- Joined
- May 19, 2006
- Messages
- 156,720
- Reaction score
- 53,497
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Funny, but I'm the only one using the Constitution of the United States, which is law and you are using rhetoric. Facts>Opinion.
Yes, it does since stare decisis says that it can be overturned for failing to adhere to tradition ie the Declaration of Independence, which is part of federal law.
Yes because we all know that your rhetoric trumps actual law and facts.
Your point does not apply nor does your rhetoric. Bring facts to the table not your rhetoric and screams of I'm right without proof!
LinkThe secession of a state from the Union depends on the will of the people of such state. The people alone as we have already seen, bold the power to alter their constitution. The Constitution of the United States is to a certain extent, incorporated into the constitutions or the several states by the act of the people. The state legislatures have only to perform certain organical operations in respect to it. To withdraw from the Union comes not within the general scope of their delegated authority. There must be an express pro- vision to that effect inserted in the state constitutions. This is not at present the case with any of them, and it would perhaps be impolitic to confide it to them. A matter so momentous, ought not to be entrusted to those who would have it in their power to exercise it lightly and precipitately upon sudden dissatisfaction, or causeless jealousy, perhaps against the interests and the wishes of a majority of their constituents.
But in any manner by which a secession is to take place, nothing is more certain than that the act should be deliberate, clear, and unequivocal. The perspicuity and solemnity of the original obligation require correspondent qualities in its dissolution. The powers of the general government cannot be defeated or impaired by an ambiguous or implied secession on the part of the state, although a secession may perhaps be conditional. The people of the state may have some reasons to complain in respect to acts of the general government, they may in such cases invest some of their own officers with the power of negotiation, and may declare an absolute secession in case of their failure. Still, however, the secession must in such case be distinctly and peremptorily declared to take place on that event, and in such case — as in the case of an unconditional secession, — the previous ligament with the Union, would be legitimately and fairly destroyed. But in either case the people is the only moving power.
1. Citing the preamble to the Constitution is not citing actual law and you cited a few words. The preamble does not have force of law. Federalist 11 is not law, but an opinion. I have used the author of the Constitution, the author of the Declaration of Independence, and the authors of the Anti-Federalist papers in addition to using the full clauses of the Constitution.
2. SCOTUS does not have to adhere to the preamble since it is not law. You have to use the full clauses within the Constitution to show that the states are prohibited from secession. You have failed every time to produce the clause that prohibits the states from secession. The reason why you fail is because it doesn't exist.
3. Only by your opinion that secession is illegal. You have an irrational fear of secession being made legal and use mental gymnastics to produce the evidence that makes secession illegal from sources outside of the Constitution.
4. No, you're presenting rhetoric and specious reasoning to back up your claims. I am presenting the full truth that secession is legal and always has been. I have presented up full texts of laws written by various founding fathers that support my position. You have produced nothing but empty rhetoric.
It is revision. SCOTUS decided this, clearly, and founders discussed this. It was not a "war of nothern aggression". Like I said, that is revision-speak. The south seceded, illegally, and confiscated federal property. The secesion failed, and SCOTUS confirned that what was done was illegal. I know you don't like this, but it's accurate.5. I have presented proof and you have ignored it or claim it's revisionism. Here's a snippet regarding secession from William Rawle's A View of the Constitution. William Rawle 1825 was a prominent constitutional lawyer and a good friend of James Madison. Madison was sent a copy of the manuscript to see if it was correct and he approved it. This book was taught in all the schools up until the War of Northern Agression.
Link
If the preamble of the Constitution is irrelevant, then so is the DOI. The DOI is not law. However, both are traditions, and if you are going to use stare decisis, then you MUST use both. So choose. Are both acceptable or neither. Further, the Federalist Papers are the most used source in interpreting the Constiutation, as the discusses and explains what was contained and what was meant. They may mot be laws, but they are used to understand law and are used to validate poritions of the Constitution. Lastly, I have used the author of the Constitution, the author of the majority of the Federalist Papers, and the legal decisions of of SCOTUS. The latter, beyond anything, trumps anything you have presented.
SCOTUS felt that, using stare decisis, the preamble was appropriate in usage in this case, as it adheres to tradition. They found that the perpetuity of the Union was clear. You may disagree with the desision, but that doesn't change that this decision was rendered in the way that it was. Negating the "secession was not illegal" argument.
I have no concerns about whehter secession is liegal or not. However, it is not, and you seem to be bent on trying to revise history. Sorry. Things didn't work out the way that you think they did. There was no "war of Northern Agression." That is revision-speak for the Civil War.
I have produced texts and information from Hamilton and Madison, and a SCOTUS decision. Secession was illegal and always has been. You have produced nothing that says otherwise.
It is revision. SCOTUS decided this, clearly, and founders discussed this. It was not a "war of nothern aggression". Like I said, that is revision-speak. The south seceded, illegally, and confiscated federal property. The secesion failed, and SCOTUS confirned that what was done was illegal. I know you don't like this, but it's accurate.
And sorry, I'll take the words of Hamilton, Madison's letter to Webster, and the SCOTUS decision over Rawles. Those things trump anything you've got.
Actually, the First Congress passed the Declaration of Independence into federal law. The Federalist Papers are propaganda to pass the Constitution. If you use them then you must use the Anti-Federalist Papers as well. It's not an either/or thing. Appeal to authority logical fallacy.
I already stated what the court thought and the reasons why they ruled the way they did. You have not proven that the ruling was within the confines of the Constitution nor did you prove that secession was illegal. Your only card is one ruling done by a partisan court that had everything to gain by keeping the south under a military dictatorship.
The revision was done right after the war. Stating the full historical record is far from revising what really happened. It was the War of Northern Agression.
You haven't proven it with the text of the Constitution from any part of Article I Section X on what the states are prohibited from doing. You have proven nothing except for using appeals to emotion and authority logical fallacies.
Appeal to authority logical fallacy. Come up with an argument based off of facts.
Another appeal to authority logical fallacy. Come up with an argument based off of facts.
I have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that secession is legal and has been. I have proven that the War of Northern Agression was an illegal war under the Constitution. Declaring yourself the victor and proving it are two different things, since there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits a state from exercising the power of secession. You are incorrect that the Constitution is a government over the people and not a contract between the states. The words of James Madison and Thomas Jefferson state the opposite of what you've said and I've shown that many, many times. Only in your mind are you correct. The only revisionism that is in this thread is the one you're spouting.
The only things that you have proven is that you do not understand logical fallacies, and that your revisionism trumps both logic and facts in your mind. I have proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that secession was illegal, both via the Constitution, Constitutional law, SCOTUS decisions, and the words of Hamilton and Madison. The Constitution is NOT a contract between the states and never has been. It is a contract of government with the people. The Articles of Confederation were between the states, but the Constitution over rules that. I know that you do not like these decisions and facts, but unfortunately for you, that does not change their accuracy. You have been proven wrong, conclusively via facts and logic.
SourceQ. How were deputies to the Constitutional Convention chosen?
A. They were appointed by the legislatures of the different States.
Q. How can it be said that the signing of the Constitution was unanimous, when the deputies of only twelve States signed and some delegates refused to sign?
A. The signatures attest the "Unanimous Consent of the States present." The voting was by States, and the vote of each State that of a majority of its deputies
Again you present rhetoric instead of facts. James Madison wrote this in the Virginia Resolution of 1798, "That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact,". He used the word compact which references that the ratification was done via state Constitutional conventions. The National Archives and Records Administration disagrees with you on the Constitution not being a contract between the states.
The legal definition from Bouvier's American Legal Dictionary defines compact as, "COMPACT, contracts. In its more general sense, it signifies an agreement. In its strict sense, it imports a contract between parties, which creates obligations and rights capable of being enforeed, and contemplated as such between the parties, in their distinct and independent characters. Story, Const. B. 3, c. 3; Rutherf. Inst. B. 2, c. 6, 1. 2. The constitution of the United States declares that " no state shall, without the consent of congress, enter into agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power." See 11 Pet: 1; 8 Wheat. 1 Bald. R. 60; 11 Pet. 185."
Source
Article VII Clause I says, "The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same." The Constitution is a contract between the states and always has been.
Constitution is defined in Bouvier's American Legal Dictionary as, "CONSTITUTION,, government. The fundamental law of the state, containing the principles upon which the government is founded, and regulating the divisions of the sovereign powers, directing to what persons each of these powers is to be confided, and the, manner it is to be exercised as, the Constitution of the United States. See Story on the Constitution; Rawle on the Const.
2. The words constitution and government (q. v.) are sometimes employed to express the same idea, the manner in which sovereignty is exercised in each state. Constitution is also the name of the instrument containing the fundamental laws of the state." So again you fail.
The Constitution was intended to frame a government as distinguished from a league or compact, a government supreme in some particulars over states and people.
The Constitution of the United States established a government,[SIZE=-1][/SIZE][SIZE=-1] [/SIZE]and not a league, compact, or partnership. It was constituted by the people. It is called a government. In the eighth section of Article I it is declared that Congress shall have power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or office thereof. As a government it was invested with all the attrib tes of sovereignty. It is expressly declared in Article VI that the Constitution, and the laws of the United States made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land.
The doctrine so long contended for that the Federal Union was a mere compact of States, and that the States, if they chose, might annul or disregard the acts of the National legislature, or might secede from the Union at their pleasure, and that the General government had no power to coerce them into submission to the Constitution, should be regarded as definitely and forever overthrown. This has been finally effected by the National power, as it had often been before, by overwhelming argument.
Of course the Constitution was ratified by the states. That was the procedure that was identified. Ratification is completely irrelevant to the issue because it has nothing to do with what the Constitution represents. It is a contract with the people not with the states. You again are ignoring facts and how things have been interpretted through SCOTUS decisions. This was ruled on in the Legal Tender cases. In Knox v. Lee, Justice Strong delivering the opinion for the court, said this:
This affirms the intetion of the Constitution in regards to government.
Also in Knox v. Lee, in concurrence with upholding the decision, Justice Bradley said the following:
This affirms the notion that the the Constitution is NOT a compact. He further destroys the notion of the Constitution being a "compact" and the idea that secession could be legal, here:
The concept that secession is legal is forever overthrown by overwhelming argument.
All of this negates any of your definitions. SCOTUS has ruled on this. The Constitution is NOT a compact between states. It is a contract with the people.
Once again, you've failed and have shown that you have nothing.
And Justice Strong is contradicted by the people who worked to establish the Constitution. Sorry, but Madison outweighs Justice Story since Story was a Clay Mercantilist.
Again the Justice is wrong since Madison and the authors of the Constitution have repeatedly stated that the Constitution is a compact. Again, Founding Fathers>Justice Bradley.
You haven't proven anything other than your appeals to authority of men in black robes that are using an illegal delegation of power to interprete the Constitution. I choose to use the actual authors of the document.
The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution, is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.
SCOTUS is wrong and has been wrong. That is why I use the people who actually wrote the damn thing. If you prefer to use political activist judges that's your prerogative, but I don't have to accept it. I reject your cites due to bias on the part of the justices involved.
Saying I have nothing and PROVING it are two different things. We're done here because you are not here for an honest debate, but to spam your rhetoric and quasi-scholastic research as fact.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?