Black college student hangs Confederate Flag in his dorm room

[Q-Tip]

He quoted the 10th Amendment basically.

"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 power to grant to prevent secession is not granted by the constitution to the federal government, not does the constitution prevent the states from doing so. Therefore, according to the constitution, the states have the right to secede.

 

[Tawnos]

He quoted the 10th Amendment basically.

"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 power to grant to prevent secession is not granted by the constitution to the federal government, not does the constitution prevent the states from doing so. Therefore, according to the constitution, the states have the right to secede.

Except I already explained that the constitution prohibits the power of declaring war from the states, and it also grants the federal government the power to set policies that applies to its property, which includes any state which joins the union. I also explained that the reason these powers were so delegated was explained within that document to ensure a more perfect union.

Face it secession supporters...you're wrong.

 

[georg jetson]

Except I already explained that the constitution prohibits the power of declaring war from the states,

That is true. However, succession does NOT equal war. Additionally, once a state has succeeded, it is no longer bound by the Const. of the US.

and it also grants the federal government the power to set policies that applies to its property, which includes any state which joins the union. I also explained that the reason these powers were so delegated was explained within that document to ensure a more perfect union.

Once a state has succeeded, it is no longer bound by the Const. of the US. It is important to note that succession is a power retained by the states. Because of this, it is the initial act of secession that rescinds the limitations of the US Const of any further actions.

Face it secession supporters...you're wrong.

Probably not...

 

[georg jetson]

Since I have georg jetson on ignore, and the ignore functionality's "show post" is broken, I'm just going to assume he's responding to me and responding in a way that indicates total lack of reading comprehension. Even if he isn't, the few people who have quoted him make me all the happier I no longer see his inane babble on every post he types.

pet·u·lant
adj.
1. Unreasonably irritable or ill-tempered; peevish.
2. Contemptuous in speech or behavior.

Relax... nobody's gonna make you take your head out of the sand.

 

[Brass Magnet]

Two sides

I don't think anyone is going to "win" this argument here and now. There are a few different sides to the issue and people have been arguing over it for a long time. I did recall that there were some states that put a secession clause in their constitutions and ratification agreements. This article lists a few and is an interesting read in general: http://www.endusmilitarism.org/secessionlegality.html

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Except I already explained that the constitution prohibits the power of declaring war from the states, and it also grants the federal government the power to set policies that applies to its property, which includes any state which joins the union. I also explained that the reason these powers were so delegated was explained within that document to ensure a more perfect union.

Face it secession supporters...you're wrong.

What you keep stating is things that the states have to abide to while part of the union this doesn't mean they have to stay part of a voluntary union.

New York, Virginia, and Rhode Island all had the ability to withdraw in their ratification?

I cited many quotes in the past pages, from the principle of '98 to Lincoln's own words as a senator before the war.

Also United States legal system was founded on the English principle if it's not "illegal" or specifically forbidden it's legal. So the constitution not mentioning the power to secede does not mean it isn't illegal for them to do so. This is similar to the reasoning behind OC and why it is legal.

Here's a good write up about it from a Lawyer's point of view. He even mention's Texas v. White.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/ostrowski/ostrowski31.html

​

 

[OC for ME]

[h=3]January 1861 -- The South Secedes.
February 1861 -- The South Creates a Government.
February 1861 -- The South Seizes Federal Forts.[/h]http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/cwphtml/tl1861.html

Some of the 'several states' say adios! They form their own government. They go to war with the north. The north goes to war with some of the 'several states' because they do not recognize the secession, or maybe they do, anyway. Did the federal government declare war on some of the 'several states', or not? I do not read anywhere in the US Constitution that the federal government can declare war on any of the 'several states'.

Though, the south was not part of the union, after secession, so I guess they were a foreign country....so, the north declaring war is OK, maybe. Some of the 'several states' had seceded, so they considered themselves a separate country so the 'no declaring war' part in the US Constitution that applies to the 'several states' does not apply to them, maybe.

Interesting circular discussion.

 

[OC for ME]

....OR....is it another example of American imperialism, on our own soil?

 

[Tawnos]

What you keep stating is things that the states have to abide to while part of the union this doesn't mean they have to stay part of a voluntary union.

No, what I'm saying is that you can't just exit a contract because you don't feel like following it anymore, at least, not without penalty and attempts to force you to abide by that contract. The states that seceded attempted to illegally steal property from the United States so that they could keep owning slaves. The US was not willing to give up that property, and acted to enforce the contract against the states.

Mere desire to terminate a contract does not alone invalidate that contract's powers.

 

[georg jetson]

No, what I'm saying is that you can't just exit a contract because you don't feel like following it anymore, at least, not without penalty and attempts to force you to abide by that contract. The states that seceded attempted to illegally steal property from the United States so that they could keep owning slaves. The US was not willing to give up that property, and acted to enforce the contract against the states.

Mere desire to terminate a contract does not alone invalidate that contract's powers.

The contract itself allowed states to retain the power to exit by the 10th amendment... are we going in circles??

 

[sudden valley gunner]

No, what I'm saying is that you can't just exit a contract because you don't feel like following it anymore, at least, not without penalty and attempts to force you to abide by that contract. The states that seceded attempted to illegally steal property from the United States so that they could keep owning slaves. The US was not willing to give up that property, and acted to enforce the contract against the states.

Mere desire to terminate a contract does not alone invalidate that contract's powers.

Ah but you keep quoting part of the constitution that applies to states while a part of the union. And equating that to not being able to leave the union.

Depends on the terms of the contract. Is it spelled out you can't leave in this contract? And what isn't spelled out is legal. Read the links I provided throughout this thread. But even going with your line of reasoning, the states can leave when they feel some of the other states are not abiding by the rules.....like many of the North's rightful nullification of returning run away slaves because in their opinion the contract was broken.

I also don't see the word "contract" used anywhere in the constitution, I do remember Madison referring to it as a social compact which would be more applicable.

 

[Tawnos]

Ah but you keep quoting part of the constitution that applies to states while a part of the union. And equating that to not being able to leave the union.

Depends on the terms of the contract. Is it spelled out you can't leave in this contract? And what isn't spelled out is legal. Read the links I provided throughout this thread. But even going with your line of reasoning, the states can leave when they feel some of the other states are not abiding by the rules.....like many of the North's rightful nullification of returning run away slaves because in their opinion the contract was broken.

I also don't see the word "contract" used anywhere in the constitution, I do remember Madison referring to it as a social compact which would be more applicable.

It's like you want to make this a 10th amendment case, but are ignoring that the constitution specifically states (Article 1 Section 10) that "No State shall enter into any ... Confederation" in addition to saying they can't declare war and that Congress has the power to control the land of the US. This was an agreement the states entered into, and without a legal means to exit the constitution and take the land they put into the US for themselves, they were most certainly unlawfully exiting the union. The word "contract" just means a written agreement among parties, and that's exactly what the constitution is. Moreover, Article III section 1 clearly states that the supreme court has the judicial power of the US, and thus can decide what is or is not legal. Yeah, they can be wrong from time to time, but you haven't made an argument that counters Texas v. White or any of the other issues I've brought up. You're making a moral argument that states should be able to secede, and I might be persuaded to agree with that stance morally (even if I have not yet, especially given the clear reasons the south seceded), but not legally.

*edit*
More clearly to the first point, the states remained the states they were, and entered into a new confederation, thus violating the agreement.

 

[georg jetson]

It's like you want to make this a 10th amendment case, but are ignoring that the constitution specifically states (Article 1 Section 10) that "No State shall enter into any ... Confederation" in addition to saying they can't declare war and that Congress has the power to control the land of the US. This was an agreement the states entered into, and without a legal means to exit the constitution and take the land they put into the US for themselves, they were most certainly unlawfully exiting the union. The word "contract" just means a written agreement among parties, and that's exactly what the constitution is. Moreover, Article III section 1 clearly states that the supreme court has the judicial power of the US, and thus can decide what is or is not legal. Yeah, they can be wrong from time to time, but you haven't made an argument that counters Texas v. White or any of the other issues I've brought up. You're making a moral argument that states should be able to secede, and I might be persuaded to agree with that stance morally (even if I have not yet, especially given the clear reasons the south seceded), but not legally.

*edit*
More clearly to the first point, the states remained the states they were, and entered into a new confederation, thus violating the agreement.

The ONLY thing that would be relevant in this case "legally" would be the constitution expressly forbidding succession. It doesn't. Once a state "legally" succeeds, the rest is moot.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

It's like you want to make this a 10th amendment case, but are ignoring that the constitution specifically states (Article 1 Section 10) that "No State shall enter into any ... Confederation" in addition to saying they can't declare war and that Congress has the power to control the land of the US. This was an agreement the states entered into, and without a legal means to exit the constitution and take the land they put into the US for themselves, they were most certainly unlawfully exiting the union. The word "contract" just means a written agreement among parties, and that's exactly what the constitution is. Moreover, Article III section 1 clearly states that the supreme court has the judicial power of the US, and thus can decide what is or is not legal. Yeah, they can be wrong from time to time, but you haven't made an argument that counters Texas v. White or any of the other issues I've brought up. You're making a moral argument that states should be able to secede, and I might be persuaded to agree with that stance morally (even if I have not yet, especially given the clear reasons the south seceded), but not legally.

*edit*
More clearly to the first point, the states remained the states they were, and entered into a new confederation, thus violating the agreement.

No where in that compact does it say they can't leave, it spells out what they can/can't do in that compact it is that simple and that plain.

The states left individually and then formed the confederation they didn't violate the constitution by forming alliances while in that compact.

I didn't think I was making a moral argument, but I think the right of nullification and threat of secession is important to keep for the reason of keeping the federal government limited and in its proper enumerated place. And that would be moral.

I believe the arguments I spelled out does counter Texas vs. White, just as I believe the enumerated powers of the government counters Wilburn, and the many other cases the courts have garnered more power for themselves and the political powers, unless it is specifically spelled out in the constitution the federal government doesn't have the power. The link I provided written by a constitutional lawyer, mentions Texas vs. White. I like how he put it.

Thomas Jefferson warned about given SCOTUS too much power and its a power they took upon themselves and his warnings have proved truthful. They are to rule what is constitutional or not. Not to define or read interpretations into the wording of the constitution to construe a meaning they desire.

 

[Tawnos]

No where in that compact does it say they can't leave, it spells out what they can/can't do in that compact it is that simple and that plain.

The states left individually and then formed the confederation they didn't violate the constitution by forming alliances while in that compact.

I didn't think I was making a moral argument, but I think the right of nullification and threat of secession is important to keep for the reason of keeping the federal government limited and in its proper enumerated place. And that would be moral.

I believe the arguments I spelled out does counter Texas vs. White, just as I believe the enumerated powers of the government counters Wilburn, and the many other cases the courts have garnered more power for themselves and the political powers, unless it is specifically spelled out in the constitution the federal government doesn't have the power. The link I provided written by a constitutional lawyer, mentions Texas vs. White. I like how he put it.

Thomas Jefferson warned about given SCOTUS too much power and its a power they took upon themselves and his warnings have proved truthful. They are to rule what is constitutional or not. Not to define or read interpretations into the wording of the constitution to construe a meaning they desire.

What part of "no state" means "except those that want to leave." The whole point of the "no states shall form any confederation" is to prevent this very scenario. The powers were enumerated to prevent this in two ways, which I've stated repeatedly. One, the states may not form a confederation, may not declare war, etc. Two, the federal government may protect the territory of the US. Thus, the power to form a confederation was prevented to the states, and the power to keep the territory of the US was given to the federal government, upholding 10th amendment scrutiny.

 

[KBCraig]

In Ken Burns' Civil War documentary, Shelby Foote said, "Before the war, it was said 'The united states are.' After the war, it was said 'The United States is.'"

Until they were forcibly repatriated, the several states were not mere subdivisions of the federal government. By the language of the Constitution, they still aren't.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

What part of "no state" means "except those that want to leave." The whole point of the "no states shall form any confederation" is to prevent this very scenario. The powers were enumerated to prevent this in two ways, which I've stated repeatedly. One, the states may not form a confederation, may not declare war, etc. Two, the federal government may protect the territory of the US. Thus, the power to form a confederation was prevented to the states, and the power to keep the territory of the US was given to the federal government, upholding 10th amendment scrutiny.

Because you are reading more into it than is there. Like if you are a member of a religion that sets rules for you in that religion. Doesn't mean you have to abide by it when you leave if I am born a Catholic doesn't mean I can never not be a Catholic.

Show me anywhere in the constitution that prohibits a state from leaving the union? That really is the bottom line.

The powers in the constitution are enumerated there is 18 of them. None says once you enter this union you can't leave. And your sentence is a little misleading, they didn't form another union until after they left, they didn't just want to leave they left.

Would have been interesting to see what would have happened when New England was going to secede over the war of 1812, they went through all the proper motions but stopped when they got to Washington because the war ended.

Read the link I provided by the constitutional lawyer, he breaks it down very well and legally.

 

[Deanimator]

Because you are reading more into it than is there. Like if you are a member of a religion that sets rules for you in that religion. Doesn't mean you have to abide by it when you leave if I am born a Catholic doesn't mean I can never not be a Catholic.

How about if you're a Muslim?

You're always a Muslim.

Maybe an apostate Muslim, but still a Muslim.

 

[KBCraig]

How about if you're a Muslim?

You're always a Muslim.

Maybe an apostate Muslim, but still a Muslim.

For once, I think you've made an apt analogy there.

The devote member is required to bring the apostate back in or kill him. Seems to apply just like it did for the "devout" Union.

 

[OC for ME]

Not if you go and chose to be something else. Muslim once, Christian now....not a Muslim anymore.

Once one of the United States, now a Confederate state, not a United State anymore.

Crappy grammar, but the point stands.

The winners get to define what the history is, regardless of the fact that the winners wrote down what the history is and now choose to recite it just a wee bit differently than how they wrote it.