Sucession is a Legal Right of each State

[CrimsonWhite]

I get it now. According to the state's rightists, the states' 'right' to secede is 'implied' in the Constitution. It must be implied, because it is certainly not mentioned, although regulating admission of states, etc., is lined out detail by detail. Hmmm.

For me it's a question of material terms and consent. Look back at the time, would the States have been likely to ratify the document and consent to ceding sovereignty to a new central authority if they had been told there was no way out? I'd say that's vital to the agreement between the States and the Federal government as well as among the States themselves, and material terms cannot be implied.
An academic question, but an important one.

Upon ratifying the Constitution three states specifically reserved the right to leave the Union if they felt it became a threat to their liberty.

Show me where they specifically reserved the right to leave the union. I won't hold my breath.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

For me it's a question of material terms and consent. Look back at the time, would the States have been likely to ratify the document and consent to ceding sovereignty to a new central authority if they had been told there was no way out? I'd say that's vital to the agreement between the States and the Federal government as well as among the States themselves, and material terms cannot be implied.
An academic question, but an important one.

Upon ratifying the Constitution three states specifically reserved the right to leave the Union if they felt it became a threat to their liberty.

Show me where they specifically reserved the right to leave the union. I won't hold my breath.

"WE the Delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly, and now met in Convention, having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention, and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us, to decide thereon, DO in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression...."

Virginia's Ratification - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Upon ratifying the Constitution three states specifically reserved the right to leave the Union if they felt it became a threat to their liberty.

Show me where they specifically reserved the right to leave the union. I won't hold my breath.

"WE the Delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly, and now met in Convention, having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention, and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us, to decide thereon, DO in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression...."

Virginia's Ratification - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

You are gonna have to do better than that junior. That merely states that the delegates understand the proceedings and accept the power of the federal government. It says nothing of the right to secession, but I'm really going to enjoy watching you try to spin it though.

Furthermore, what makes a declaration of ratification constitutionally valid?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Show me where they specifically reserved the right to leave the union. I won't hold my breath.

"WE the Delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly, and now met in Convention, having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention, and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us, to decide thereon, DO in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression...."

Virginia's Ratification - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

You are gonna have to do better than that junior. That merely states that the delegates understand the proceedings and accept the power of the federal government. It says nothing of the right to secession, but I'm really going to enjoy watching you try to spin it though.

Furthermore, what makes a declaration of ratification constitutionally valid?

Can you not read? It plainly states that they reserve the right to take back the power they gave to the federal government if the government becomes destructive towards their liberty. No need to spin anything, as it's plain in the text for all to see.

The fact that nobody questioned them, or New York or Rhode Island, in making this statement, meaning that all others believed in a voluntary Union made up of free and independent states. You can't have a contract and then have one side change the meaning of the contract in their favor after it's already signed, and you can't change the agreement that was the Constitution after it's already been ratified.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

"WE the Delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly, and now met in Convention, having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention, and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us, to decide thereon, DO in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression...."

Virginia's Ratification - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

You are gonna have to do better than that junior. That merely states that the delegates understand the proceedings and accept the power of the federal government. It says nothing of the right to secession, but I'm really going to enjoy watching you try to spin it though.

Furthermore, what makes a declaration of ratification constitutionally valid?

Can you not read? It plainly states that they reserve the right to take back the power they gave to the federal government if the government becomes destructive towards their liberty. No need to spin anything, as it's plain in the text for all to see.

The fact that nobody questioned them, or New York or Rhode Island, in making this statement, meaning that all others believed in a voluntary Union made up of free and independent states. You can't have a contract and then have one side change the meaning of the contract in their favor after it's already signed, and you can't change the agreement that was the Constitution after it's already been ratified.

Actually, it doesn't say that at all and you saying it does does not make it so. I can read it. The problem is that you cannot interpret it. And the fact that nobody questioned its meaning does not make it binding. USSC gets to decide what is binding. I can show where that is specifically written in the constitution, if you want.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You are gonna have to do better than that junior. That merely states that the delegates understand the proceedings and accept the power of the federal government. It says nothing of the right to secession, but I'm really going to enjoy watching you try to spin it though.

Furthermore, what makes a declaration of ratification constitutionally valid?

Can you not read? It plainly states that they reserve the right to take back the power they gave to the federal government if the government becomes destructive towards their liberty. No need to spin anything, as it's plain in the text for all to see.

The fact that nobody questioned them, or New York or Rhode Island, in making this statement, meaning that all others believed in a voluntary Union made up of free and independent states. You can't have a contract and then have one side change the meaning of the contract in their favor after it's already signed, and you can't change the agreement that was the Constitution after it's already been ratified.

Actually, it doesn't say that at all and you saying it does does not make it so. I can read it. The problem is that you cannot interpret it. And the fact that nobody questioned its meaning does not make it binding. USSC gets to decide what is binding. I can show where that is specifically written in the constitution, if you want.

Well we could go through that argument again, but what's the point? We won't change each other's minds and you'll accuse me of being obstinate and nothing will have been proven. As for what it says, I believe:

"the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression."

Is very clear.

 

[Charles Stucker]

I don't think so Tim. I think there might have been a High Court ruling in 1869 that covered this. See, Texas v. White. Oh yeah, you don't recognize the High Court's Constitutional authority. Never mind.

Actually the court ruled that "What the PEOPLE have Joined the state[legislature] cannot dissolve"
The states which seceded in the Civil war did so by motions in the state legislatures. All of them. The court ruled the secession never truly existed because the right to secede did not lie with the state legislatures. By denying the right to the States, they highlight secession AS a right. As the 10th amendment makes clear the People then have that right. That right, to secede, is necessary to prevent a properly placed group from voiding the rights of all the other citizens of the US by outvoting those 'minorities'

 

[indianaboy]

USSC gets to decide what is binding. I can show where that is specifically written in the constitution, if you want.

No, you can't. Judicial review is found nowhere in our Constitution.

 

[MaggieMae]

Yet the Supreme Court's decision was obviously not based on the Constitution, as I and others have shown in this thread.

It doesn't matter. Because of the blanket authority given to the Supreme Court, the Constitution is what the judges say it is. (We've argued this point before.)

"We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final."
~~ Justice Robert H. Jackson

So, it is ok with you if the SCOTUS creates new law out of thin air? We should just shut our face and know our place?

The inherent power of the USSC has been debated for decades, nay, a couple of centuries by lawers and scholars. It would take a Constitutional Amendment to redefine its blanket power. And then, if such an amendment were adopted, it wouldn't be long before someone challenged it and...brought the case before the USSC to decide. Catch-22.

 

[MaggieMae]

It doesn't matter. Because of the blanket authority given to the Supreme Court, the Constitution is what the judges say it is. (We've argued this point before.)

So you would not be upset if the Supreme Court ruled that you have no Bill of Rights? That you have no right to property, liberty, or anything else? That you are in fact now a chattel slave to the Federal Government?
Reductio ad Absurdum

I didn't offer an OPINION one way or the other. I just presented the facts as they stand. It is what it is. But realistically, the SC wouldn't be apt to take on those responsibilities you list in any event. Are you daft?

 

[MaggieMae]

Yet the Supreme Court's decision was obviously not based on the Constitution, as I and others have shown in this thread.

It doesn't matter. Because of the blanket authority given to the Supreme Court, the Constitution is what the judges say it is. (We've argued this point before.)

"We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final."
~~ Justice Robert H. Jackson

To a point, Maggie. The decisions have to be based in something concrete. Otherwise, the Court is creating a fiction in order to support a desired outcome it couldn't reach legitimately.
Have you read White and the cases it cites as authority, specifically Luther in the lynchpin Article 4 argument? The White decision is one of those fictions, necessary in 1869 to justify the Union's actions. If the outcome hadn't been based on smoke, mirrors, and an incredibly broad reading of an early decision, I would be more sympathetic.
The Supremies said it, so it's law, but that doesn't make it right or put words in the document that aren't there.

I don't think it makes it right either, but White has never been challenged since. If Texas or Vermont does start secession proceedings, we probably will see a vastly different tone as to just how far the USSC can exert its blind power (legitimately).

That said, I still have to turn to the primary purpose of the Constitution itself, which was to create the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. I don't think the framers thought that some states would threaten secession simply because they didn't like the political landscape of the day.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

It doesn't matter. Because of the blanket authority given to the Supreme Court, the Constitution is what the judges say it is. (We've argued this point before.)

"We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final."
~~ Justice Robert H. Jackson

To a point, Maggie. The decisions have to be based in something concrete. Otherwise, the Court is creating a fiction in order to support a desired outcome it couldn't reach legitimately.
Have you read White and the cases it cites as authority, specifically Luther in the lynchpin Article 4 argument? The White decision is one of those fictions, necessary in 1869 to justify the Union's actions. If the outcome hadn't been based on smoke, mirrors, and an incredibly broad reading of an early decision, I would be more sympathetic.
The Supremies said it, so it's law, but that doesn't make it right or put words in the document that aren't there.

I don't think it makes it right either, but White has never been challenged since. If Texas or Vermont does start secession proceedings, we probably will see a vastly different tone as to just how far the USSC can exert its blind power (legitimately).

That said, I still have to turn to the primary purpose of the Constitution itself, which was to create the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. I don't think the framers thought that some states would threaten secession simply because they didn't like the political landscape of the day.

“The indissoluble link of union between the people of the several states of this confederated nation is, after all, not in the right but in the heart. If the day should come (may Heaven avert it!) when the affections of the people of these States shall be alienated from each other; when the fraternal spirit shall give way to cold indifference, or collision of interests shall fester into hatred, the bands of political associations will not long hold together parties no longer attracted by the magnetism of conciliated interests or kindly sympathies; and far better will it be for the people of the disunited states to part in friendship from each other, than to be held together by constraint.” – John Quincy Adams

“The future inhabitants of the Atlantic & Mississippi States will be our sons. We leave them in distinct but bordering establishments. We think we see their happiness in their union, & we wish it. Events may prove it otherwise; and if they see their interest in separation, why should we take side with our Atlantic rather than our Mississippi descendants? It is the elder and the younger son differing. God bless them both, & keep them in union, if it be for their good, but separate them, if it be better.” – Thomas Jefferson

 

[MaggieMae]

I get it now. According to the state's rightists, the states' 'right' to secede is 'implied' in the Constitution. It must be implied, because it is certainly not mentioned, although regulating admission of states, etc., is lined out detail by detail. Hmmm.

For me it's a question of material terms and consent. Look back at the time, would the States have been likely to ratify the document and consent to ceding sovereignty to a new central authority if they had been told there was no way out? I'd say that's vital to the agreement between the States and the Federal government as well as among the States themselves, and material terms cannot be implied.
An academic question, but an important one.

I think that's undoubtedly why so many states didn't join the Union for several years after the Constitution became effective (1789). Texas, as long as we're talking about it, didn't join until 1845; it then seceded in 1861 to join the Confederacy, but after the war took the reentry issue to its citizens for a vote, and in 1869 was readmitted to the Union. I'm sure there was much debate over whether Texas should retain its independence.

 

[MaggieMae]

"WE the Delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly, and now met in Convention, having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention, and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us, to decide thereon, DO in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression...."

Virginia's Ratification - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

You are gonna have to do better than that junior. That merely states that the delegates understand the proceedings and accept the power of the federal government. It says nothing of the right to secession, but I'm really going to enjoy watching you try to spin it though.

Furthermore, what makes a declaration of ratification constitutionally valid?

Can you not read? It plainly states that they reserve the right to take back the power they gave to the federal government if the government becomes destructive towards their liberty. No need to spin anything, as it's plain in the text for all to see.

The fact that nobody questioned them, or New York or Rhode Island, in making this statement, meaning that all others believed in a voluntary Union made up of free and independent states. You can't have a contract and then have one side change the meaning of the contract in their favor after it's already signed, and you can't change the agreement that was the Constitution after it's already been ratified.

Was Virginia's resolution attached and made a part of the Constitution? Did the framers also sign the resolution? If not, it isn't a valid contract--just a position statement.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You are gonna have to do better than that junior. That merely states that the delegates understand the proceedings and accept the power of the federal government. It says nothing of the right to secession, but I'm really going to enjoy watching you try to spin it though.

Furthermore, what makes a declaration of ratification constitutionally valid?

Can you not read? It plainly states that they reserve the right to take back the power they gave to the federal government if the government becomes destructive towards their liberty. No need to spin anything, as it's plain in the text for all to see.

The fact that nobody questioned them, or New York or Rhode Island, in making this statement, meaning that all others believed in a voluntary Union made up of free and independent states. You can't have a contract and then have one side change the meaning of the contract in their favor after it's already signed, and you can't change the agreement that was the Constitution after it's already been ratified.

Was Virginia's resolution attached and made a part of the Constitution? Did the framers also sign the resolution? If not, it isn't a valid contract--just a position statement.

Their right to withdraw from the Union was a condition of their consenting to ratifying the Constitution, without which they may not have ratified the document. As I said before, you can't change the agreement after it's already ratified.

 

[MaggieMae]

Can you not read? It plainly states that they reserve the right to take back the power they gave to the federal government if the government becomes destructive towards their liberty. No need to spin anything, as it's plain in the text for all to see.

The fact that nobody questioned them, or New York or Rhode Island, in making this statement, meaning that all others believed in a voluntary Union made up of free and independent states. You can't have a contract and then have one side change the meaning of the contract in their favor after it's already signed, and you can't change the agreement that was the Constitution after it's already been ratified.

Actually, it doesn't say that at all and you saying it does does not make it so. I can read it. The problem is that you cannot interpret it. And the fact that nobody questioned its meaning does not make it binding. USSC gets to decide what is binding. I can show where that is specifically written in the constitution, if you want.

Well we could go through that argument again, but what's the point? We won't change each other's minds and you'll accuse me of being obstinate and nothing will have been proven. As for what it says, I believe:

"the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression."

Is very clear.

I do understand your position, Kevin, but I think what you're missing is that the Supreme Court holds the power to apply that provision on a case-by-case basis based on the merits. The Supreme Court is God. Yes, it's an arbitrary power, but the Constitution is merely a piece of paper over which someone or something had to oversee. It's not as though we can go to the framers and say "What did you mean by that?"

 

[MaggieMae]

USSC gets to decide what is binding. I can show where that is specifically written in the constitution, if you want.

No, you can't. Judicial review is found nowhere in our Constitution.

No, not in those words. But here again, it was the SUPREME COURT who interpreted Article III as giving them the additional power to declare acts of the president or Congress unconstitutional. That power has come to be known as "judicial review."

 

[MaggieMae]

To a point, Maggie. The decisions have to be based in something concrete. Otherwise, the Court is creating a fiction in order to support a desired outcome it couldn't reach legitimately.
Have you read White and the cases it cites as authority, specifically Luther in the lynchpin Article 4 argument? The White decision is one of those fictions, necessary in 1869 to justify the Union's actions. If the outcome hadn't been based on smoke, mirrors, and an incredibly broad reading of an early decision, I would be more sympathetic.
The Supremies said it, so it's law, but that doesn't make it right or put words in the document that aren't there.

I don't think it makes it right either, but White has never been challenged since. If Texas or Vermont does start secession proceedings, we probably will see a vastly different tone as to just how far the USSC can exert its blind power (legitimately).

That said, I still have to turn to the primary purpose of the Constitution itself, which was to create the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. I don't think the framers thought that some states would threaten secession simply because they didn't like the political landscape of the day.

“The indissoluble link of union between the people of the several states of this confederated nation is, after all, not in the right but in the heart. If the day should come (may Heaven avert it!) when the affections of the people of these States shall be alienated from each other; when the fraternal spirit shall give way to cold indifference, or collision of interests shall fester into hatred, the bands of political associations will not long hold together parties no longer attracted by the magnetism of conciliated interests or kindly sympathies; and far better will it be for the people of the disunited states to part in friendship from each other, than to be held together by constraint.” – John Quincy Adams

“The future inhabitants of the Atlantic & Mississippi States will be our sons. We leave them in distinct but bordering establishments. We think we see their happiness in their union, & we wish it. Events may prove it otherwise; and if they see their interest in separation, why should we take side with our Atlantic rather than our Mississippi descendants? It is the elder and the younger son differing. God bless them both, & keep them in union, if it be for their good, but separate them, if it be better.” – Thomas Jefferson

Well...it's hard to know exactly what was on their minds at the time. I still say neither Adams nor Jefferson would enjoy seeing another American Revolution, not against a foreign power, but among its own people.

 

[lawbuff]

Judicial review is here:

Article 3:

Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority.

 

[MaggieMae]

Judicial review is here:

Article 3:

Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority.

Yup. The God clause.