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.
Well, to certain, lost causers and neo-revisionists, Lincoln did cause the war, because he would not acquiesce to the illogical and illegal demands of secessionists.
All I know is that the Constitutional Amendment process and Nat'l Plebescite, were both available at the time. Both were legal, and the south (or it's leaders, at least) chose not to avail themselves of them. Those processes Especially the two amending processes, were/are embedded in the Constitution and are explicit, unlike the south's 'theory' a state right to unilateral secession.
One can argue Why the south's leaders did not avail themselves of those processes, but, there can be NO argument that the amending processes did Not exist, Nor that they were ignored by the south.
Could you explain National Plebescite as I have never heard of any such thing in the US? France held them under Napoleon but I do not think they were binding in law.
__________________ "Those who forget to remember the past are condemned to repeat it", George Santayana.
An interesting older thread I had not seen before. I would answer the original question as follows: Were I a Supreme Court Justice, I would nullify the Amendment outlawing New Jersey as contrary to the Natural Law to which the Founding Fathers appealed in the Declaration of Independance and throughout the Revolution. There is a phrase used in Canon Law: "When the law ceases to serve the law ceases to apply." In the hypothetical, a constitutional amendment is passed which violates the natural rights of citizens of the United States. As such, it is arguably a nullity as violative of higher human law. I would probably be impeached under the hypothetical, but if a provision of the Constitution violates the Higher Law upon which the Constitution is based, then I believe that one would have an obligation to oppose that law in much the same way that an officer is required to obey all lawful orders of a superior officer unless such order is itself illegal.
In the hypothetical, the very same theory which argued that the the people of the Colonies were no longer bund to the King in that the King had, by his actions forfeited the right to govern them as subjects; the same theory would apply in the hypothetical and not only the people of New Jersey but all the citizens of the United States would be released from their obligation to the United States and they would, arguably, have a duty to rebel and replace the government.
__________________ "There must be more historians of the Civil War than there were generals figthing in it... Of the two groups, the historians are the more belligerent." David Donald, Lincoln Reconsidered (1961)
An interesting older thread I had not seen before. I would answer the original question as follows: Were I a Supreme Court Justice, I would nullify the Amendment outlawing New Jersey as contrary to the Natural Law to which the Founding Fathers appealed in the Declaration of Independance and throughout the Revolution.
A creative answer, I must say, declaring a provision of the Constitution unconstitutional.
__________________ "In this Constitution, the citizens of the United States appear dispensing a part of their original power in what manner and what proportion they think fit. They never part with the whole; and they retain the right of recalling what they part with." James Wilson of Pennsylvania, October 28th, 1787
Where did timewalker state that a provision of the Constitution was unconstitutional?
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
What does "...would nullify the amendment....as contrary to natural law" mean?
"....but if a provision of the Constitution violates the Higher Law...then I believe one would have an obligation to oppose that law..." says what, exactly, about that Constitutional provision?
America did appeal to a Higher Law in it's revolution against the British Crown. Did the Confederacy?
Here, I have to go with John Taylor. An amendment is part of the constitution and SCOTUS is guided by that. It can't very well nullify part of its guidebook.
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
Here, I have to go with John Taylor. An amendment is part of the constitution and SCOTUS is guided by that. It can't very well nullify part of its guidebook.
ole
But it can interpret the hell out of it. Much would depend on the wording of the amendment and, of course, the makeup of the court.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Unconditional Unionism 
Linear Mode
