US Constitution

[LOki]

A power to do something does not have to be directly stated in the constitution.

Powers are granted by The People, powers are enumerated, limited to such enumeration, and contingent upon granting through enumeration.

Rights are not.

The 10th Amendment states:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The Constitution, in 1861, did not specifically deny or prohibit secession. Therfore, "powers not delegated to the U.S. by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

It doesn't have to--if the power is not granted by The People, the government, even a State government, does not have the power.

"The People" (also to whom powers not delegate are reserved) of the United States of America, represented in Congress by their respective elected Representatives and Senators, and represented by their elected President, did not sanction any dissolution of the Union, or any secession of any of the States.

We've got an "either/or" situation going on here. In this case, the people that made up that state, felt the right to seceed, according to the Constitution, which does not prohibit secession. Going through majority northern Congress would have not done them any good.

They were also part of "the People" of the Union of which they have a mutually agreed upon responsibility and obligations. There is no provision in the Constitution for unilateral secession from the Union.

The law doesn't state that I can clip my toe-nails by my bed, does that mean I can't do it? A power given to the states does not have to be directly given to them by the Fed. Gov. This is the purpose of the 10th Amendment, part of the Bill of Rights.

Rights are different from powers. The government is not empowered to limit rights by enumeration--see the 9th. The People have rights (not subject to limitiation by enumeration), and they grant powers (subject to limitiation by enumeration) to the Government.

Powers are granted by The People, the powers are enumerated, limited to such enumeration, and contingent upon granting through enumeration. There is no provision in the Constitution for unilateral secession from the Union. "The People" of the United States of America, represented in Congress by their respective elected Representatives and Senators, and represented by their elected President, did not sanction any dissolution of the Union, or any secession of any of the States.

 

[BrianH]

Powers are granted by The People, powers are enumerated, limited to such enumeration, and contingent upon granting through enumeration.

Rights are not.



It doesn't have to--if the power is not granted by The People, the government, even a State government, does not have the power.

"The People" (also to whom powers not delegate are reserved) of the United States of America, represented in Congress by their respective elected Representatives and Senators, and represented by their elected President, did not sanction any dissolution of the Union, or any secession of any of the States.



They were also part of "the People" of the Union of which they have a mutually agreed upon responsibility and obligations. There is no provision in the Constitution for unilateral secession from the Union.



Rights are different from powers. The government is not empowered to limit rights by enumeration--see the 9th. The People have rights (not subject to limitiation by enumeration), and they grant powers (subject to limitiation by enumeration) to the Government.

Powers are granted by The People, the powers are enumerated, limited to such enumeration, and contingent upon granting through enumeration. There is no provision in the Constitution for unilateral secession from the Union. "The People" of the United States of America, represented in Congress by their respective elected Representatives and Senators, and represented by their elected President, did not sanction any dissolution of the Union, or any secession of any of the States.

Are you suggesting, by any means, that the people of the South did not majorily want to secede??? Or that the majority of the people in the Southern state governments did not want to secede?

Last I checked anyway, the people don't have much say in what the powerful people do. The COnstitution does not prohibit secession. It's as simple as that. Secession is a power than can be exercised, therfore, powers not prohibted by the Constitution are reserved for the states. That is a direct law from the Constitution, and there is no other that prohibits it. You can't take an implied meaning from some other amendment and just assume that this is what it's talking about. This is a direct amendment regarding state's rights and powers granted to the state. This is why each state can seek the death penalty if they want, or each state can vote however they want, and each state can do what they want with education...up until recently anyway, now they have to follow guidelines. But secession is a power that is not prohibited in the Constitution. And because it's not prohibited, it is reserved for the states.

 

[ReillyT]

Are you suggesting, by any means, that the people of the South did not majorily want to secede??? Or that the majority of the people in the Southern state governments did not want to secede?

Last I checked anyway, the people don't have much say in what the powerful people do. The COnstitution does not prohibit secession. It's as simple as that. Secession is a power than can be exercised, therfore, powers not prohibted by the Constitution are reserved for the states. That is a direct law from the Constitution, and there is no other that prohibits it. You can't take an implied meaning from some other amendment and just assume that this is what it's talking about. This is a direct amendment regarding state's rights and powers granted to the state. This is why each state can seek the death penalty if they want, or each state can vote however they want, and each state can do what they want with education...up until recently anyway, now they have to follow guidelines. But secession is a power that is not prohibited in the Constitution. And because it's not prohibited, it is reserved for the states.

Do you favor strict interpretation of the wording of the Constitution, or do you believe that intent of the writers of any Constitutional provision should also be considered? If the latter, how do you weigh those two (in the sense that if the intent can probably be discerned, but not with complete certainty, how does that compare to the force of the actual language)?

 

[BrianH]

Do you favor strict interpretation of the wording of the Constitution, or do you believe that intent of the writers of any Constitutional provision should also be considered? If the latter, how do you weigh those two (in the sense that if the intent can probably be discerned, but not with complete certainty, how does that compare to the force of the actual language)?

I believe that the Founding Fathers knew good and well what it felt like to belong to a state/colony that was forced into being a member of another Nation. The Founding Fathers felt like they weren't being represented in the British Government, therfore policies being passed in England were negatively affecting the Colonies. I believe the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution with the belief that no state should be (absolutely) tied into something from which they could never escape without war. They had to fight a war to become independent because the King would not recognize them. They felt tied to a place that didn't represent their views. I believe the Founding Fathers knew that if they were to require that a state leave the Union, then it would cause problems, as it did. A war. I wonder if a state or two had seceeded say in 1815 when the FF were still around, what would have been said.

The South was the same way, they felt misrpresented in a Congress of majority northerners. They were being chastized for slavery when in fact slavery was legal, even in the North. They felt the same way that the colonies did upon declaring independence from GB. And the same way the Texans felt when seceding from Mexico.

 

[ReillyT]

I believe that the Founding Fathers knew good and well what it felt like to belong to a state/colony that was forced into being a member of another Nation. The Founding Fathers felt like they weren't being represented in the British Government, therfore policies being passed in England were negatively affecting the Colonies. I believe the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution with the belief that no state should be (absolutely) tied into something from which they could never escape without war. They had to fight a war to become independent because the King would not recognize them. They felt tied to a place that didn't represent their views. I believe the Founding Fathers knew that if they were to require that a state leave the Union, then it would cause problems, as it did. A war. I wonder if a state or two had seceeded say in 1815 when the FF were still around, what would have been said.

The South was the same way, they felt misrpresented in a Congress of majority northerners. They were being chastized for slavery when in fact slavery was legal, even in the North. They felt the same way that the colonies did upon declaring independence from GB. And the same way the Texans felt when seceding from Mexico.

I only ask because it might be possible to discern what the founding fathers intended in this respect. Constitutional scholarship is pretty well developed at this point. If records from the Constitution or writings of the founding fathers indicated that they never intended to provide a power to secede (and other than the Federalist Papers, I don't know if such a topic was addressed), might that change your mind?

I think the Federalist Papers might speak to this issue. However, if one believed in sticking to the words of the Constitution first and foremost, peripheral writings of the founders might not matter. It would depend on where you stand with respect to statutory interpretation.

 

[ReillyT]

I believe that the Founding Fathers knew good and well what it felt like to belong to a state/colony that was forced into being a member of another Nation. The Founding Fathers felt like they weren't being represented in the British Government, therfore policies being passed in England were negatively affecting the Colonies.

All this is true, but that is the reason that they provided for a federal government with enshrined state's rights in the first place. Perhaps they thought that this was the protection that was denied them with the British, and that they had adequately covered the bases with the remaining provisions of the Constitution. Perhaps.

 

[LOki]

Are you suggesting, by any means, that the people of the South did not majorily want to secede??? Or that the majority of the people in the Southern state governments did not want to secede?

No. Nor am I making the suggestion (that you are clearly making) that the people of the south or their southern state governments had no legally binding obligations to the Union.

Last I checked anyway, the people don't have much say in what the powerful people do. The COnstitution does not prohibit secession.

There's no provision in the Constitution for unilateral secession from the Union. "The People" of the United States of America, represented in Congress by their respective elected Representatives and Senators, and represented by their elected President, did not sanction any dissolution of the Union, or any secession of any of the States.

It's as simple as that.

"The People" of the United States of America, represented in Congress by their respective elected Representatives and Senators, and represented by their elected President, did not sanction any dissolution of the Union, or any secession of any of the States.

It's as simple as that.

Secession is a power than can be exercised, therfore, powers not prohibted by the Constitution are reserved for the states.

Unilateral secession of a state was not a power granted by The People.

That is a direct law from the Constitution, and there is no other that prohibits it.

Except that unilateral secession of a state was not a power granted by The People.

You can't take an implied meaning from some other amendment and just assume that this is what it's talking about.

Right. There's no provision in the Constitution for unilateral secession from the Union.

This is a direct amendment regarding state's rights and powers granted to the state.

Right. And "The People" of the United States of America, represented in Congress by their respective elected Representatives and Senators, and represented by their elected President, did not sanction any dissolution of the Union, or any secession of any of the States.

This is why each state can seek the death penalty if they want, or each state can vote however they want, and each state can do what they want with education...up until recently anyway, now they have to follow guidelines.

Yes. Excercise of those powers you mention does not infringe upon the other States, or the Union--secession does, and "The People" of the United States of America, represented in Congress by their respective elected Representatives and Senators, and represented by their elected President, did not sanction any dissolution of the Union, or any secession of any of the States.

But secession is a power that is not prohibited in the Constitution. And because it's not prohibited, it is reserved for the states.

Unilateral secession of a state was not a power granted by The People. There's no provision in the Constitution for unilateral secession from the Union. "The People" of the United States of America, represented in Congress by their respective elected Representatives and Senators, and represented by their elected President, did not sanction any dissolution of the Union, or any secession of any of the States.

 

[BrianH]

No. Nor am I making the suggestion (that you are clearly making) that the people of the south or their southern state governments had no legally binding obligations to the Union.



There's no provision in the Constitution for unilateral secession from the Union. "The People" of the United States of America, represented in Congress by their respective elected Representatives and Senators, and represented by their elected President, did not sanction any dissolution of the Union, or any secession of any of the States.



"The People" of the United States of America, represented in Congress by their respective elected Representatives and Senators, and represented by their elected President, did not sanction any dissolution of the Union, or any secession of any of the States.

It's as simple as that.



Unilateral secession of a state was not a power granted by The People.



Except that unilateral secession of a state was not a power granted by The People.



Right. There's no provision in the Constitution for unilateral secession from the Union.



Right. And "The People" of the United States of America, represented in Congress by their respective elected Representatives and Senators, and represented by their elected President, did not sanction any dissolution of the Union, or any secession of any of the States.



Yes. Excercise of those powers you mention does not infringe upon the other States, or the Union--secession does, and "The People" of the United States of America, represented in Congress by their respective elected Representatives and Senators, and represented by their elected President, did not sanction any dissolution of the Union, or any secession of any of the States.



Unilateral secession of a state was not a power granted by The People. There's no provision in the Constitution for unilateral secession from the Union. "The People" of the United States of America, represented in Congress by their respective elected Representatives and Senators, and represented by their elected President, did not sanction any dissolution of the Union, or any secession of any of the States.

I've stated my point, while you've stated the same clause over and over again without providing any real knowledge of it, while expecting me to see something that you obviously do see. State what you're point is, instead of posting the same thing over again. A two-year old could argue in this manner.

THE PEOPLE, MAKE UP THE STATE. The state government's, with the support of THE PEOPLE, SECEDED. Unilateral secession was also not a power prohibited by the Constitution. Powers not prohibted by the COnstitution are reserved to the states. And since it was the state governments that seceded, then it was their power, as not prohibted in the Constitution.

 

[M14 Shooter]

prohibited by the Constitution. Powers not prohibted by the COnstitution are reserved to the states. And since it was the state governments that seceded, then it was their power, as not prohibted in the Constitution.

It really is -that- simple.
The only way to attack that argument is to create, and then jump thru, a huge number of hoops -- lending extraordinary insight into the validity of those arguments.

 

[BrianH]

It really is -that- simple.
The only way to attack that argument is to create, and then jump thru, a huge number of hoops -- lending extraordinary insight into the validity of those arguments.

You're exactly right. People are debating a clear-cut Amendment designed for this very purpose with implied meanings of other Amendments that apply to other things.

 

[LOki]

I've stated my point, while you've stated the same clause over and over again without providing any real knowledge of it, while expecting me to see something that you obviously do see.

Your point is, "Read Amendment 10 and try to find somewhere in the Constitution that prohibits secession, and you can say that you've won your simplistic argument.", that "[Your] whole argument was that the states seceding was legal based on the Constitution. You know what the 10th Amendment says...and there is not other mention or prohibition of secession in the rest of the Constitution."

My response is that the Tenth Amendment does not confer the power to secede; that there's no provision in the Constitution for unilateral secession from the Union. "The People" (also to whom powers not delegate are reserved) of the United States of America, represented in Congress by their respective elected Representatives and Senators, and represented by their elected President, did not sanction any dissolution of the Union, or any secession of any of the States.

A point that you responded to, OVER AND OVER AGAIN with a return to the 10th.

I pointed out to you that Powers are granted by The People, powers are enumerated, limited to such enumeration, and contingent upon granting through enumeration.

A point that you responded to, OVER AND OVER AGAIN with a return to the 10th, as if a power, by virtue of not being prohibited to the States by the Constitution GRANTS it to the States--as if baby cannibalism (not prohibited by the Constitution) is a power granted to the states because it is not specifically prohibited by the Constitution.

Let me be as clear as possible--secession NOR baby cannibalism are powers granted to the States by virtue of not being specifically prohibed to them by the Constitution. Period.

Powers are granted by The People, powers are enumerated, limited to such enumeration, and contingent upon granting through enumeration. "The People" of the United States of America, represented in Congress by their respective elected Representatives and Senators, and represented by their elected President, did not sanction any dissolution of the Union, or any secession of any of the States or baby cannibalism.

There is no 10th Amendment argument, because failing to prohibit a power to the states; placing a power (by virtue of not being prohibited) in reserve to the States, IS NOT GRANTING THAT POWER TO THE STATES.

State what you're point is, instead of posting the same thing over again. A two-year old could argue in this manner.

My point has been stated--clearly. As long as you repeat the assertion I responded to as a counter-response, I will repeat my response.

THE PEOPLE, MAKE UP THE STATE. The state government's, with the support of THE PEOPLE, SECEDED.

All the people, or just the one's that wanted to secede? I mean really now, I imagine that even baby cannibalism can be a power granted to a State if only baby cannibals are enfranchised as "The People" when granting powers.

The governments of the South were a part of a Union that they had responsibilities and obligations to. They were not empowered by The People to simply, and unilaterally reneg on those responsibilities and obligations. The South was not epowered by The People to reconfigure the Union as it saw fit, all on it own.

"The People" of the United States of America, represented in Congress by their respective elected Representatives and Senators, and represented by their elected President, did not sanction any dissolution of the Union, or any secession of any of the States

Unilateral secession was also not a power prohibited by the Constitution.

"The People" of the United States of America, represented in Congress by their respective elected Representatives and Senators, and represented by their elected President, did not sanction any dissolution of the Union, or any secession of any of the States.

Unilateral secession not a power granted by The People.

Powers not prohibted by the COnstitution are reserved to the states.

Reserved, NOT granted by the people, and "The People" of the United States of America, represented in Congress by their respective elected Representatives and Senators, and represented by their elected President, did not sanction any dissolution of the Union, or any secession of any of the States.

And since it was the state governments that seceded, then it was their power, as not prohibted in the Constitution.

You put the cart before the horse--the State did not have the power to secede, that power was not granted by The People, who are represented in Congress by their respective elected Representatives and Senators, and represented by their elected President. The States that seceded, without being granted that power by The People, did so in violation of their pledge, resposnibilities and obligations to the Union.

 

[BrianH]

If you want to go that route, then the states can have no power at all because the 10th doesn't tell them they can. Look up the basis behind the 10th Amendment and you will find that it's main idea, is "powers granted to the states."

The Constitution DOES NOT have to specifically grant a power to a state for a state to use a particular power. The Constitution DOES NOT have to directly grant a power. That's why the 10th Amendment exists, if the 10th Amendment did not exist, then your logic would be fine, because then no one could do anything without the consent of Congress or the Constitution.

This is not the case, powers that are no prohibited by the Constitution, nor delegated to the Fed. Gov. are reserved to the states respectively. It doesn't get any more clear-cut than that. If you fail to see it's importance, then I'm sorry, but the PEOPLE make up the state. It was popular consent of the Southern states to secede (They were not prohibted by the Constitution.)

The Constitution did not forbid people to drink alcohol until an amendment was passed that prohibited it. Once an amendment was passed that abolished the prohibition of it, each state can have it's own manufacturors and do what it wants with alcohol. The Constitution doesn't grant the right for a city to remain dry and not serve alcohol, but they can do it, because the Constitution does not forbid it.

 

[LOki]

If you want to go that route, then the states can have no power at all because the 10th doesn't tell them they can.

This is the most <a href="http://www.fallacyfiles.org/strawman.html">obtuse point evasion tactic</a> ever. I didn't say the 10th prevented States from execising any powers; I pointed out to you that Powers are granted by The People, powers are enumerated, limited to such enumeration, and contingent upon granting through enumeration. Yet, in your obtusely point avoiding way (and purely accidental, I'm sure), you make a point--the States <i><b>CAN</b></i> have no powers if some powers are prohibited by (other parts of) the Constitution, and all others powers are not granted to them by The People.

"The People" of the United States of America, represented in Congress by their respective elected Representatives and Senators, and represented by their elected President, did not sanction any dissolution of the Union, or any secession of any of the States.

The Southern States were not empowered by The People to unilaterally alter, or otherwise dictate the compostion of the Union.

Unilateral secession of a state was not a power granted by The People.

Look up the basis behind the 10th Amendment and you will find that it's main idea, is "powers granted to the states."

Let's do just that:<blockquote><i>"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved <b>(n.b. not granted, just reserved)</b> to the States respectively, or to the people.</i></blockquote>Unilateral secession of a state was not a power granted by The People.

"The People" of the United States of America, represented in Congress by their respective elected Representatives and Senators, and represented by their elected President, did not sanction any dissolution of the Union, or any secession of any of the States.

The Southern States were not empowered to unilaterally alter, or otherwise dictate the compostion of the Union.

The Constitution DOES NOT have to specifically grant a power to a state for a state to use a particular power.

As if a power, by virtue of not being prohibited to the States by the Constitution GRANTS it to the States--as if baby cannibalism (also not prohibited by the Constitution) is a power granted to the states because it is not specifically prohibited by the Constitution.

I didn't say that the Constitution has to specifically grant a power for a state for a state to use a particular power; I said that Powers are granted by The People, powers are enumerated, limited to such enumeration, and contingent upon granting through enumeration. Yet, in your obtusely point avoiding way(and purely accidental, I'm sure), you make a point--if The People, do not grant the States a particular power (or allow a State to excersize a power), by refusing to put it to legislative action, passage, and ratification by the rules of the Constitution, then the States <i><b>CANNOT</b></i> excercise that power that was not granted to them by The People.

Unilateral secession of a state was not a power granted by The People.

"The People" of the United States of America, represented in Congress by their respective elected Representatives and Senators, and represented by their elected President, did not sanction any dissolution of the Union, or any secession of any of the States.

The Constitution DOES NOT have to directly grant a power.

Right, but The People do; and "The People" of the United States of America, represented in Congress by their respective elected Representatives and Senators, and represented by their elected President, did not sanction any dissolution of the Union, or any secession of any of the States.

Unilateral secession of a state was not a power granted by The People.

That's why the 10th Amendment exists, if the 10th Amendment did not exist, then your logic would be fine, because then no one could do anything without the consent of Congress or the Constitution.

My logic is fine, yours demands that States can constitutionally excercise ANY POWER WHAT-SO-EVER (including baby cannibalism and secession) even if that power is not granted by The People--provided of course, it is not already prohibited by the Constitution.

This is not the case, powers that are no prohibited by the Constitution, nor delegated to the Fed. Gov. are reserved to the states respectively. It doesn't get any more clear-cut than that.

It's clear that you can cut and paste from the 10th Amendment, but can you understand what you cut and paste?<blockquote><i>"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved <b>(n.b. not granted, just reserved)</b> to the States respectively, or to the people.</i></blockquote>There's no provision in the Constitution for unilateral secession from the Union.

Unilateral secession of a state was not a power granted by The People.

"The People" of the United States of America, represented in Congress by their respective elected Representatives and Senators, and represented by their elected President, did not sanction any dissolution of the Union, or any secession of any of the States.

Not prohibiting a power to the states, and placing a power (by virtue of not being prohibited) in reserve to the States, IS NOT GRANTING THAT POWER TO THE STATES.

The Southern States were not empowered by The People to alter, or otherwise dictate the compostion of the Union on their own--it's as simple as that.

If you fail to see it's importance, then I'm sorry, but the PEOPLE make up the state. It was popular consent of the Southern states to secede (They were not prohibted by the Constitution.)

Even baby cannibalism can be a power granted to a State if only baby cannibals are enfranchised as "The People" when granting powers.

The People of the South were not and, are not, the entire set of people who are "The People." The People of the South were not, and are not, empowered to alter or otherwise dictate the compostion of the Union on their own.

The Constitution did not forbid people to drink alcohol until an amendment was passed that prohibited it. Once an amendment was passed that abolished the prohibition of it, each state can have it's own manufacturors and do what it wants with alcohol. The Constitution doesn't grant the right for a city to remain dry and not serve alcohol, but they can do it, because the Constitution does not forbid it.

The Constitution does not prohibit baby cannibalism either.

The Constitution does not grant powers to the States, it can only prohibit them, and this is affirmed by the 10th Amendment. This also means that the 10th Amendment to the Constitution DOES NOT grant powers to the States.

Unilateral secession of a state was not a power granted by The People.

Let me be as clear as possible--secession NOR baby cannibalism are powers granted to the States by virtue of not being specifically prohibited to them by the Constitution. Period.

Powers are granted by The People, powers are enumerated, limited to such enumeration, and contingent upon granting through enumeration. "The People" of the United States of America, represented in Congress by their respective elected Representatives and Senators, and represented by their elected President, did not sanction any dissolution of the Union, or any secession of any of the States (or baby cannibalism).

Not prohibiting a power to the states, and placing a power (by virtue of not being prohibited) in reserve to the States, IS NOT THE PEOPLE GRANTING THAT POWER TO THE STATES.

The Southern States were not empowered by The People to unilaterally alter, or otherwise dictate the compostion of the Union (or eat babies). The States that seceded (or ate babies), without being granted that power by The People, did so in violation of their pledge, resposnibilities and obligations to the Union.

 

[Gunny]

This is the most <a href="http://www.fallacyfiles.org/strawman.html">obtuse point evasion tactic</a> ever. I didn't say the 10th prevented States from execising any powers; I pointed out to you that Powers are granted by The People, powers are enumerated, limited to such enumeration, and contingent upon granting through enumeration. Yet, in your obtusely point avoiding way (and purely accidental, I'm sure), you make a point--the States <i><b>CAN</b></i> have no powers if some powers are prohibited by (other parts of) the Constitution, and all others powers are not granted to them by The People.

"The People" of the United States of America, represented in Congress by their respective elected Representatives and Senators, and represented by their elected President, did not sanction any dissolution of the Union, or any secession of any of the States.

The Southern States were not empowered by The People to unilaterally alter, or otherwise dictate the compostion of the Union.

Unilateral secession of a state was not a power granted by The People.



Let's do just that:<blockquote><i>"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved <b>(n.b. not granted, just reserved)</b> to the States respectively, or to the people.</i></blockquote>Unilateral secession of a state was not a power granted by The People.

"The People" of the United States of America, represented in Congress by their respective elected Representatives and Senators, and represented by their elected President, did not sanction any dissolution of the Union, or any secession of any of the States.

The Southern States were not empowered to unilaterally alter, or otherwise dictate the compostion of the Union.



As if a power, by virtue of not being prohibited to the States by the Constitution GRANTS it to the States--as if baby cannibalism (also not prohibited by the Constitution) is a power granted to the states because it is not specifically prohibited by the Constitution.

I didn't say that the Constitution has to specifically grant a power for a state for a state to use a particular power; I said that Powers are granted by The People, powers are enumerated, limited to such enumeration, and contingent upon granting through enumeration. Yet, in your obtusely point avoiding way(and purely accidental, I'm sure), you make a point--if The People, do not grant the States a particular power (or allow a State to excersize a power), by refusing to put it to legislative action, passage, and ratification by the rules of the Constitution, then the States <i><b>CANNOT</b></i> excercise that power that was not granted to them by The People.

Unilateral secession of a state was not a power granted by The People.

"The People" of the United States of America, represented in Congress by their respective elected Representatives and Senators, and represented by their elected President, did not sanction any dissolution of the Union, or any secession of any of the States.



Right, but The People do; and "The People" of the United States of America, represented in Congress by their respective elected Representatives and Senators, and represented by their elected President, did not sanction any dissolution of the Union, or any secession of any of the States.

Unilateral secession of a state was not a power granted by The People.



My logic is fine, yours demands that States can constitutionally excercise ANY POWER WHAT-SO-EVER (including baby cannibalism and secession) even if that power is not granted by The People--provided of course, it is not already prohibited by the Constitution.



It's clear that you can cut and paste from the 10th Amendment, but can you understand what you cut and paste?<blockquote><i>"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved <b>(n.b. not granted, just reserved)</b> to the States respectively, or to the people.</i></blockquote>There's no provision in the Constitution for unilateral secession from the Union.

Unilateral secession of a state was not a power granted by The People.

"The People" of the United States of America, represented in Congress by their respective elected Representatives and Senators, and represented by their elected President, did not sanction any dissolution of the Union, or any secession of any of the States.

Not prohibiting a power to the states, and placing a power (by virtue of not being prohibited) in reserve to the States, IS NOT GRANTING THAT POWER TO THE STATES.

The Southern States were not empowered by The People to alter, or otherwise dictate the compostion of the Union on their own--it's as simple as that.



Even baby cannibalism can be a power granted to a State if only baby cannibals are enfranchised as "The People" when granting powers.

The People of the South were not and, are not, the entire set of people who are "The People." The People of the South were not, and are not, empowered to alter or otherwise dictate the compostion of the Union on their own.



The Constitution does not prohibit baby cannibalism either.

The Constitution does not grant powers to the States, it can only prohibit them, and this is affirmed by the 10th Amendment. This also means that the 10th Amendment to the Constitution DOES NOT grant powers to the States.

Unilateral secession of a state was not a power granted by The People.

Let me be as clear as possible--secession NOR baby cannibalism are powers granted to the States by virtue of not being specifically prohibited to them by the Constitution. Period.

Powers are granted by The People, powers are enumerated, limited to such enumeration, and contingent upon granting through enumeration. "The People" of the United States of America, represented in Congress by their respective elected Representatives and Senators, and represented by their elected President, did not sanction any dissolution of the Union, or any secession of any of the States (or baby cannibalism).

Not prohibiting a power to the states, and placing a power (by virtue of not being prohibited) in reserve to the States, IS NOT THE PEOPLE GRANTING THAT POWER TO THE STATES.

The Southern States were not empowered by The People to unilaterally alter, or otherwise dictate the compostion of the Union (or eat babies). The States that seceded (or ate babies), without being granted that power by The People, did so in violation of their pledge, resposnibilities and obligations to the Union.

You are directly contradicting the 10th Amendment; which, grants all powers to the states OR the people not specifically given to the Fed in the Constitution.

 

[BrianH]

You are directly contradicting the 10th Amendment; which, grants all powers to the states OR the people not specifically given to the Fed in the Constitution.

I don't know how it could get any more confusing than that. It's pretty cut and dry.

 

[Gunny]

I don't know how it could get any more confusing than that. It's pretty cut and dry.

Loki's usually got a pretty good argument. There must be some reasoning behind his position on the issue. I want to see what it is.

 

[BrianH]

Loki's usually got a pretty good argument. There must be some reasoning behind his position on the issue. I want to see what it is.

Yeah, I know he generally knows what he's talking about, I just can't quite see the light at the end of his tunnel.

 

[LOki]

You are directly contradicting the 10th Amendment; which, <ahref="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/grant">grants</a> all powers to the states OR the people not specifically given to the Fed in the Constitution.

The 10th Amendment does not <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/grant">grant</a> powers to the States--Check it out for yourself:<blockquote><i>"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reserve">reserved</a> <b>(n.b. do you see this? Not <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/grant">granted</a>, just <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reserve">reserved</a>)</b> to the States respectively, or to the people."</i></blockquote>As I keep saying, there is no 10th Amendment argument, because failing to prohibit a power to the states; placing a power (by virtue of not being prohibited) in reserve to the States, IS NOT GRANTING THAT POWER TO THE STATES.

The People <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/grant">grant</a> powers to the States, the Tenth Amendment <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reserve">reserves</a> the powers not prohibited to the States by the Constituion to the States respectively, or to The People.

The Tenth Amendment does not empower the States to change the compostion of the Union by secession, any more than it empowers the States to change the composition of the Union by adding other States, or kicking other States out of the Union. The PEOPLE can do this, through legislative action, passage, and ratification, by the rules of the Constitution.

There is no provision in the Constitution for unilateral secession from the Union.

"The People" of the United States of America, represented in Congress by their respective elected Representatives and Senators (including Southern Representatives and Senators from the Southern States), and represented by their elected President (elected in part, by the way, by the Southern People), did not sanction any dissolution of the Union, or any secession of any of the States.

Not prohibiting a power to the states, and placing a power (by virtue of not being prohibited) in reserve to the States, IS NOT GRANTING THAT POWER TO THE STATES.

The Southern States were not empowered by The People to alter, or otherwise dictate the compostion of the Union on their own.

The People of the South were not and, are not, the entire set of people who are "The People." The People of the South were not, and are not, empowered to alter or otherwise dictate the compostion of the Union on their own.

Unilateral secession of a state was not a power granted by The People.

I don't know how it could get any more confusing than that. It's pretty cut and dry.

It's not confusing: Secession does not <i>have</i> to be an illegal act by a State or its People--it just was in this case because "The People" of the United States of America, represented in Congress by their respective elected Representatives and Senators (including Southern Representatives and Senators from the Southern States), and represented by their elected President (elected in part, by the way, by the Southern People), did not sanction any dissolution of the Union, or any secession of any of the States.

Loki's usually got a pretty good argument. There must be some reasoning behind his position on the issue. I want to see what it is.

I think my reasoning is pretty clear: The Southern States were not empowered by The People, or the Constitution, to change the compostion of the Union by secession, any more than the Southern States were empowered to change the composition of the Union by adding other States, or kicking other States out of the Union. The PEOPLE can do this; through legislative action, passage, and ratification, by the rules of the Constitution.

Yet, "The People" of the United States of America, represented in Congress by their respective elected Representatives and Senators (including Southern Representatives and Senators from the Southern States), and represented by their elected President (elected in part, by the way, by the Southern People), did not sanction any dissolution of the Union, or any secession of any of the States.

Yeah, I know he generally knows what he's talking about, I just can't quite see the light at the end of his tunnel.

Dude, the train is running over you.

 

[Ravi]

The 10th Amendment does not <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/grant">grant</a> powers to the States--Check it out for yourself:<blockquote><i>"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reserve">reserved</a> <b>(n.b. do you see this? Not <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/grant">granted</a>, just <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reserve">reserved</a>)</b> to the States respectively, or to the people."</i></blockquote>As I keep saying, there is no 10th Amendment argument, because failing to prohibit a power to the states; placing a power (by virtue of not being prohibited) in reserve to the States, IS NOT GRANTING THAT POWER TO THE STATES.

The People <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/grant">grant</a> powers to the States, the Tenth Amendment <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reserve">reserves</a> the powers not prohibited to the States by the Constituion to the States respectively, or to The People.

The Tenth Amendment does not empower the States to change the compostion of the Union by secession, any more than it empowers the States to change the composition of the Union by adding other States, or kicking other States out of the Union. The PEOPLE can do this, through legislative action, passage, and ratification, by the rules of the Constitution.

There is no provision in the Constitution for unilateral secession from the Union.

"The People" of the United States of America, represented in Congress by their respective elected Representatives and Senators (including Southern Representatives and Senators from the Southern States), and represented by their elected President (elected in part, by the way, by the Southern People), did not sanction any dissolution of the Union, or any secession of any of the States.

Not prohibiting a power to the states, and placing a power (by virtue of not being prohibited) in reserve to the States, IS NOT GRANTING THAT POWER TO THE STATES.

The Southern States were not empowered by The People to alter, or otherwise dictate the compostion of the Union on their own.

The People of the South were not and, are not, the entire set of people who are "The People." The People of the South were not, and are not, empowered to alter or otherwise dictate the compostion of the Union on their own.

Unilateral secession of a state was not a power granted by The People.



It's not confusing: Secession does not <i>have</i> to be an illegal act by a State or its People--it just was in this case because "The People" of the United States of America, represented in Congress by their respective elected Representatives and Senators (including Southern Representatives and Senators from the Southern States), and represented by their elected President (elected in part, by the way, by the Southern People), did not sanction any dissolution of the Union, or any secession of any of the States.



I think my reasoning is pretty clear: The Southern States were not empowered by The People, or the Constitution, to change the compostion of the Union by secession, any more than the Southern States were empowered to change the composition of the Union by adding other States, or kicking other States out of the Union. The PEOPLE can do this; through legislative action, passage, and ratification, by the rules of the Constitution.

Yet, "The People" of the United States of America, represented in Congress by their respective elected Representatives and Senators (including Southern Representatives and Senators from the Southern States), and represented by their elected President (elected in part, by the way, by the Southern People), did not sanction any dissolution of the Union, or any secession of any of the States.



Dude, the train is running over you.

That was awesome. I think I've changed my mind.

 

[BrianH]

The 10th Amendment does not <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/grant">grant</a> powers to the States--Check it out for yourself:<blockquote><i>"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reserve">reserved</a> <b>(n.b. do you see this? Not <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/grant">granted</a>, just <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reserve">reserved</a>)</b> to the States respectively, or to the people."</i></blockquote>As I keep saying, there is no 10th Amendment argument, because failing to prohibit a power to the states; placing a power (by virtue of not being prohibited) in reserve to the States, IS NOT GRANTING THAT POWER TO THE STATES.

The People <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/grant">grant</a> powers to the States, the Tenth Amendment <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reserve">reserves</a> the powers not prohibited to the States by the Constituion to the States respectively, or to The People.

The Tenth Amendment does not empower the States to change the compostion of the Union by secession, any more than it empowers the States to change the composition of the Union by adding other States, or kicking other States out of the Union. The PEOPLE can do this, through legislative action, passage, and ratification, by the rules of the Constitution.

There is no provision in the Constitution for unilateral secession from the Union.

"The People" of the United States of America, represented in Congress by their respective elected Representatives and Senators (including Southern Representatives and Senators from the Southern States), and represented by their elected President (elected in part, by the way, by the Southern People), did not sanction any dissolution of the Union, or any secession of any of the States.

Not prohibiting a power to the states, and placing a power (by virtue of not being prohibited) in reserve to the States, IS NOT GRANTING THAT POWER TO THE STATES.

The Southern States were not empowered by The People to alter, or otherwise dictate the compostion of the Union on their own.

The People of the South were not and, are not, the entire set of people who are "The People." The People of the South were not, and are not, empowered to alter or otherwise dictate the compostion of the Union on their own.

Unilateral secession of a state was not a power granted by The People.



It's not confusing: Secession does not <i>have</i> to be an illegal act by a State or its People--it just was in this case because "The People" of the United States of America, represented in Congress by their respective elected Representatives and Senators (including Southern Representatives and Senators from the Southern States), and represented by their elected President (elected in part, by the way, by the Southern People), did not sanction any dissolution of the Union, or any secession of any of the States.



I think my reasoning is pretty clear: The Southern States were not empowered by The People, or the Constitution, to change the compostion of the Union by secession, any more than the Southern States were empowered to change the composition of the Union by adding other States, or kicking other States out of the Union. The PEOPLE can do this; through legislative action, passage, and ratification, by the rules of the Constitution.

Yet, "The People" of the United States of America, represented in Congress by their respective elected Representatives and Senators (including Southern Representatives and Senators from the Southern States), and represented by their elected President (elected in part, by the way, by the Southern People), did not sanction any dissolution of the Union, or any secession of any of the States.



Dude, the train is running over you.[/QUOTE]


nice play on words...I'll give you that.

And I see what you're talking about, but you're generalization about THE PEOPLE is just as much a generalization about states being granted (RESERVED) the powers by the 10th Amendment. All of what you have said, is assuming that there is equal representation, which there obviously was not.
With this logic about the people, other states can take away the right(s) of another state regardless of the opinion and support in that state. All of the states can gang up on another state and pass law that would take away rights of another state. So in your eyes, if THE PEOPLE in 40 states want to want to take away a specific right from another state, they could. Because if it's what THE PEOPLE want, it will happen. This puts a spin on states rights.