An Immodest Proposal

[Scribe]

Given that:


1) The Supremes have held (Richfield Oil v State Board) that all words in the Constitution are meaningful, quoting Holmes v Jennison that "No word in the
instrument can be rejected as superflous or unmeaning...." That includes, of course, the Preamble.
2) In Chisolm v Georgia Justice Wilson and Chief Justice Jay used the Preamble to detail the relationship of a state to the federal government.
3) In McCulloch v Maryland the Preamble is cited as proving that the Constitution was a creation of "We the People" not of the states.
4) Chief Justice John Marshall (speaking for the court in Sturges v Crowninshield) held that "the spirit of an instrument, especially of a Constitution, is to be respected not less than its letter, yet the spirit is to
be collected chiefly from its words. If the 'spirit' of the Constitution is to be collected from its words, the Preamble is clearly the place to start, as the
Preamble most clearly lays out the vision and wishes of the framers and adopters...."
4) Justice Story in his _Commentaries on the Constitution_ held that the Preamble gives us the test to decide when we have cases where the wording of
the Constitution is open to "two constructions, the one more restrictive, the other more liberal..." The test, Story said, was which best carried out the goals outlined in the Preamble. Story's commentary on the Preamble was cited by the Supremes in U.S v Boyer.

Given, therefore, that the Preamble has equal strength with every other part of the Constitution, let's give secession the Preamble test.

"WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in Order to form an more perfect Union... o Secession is not an act of the people of the United States" and certainly does nothing to perfect the Union; it would rend it. Strike one.


"... establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility...
o Secession, as demonstrated during the rebellion, tears hell out of domestic tranquility. Stike two.

"provide for the common Defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity...."
o Secession would, of course, rob a portion of ourselves and our posterity of those blessings guaranteed by the Constitution. Strike three.

Q.E.D, secession is unconstitutional.


Thank you.

[5fish]

A creative swipe at those who believe secession is Constitutional.

The idea that secession is Constitutional is foolish but there are many fools among us.....

[5fish]

There is no appreciation for creativity....