He is in no way saying secession is legal. He is saying using force against a state is impractical. He also states he hoped such a system would be framed such that violence against a state would be unnecessary.

That in no way is saying secession is legal. You are a fool for interpreting it that way.

James Madison is my favorite Founder. I am very familiar with his writing and thought process.

WTF!

Read the thread dude.

Now Jakey...just one my boy!

 

[g5000]

Letter from James Madison to Daniel Webster:

I return my thanks for the copy of your late very powerful Speech in the Senate of the United S. It crushes "nullification" and must hasten the abandonment of "Secession."

Read the whole letter. Madison makes it very clear the Constitution has "imbodied the people of their respective States into one people, nation or sovereignty" and not "into a mere league or treaty".

Like I said, you are a fool if you think Madison was saying secession is legal.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Okay Jake I have tried to be patient in the hopes that you could complete your task without further instruction. You have proven incapable. So, here is an example for you.

James Madison was a founding father and considered the author of the Constitution. This is his statement on secession during the 1787 constitutional convention in which a proposal was made to allow the federal government to suppress a seceding state:
"A union of the states containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a state would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound."

See how easy that was Jake. Now its your turn.

If you think Madison was saying secession is legal, then you are an idiot.

Here is the entire context. I will bold the parts you conveniently left out:

Mr. Madison, observed that the more he reflected on the use of force, the more he doubted the practicability, the justice and the efficacy of it when applied to people collectively and not individually.--, A Union of the States containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force agst. a State, would look more like a declaration of war, than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound. He hoped that such a system would be framed as might render this recourse unnecessary, and moved that the clause be postponed. This motion was agreed to nem. con.

Who is an idiot?

He clearly is stating it is not, which is why I posted it.

He is in no way saying secession is legal. He is saying using force against a state is impractical. He also states he hoped such a system would be framed such that violence against a state would be unnecessary.

That in no way is saying secession is legal. You are a fool for interpreting it that way.

James Madison is my favorite Founder. I am very familiar with his writing and thought process.

WTF!

Read the thread dude.

Now Jakey...just one my boy!

G5000 is correct, and he just showed you why Madison or any other Founder's comment about secession is immaterial.

You are trolling, now. It does not matter what a Founder says, and you make it worse by misinterpreting what was written. Why would I discuss it with you?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

"Irrefutable legal arguments supporting the right of secession"

The ‘arguments’ are easily and comprehensively refuted by settled and accepted Constitutional jurisprudence – that one state may not leave the Union without the consent of the other 49 states. (Texas v. White)

Otherwise, the notion of ‘secession’ is unwarranted, inane, and completely devoid of merit.

Shove this argument.

It gets boring reading your constant appeal to SCOTUS Dicta.

Let Ginsberg hold up her blatherings in the face of a 50 caliber.

We've already established that the SCOTUS can change it's mind.

It has also been established that at one point CONGRESS wasn't sure.

It's unfortunate that they were so uneducated to start with.

Dicta means nothing here.....

It is more fundamental.

 

[g5000]

James Madison: "It crushes 'nullification' and must hasten the abandonment of 'Secession.'"

Doesn't get more clear than that. Madison neither believed nullification nor secession were legal.

And as you said, gipper, "James Madison was a founding father and considered the author of the Constitution."

Irrefutable.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Supremacy Clause explicitly forbids the states from making laws contrary to the Constitution or federal law.

The only way a state could legally secede would be to do so without running afoul of the above, lol,

which wouldn't be much of a secession.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

I'll

James Madison: "It crushes 'nullification' and must hasten the abandonment of 'Secession.'"

Doesn't get more clear than that.

And as you said, gipper, "James Madison was a founding father and considered the author of the Constitution."

He was an advocate for the union. His whole argument was based on the idea that the states needed to bind together (and I do mean bind) for protection.

Of course this would be his case and he would be correct.

You can't have states jumping in and out as they please based on whose pissed at who.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

The Supremacy Clause explicitly forbids the states from making laws contrary to the Constitution or federal law.

The only way a state could legally secede would be to do so without running afoul of the above, lol,

which wouldn't be much of a secession.

Only where federal law covers the scope of their activities......

Beyond that.....if the SCOTUS has an ounce of integrity....they should be powerless.

In this case, it has nothing to do with the Constitution, but more fundamentally why the Constitution was created to begin with.

You can't have states folding up and leaving as they please. It would be no better than the Articles Of Confederation.

 

[g5000]

Letter from James Madison to Nicholas Trist. This was written during the Nullification Crisis.

There are in one of them some interesting views of the doctrine of secession; one that had occurred to me, and which for the first time I have seen in print; namely that if one State can at will withdraw from the others, the others can at will withdraw from her, and turn her, nolentem, volentem, out of the union.

It is remarkable how closely the nullifiers who make the name of Mr. Jefferson the pedestal for their colossal heresy, shut their eyes and lips, whenever his authority is ever so clearly and emphatically against them.

Here's the best part:

It is high time that the claim to secede at will should be put down by the public opinion; and I shall be glad to see the task commenced by one who understands the subject.

You're welcome.