Did the southern states have the a Constitutional right to secede in 1861?

[Goobieman]

There is a constitutional device to stop him. It's Article I Section VIII Clause XII-XIII, where Congress has the authority to raise and support the Army and Navy.

This is a mechanism that may, by refusing to allocate the necessary resources to carry on, stop him from continuing an action he started, but cannot stop him from initiating that action with the assets on hand. Nothing in the constitution can stop him from, right now, sending a flight of B52s to carpet bomb (pick a city).

 

[The_Patriot]

This is a mechanism that may, by refusing to allocate the necessary resources to carry on, stop him from continuing an action he started, but cannot stop him from initiating that action with the assets on hand. Nothing in the constitution can stop him from, right now, sending a flight of B52s to carpet bomb (pick a city).

There is since he doesn't have the delegated power to perform such an act. Only Congress can authorize hostile actions.

 

[Goobieman]

There is since he doesn't have the delegated power to perform such an act. Only Congress can authorize hostile actions.

Nothing in the Constitution says this.

Congress can declare war; there is no Constitutional specification that the CinC cannot order forces into combat w/o such a declaration. For that matter, there is no Constitutional specification that the CinC -must- order forces into combat if Congress -does- declare war.

As I said - Nothing in the constitution can stop him from, right now, sending a flight of B52s to carpet bomb (pick a city).

 

[The_Patriot]

Nothing in the Constitution says this.

Congress can declare war; there is no Constitutional specification that the CinC cannot order forces into combat w/o such a declaration. For that matter, there is no Constitutional specification that the CinC -must- order forces into combat if Congress -does- declare war.

As I said - Nothing in the constitution can stop him from, right now, sending a flight of B52s to carpet bomb (pick a city).

As stated before Amendment Ten takes over when there is a lack of delegated power. The founding fathers disagree with you. Here are some quotes for you.

Alexander Hamilton: "The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. . . . It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and Admiral of the Confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war and the raising and regulating of fleets and armies, -- all of which by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature." (The Federalist, 69, 1788.)
". . . .'The Congress shall have the power to declare war'; the plain meaning of which is, that it is the peculiar and exclusive duty of Congress, when the nation is at peace, to change that state into a state of war. . . ." (C. 1801.)

* * *

Thomas Jefferson: "We have already given in example one effectual check to the dog of war by transferring the power of letting him loose from the Executive to the Legislative body. . . ." (Letter to Madison, 1789.)
"Considering that Congress alone is constitutionally invested with the power of changing our condition from peace to war, I have thought it my duty to await their authority for using force in any degree which could be avoided." (Message to Congress, 1805.)

* * *

James Madison: ". . . The power to declare war, including the power of judging the causes of war, is fully and exclusively vested in the legislature . . . the executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question, whether there is or is not cause for declaring war." (1793.)
"The constitution supposes, what the History of all Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care vested the question of war to the Legislature." (Letter to Jefferson, c. 1798.)

* * *

William Paterson framer and Supreme Court justice): ". . . It is the exclusive province of congress to change a state of peace into a state of war." (United States v. Smith, 1806.)

* * *

George Washington: "The constitution vests the power of declaring war in Congress; therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they shall have deliberated upon the subject and authorized such a measure." (1793.)

* * * * *

James Wilson: (framer and ratifier): "This system will not hurry us into war; it is calculated to guard against it. It will not be in the power of a single man, or a single body of men, to involve us in such distress; for the important power of declaring war is vested in the legislature at large. . . ." (To the Pennsylvania ratifying convention, 1787.)

 

[Goobieman]

As stated before Amendment Ten takes over when there is a lack of delegated power. The founding fathers disagree with you. Here are some quotes for you.

The 10th applies to the federal government as a whole, not just the CinC. You're arguing that the states/people have the power to order the military to make war w/o a declaration of war?

That a state of war can exist w/o a declaration of war from Congress necessiates that the CinC be able to put forces into combat absent said DoW; this is why the Constituton does not limit the powers of the CinC from actiong only when a DoW is in place.

 

[The_Patriot]

The 10th applies to the federal government as a whole, not just the CinC. You're arguing that the states/people have the power to order the military to make war w/o a declaration of war?

That a state of war can exist w/o a declaration of war from Congress necessiates that the CinC be able to put forces into combat absent said DoW; this is why the Constituton does not limit the powers of the CinC from actiong only when a DoW is in place.

Is the President part of the federal government? Why yes he is so the Tenth Amendment applies to him.

Which your opinion is contradicted by the founding fathers.

 

[Goobieman]

Is the President part of the federal government? Why yes he is so the Tenth Amendment applies to him.

You didnt answer my question:
You're arguing that the states/people have the power to order the military to make war w/o a declaration of war?

Which your opinion is contradicted by the founding fathers.

Think so?
Who among any of them would argue that the CinC constitutionally has to wait until Congress delclares war before said CiC orders a full retallitory nuclear strike on the USSR?

 

[The_Patriot]

You didnt answer my question:
You're arguing that the states/people have the power to order the military to make war w/o a declaration of war?


Think so?
Who among any of them would argue that the CinC constitutionally has to wait until Congress delclares war before said CiC orders a full retallitory nuclear strike on the USSR?

Governors can mobilize state troops in defense of their borders. Declaration of war rests solely in the hands of Congress.

All of them. Congress has to declare war to move the nation from a state of peace to war and to initiate hostilities. Heck, Justice William Paterson stated this in United States v. Smith (1806), so it is case law.

 

[Goobieman]

Governors can mobilize state troops in defense of their borders. Declaration of war rests solely in the hands of Congress.

Ths isnt relevant to what you're arguing -- the necessary conclusion to your argument is that ONLY the people/states have the power to make war absent a declaration of war. That being the case, explain why everyhting in the Constitutio is set up to create the exact opposite condition.

None of them.

No... All of them.
The CinC is charged with the defense of the Union; to defend the Union he must have the power to put troops into combat either absent a DoW, either because the threat does not necessitate it or does not allow the time necessary to do so. This is why there is no constitutional limit on the power of the CinC.

 

[The_Patriot]

Ths isnt relevant to what you're arguing -- the necessary conclusion to your argument is that ONLY the people/states have the power to make war absent a declaration of war. That being the case, explain why everyhting in the Constitutio is set up to create the exact opposite condition.


No... All of them.
The CinC is charged with the defense of the Union; to defend the Union he must have the power to put troops into combat either absent a DoW, either because the threat does not necessitate it or does not allow the time necessary to do so. This is why there is no constitutional limit on the power of the CinC.

Nice job on changing my statement. You asked me which one of them would wait and I said all of them. I even cited case law. I'll give you Alexander Hamilton from Federalist 69.

The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. . . . It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and Admiral of the Confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war and the raising and regulating of fleets and armies, -- all of which by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature.

As proof of what he and the rest of the founding fathers have said that the power to initiate hostilities rests in Article I Section VIII Clause XI in the power to declare war. Congress has the delegated authority to govern the regulations and use of the military under Article I Section VIII Clauses X, XI, and XIV. The commander in chief decides overall military strategy for when the military is employed in war. That is what the strict reading of the Constitution says. The powers you claim that he has resides in the hands of Congress.

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

Your view is that the President has equal power to a king and he doesn't. His powers are severely limited by the Constitution.

 

[Ajay]

I searched, but did not find any previous threads addressing this:

1. Did the southern states have the Constitutional right to secede from the Union?

2. Why did the southern states choose to secede? (economic, political, cultural, etc)

I realize this could easily be in the History forum, but I am most interested in hearing about the Constitutional aspect of secession. The Constitution, as far as I know, does not address the matter.

1. No
2. Right to own and trade slaves

The Constitution does adress the matter.

 

[Ajay]

Actually, there is a restriction on the CinC in that he cannot deploy forces into a warzone without a declaration of war. He cannot deploy forces to cause a war without a declaration of war.

As CinC, he can move troops to any base that he sees fits as long it doesn't provoke hostilities.

Where is your support for this opinion posing as fact?

 

[Goobieman]

Nice job on changing my statement. You asked me which one of them would wait and I said all of them.

Yes - and you're wrong.

I even cited case law. I'll give you Alexander Hamilton from Federalist 69.

:shock:
The federalsit papaers arent case law.

Beyiond that, your quote in no way supports the idea that AH would wait for a DoW before ordering said conterstrike, or holds the position that the constitution requires the CinC to similarly wait.

In fact, NONE of the quotes you put up lead to that conclusion, and NONE of the cites you put up illustrate a constitutionally-specifed limit on the power of the CinC to order any such strike.

There is no constitional way to countermand an order from the CinC - no one has the auhtority to do so.

 

[Ajay]

Yes - and you're wrong.


:shock:
The federalsit papaers arent case law.

Beyiond that, your quote in no way supports the idea that AH would wait for a DoW before ordering said conterstrike, or holds the position that the constitution requires the CinC to similarly wait.

In fact, NONE of the quotes you put up lead to that conclusion, and NONE of the cites you put up illustrate a constitutionally-specifed limit on the power of the CinC to order any such strike.

There is no constitional way to countermand an order from the CinC - no one has the auhtority to do so.

Military commanders and civillians serving under the CinC could legally refuse to carry out orders. That's it. The issue already raised of the right of Congress to refuse to pay the bills is not really relevant to what you have argued. I don't know why the other poster brought that in. The whole context of this thread is difficult to grasp, since in the beginning there were no agreements between you on terms, definitions, and meanings.

Maybe restating the main arguments without the support would go a long way in clarifying things? Then again the circular nature of these types of debates may be the force driving things.

 

[Goobieman]

Military commanders and civillians serving under the CinC could legally refuse to carry out orders. That's it.

If the order falls under the narrow definition of an 'illegal' order, yes.
But, that's different that exercising the constitutional authority to contermand an order from the CinC.

Maybe restating the main arguments without the support would go a long way in clarifying things? Then again the circular nature of these types of debates may be the force driving things.

This seem pretty clear to me - he argues that the CinC cannot constitutionally commit an act of war w/o Congress first issuing a declaraation of war. He's wrong, for many reasons.

 

[Ajay]

If the order falls under the narrow definition of an 'illegal' order, yes.
But, that's different that exercising the constitutional authority to contermand an order from the CinC.


This seem pretty clear to me - he argues that the CinC cannot constitutionally commit an act of war w/o Congress first issuing a declaraation of war. He's wrong, for many reasons.

An act of war is a pretty slippery phrase. It is open to interpretation in many cases. Not all acts of war are obvious and not all things claimed to be acts of war, are intended to be such.

Only the Congress has the authority to 'declare' war. The President as CinC has the sole power in the 3 branches of government to order the troops around.

 

[Goobieman]

An act of war is a pretty slippery phrase. It is open to interpretation in many cases. Not all acts of war are obvious and not all things claimed to be acts of war, are intended to be such.

I was thinking of those that are overt and obvious, but yes, that's true.

Only the Congress has the authority to 'declare' war. The President as CinC has the sole power in the 3 branches of government to order the troops around.

Indeed - and for the latter, there is no Constitutional restriction.

 

[Ajay]

Indeed - and for the latter, there is no Constitutional restriction.

quote: "Only the Congress has the authority to 'declare' war. The President as CinC has the sole power in the 3 branches of government to order the troops around."

In theory: true.

In practice: true

 

[The_Patriot]

Where is your support for this opinion posing as fact?

If you had taken the time to read the quotes I posted you would have seen the justice's opinion.

 

[The_Patriot]

Yes - and you're wrong.


:shock:
The federalsit papaers arent case law.

Beyiond that, your quote in no way supports the idea that AH would wait for a DoW before ordering said conterstrike, or holds the position that the constitution requires the CinC to similarly wait.

In fact, NONE of the quotes you put up lead to that conclusion, and NONE of the cites you put up illustrate a constitutionally-specifed limit on the power of the CinC to order any such strike.

There is no constitional way to countermand an order from the CinC - no one has the auhtority to do so.

Check the quotes again because I did post up case law. Here it is just in case you missed it.

William Paterson framer and Supreme Court justice): ". . . It is the exclusive province of congress to change a state of peace into a state of war." (United States v. Smith, 1806.)

 

[Goobieman]

Check the quotes again because I did post up case law. Here it is just in case you missed it.

OK... and...
In fact, NONE of the quotes you put up - including the snippet of case law that I will look up to see if actually relevant - lead to the conclusion that the constitution mandates that the CinC wait for a DoW from Congress before ordering a retalliatory strike, and NONE of the cites you put up illustrate a constitutionally-specifed limit on the power of the CinC to order any such strike.

What you continue to fail to understand tha a state of war can exist w/ Congress declaring it, and because of this, the CinC absolutely has the power to exercise his plenary powers of the CinC to order military acts of war absent any such declaration.

It also does nothing to address the argument that there is no constitional way to countermand an order from the CinC - no one has the auhtority to do so.

 

[Ajay]

Check the quotes again because I did post up case law. Here it is just in case you missed it.

quote: William Paterson framer and Supreme Court justice): ". . . It is the exclusive province of congress to change a state of peace into a state of war." (United States v. Smith, 1806.)

Is the above quote meant to negate the statement: "There is no constitional way to countermand an order from the CinC - no one has the auhtority to do so."

 

[Ajay]

THE PRESIDENT'S CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT MILITARY OPERATIONS AGAINST TERRORISTS AND NATIONS SUPPORTING THEM

...and does the President as CinC need the approval of Congress before he uses the authorization codes for the order to launch a nuclear strike?

 

[Goobieman]

THE PRESIDENT'S CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT MILITARY OPERATIONS AGAINST TERRORISTS AND NATIONS SUPPORTING THEM

...and does the President as CinC need the approval of Congress before he uses the authorization codes for the order to launch a nuclear strike?

According to his argument, he cannot do this until there is a DoW.

 

[The_Patriot]

OK... and...
In fact, NONE of the quotes you put up - including the snippet of case law that I will look up to see if actually relevant - lead to the conclusion that the constitution mandates that the CinC wait for a DoW from Congress before ordering a retalliatory strike, and NONE of the cites you put up illustrate a constitutionally-specifed limit on the power of the CinC to order any such strike.

What you continue to fail to understand tha a state of war can exist w/ Congress declaring it, and because of this, the CinC absolutely has the power to exercise his plenary powers of the CinC to order military acts of war absent any such declaration.

It also does nothing to address the argument that there is no constitional way to countermand an order from the CinC - no one has the auhtority to do so.

Pure opinion with no backing, so I'll disregard your argument. Present proof please.