slavery is at the bottom of everything they were worried about

[trice]

Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
Independent, sovereign nations have no "power of secession", just as they have no power to command that the Moon be made of cheese or the Earth be flat instead of round. It is not an aspect of being independent, nor is it an aspect of sovereignity. It is merely the legal ability to get out of an agreement, an escape clause, and so only meaningful within the agreement itself. As a result, "secession" is not a power that could be delegated by the states, nor retained by them.

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

Me thinks you play word games. Independent, sovereign nations have no need for a power of secession.

Oh? Then why did the secessionists of 1860-61 believe it essential to declare they had one? Could it be they understood they were not independent, sovereign nations no matter what they claimed? Is that what you are saying here?

Secessionists cannot have it both ways; neither can you.

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

Yet if at an earlier time they won that right via Revolution, it belonged to them whether they needed it or not and in this case the states carried it with them into the Union.

You cannot tell me they had it and didn't have it at the same time. I have yet to find a single example reported of any nation recognizing such a "right of secession" before the Civil War, although I have asked for more than 10 years online. What I find instead are claims that it is irrelevant that it never existed before -- it must exist because the people arguing secession want it to exist, and somehow everyone else is supposed to kow-tow to their desire for it.

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

They all believed it and were convinced of the viability of it. Only three states were skeptical enough to reiterate it in their ratification docs, the rest simply understood it to be so obvious that it needed no special declaration.

No, that is simply not accurate. There was never anything approaching that degree of certainty in the existence of a "right of secession". If there were, it still would be impossible to believe that the states would agree to a belief at any time that other states could do so by the violent and abusive methods the secessionists used in 1860-61. (They might have thought they, themselves, should have such a right, but not that others should have the right to abuse them in such a fashion.)



Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
It might exist within the Constitution or it might not. But the only body empowered to tell you if it does or not is the Supreme Court -- and the secessionists made no attempt to find out what the Court might say. No state legislature, no President, no Congress, no individual citizen has the jurisdiction to answer this; we can only have opinions on the matter. The Supreme Court gets to make a decision on it.

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

Not if the Confederates had won. ;^)

If that is what you believe, you are saying that there was no "right of secession" at all. What you are depending upon is the might-makes-right argument of the "natural right of revolution". Even Lincoln was perfectly willing to admit the existence of that right, and said so repeatedly. It was the secessionists who denied they were in rebellion, remember?

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

Why? The colonies were sovereign after they won independence. If they seceded England, why is it different for them to secede the Union?

Revolution is not a constitutional, legal "right of secession". It was important to the secessionists to reject the idea that they were in rebellion, in revolution, in insurrection against their government. They denied it vehemently.

Regards,
Tim

[Wild_Rose]

Originally Posted by unionblue

Wild Rose,

"They felt released from their obligations of allegiance to the Union."

And when you consider the above, dear lady, that is only what they believed.

True, but what they believed is also what many of our founders believed. The compact theory was widely accepted.

Regards,
Rose

[Wild_Rose]

Originally Posted by trice

Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
The seceding states claimed that a legal "right of secession" existed. This can only be a legal right inside the Union governed by the Constitution.

As I have already said, the colonies did not secede from England. They rebelled against their allegiance. This is revolution, not the legal "right of secession". The colonists understood the difference; men like Robert E. Lee understood it. Secessionists denied it, and it appears you either do not understand it or wish to deny it for some other reason.

I believe we have argued the right of secession to the end. I don't know what else I can say without being redundant. There are strong parallels between the American Revolution and Southern secession. I am aware of the differences, but the similarities are strong.

Originally Posted by trice

Lee considered "secession" nothing but revolution and anarchy. He said so repeatedly between December of 1860 and April of 1861, in private letters, in conversation with friends and others, in rejecting high command with the US. He believed no such "right" existed, nor had ever been intended to exist by the Founding Fathers. He considered secession to be treason.

I've never read anything that indicated Lee believed secession to be treason. If you could provide a link I'd would be grateful.

Originally Posted by trice

If they believed in it, why not put it in? Perhaps they believed it did not exist and so never mentioned it.

That, again? It existed. It was debated. I believe it was Madison who objected to using the word "accede" toward states "acceding to statehood". He said to accede meant they could secede.

It existed when three states declared their right to revert to self-government if and when they so desired. They made this declaration so that there would be no misunderstanding at a later date. The Union welcomed them, as states, with that understanding.

In June, 1851, Daniel Webster, in his speech at Capons Springs, Va., remarked: "I do not hesitate to say and repeat that if the Northern States refuse willfully and deliberately to carry into effect that part of the Constitution which respects the restoration of the fugitive slaves, the South would no longer be bound to observe the compact. A bargain broken on one side is a bargain broken on all sides."

Originally Posted by trice

Again, the colonies did not secede. They revolted. Men like Jefferson Davis denied they were in rebellion, and claimed the rest of the country was the revolutionaries. They claimed that they were acting legally, which the colonists did not.

Never the less, the goal was secession, regardless of which means was used or what you chose to call it.

Sorry I have to cut this short. I'll get back to finish this tomorrow.

Regards,
Rose

[russ_aukerman]

Niel -

I give you THE primary source - the Constitution. In response, you give a Randall quoting a Motley. As I've told you, what any one person has to say is irrelevent; it's what the Constitution says that counts. And I didn't see Randall or Motley even referring to constitutional text. If you look at what I wrote, it's based ENTIRELY on constitutional text. Your willingness to take a Randall and a Motley over the Constitution is the problem. Stay away from secondary sources, read the Constitution, and be guided by its words. If you want it to say more, or less, than it actually does, write your legislator; don't add words to the Constitution that aren't there.

[russ_aukerman]

Tim -

"Granted, there are few legal matters more complex than water rights -- but do you really think the issue of a 'right of secession' would be a simple one in law? The complexity of riparian rights law is not my point. My point is that you need federal law to get federal court jurisdiction. Secession is not a federal law. Yes, the constitutionality of secession is simple. That is because the Constitution is completely silent on the issue. Despite that, I'm no longer surprised by the lengths some will go to try and complicate the issue. Generally its done by those who refuse to accept the historical fact that secession is constitutional.

"If you think so, why not show us where in the Constitution it explicitly delegates jurisdiction over water rights claims to the United States." Try the interstate commerce clause. Art. I, Section 8, clause 1. Rivers are lousy about state boundaries. You might also clauses 10, 11, 13 and 14 of the same section, all mentioning water or the navy.

Fireworks is a better example beacuse their sale in any given state can be regulated, or not, as the state sees fit. Same with secession. But I'll go with another example - how about a state law granting immunity from damages for landowners who have people using their land for recreational uses. We actually have such a law in Oh. There's an exception to the law if a fee is required, apparantly you have to charge enough to buy insurance. IIRC, the Constitution is equally silent in the issue of damages for use of recreational lands. Or how about that 25 mph speed limit on your street. The Constitution is silent on that too, as it is regarding the ticket you got for speeding.

If you have no power of secession, you have no power of self-determination and hence no sovereignty. Sovereignty is "1a posessed of controlling power b unlimited in extent; absolute" according to the dictionary. If you can't control yourselves, your power is not controlling nor is it unlimited or absolute.

"Having done so, why do they retain what the Federal government gave them?" The simple answer is because they didn't give it away. Moreover, once seceeded, they declared themselves a sovereign country of their own. I see that you like nothing that comes easy or convinient for the southern states. If its easy and you don't like it, you just complicate it, right?

"Good for you. It is a long time since I took my Constitutional Law course." Too long, if you ask me. ;-) BTW, I took that course too, as well as the one on federal court juristiction. My professor is now a federal court judge. And no, you don't have it right.

Forget water rights. Because they involve both federal and state law, they are not analagous to a state's exercise of its own sovereign rights. But, De. could sell fireworks even if a New Yorker comes to De., buys them, takes them back to NY, and gets killed. Delaware has the power to sell fireworks because that power is not delegated to the fed.

"Suppose no 'power of secession' ever existed to be delegated to the Federal government or retained by the states." That's meaningless fiction, as proven by the ordinances of secession themselves. You can argue that the power isn't constitutional, but arguing against its existance will get you nowhere.

[Wild_Rose]

Originally Posted by trice

If you wish to argue the side of secession, you must accept what the secessionists of 1860 said and did. If you continue to act in this fashion, refusing to acknowledge what you do not wish to believe (as you have said), you will continue to make your own position more and more unbelievable.

I hardly know how to answer such an arrogant statement. Try turning that on to yourself and you "accept what the secessionists of 1860 said and did". And please, when you claim I've said things, make sure it's in keeping with what I really said. I never claimed that I refuse "to acknowledge what I do not wish to believe". Making claims like that is hardly the way to strenthen your position.

Originally Posted by trice

People discuss many things, and certainly the idea of states wanting to leave the Union was discussed. The states were clearly told that any form of conditional acceptance was not allowed; that acceptance was to be as is and forever.

But discussion of such an idea does not mean it is correct, nor that any such legal "right of secession" exists. For example, here, at the 1787 Philadelphia Convention, is Delegate Rufus King:

"The states were not “sovereigns” in the sense contended for by some. They did not possess the peculiar features of sovereignty,—they could not make war, nor peace, nor alliances, nor treaties. Considering them as political beings, they were dumb, for they could not speak to any foreign sovereign whatever. They were deaf, for they could not hear any propositions from such sovereign. They had not even the organs or faculties of defence or offence, for they could not of themselves raise troops, or equip vessels, for war.... If the states, therefore, retained some portion of their sovereignty ... they had certainly divested themselves of essential portions of it."

"They had certainly divested themselves of essential portions of it."

I agree with that. It is common knowledge, however, it doesn't prove that the remaining powers not delegated to the Union, including secession, was not retained by the states.

Originally Posted by trice

Or how about James Wilson, a true 'Founding Father", signer of the Declaration of Independence, and a George Washington appointee to the Supreme Court: "Mr. WILSON could not admit the doctrine that, when the colonies became independent of Great Britain, they became independent also of each other. He read the Declaration of Independence, observing thereon, that the United Colonies were declared to be free and independent states, and inferring, that they were independent, not individually but unitedly, and that they were confederated, as they were independent states." (From The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution [Elliot's Debates, Volume 5])

Or General Charles Cotsworth Pickney, also a delegate at the Philadelphia Convention, at the South Carolina Convention on the adoption of the Constitution, rising to refute the idea that the states were independently sovereign and independent, basing his concept on the Declaration of Independence: "In that Declaration the several states are not even enumerated; but after reciting, in nervous language, and with convincing arguments, our right to independence, and the tyranny which compelled us to assert it, the declaration is made in the following words: "We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America in General Congress assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these United Colonies are, and of fight ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES." The separate independence and individual sovereignty of the several states were never thought of by the enlightened band of patriots who framed this Declaration; the several states are not even mentioned by name in any part of it, as if it was intended to impress this maxim on America, that our freedom and independence arose from our union, and that without it we could neither be free nor independent. Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses." (From The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution [Elliot's Debates, Volume 4])

If your goal was to prove there were other opinions besides those of the secessionists, your efforts were unnecessary. If those quotes are supposed to prove to me the secessionists were wrong, I can easily provide sufficient evidence to the contrary. For instance:

In June, 1851, Daniel Webster, a staunch Unionist, in his speech at Capons Springs, Va., remarked, "I do not hesitate to say and repeat that if the Northern States refuse willfully and deliberately to carry into effect that part of the Constitution which respects the restoration of the fugitive slaves, the South would no longer be bound to observe the compact. A bargain broken on one side is a bargain broken on all sides."


‘Touching the general nature of the instrument called the Constitution ... there is no obscurity — it has no fabled descent ... from the heavens. Its origin is not confused by the mists of time, or hidden by the darkness of past unexplored ages; it is the fabric of our day. Some now living had a share in its construction — all of us stood by and saw the rising of the edifice. There can be no doubt amount its nature. It is a political compact’ --John Quincy


Henry Cabot Lodge, in his Life of Daniel Webster,recognized that ‘[w]hen the Constitution was adopted by the States ... it is safe to say that there was not a man ... from Washington and Hamilton ... to George Clinton and George Mason ... who regarded the new system as anything but an experiment entered upon by the States and from which each and every State had a right to peaceably withdraw, a right which was very likely to be exercised. When the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions appeared they were not opposed on constitutional grounds, but on those of expediency ...’


Woodrow Wilson has observed that the understanding that the federal government was merely an emanation of the sovereignty of the States, and that the States were sovereign and independent bodies on attaining independence, ‘was a doctrine accepted almost without question, even by the courts, for quite thirty years after formation of the government. "Even those public men who loved the Union most, yielded theoretical assent that a State might legally withdraw from the government at her own option, and had only practical and patriotic objections to urge. Every State or group of States which had a grievance against the national government bethought itself of its right to secede.
Woodrow Wilson, Division and Re-Union 1829-1918

Whigs largely rejected the concept of the Federal Government as a compact and widely equated talk of secession with ‘revolution’. Even though the federalists may have preferred to have erected a national government as opposed to a republic of republics, these efforts were soundly defeated in the Philadelphia Convention and the proponents of nationalism were put to arguing that the proposed Constitution was an agreement among independent cooperating political sovereignties in order to get it past the objections of the people of the political communities who, having come through one armed revolution against the claims of an aggregate government, did not wish to substitute an indigenous imperial central government in its place. Albert Taylor Bledsoe, Is Davis a Traitor



The several states composing the United States of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but…by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes [and] delegated to that government certain definite powers…and…whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force…To this compact each state acceded as a state, and is an integral party, its co-states forming, as to itself, the other party…The government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself, since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution the measure of its powers…Thomas Jefferson

Originally Posted by trice

The key is to understand that people had differing opinions about these issues. Some believed, some didn't, some weren't sure. Yet secessionists insist and demand that no one else's views counted, that only their pet theory was somehow law. They arrogantly insisted that what they would like must be true, no matter what anyone else said.

Everyone insists and demands that their view is the correct one. If they did not believe a thing they would not take that particular path. To claim the secessionists insisted what they "liked" must be true or to call their doctrine a "pet theory" as if it were a frivilous idea, is just plain wrong and it insults their integrity and honor. I believe you take a very narrow view of the secessionists.

A very large part of the country, including many Southerners, did not believe in the existence of a "right of secession" Many of these same people believed that, while there was no "right of secession", it was also wrong to use force to compel a state that truly wanted to leave to stay. Robert E. Lee was one of those, as were many Northerners. All this is widely known and easily documentable.[/quote]

There is an old saying, "You can please some of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the people any of the time". Such was the case, but the majority won out and most of the opponents rallied to support their state.

Regards,
Rose

[trice]

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

I've never read anything that indicated Lee believed secession to be treason. If you could provide a link I'd would be grateful.

Please see the post "Lee's view of secession, late 1860- early 1861"

Regards,
Tim

[Wild_Rose]

My apologies for being slow to respond.

Originally Posted by trice

Rose, the Secessionists are the ones who insisted that secession was not revolution. The colonists never believed they had any such legal right. If you cannot admit to yourself the difference, well ... then we are back to you telling us you not in the habit of acknowledging what you do not believe. It still leaves you wrong on the facts.

I'm not claiming that secession was revolution. I'm claiming it doesn't make any difference because a right to secession did exist. So, whether you believe the South was revolutionists or secessionists, does not change their right to secede.

You claim the colonists didn't believe they had any legal right to secession, yet everything I know indicates that they did, indeed, believe it.

Originally Posted by trice

I have no idea where you are going here. Revolutionists are obviously traitors to their country; success allows them to get away with it. However, if the secessionists had dropped the pretense that they had a legal right to their violent and aggressive acts, they would at least have been cleared of duplicity on this matter.

There was no pretense. You like to ignore that there were states that made the claim of their right to revert to self-government in their ratifying docs. This proves they believed in that right prior to becoming a state.

Originally Posted by trice

But the Constitution, through the Tenth Amendment, does treat powers exactly in this fashion, as "objects that could be put into a basket and either handed to the central government or kept for future use."

[/i]

In short, this is the Tenth Amendment I specifically cited and what I said was true. The Constitution does split up powers like objects and put them into baskets, one for the Federal government, another for the states: exactly what you deny.

Actually, this Amendment makes reference to specific powers already mentioned. What is left undefined is any other powers that may, or may not, exist.

The question is what power was left to the state. The answer would be ALL power not delegated to the Union.

Originally Posted by trice

It doesn't matter in what I am saying. Mentioning it might strengthen the case for secession, or weaken it, depending upon what was said. I agree with the Tenth Amendment. I simply do not believe that any "power" or "right" of secession as the Southern states attempted in 1860-61 existed at any time. As a result, it could not be retained by the individual states nor delegated to the United States.

I respect your opinion. I just don't share it.

Originally Posted by trice

So? What "powers" are those? A power does not exist just because you imagine it does.

Not because I imagine it, no. Because ALL power belonged to the colonies as sovereigns. I don't know any other way to express what ALL means. I use the word literally. ALL, meaning everything...anything, unlimited, except for those powers they allowed to the Union upon achieving statehood.

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
It is the Union, not the state, that may not reach beyond what is expressly delegated to it by the Constitution.

Originally Posted by trice

I am not sure what you mean here. It is completely contrary to the theory of secession, which holds that it was the states delegating powers to the Federal government through the Constitution, and so they could withdraw those powers at any time unilaterally. What you are saying is the reverse of the Tenth Amendment and would limit the power of the states very greatly.

What I'm saying is that the Union, not the states have limited power. The only limits placed on the states is what they, themselves, placed there. The Union must have all powers delegated to it spelled out in the Constitution, not so with the states. All other powers belong to the states. Those powers need not be defined since ALL means just that, all power not belonging to the Union. Of course, you are claiming secession wasn't a power belonging to the states. I maintain that it is since it wasn't prohibited by the Constitution.

Originally Posted by trice

But, assuming you want to "reach beyond" as a state, who is it that determines if you are right or wrong? The Constitution sets up a body to make that decision: the Supreme Court has jurisdiction and all the states have agreed to it. Why then did the secessionists not bring their case to the Court?

The secessionists believed they were acting within their rights. The compact was broken. To go to the SC would have been the same as asking the Union for permission to secede. Putting this right to secession up for question would be admitting that there was some doubt, of which there was none.

Why didn't the Federal Government take their complaint to the SC?

Regards,
Rose

[Wild_Rose]

Originally Posted by trice

Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
Independent, sovereign nations have no "power of secession", just as they have no power to command that the Moon be made of cheese or the Earth be flat instead of round. It is not an aspect of being independent, nor is it an aspect of sovereignity. It is merely the legal ability to get out of an agreement, an escape clause, and so only meaningful within the agreement itself. As a result, "secession" is not a power that could be delegated by the states, nor retained by them.

Oh? Then why did the secessionists of 1860-61 believe it essential to declare they had one? Could it be they understood they were not independent, sovereign nations no matter what they claimed? Is that what you are saying here?

Secessionists cannot have it both ways; neither can you.

In the book, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE United States of America. BY WILLIAM RAWLE, secession is outlined. This book was used as a textbook at West Point during the time many of the Civil War Generals attended the academy. An excerpt from chapter 23:

The Union is an association of the people of republics; its preservation is calculated to depend on the preservation of those republics.

If a faction should attempt to subvert the government of a state for the purpose of destroying its republican form, the paternal power of the Union could thus be called forth to subdue it.

Yet it is not to be understood, that its interposition would be justifiable, if the people of a state should determine to retire from the Union, whether they adopted another or retained the same form of government, or if they should, with the, express intention of seceding, expunge the representative system from their code, and thereby incapacitate themselves from concurring according to the mode now prescribed, in the choice of certain public officers of the United States.

The principle of representation, although certainly the wisest and best, is not essential to the being of a republic, but to continue a member of the Union, it must be preserved, and therefore the guarantee must be so construed. It depends on the state itself to retain or abolish the principle of representation, because it depends on itself whether it will continue a member of the Union. To deny this right would be inconsistent with the principle on which all our political systems are founded, which is, that the people have in all cases, a right to determine how they will be governed.

The states, then, may wholly withdraw from the Union, but while they continue, they must retain the character of representative republics. Governments of dissimilar forms and principles cannot long maintain a binding coalition. "Greece," says Montesquieu, "was undone as soon as the king of Macedon obtained a seat in the amphyctionic council." [Federalist No. 43] It is probable, however, that the disproportionate force as well as the monarchical form of the new confederate had its share of influence in the event. But whether the historical fact supports the theory or not, the principle in respect to ourselves is unquestionable.(all emphasis mine)

St. George Tucker, 1752-1827

In his book, A View of the Constitution of the United States, he claims the constitution was formed by the secession from the Articles of Confederation:

Such was the proceeding on the part of those of the American states which first adopted the present constitution of the United States, and established a form of federal government, essentially different from that which was first established by the articles of confederation, leaving the states of Rhode Island and North Carolina, both of which, at first, rejected the new constitution, to themselves. This was an evident breach of that article of the confederation, which stipulated that those "articles should be inviolably observed by every state, and that the union should be perpetual; nor should any alteration at any time thereafter be made in any of them, unless such alteration be agreed to in the congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every state." Yet the seceding states, as they may be not improperly termed, did not hesitate, as soon as nine states had ratified the new constitution, to supersede the former federal government and establish a new form, more consonant to their opinion of what was necessary to the preservation and prosperity of the federal union. (84)

...the seceding states were certainly justified upon that principle; and from the duty which every state is acknowledged to owe to itself, and its own citizens by doing whatsoever may best contribute to advance its own happiness and prosperity; and much more, what may be necessary to the preservation of its existence as a state. Nor must we forget that solemn declaration to which every one of the confederate states that whenever any form of government is destructive of the ends of its institution, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government. Consequently whenever the people of any state, or number of states, discovered the inadequacy of the first form of federal government to promote or preserve their independence, happiness, and union, they only exerted that natural right in rejecting it, and adopting another

...And since the seceding states, (Note: he is referring to the states that have seceded the AoC)by establishing a new constitution and form of federal government among themselves, without the consent of the rest, have shown that they consider the right to do so whenever the occasion may, in their opinion require it, as unquestionable, we may infer that that right has not been diminished by any new compact which they may since have entered into, since none could be more solemn or explicit than the first, nor more binding upon the contracting parties. Their obligation, therefore, to preserve the present constitution, is not greater than their former obligations were, to adhere to the articles of confederation; each state possessing the same right of withdrawing itself from the confederacy without the consent of the rest, as any number of them do, or ever did, possess. (85-86)

To deny this, would be to deny to sovereign and independent states, the power which, as colonies, and dependent territories, they have mutually agreed they had a right to exercise, and did actually exercise, when they shook off the government of England, first, and adopted the present constitution of the United States, in the second instance. (86)

The Southern states weren't trying to "have it both ways". They looked to the Constitution for their direction.

Regards,
Rose

[trice]

Originally Posted by russ_aukerman

Tim - "Granted, there are few legal matters more complex than water rights -- but do you really think the issue of a 'right of secession' would be a simple one in law?

The complexity of riparian rights law is not my point. My point is that you need federal law to get federal court jurisdiction. Secession is not a federal law. Yes, the constitutionality of secession is simple. That is because the Constitution is completely silent on the issue. Despite that, I'm no longer surprised by the lengths some will go to try and complicate the issue. Generally its done by those who refuse to accept the historical fact that secession is constitutional.

"Secession" is only a legal concept. It only has meaning inside the Constitution and the Union of the United States here. It is entirely about Federal law, because the Constitution is Federal law.

If you wish to point out where people avoid accepting historical facts, please note that the post-Civil War Texas v. White case was decided by the Supreme Court and appears to say that the seceding states had no right to secede as they did. Until reversed, that is fact, and one you appear to have a great deal of trouble accepting.

Originally Posted by russ_aukerman

"If you think so, why not show us where in the Constitution it explicitly delegates jurisdiction over water rights claims to the United States."

Try the interstate commerce clause. Art. I, Section 8, clause 1. Rivers are lousy about state boundaries. You might also clauses 10, 11, 13 and 14 of the same section, all mentioning water or the navy.

On Interstate Commerce("To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes; "), I think you would find this does not cover all the cases, since the Federal government also asserts water rights claims inside single states. It also does not go to establishing the ownership of the rights -- which the Court is determining.


On the others, do you really think so? Many of the claims being adjudicated by the Court and asserted by the Federal government or the states/etc. concern non-navigable streams, sometimes only a few inches deep or dry most of the year.

"To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations; "

Hard for me to believe "the high seas" refers to a barely-damp ditch in a state like Colorado.

"To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water; "

I haven't seen a single case in the Colorado Basin cases that involves letters of marque and reprisal, or captures. Have you?


"To provide and maintain a navy; "

Yes? How do you think this applies to the ownership of water rights in Colorado or Arizona or some such state?


"To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces; "

Hmm? I truly see no application to the subject of water rights here. It does have a lot of meaning for my relatives in the sevvice, though.

Originally Posted by russ_aukerman

Fireworks is a better example beacuse their sale in any given state can be regulated, or not, as the state sees fit. Same with secession. But I'll go with another example - how about a state law granting immunity from damages for landowners who have people using their land for recreational uses. We actually have such a law in Oh. There's an exception to the law if a fee is required, apparantly you have to charge enough to buy insurance. IIRC, the Constitution is equally silent in the issue of damages for use of recreational lands. Or how about that 25 mph speed limit on your street. The Constitution is silent on that too, as it is regarding the ticket you got for speeding.

I think you are trying to make sure you only look at analogies that suit what you want to end up with. What I am trying to point out to you is that there is a vast difference between the law on the speed limit on my street, entirely within the confines of NJ, and a decision by NY to dam the Delaware and divert the water elsewhere (drying up large parts of NJ and PA, causing grave economic damage, etc.) PA and NJ have rights that NY would violate by their action, and the Court would step in to stop them.

Secession -- as attempted in 1860-61 -- had vast impacts that damaged the rights and property of others. The members of the Union are not allowed to do that with impunity.

Originally Posted by russ_aukerman

If you have no power of secession, you have no power of self-determination and hence no sovereignty. Sovereignty is "1a posessed of controlling power b unlimited in extent; absolute" according to the dictionary. If you can't control yourselves, your power is not controlling nor is it unlimited or absolute.

This is untrue. "Secession" is not an aspect of "sovereignity". It is merely withdrawal from an agreement, and as such is only pertinent to the agreement itself. The states voluntarily joined the Union. They voluntarily approved the Constitution. They participated in the process of passing all the laws of that Union. They chose to restrict themselves, to bind themselves into a Union with others. They created the mutual commitments they now wish to break.

Or is your true belief that "sovereign" means "does not have to keep the commitments they make"?

Originally Posted by russ_aukerman

"Having done so, why do they retain what the Federal government gave them?"

The simple answer is because they didn't give it away.

?? If states like AL-MS-LA-AR-TN-KY were not sovereign before they became states, where did they get their sovereignity from? If the US didn't give it to them by making them states, who did? If they did get it by becoming states, and decide they wish to reverse that process, why do they retain it?

Originally Posted by russ_aukerman

Moreover, once seceeded, they declared themselves a sovereign country of their own.

Since repealing their agreement to become states seems to make them back into territories of the US, where do they get the power to declare themselves sovereign nations?

Originally Posted by russ_aukerman

I see that you like nothing that comes easy or convinient for the southern states. If its easy and you don't like it, you just complicate it, right?

You lost me here. Concepts like "easy" and "convenient" have no standing in the discussion we are having.

Originally Posted by russ_aukerman

"Good for you. It is a long time since I took my Constitutional Law course." Too long, if you ask me. ;-) BTW, I took that course too, as well as the one on federal court juristiction. My professor is now a federal court judge. And no, you don't have it right.

Well, my professor has passed on now. Sorry to see him go.

You don't think the Supreme Court derives its' jurisdiction from the section of the Constitution that says it has it? Really? Why not?

Originally Posted by russ_aukerman

Forget water rights. Because they involve both federal and state law, they are not analagous to a state's exercise of its own sovereign rights. But, De. could sell fireworks even if a New Yorker comes to De., buys them, takes them back to NY, and gets killed. Delaware has the power to sell fireworks because that power is not delegated to the fed.

Note: secession involves the individual states as well as the United States. That is why I think your fireworks example is inappropriate. If you think the involvement of multiple states/the United States with conflicting rights and obligations gives jurisdiction to the US on water rights, you will also give it to the US on secession.

Originally Posted by russ_aukerman

"Suppose no 'power of secession' ever existed to be delegated to the Federal government or retained by the states."

That's meaningless fiction, as proven by the ordinances of secession themselves. You can argue that the power isn't constitutional, but arguing against its existance will get you nowhere.

No. It can only exist inside the Constitution. The "right of secession" being debated is merely the right for one state to withdraw unilaterally, without discussion and negotiation, from the Union under that Constitution. That is what the secessionists of 1860-61 insisted upon, a legal and Constitutional right.

The states can certainly pass any law they wish, say anything they wish, as long as they obey their laws and oaths. But a state passing an Ordinance of Secession only means they passed it; it proves nothing. It does not mean they have the "right of secession" they claim -- and if they don't have it, if it does not exist, then their ordinance is without force, merely a curiosity.

Regards,
Tim