Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
"When I do that I will have empirical data to back up your statement." Must you go to the electric chair to prove to yourself that the state has the sovereign power to convict you of a capital offense?
---------------
I have empirical date from all the others who were convicted and executed that tells me the state has the power to execute someone. If one were to ask for proof we could point them to those cases. As soon as the people of 3/4 of the states decide to take that power away from states, though, it is gone, is it not? So whatever "sovereign power" the state has to convict a person of a capital offense exists only so long as the People of the United States allow it to exist. Once they decide to get rid of it, it is gone. If the People of every state except Georgia and Texas decide to ratify a constitutional amendment banning capital punishment, then any law in Georgia and Texas that prescribes the death penalty is automatically abolished against Georgia's and Texas' will. So how can anyone claim Georgia and Texas are in any way really sovereign if the People of other states can overturn any set of laws in those two states they choose to overturn?
"Based on my research it is factually true that secession is illegal and unconstitutional as the Constitution is written, without it having to specifically state that secession is forbidden. Do you accept that statement without evidence?" I don't have to. I"ve demonstrated by constitutional text that you are wrong.
------------------
You've demonstrated no such thing. In fact, I say it is self-evident that I've demonstrated the exact opposite, that by the Constitution as written secession is illegal and unconstitutional.
"That there are people who speak of states being sovereign merely shows they've been taken in by the mirage." The Constitution retains state sovereignty; the S.Ct. says the states are sovereign; only Cash say its a mirage. Hmmmm.
--------------------
Welcome to the cutting edge of Constitutional Law.
The Constitution retains the mirage of state sovereignty which can be overturned at a mere moment's notice by the fiat of the American People.
The Supreme Court uses different meanings for "sovereign." They use it more as a synonym for "government" than as a description of any true sovereignty.
"I maintain they have the ultimate authority over both the United States and the individual states, making them the true sovereigns with absolute authority." I have agreed that the People are the ultimate sovereigns. As it stands, the People have delegated that power to the states and, in turn, partly to the fed pursuant to the Constitution. The Poeple could take back their sovereign powers, BUT THEY HAVEN'T. Let's stick to the reality of the way things are. If the People someday want to take back their sovereign powers, I'll cross that bridge when I come to it.
-----------------
That is the reality, Russ. The People are the ONLY true sovereigns. Any powers they delegated to states can be taken back, as you admit. Therefore, those states cannot in any way be said to have "absolute authority." They are not really sovereign.
You state that "...if the states had "absolute authority" the Federal Court could not rule on a state matter once the state courts have spoken." Anyone with the filing fee and a word processor can go to fed court and challenge a state law as violative of the Constitution.
-------------------
Which proves they have no absolute authority, and thus are not really sovereign. Otherwise the Supreme Court would have no jurisdiction to rule.
The S.Ct. says "Thus, the Court has uniformly held that the States are separate sovereigns with respect to the Federal Government because each State's power to prosecute is derived from its own "inherent sovereignty," not from the Federal Government." Somehow, you get to a definition of sovereignty from a Mr. Austin; a definition never actually considered by the S.Ct. in its opinion.
-------------------
John Austin was Chair of Jurisprudence at University College in London. He's remembered for two great works, The Province of Jurisprudence Determined, published in 1832, and Lectures on Jurisprudence, published in 1863.
His definition was in fact actually used by the Court. "Separate sovereigns" is really no more than separate entities which receive habitual obedience from the bulk of their respective societies.
Seems like a stretch to me. Perhaps you'll explain how the court based its decision on a definition it never considered. But I'm not sure that your explanation will hold water until you also show it to have been considered by the court. While I await your explanation, I'll stick with the definition of sovereignty provided by Webster's dictionary.
----------------
You mean: "1 a : supreme power esp. over a body politic b : freedom from external control?"
I've already shown to anyone willing to see that states have no freedom from external control and have no supreme power, since the people of other states have the power to overturn whatever laws in a particular state they choose to overturn.
First you quote the S.Ct. that "This classic statement by the Chief Justice endorsed Hamilton's reasoning in The Federalist No. 32 that THE PLAN OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION DID NOT CONTEMPLATE '[A]N ENTIRE CONSOLIDATION OF THE STATES INTO ONE COMPLETE NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY,..." (emphasis added) Then you somehow conclude that "The United States, under the Constitution, is a single nation, not a collection of sovereign states." I find those statements irreconcialable. Perhaps you can explain?
-------------------
If you follow the thread of the argument through, rather than cherrypicking one statement from one part and another statement from another part, then I believe it's quite clear. It helps if you read the entire posting rather than bits and pieces here and there. I will repeat the salient portion of Justice Stevens' holding regarding the fact that the United States is a single nation, not a collection of sovereign states. Nota bene: "After the Constitutional Convention convened, the Framers were presented with, and eventually adopted a variation of, 'a plan not merely to amend the Articles of Confederation but to create an entirely new National Government with a National Executive, National Judiciary, and a National Legislature.' Id., at 10. In adopting that plan, the Framers envisioned a uniform national system, rejecting the notion that the Nation was a collection of States, and instead creating a direct link between the National Government and the people of the United States." [574 US 779, 802]
You state that "The People are the only true sovereigns." Are you saying that the People cannot delegate that sovereign power to a political entity such as a state or fed gov't?
----------------------
No.
I'm saying that what the people delegate, the people can take away at an instant, so any "sovereignty" either the state or the federal government have is at the pleasure of the people. Therefore, it is a mirage. You can see it for the time being, but the moment the people decide to take it away, it is gone. Because of that, we cannot really say that either the state or the federal government is truly sovereign. Sovereignty means absolute authority, supreme power, and freedom from external control. Neither the states nor the federal government truly possess that. Only the People do.
The absurd consequence of that contention is that there are no political entities at all; just a collection of individuals.
---------------
No, that's an absurd interpretation. Political entities are made up of individuals. The People as a whole make up the United States. It is a political entity. Their agent is the Federal Government, which exists at their pleasure to secure their rights. The agent of the people of a state is the state government, which also exists at their pleasure; however, in the United States, the state governments also exist at the pleasure of the entire body politic. If the People of the United States decide to amend the Constitution to outlaw state governments, they have the power to do so. And if one state objects to that, the amendment is still binding on that state and they lose their state government also.
But we have states and we have a fed, so that contention must be wrong.
---------------
No, you're wrong again. We have states and a federal government because that is what the People desire now. If they change their minds in the future, they will make a change and we will no longer have what we have now.
"Framers [by the way, that is the proper term, rather than "drafters." A Constitution is framed]. I don't mean to quibble and I'm not being facetious, but isn't a constitution (like any document) both framed and drafted? If 'framer' and 'drafter' aren't thus interchageable, I'd appreciate learning the difference and why the former is THE proper term.
-------------------
A constitution isn't any document. Another document can be drafted. Constitutions are framed.
You state that "I haven't seen any who "fear" a strong central government." Again, that's not the question. As I said in my prior post, "I asked you what "some" of the drafters PREFERRED. It is to that question that I'd like a direct answer." (emphasis added)
-------------------
My apologies. I got that confused with your statement previous to that question which was that the framers "feared" a strong central government. [Post #86, in which you said, "Many of the drafters (Madison not among them) did fear 'strong' central gov'ts."]
I asked you to prove that statement, and you simply ignored my request for proof. I'm at least giving you the courtesy of not ignoring your request, and I'm answering it directly and honestly.
Now that I went back to the original question you asked, I see it was, "do you really believe that ALL of the drafters preferred a 'strong' central gov't, as opposed to one 'stronger' that that of the Articles?" [Your Post #92]
So as I said before, your question was about ALL the framers. Again, I have not found one yet, whose statements I have read, who was not in favor of a strong central government. But I haven't read them all yet, so it would be premature to form an opinion on this until I either read them all or I find the statements of one who does not wish a strong central government.
Perhaps you find it convenient to form an opinion based on a small particle of information, but I think that's a poor way to do business. My direct and honest answer is that I have no opinion about whether ALL of the framers preferred a strong central government as opposed to one that was only stronger than the AoC. This is because I have not read what ALL of them had to say, and the ones I've read thus far all favor strong central governments.
Now, if that is not understandable, perhaps you really ought to get your money back, because your teachers would not have done right by you.
You state that the internet resources you've offered "in my view are very objective commentators." It's your view of their objectivity that concerns me. :-)
--------------------
Would you care to comment on their credentials? Would you care to actually read what they have to say or is that asking too much?
Your Prof. Sunstein has confused the 'legality of secession' with the 'effects of secession.' It does not follow from the secession of one or more states that the 'basic enterprise' will be 'defeated.' To the contrary, there's nothing to suggest that the basic enterprise wouln't simply continue to go on with one ore more less states. Those states still adhering to the basic enterprise would still be bound to the Constitution. He also, as you have, appears to have confused what one drafter (Madison) says with what the Constitution says. Its not what any one person says that counts, its what the Constitution says that counts.
-----------------
You completely misread the quotation, you consistently misread postings, and you appear to not have the gumption to actually read articles that are offered. I'd put Prof. Sunstein's understanding of the issue far ahead of yours. I previously provided his credentials. Perhaps you can show us where he's lacking?
You are very welcome. I'm pleased to see you enjoyed them. I thought the case about Article V precluding any power of secession to be quite compelling, and an approach I had not thought of before. Prof. Amir is a Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. He teaches Constitutional Law, Criminal Procedure, Federal Jurisdiction, and American Legal History.
Concerning our ongoing discussion concerning freedom of the press during the Civil War and actions of the Lincoln administration during those times, I submit the following from the book, Spectator Of America, by Edward Dicey, edited by Herbert Mitgang. In the preface of the book, Mitgang has this to say about Lincoln and his actions concerning freedom of the press:
"Writing--the art of communicating thoughts to the mind, through the eye--is the great invention of the world. And yet, for the three thousand years during which printing remainded undiscovered after writing was in use, it was only a small portion of the people who could write, or read writing; and consequently the field of invention, though much extended, still continued very limited. At length printing came. It gave ten thousand copies of any written matter, quite as cheaply as ten were given before; and consequently a thousand minds were brought into the field where there was but one before. This was a great gain; and history shows a great change corresponding to it, in point of time. I will venture to consider it the true termination of that period called 'the Dark Ages.'" Abraham Lincoln in a lecture before the Springfield Library Association, 1859.
And some more from the preface:
"The most vexing aspect of Lincoln's relationship to the press resulted from the fact that some newspapers were temporarily shut down during the Civil War and the writ of habeas corpus was often ignored. Several recent biographical novelists, sacrificing the full historical record for the sake of fiction, have used such incidents to belittle Lincoln as a libertarian and to conclude that he was just another politician in the White House. The central point such popularizers overlook is that there was a war on in America's front yard in a house divided; that Confederate artillery in the early years of the war stood almost within range of the capitol; that a 'fifth column' of anti-Union newspaper publishers and dissenters in the northern as well as the border states harangued Lincoln for his conduct of the war and thereby contributed to fewer enlistments and more draft riots. Above all, it was Lincoln's fighting general from Grant on down who complained to him that some journalists harmed military operations by falsifying dispatches and violating censorship rules.
Lincoln's consistent view was that saving the Union came first: that was his Constitutional oath and obligation. This, too, has caused misunderstanding by revisionist Lincoln-bashers...But they were not condemned by the Lincoln administration for being outspoken. It was not calling the president a lunatic and a warmonger that got certain northern newspapers into trouble, but, instead, what his field generals considered a stab in the Union's back.
The Crisis, a Democratic newspaper in Columbus, Ohio, called Lincoln a 'half-witted usurper.' Other newspapers branded him a 'monster' and worse. Lincoln explained his attitude toward such name-calling in a communication in the middle of the war, when victory was not at all certain, to General John M. Schofield:
"You will only arrest individuals, and suppress assemblies, or newspapers, when they may be working palpalble injury to the Military in your charge, and in no other case will you interfere with the expression of opinion in any form, or allow it to be interfered with violently by others. In this, you have a discretion to exercise with great caution, calmness, and forebearance."
Lincoln himself ordered the suspension of only one newspaper--the New York World. He did so not because it was the leader of the radical opposition to his conduct of the presidency but because it had run an inflammatory faked proclamation in his name. The World in 1864 was dominated by Mayor Fernando Wood of New York and August Belmont, an influential banker, both Democrats hostile to Lincoln. Its ediotr in chief was Manton Marble, who was described by other journalists in Washington as 'a mercenary scribbler, who has no scruple in admitting that he wrote for the pay, and for the party which pays most.' The proclamation was written by two itinerant newspaper men, Joseph Howard and Francis A. Mallison, who attempted to imitate Lincoln's style. Howard had once worked as a city editor for the New-York Times; Mallison was city editor of the Brooklyn Daily Eagle. The heart of the proclamation called for a day of fasting and prayer and for a draft of 400,000 men into the army. It sounded like a Copperhead plot to incite a new draft riot in New York. Bearing the signatures of President Lincoln and Secretary of State Seward, the forged proclamation set off alarm bells in Washington and anger among the troops in the field when its falsity was revealed.
In his Constitutional role as commander in chief, Lincoln then ordered General John A. Dix, who commanded the Department of the East, to shut down the World and the Journal of Commerce, which had also printed the faked proclamation. He gave these reasons:
"Whereas there has been wickedly and traitorously printed and published ...a false and spurious proclamation purporting to be signed by the President and to be countersigned by the Secretary of State, which publication is of a treasonable nature, designed to give aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States and to the rebels now at war against the government and their aiders and abettors, you are therefore commanded forthwith to arrest and imprison the editors, proprietors and publishers of the aforesaid newspapers...and you will hold the persons so arrested in close custody until they can be brought to trial before a military commission for their offense. You will also take possession by military force of the printing establishment of the New York World and the Journal of Commerce and prohibit any further publication therefrom."
Several days after the arrests of the two newspapermen and after they had confessed to inventing the proclamation, the War Department allowed the newspapers to resume publishing."
For your consideration,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
Another viewpoint from a soldier of note during the Civil War, on the freedom of the press. From the book The Photographic History of the Civil War, Volume IV, Soldier Life And Secret Service, Prisons And Hospitalspage 29:
"No Union general could object to dissemination of such news as this; (Speaking of the battle of Gettysburg) but wide protest was made against the correspondents' activity at other times, their shrewd guesses at the armies' future movements, that kept the Southern Cabinet so remarkably well-informed of everything going on within the Union lines, and not infrequently prepared the Confederate generals for the next move.
"Of course," wrote General Sherman to his wife, in a letter from camp in front of Vicksburg, dated April 10, 1863, "the newspaper correspondents, encouraged by the political generals, and even President Lincoln, having full swing in this and all camps, report all news, secret and otherwise...All persons who don't have to fight must be kept out of camp, else secrecy, a great element of military success, is an impossibility...Can you feel astonished that I should grow angry at the toleration of such suicidal weakness, that we strong, intelligent men must bend to a silly proclivity for early news that should advise our enemy days in advance?"
Just another voice heard from.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
You're obsessing on the "People" thing again. What power the People have to abandon the states and/or fed to whom they've delegated their ultimate sovereignty is irrelevant to our present discussion. They haven't abandoned the states, the fed, or the Constitution. But since you're obviously trying to make some point, let me give you the floor - What is the relevance of this ultimate sovereignty, held by the people but which is not exercised, to a discussion of the sovereignty the People have, in fact, delegated to the states and fed? For me, the answer to the question should include some relevance as to the way things are, rather than what might be in the future. In other words, I would like an answer that's not objectionable because its base on speculation of what the People might do. In that regard, you state that "I'm saying that what the people delegate, the people can take away at an instant, so any "sovereignty" either the state or the federal government have is at the pleasure of the people." Wrong. I think you'd agree that the amendment process - even and perhaps particularly for an amendment to abolish the existing state and fed gov'ts -
would take a long time. More importantly, any such amendment could not be passed by a simple majority of the People. It would take a super-majority of 3/4 of the states to pass any amendment.
"Based on my research it is factually true that secession is illegal and unconstitutional as the Constitution is written, without it having to specifically state that secession is forbidden. Do you accept that statement without evidence?" I don't have to. I"ve demonstrated by constitutional text that you are wrong.
------------------
You've demonstrated no such thing. In fact, I say it is self-evident that I've demonstrated the exact opposite, that by the Constitution as written secession is illegal and unconstitutional." I'll do this one more time. The 10th Amend. provides that "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." Secession is not a power delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor is secession prohibited by the Constitution to the states. Therefore, by constitutional text, secession is reserved to the states. You say that the People could change that by amendment to the Constitution. I say so what; the People haven't passed such an amendment. You say that the supremacy clause prohibits secession. But the supremacy clause doesn't apply to the powers reserved to the states by the Constitution. The supremacy clause provides, in relevant part, that "THIS Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made IN PURSUANCE THEREOF,... shall be the supreme law of the land;..." (emphasis added) The power of secession is not delegated to the United States in the Constitution, and the Constitution does not prohibit the power of secession to the states; therefore, the power of secession is not part of THIS Constitution. As the power of secession is not part of THIS Constitution, no fed law prohibiting secession could lawfully be enacted in pursuance of THIS Constitution. Thus, the scope of the supremacy clause, applying only to powers contained in THIS Constitution and fed laws in pursuance thereof, does not, by its own terms, apply to the reserved power of the states to secede. Thus, by the text of the Constitution, secession is a power reserved to the states. You don't need the S.Ct., Madison or Sunstein to arrive at the conclusion that state secession is legal. What the Constitution says mandates that conclusion.
I would think that 'cutting edge' constitutional law would deal with the reality of what is rather than the conjecture of what the People might, or might not, do in the future. Maybe I'm not cut out for your cutting edge; I'll just stick to the reality of what the Constitution says. You say that "Any powers they delegated to states can be taken back." I say that I'll join in that thread when it happens.
"You state that "...if the states had "absolute authority" the Federal Court could not rule on a state matter once the state courts have spoken." Anyone with the filing fee and a word processor can go to fed court and challenge a state law as violative of the Constitution.
-------------------
Which proves they have no absolute authority, and thus are not really sovereign. Otherwise the Supreme Court would have no jurisdiction to rule." No, you're wrong. What it proves is that courts have the jurisdiction to determine their jurisdiction. In other words, presented with the person with the filing fee and a word processer, the court necessarily has the power to determine whether it has subject matter jurisdiction to decide the case. If a fed court determines that the challenge is to a reserved power of the states, like secession, it dismisses the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Here, the court only is determining its power to rule on a subject. When it determines it lacks the power, the case is over. State sovereignty is preserved.
You've proven that Webster has more than one dictionary definition of sovereignty. I meant the one I cited earlier.
You didn't explain the irreconcilable statements. Neither did Justice Stevens. Of course, it's your prerogative to choose not to explain. I understand the direct link issue, where by the Constitution the People chose to take back SOME of the sovereignty they'd previously delegated to the states and delegate it to the fed. The residuary remained with the states. If you meant something else, and you want me to understand what you meant, more explanation than you've so far offered is necessary.
"We have states and a federal government because that is what the People desire now. If they change their minds in the future, they will make a change and we will no longer have what we have now." I agree. What's your point? I'm dealing with the legality of secession in 1860 (or even today, should the S.Ct. overrule Texas v. White). How does the unknown of what the People might do in the future assist in that analysis?
You state that "A constitution isn't any document. Another document can be drafted. Constitutions are framed." Let me ask whether this is your opinion, or whether it's something you learned and just don't have the source handy. I'm not trying to be difficult, I'd really like to know.
I guess I'm not going to get a direct answer to the "strong"/"stronger" question. I'll let it go.
You state "Would you care to comment on their credentials? Would you care to actually read what they have to say or is that asking too much? I don't know their credentials, so I have no comment. Reading everything from your list is, for the time being, asking too much. I'd be months just reading the two volumes from Austin, and I have other stuff I'd prefer to read. If there's a digestable chunk of what these people are saying that you'd like me to read, and if its available on the internet, I'd be happy to read it. Please let me know.
You state that "You completely misread the quotation, you consistently misread postings, and you appear to not have the gumption to actually read articles that are offered." Name calling will get you nowhere with me. I'd appreciate it if you'd refrain. BTW, it's not gumption I lack; as I said, it's time.
I don't know what Prof. Sunsteins credentials are (and based on what I read his credentials don't keep him from being wrong). So, no, I'd not care to show where his credentials are lacking, if they are. And I don't care whether you think he's far ahead of me in anything.
What power the People have to abandon the states and/or fed to whom they've delegated their ultimate sovereignty is irrelevant to our present discussion.
-----------------------
You're so very wrong once again, Russ. It's the crux of the matter. And the people don't delegate their sovereignty. They delegate powers. Some of those powers may be sovereign powers, but they retain the ultimate sovereignty.
The fact that the People are the only true sovereigns means that the states are not truly sovereign.
you state that "I'm saying that what the people delegate, the people can take away at an instant, so any "sovereignty" either the state or the federal government have is at the pleasure of the people." Wrong.
-----------------
You have a very bizarre interpretation of the Constitution, then.
I think you'd agree that the amendment process - even and perhaps particularly for an amendment to abolish the existing state and fed gov'ts -
would take a long time.
------------------
Only as long as the People wanted it to take. You may want to read Article V before continuing the discussion.
More importantly, any such amendment could not be passed by a simple majority of the People. It would take a super-majority of 3/4 of the states to pass any amendment.
--------------------
It would be the People of 3/4 of the states, as I have been saying all along. Again, I highly encourage you to read Article V.
You've demonstrated no such thing. In fact, I say it is self-evident that I've demonstrated the exact opposite, that by the Constitution as written secession is illegal and unconstitutional." I'll do this one more time. The 10th Amend. provides that "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." Secession is not a power delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor is secession prohibited by the Constitution to the states. Therefore, by constitutional text, secession is reserved to the states.
----------------------------
Too bad you can't see beyond that little ditty, but you're absolutely wrong. If you had bothered to read the items I provided for you, you would have seen that in order for a power to be a reserved power it has to be a power the state already had. So the burden of proof is on you to show that states had the power to secede. Secondly, in order for it to be a reserved power, it has to be a power that has not been taken away by the ratification of the Constitution. The Constitution looks to a permanent Union with no unilateral secession being possible. We can see this from Article VI, Clause 2 and from Article V. States are bound to the Constitution, as the Supreme Court has ruled, and that obligation is complete. There is nothing a state can do, on its own, to release itself from that obligation. The state must have the consent of the other parties to the constitutional compact, the people of the other states.
You say that the People could change that by amendment to the Constitution. I say so what;
----------------------
I'm sorry you can't see what that means. It means the states have no real sovereignty, which is, after all, the basis for the theory of unilateral secession.
You say that the supremacy clause prohibits secession. But the supremacy clause doesn't apply to the powers reserved to the states by the Constitution.
--------------------
Absolutely wrong. The Supremacy Clause prevents a state from declaring the Constitution and US Law no longer apply to it. This makes secession a power prohibited to a state by the Constitution.
Which proves they have no absolute authority, and thus are not really sovereign. Otherwise the Supreme Court would have no jurisdiction to rule." No, you're wrong.
----------------
I'm right. You shouldn't have slept through those con law classes.
You've proven that Webster has more than one dictionary definition of sovereignty. I meant the one I cited earlier.
---------------------
The one you cited earlier [absolute authority] isn't in Webster's Dictionary.
"We have states and a federal government because that is what the People desire now. If they change their minds in the future, they will make a change and we will no longer have what we have now." I agree. What's your point?
---------------------
As I've made very clear, and you would know if you read the post, the People are the only true sovereigns, and state sovereignty is a mirage.
You state that "A constitution isn't any document. Another document can be drafted. Constitutions are framed." Let me ask whether this is your opinion, or whether it's something you learned and just don't have the source handy. I'm not trying to be difficult, I'd really like to know.
-------------------------
How's this?
fram·er n.
1. One that frames: a picture framer; a framer of new laws.
2. often Framer One of the people who wrote the U.S. Constitution.
Source: The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition.
I guess I'm not going to get a direct answer to the "strong"/"stronger" question.
-------------------
False statement. There's no way to have a more direct answer. I don't have enough information yet to form an opinion. That's a clear, direct answer. If you don't think so, you don't know what a direct answer is. I'm not responsible for the gaps in your knowledge.
You state "Would you care to comment on their credentials? Would you care to actually read what they have to say or is that asking too much? I don't know their credentials, so I have no comment.
-----------------------
I provided them, which just goes to show you haven't bothered to read them. If you want to be intellectually lazy, that's your decision. I have to say it doesn't reflect well.
Reading everything from your list is, for the time being, asking too much. I'd be months just reading the two volumes from Austin, and I have other stuff I'd prefer to read.
-------------------------
I didn't ask you to read Austin. I merely provided the names of his works as a way of identifying him. There are other items I provided which take much less time to read. But if you're not interested in putting in the time required to learn, it's your loss. Others are willing to invest the effort.
I did suggest reading Daniel F-a-rber's book, which is really well done and fairly short.
If there's a digestable chunk of what these people are saying that you'd like me to read, and if its available on the internet, I'd be happy to read it. Please let me know.
----------------------------
I've provided a few URLs.
True sovereignty lies where the power lies. The People delegated the power to the states; its the states that are sovereign.
I've read Art. V. I'm the one who told you that the word 'people' is nowhere to be found there, remember?
"Too bad you can't see beyond that little ditty." What I gave you is the textual analysis of the Constitution. If you're seeing beyond that, then I'd say you're the one seeing mirages.
You state that "in order for a power to be a reserved power it has to be a power the state already had." Wrong. Reserved powers are those not delegated to the fed. Nothing in the Constitution says that it has to be a power the state already had. That electric power, railroads and automobiles arrived after the Constitution doesn't prevent the states from regulating them.
You state that "The Constitution looks to a permanent Union with no unilateral secession being possible. We can see this from Article VI, Clause 2 and from Article V." Your opinion as to where the Constitution looks is immaterial. Its what the Constitution says that counts. Stop trying to read between the lines and see what the Constitution says, not where it "looks."
You state that "The Supremacy Clause prevents a state from declaring the Constitution and US Law no longer apply to it." That's not what the supremacy clause says. I showed you what it says. I quoted it. The supremacy clause does not say what you'd have it say.
The definition of sovereignty which I cited is in my Webster's, but apparantly not yours.
Does your dictionary contain a definition of 'drafter' that refers to one who drafted the Constitution. I prefer to use the correct terms of art whenever possible. I'm not yet of the belief that framer and drafter aren't interchangeable. But I'll let it go; it's not that important.
I'm sorry. Whose credentials are you referring to and, if I may, in which post did you refer to them?
True sovereignty lies where the power lies.
-----------------
The People.
The People delegated the power to the states; its the states that are sovereign.
-----------------
I'm sorry you're unable to understand this simple concept, Russ. When the people of other states can abolish an entire set of laws in three states against the will of those three states, then states are not sovereign and it's ridiculous to think they are.
I've read Art. V. I'm the one who told you that the word 'people' is nowhere to be found there, remember?
------------------
I think you need to go back to your con law class and ask the prof what "conventions" are.
"Too bad you can't see beyond that little ditty." What I gave you is the textual analysis of the Constitution.
-------------------
What you gave me is completely bogus and unrelated to actual fact.
You state that "in order for a power to be a reserved power it has to be a power the state already had." Wrong.
--------------------
No, it's right, and if you weren't too lazy to read postings you would have known where that came from. All you're showing is ignorance of what reserved powers are.
You state that "The Constitution looks to a permanent Union with no unilateral secession being possible. We can see this from Article VI, Clause 2 and from Article V." Your opinion as to where the Constitution looks is immaterial.
----------------
It's not just my opinion, it's also the law of the land because it's the Supreme Court's opinion. It's actually your opinion that's immaterial, especially since it has no basis in fact or law.
You state that "The Supremacy Clause prevents a state from declaring the Constitution and US Law no longer apply to it." That's not what the supremacy clause says.
-----------------
I'm sorry you don't understand what it means.
I'm sorry. Whose credentials are you referring to and, if I may, in which post did you refer to them?
------------------
I've already posted them. You can do your own homework from now on.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
