10th Amendment usage for secession

CW Buff

First Sergeant
Joined
Dec 22, 2014
Messages
1,504
Location
Connecticut
I'm sorry but I wasn't trying to say that Henry Cabot Lodge lived during the time period the Constitution was ratified. He lived during the 19th & 20th century and served for decades in the U.S. Congress and was even Senate Majority leader.
Sorry for the mistake, but it would appear to be yours. You said Lodge wrote the passage "When the Constitution replaced the AOC."
I think his comments regarding the Constitution were meant to convey that the document was initially considered to be an experiment which the states could terminate similar to their actions regarding the AOC.
It doesn't surprise me that someone that wants to believe in secession wants to believe that. But if you could resist ignoring my questions this time, can you tell us:

1. Was Lodge factually correct, i.e. can you quote Washington, Hamilton, Mason, and Clinton suggesting that the Constitution was an experiment from which individual states could and probably would withdraw?

2. Do you have anything by Lodge equating his peaceful withdrawal with unilateral secession?

3. Do you accept Lodge's larger points, that "the Constitution . . . converted a confederacy into a nation," and that “the people of the United States are a nation, they are the masters of an empire, their union is indivisidible?”
 

(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)

CW Buff

First Sergeant
Joined
Dec 22, 2014
Messages
1,504
Location
Connecticut
Here's a good place to start: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed45.asp

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security. As the former periods will probably bear a small proportion to the latter, the State governments will here enjoy another advantage over the federal government. The more adequate, indeed, the federal powers may be rendered to the national defense, the less frequent will be those scenes of danger which might favor their ascendancy over the governments of the particular States. If the new Constitution be examined with accuracy and candor, it will be found that the change which it proposes consists much less in the addition of NEW POWERS to the Union, than in the invigoration of its ORIGINAL POWERS.
What do you think "the invigoration of its ORIGINAL POWERS" means? Madison is saying the addition of the power to regulate commerce, and other new powers, are minor compared to this invigoration. Could it be anything other than the invigoration of federal powers of government with national sovereignty? We know the states had to give up a portion of their independent sovereignty:

"It is obviously impracticable in the federal government of these states, to secure all rights of independent sovereignty to each, and yet provide for the interest and safety of all: Individuals entering into society, must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest. . . . In all our deliberations on this subject we kept steadily in our view, that which appears to us the greatest interest of every true American, the consolidation of our Union..." -- official letter of the Federal Convention

Obviously, the Constitution does not do something that the guys who drafted it said was "obviously impracticable?" And the above statement goes hand in hand with the decision made May 30 in Convention: "that no treaty or treaties among the whole or part of the States, as individual Sovereignties, would be sufficient;" and, therefore, "a national Government ought to be established consisting of a supreme Legislative, Executive & Judiciary" (resolution adopted, six states to one, one state divided) -- Madison's Notes, May 30.

So where did the sovereignty surrendered by the individual states go if not to the people of the US (i.e. the collective states)? What could "consolidate" the Union except national sovereignty (ceretainly not another impracticable treaty of confederation, i.e. compact among sovereign states)? What can form a supreme (to state governments) national government, except a supreme national sovereignty? I'm not sure how the supremacy of the Constitution can be interpreted as anything but an indication of a national sovereignty that, as represented by the Constitution, is supreme to state sovereignty. Supremacy is synonymous with sovereignty. How can the US Constitution (a fundamental law enacted by the sovereign people of the US) be supreme to state constitutions (fundamental laws enacted by the sovereign people of the individual states) if the states are fully independent/sovereign, and the Union is not at all sovereign? And if the Union is at all sovereign then, sovereignty being inviioable, no one can take it from them without their consent. That would indicate that the resumption of the sovereignty voluntarily surrendered by a state cannot be resumed except via the consent of the people of the US, or, if you prefer, the consent of the other states.

"But if the government be national with regard to the OPERATION of its powers, it changes its aspect again when we contemplate it in relation to the EXTENT of its powers. The idea of a national government involves in it, not only an authority over the individual citizens, but an indefinite supremacy over all persons and things, so far as they are objects of lawful government. Among a people consolidated into one nation, this supremacy is completely vested in the national legislature. Among communities united for particular purposes, it is vested partly in the general and partly in the municipal legislatures. In the former case, all local authorities are subordinate to the supreme; and may be controlled, directed, or abolished by it at pleasure. In the latter, the local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority, than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere. In this relation, then, the proposed government cannot be deemed a NATIONAL one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other objects. It is true that in controversies relating to the boundary between the two jurisdictions, the tribunal which is ultimately to decide, is to be established under the general government. But this does not change the principle of the case. The decision is to be impartially made, according to the rules of the Constitution; and all the usual and most effectual precautions are taken to secure this impartiality. Some such tribunal is clearly essential to prevent an appeal to the sword and a dissolution of the compact; and that it ought to be established under the general rather than under the local governments, or, to speak more properly, that it could be safely established under the first alone, is a position not likely to be combated."

This was written by the same guy, the Father of the Constitution, just five Federalist Papers before the one you quoted from.

1) Sovereignty (aka political authority/supremacy) is divided between the Union (represented by the general legislature) and the individual states (represented by the state, aka municipal, legislatures).

2) The state sovereignties are no more subject to national sovereignty than national sovereignty is to the state sovereignties; so which is it, they can both mess with each others sovereignty at will, or they can't? Madison is clearly saying the latter.

3) When there is a controversy, SCOTUS decides the matter.

4) If not decided by some tribunal, then you end up with an appeal to the sword.

5) And what tribunal can more safely decide the matter, than the national one?
 

CW Buff

First Sergeant
Joined
Dec 22, 2014
Messages
1,504
Location
Connecticut
The mood and drive of the day was to keep the Union together and functioning, not to detail ways that some could leave it. Given that not every power of the states and people is spelled out in detail, the existence of secession is hardly ruled out because it's not listed out in exacting detail.
So that means a state or minority of states can assume what they like and act on it? Does that really sound like anything but the kind of anarchy the Constitution was designed to prevent? In a constitutional society, that's not just taking the law into your own hands, it's taking the most important, fundamental law into your own hands. Even with the rights of the people, no unspecified rights (Ninth Amendment) ever existed that were not established via the courts. Privacy rights, for instance, are not part of the BoR, and to my knowledge, were not a right protected in any original state constitution. They were established the only other way they legally can be, in court.
 

CW Buff

First Sergeant
Joined
Dec 22, 2014
Messages
1,504
Location
Connecticut
the existence of secession is hardly ruled out because it's not listed out in exacting detail.
It's ruled out because 1) it's contrary to idea of a constitution in general; no minority of the people who enact a fundamental law can declare themselves no longer subject to that law, 2) it's incompatible with the Supremacy Clause, and 3) it's incompatible with the authority of SCOTUS to decide "all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution," including "Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party" (i.e. between the US and a state or states) and "Controversies between two or more States." This was designed to prevent such controversies from resulting in war. How can there be an unspecified power of a state to refute US laws, and even the Constitution itself, and thereby alter the Union, which belongs to all of the people, without the consent of most of them, and to violate the supremacy of the Constitution, and to do all this without appealing to the supreme tribunal, created to prevent controversies between the Fed and the states, or between two or more states, from erupting into war?
 

CW Buff

First Sergeant
Joined
Dec 22, 2014
Messages
1,504
Location
Connecticut
And there is some support for the idea that one of the responsibilities of the state governments was to protect citizens of the state from abuse of federal powers. Madison called for interposition. And the Federalist papers note that one of the functions of the states are to restrain the Federal government. My question is, how far does this protection go?

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed46.asp

On the other hand, should an unwarrantable measure of the federal government be unpopular in particular States, which would seldom fail to be the case, or even a warrantable measure be so, which may sometimes be the case, the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand. The disquietude of the people; their repugnance and, perhaps, refusal to co-operate with the officers of the Union; the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State; the embarrassments created by legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions, would oppose, in any State, difficulties not to be despised; would form, in a large State, very serious impediments; and where the sentiments of several adjoining States happened to be in unison, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter. But ambitious encroachments of the federal government, on the authority of the State governments, would not excite the opposition of a single State, or of a few States only. They would be signals of general alarm. Every government would espouse the common cause. A correspondence would be opened. Plans of resistance would be concerted. One spirit would animate and conduct the whole. The same combinations, in short, would result from an apprehension of the federal, as was produced by the dread of a foreign, yoke; and unless the projected innovations should be voluntarily renounced, the same appeal to a trial of force would be made in the one case as was made in the other.
OTOH, the Constitution does have a Militia Clause. At the time, the Fed would have depended entirely on the states for the force needed to uphold a federal law. If a majority of the states deemed the opposition of a state or a minority of the states to a federal law "unwarrantable," they would support the enforcement of the law by the Fed. Of course, if a repugnant law were truly, undeniably repugnant (an unfair burden on a state or minority of states), the states would not support it. Madison, the only major Framer/Founding Father who lived long enough to see such a situation unfold in a seriously threatening way, seemed to think the opposition to a federal law, at least in that specific case, was unwarranted, and I'm not aware that he spoke out against Jackson's threat to enforce the law. However, he did also speak out against unilateral secession. Can the Constitution itself be this repugnant law? And then there's the very telling fact that the guy who nullifiers and secessionists relied on to justify their theories of nullification and secession denied both. Under any modicum of reasonable conduct, it should have ended then and there. But they weren't interested in an accurate theory, they were interested in whatever might get them out of the Union, so what did it matter to them that the guy they relied on for the basis of their theory denied the accuracy and logic of that theory.
 

CW Buff

First Sergeant
Joined
Dec 22, 2014
Messages
1,504
Location
Connecticut
It was the states that insisted on the Bill of Rights, don't forget.
Wasn't it the Anti-Federalists that insisted on the BoR? The Fed (as it existed at the time, i.e. the Confederation Congress) wasn't involved, it was the Federalists vs. the Anti-Federalists, state by state. They were BOTH part of the states. The amendments that the state conventions proposed were proposed by the state ratification conventions, and were therefore agreed to between Federalists and Anti-Federalists, sitting TOGETHER in convention. And what they also agreed to was a supreme fundamental law (supreme to the state fundamental laws) that would be legally binding on the states (because morally binding was "obviously impracticable"), and thereby consolidating the Union.
 

Potomac Pride

First Sergeant
Joined
Oct 28, 2011
Messages
1,604
Location
Georgia
Sorry for the mistake, but it would appear to be yours. You said Lodge wrote the passage "When the Constitution replaced the AOC."

It doesn't surprise me that someone that wants to believe in secession wants to believe that. But if you could resist ignoring my questions this time, can you tell us:

1. Was Lodge factually correct, i.e. can you quote Washington, Hamilton, Mason, and Clinton suggesting that the Constitution was an experiment from which individual states could and probably would withdraw?

2. Do you have anything by Lodge equating his peaceful withdrawal with unilateral secession?

3. Do you accept Lodge's larger points, that "the Constitution . . . converted a confederacy into a nation," and that “the people of the United States are a nation, they are the masters of an empire, their union is indivisidible?”
Thanks for your comments. Boy, you sure do like to ask a lot of questions. In regards to secession, you should refer to the comment in my previous post by Forrest McDonald regarding the subject. He described secession as being a gray area before the coming of the Civil War. The late Professor McDonald was one of the preeminent American historians of the Constitution.
 

Jimklag

Lt. Colonel
Silver Patron
Joined
Mar 3, 2017
Messages
9,911
Location
Chicagoland
As an attorney and historian I often get this question. Here is my usual answer:

American law is based on English common law. One of the basic tenants of the common law is that no party to an agreement can unilaterally change or void the agreement. You cannot do it in a contract, partnership or marriage unless there is a specific provision in the agreement or procedure set forth in the law. The founding fathers were mostly lawyers and businessmen who were familiar with the common law so that they knew what they were agreeing to by adopting the Constitution. There being no specific provision in the Constitution, which is also the supreme law, the union was meant to be perpetual and, therefore, secession is illegal.

Unilateral secession by a state was not contemplated by the founding fathers. If it was there would have been no need for the Federalist Papers, essentially a series of “editorials” arguing for the adoption of the Constitution. If the union was not meant to be perpetual and unilateral secession was possible then only a few words would have been needed to convince people that it should be adopted – “You’re worried about the Constitution? Adopt it, try it for a few years, if it’s not working, just secede from the union.” No one said that because it was not the intent.

James Madison, considered to be the father of the Constitution, even said during the nullification crisis, “It is high time that the claim to secede at will should be put down by the public opinion.”

In my opinion, there are only two ways for a state to legally secede: (1) all of the other states would have to agree to the break up of the union (much like India getting it independence from the U.K.) or the state declares its independence, fights a war, WINS the war, and gets the other states to sign a treaty recognizing its independence, thus, the illegal rebellion becomes a legal revolution (American Revolution model).
I could not possibly agree more with your analysis.
 

OpnCoronet

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
10,261
Impossible. There are no rights listed in the 10th amendment. The 10th amendment is one sentence stating that of the pre-existing rights held by the people and/or states, those not granted to the federal government are maintained by the people/states. Since the Articles of Confederation, under which the country was governed until March 4, 1789, stated explicitly that the Union was eternal or perpetual, there was no pre-existing right to secede. Therefore, secession was not a right reserved to the people/states for the very good reason that they never had any such right after they ratified the Articles of Confederation.




I agree. In fact, I refine it down even further in historical terms. The only rights known at the time of the AOC, would be the inalienable rights mentioned in the DoI, of which only three are mentioned.

To me, the rights in the 10th Amend. would only be those known at the time of the writing of the DoI. If this is so, then the only right to secession retained by the people, was the right to overthrown their gov't and substitute a better one, as they choose, i.e., Revolution(at that time, there was no real concept of a peaceful Revolution.
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,552
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
It's ruled out because 1) it's contrary to idea of a constitution in general; no minority of the people who enact a fundamental law can declare themselves no longer subject to that law, 2) it's incompatible with the Supremacy Clause, and 3) it's incompatible with the authority of SCOTUS to decide "all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution," including "Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party" (i.e. between the US and a state or states) and "Controversies between two or more States." This was designed to prevent such controversies from resulting in war. How can there be an unspecified power of a state to refute US laws, and even the Constitution itself, and thereby alter the Union, which belongs to all of the people, without the consent of most of them, and to violate the supremacy of the Constitution, and to do all this without appealing to the supreme tribunal, created to prevent controversies between the Fed and the states, or between two or more states, from erupting into war?
Then there is the minor problem of lack of evidence. It is proper to say that while no evidence of its absence exists, there is an absence of evidece of a Constitutional power of secession. Without tangible evidence of existance, the secession is not via the 10th amendment.
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,552
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
OTOH, the Constitution does have a Militia Clause. At the time, the Fed would have depended entirely on the states for the force needed to uphold a federal law. If a majority of the states deemed the opposition of a state or a minority of the states to a federal law "unwarrantable," they would support the enforcement of the law by the Fed. Of course, if a repugnant law were truly, undeniably repugnant (an unfair burden on a state or minority of states), the states would not support it. Madison, the only major Framer/Founding Father who lived long enough to see such a situation unfold in a seriously threatening way, seemed to think the opposition to a federal law, at least in that specific case, was unwarranted, and I'm not aware that he spoke out against Jackson's threat to enforce the law. However, he did also speak out against unilateral secession. Can the Constitution itself be this repugnant law? And then there's the very telling fact that the guy who nullifiers and secessionists relied on to justify their theories of nullification and secession denied both. Under any modicum of reasonable conduct, it should have ended then and there. But they weren't interested in an accurate theory, they were interested in whatever might get them out of the Union, so what did it matter to them that the guy they relied on for the basis of their theory denied the accuracy and logic of that theory.
The Nullification Crisis

James Madison also opposed South Carolina's position on nullification. Madison argued that he had never intended his Virginia Resolution to suggest that each individual state had the power to nullify an act of Congress. Madison wrote: "But it follows, from no view of the subject, that a nullification of a law of the U. S. can as is now contended, belong rightfully to a single State, as one of the parties to the Constitution; the State not ceasing to avow its adherence to the Constitution. A plainer contradiction in terms, or a more fatal inlet to anarchy, cannot be imagined." Madison explained that when the Virginia Legislature passed the Virginia Resolution, the "interposition" it contemplated was "a concurring and cooperating interposition of the States, not that of a single State. ... [T]he Legislature expressly disclaimed the idea that a declaration of a State, that a law of the U. S. was unconstitutional, had the effect of annulling the law."[17] Madison went on to argue that the purpose of the Virginia Resolution had been to elicit cooperation by the other states in seeking change through means provided in the Constitution, such as amendment.​
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,552
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
OTOH, the Constitution does have a Militia Clause. At the time, the Fed would have depended entirely on the states for the force needed to uphold a federal law. If a majority of the states deemed the opposition of a state or a minority of the states to a federal law "unwarrantable," they would support the enforcement of the law by the Fed. Of course, if a repugnant law were truly, undeniably repugnant (an unfair burden on a state or minority of states), the states would not support it. Madison, the only major Framer/Founding Father who lived long enough to see such a situation unfold in a seriously threatening way, seemed to think the opposition to a federal law, at least in that specific case, was unwarranted, and I'm not aware that he spoke out against Jackson's threat to enforce the law. However, he did also speak out against unilateral secession. Can the Constitution itself be this repugnant law? And then there's the very telling fact that the guy who nullifiers and secessionists relied on to justify their theories of nullification and secession denied both. Under any modicum of reasonable conduct, it should have ended then and there. But they weren't interested in an accurate theory, they were interested in whatever might get them out of the Union, so what did it matter to them that the guy they relied on for the basis of their theory denied the accuracy and logic of that theory.
In addition to this, After the Sumter attack, Lincoln's financial and military support came from the Northern States. Had they decided to let their Southern Sisters go, they'd be let go.
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,552
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Thanks for your comments. Boy, you sure do like to ask a lot of questions. In regards to secession, you should refer to the comment in my previous post by Forrest McDonald regarding the subject. He described secession as being a gray area before the coming of the Civil War. The late Professor McDonald was one of the preeminent American historians of the Constitution.
I've read McDonald, I like him although I cannot discuss him over dinner with my fellow nationialists.

Gray is in the eye of the beholder. All arguments before 1860 were that secession is mulitlateral not unilateral. I am unaware of any appeal to the Constitution by compact theoriests they made argument on Social Compact and Natural Law basis. From the Constitutional view point there is only black and white, which was the reason the Union States united aginst the rebellion. Rawle(Not a compact theorist) made an constitutional argument that was closed off by Taney of all people in the Luther v Borden decision.

So do you have any tangible evidence of a 10th amendment secession reserved right.
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,552
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
As an attorney and historian I often get this question. Here is my usual answer:

American law is based on English common law. One of the basic tenants of the common law is that no party to an agreement can unilaterally change or void the agreement. You cannot do it in a contract, partnership or marriage unless there is a specific provision in the agreement or procedure set forth in the law. The founding fathers were mostly lawyers and businessmen who were familiar with the common law so that they knew what they were agreeing to by adopting the Constitution. There being no specific provision in the Constitution, which is also the supreme law, the union was meant to be perpetual and, therefore, secession is illegal.

Unilateral secession by a state was not contemplated by the founding fathers. If it was there would have been no need for the Federalist Papers, essentially a series of “editorials” arguing for the adoption of the Constitution. If the union was not meant to be perpetual and unilateral secession was possible then only a few words would have been needed to convince people that it should be adopted – “You’re worried about the Constitution? Adopt it, try it for a few years, if it’s not working, just secede from the union.” No one said that because it was not the intent.

James Madison, considered to be the father of the Constitution, even said during the nullification crisis, “It is high time that the claim to secede at will should be put down by the public opinion.”

In my opinion, there are only two ways for a state to legally secede: (1) all of the other states would have to agree to the break up of the union (much like India getting it independence from the U.K.) or the state declares its independence, fights a war, WINS the war, and gets the other states to sign a treaty recognizing its independence, thus, the illegal rebellion becomes a legal revolution (American Revolution model).
Good points, the purpose of the Constitution was to coerce the States in essential ways and the division of powers were inteneded to limit the coersion. I keep asking the question where was the supposed power of secession at the time of the ratification. Like a contract, stuff simply can not be made up unilaterally after signing.
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,552
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
I agree. In fact, I refine it down even further in historical terms. The only rights known at the time of the AOC, would be the inalienable rights mentioned in the DoI, of which only three are mentioned.

To me, the rights in the 10th Amend. would only be those known at the time of the writing of the DoI. If this is so, then the only right to secession retained by the people, was the right to overthrown their gov't and substitute a better one, as they choose, i.e., Revolution(at that time, there was no real concept of a peaceful Revolution.
I'd sort of disagree. Some powers would have accurred to the States during the AOC period not in the DOI such as criminal justice which formerly would have been the Kings court, now become the State Court.
 

CW Buff

First Sergeant
Joined
Dec 22, 2014
Messages
1,504
Location
Connecticut
Thanks for your comments. Boy, you sure do like to ask a lot of questions. In regards to secession, you should refer to the comment in my previous post by Forrest McDonald regarding the subject. He described secession as being a gray area before the coming of the Civil War. The late Professor McDonald was one of the preeminent American historians of the Constitution.
Nothing is more glaringly indicative of a baseless theory than refusing to engage in a substantive discussion of it. Apparently, scrutiny is to secession theories what daylight is to vampires. And that’s fitting, since both are imaginary.



As @jgoodguy has noted several times, we still have no evidence of a constitutional right to unilateral secession squirreled away in the Tenth Amendment. In fact, I haven’t seen any such right demonstrated anywhere on this forum. Secession theories were nothing but desperate, hail Mary shots by various disgruntled groups who felt their way of life was being marginalized by the democratic process. One notable exception was Rawle, but he exploded his own theory by applying conditions and procedures to the so-called right, which is EXACTLY what the Framers would have done if they had intended any such right. Only one noteworthy Framer ever weighed in on secession directly and specifically, mainly because only one lived long enough to see it seriously pursued as a legal right. Funny thing is, secessionists relied on him to provide the legal legs for their doctrine, and he then cut the legs out from under it.
 

OpnCoronet

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
10,261
I'd sort of disagree. Some powers would have accurred to the States during the AOC period not in the DOI such as criminal justice which formerly would have been the Kings court, now become the State Court.


True enough I suppose, but it only further adds to the necessity of realizing that there was no set answer either way, and acting on what one thought others knew, or did not know, would not be a firm foundation for opposing what is clearly expressed in law.
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,552
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
True enough I suppose, but it only further adds to the necessity of realizing that there was no set answer either way, and acting on what one thought others knew, or did not know, would not be a firm foundation for opposing what is clearly expressed in law.
Agree.
Exactly why I insist on written evidence of the power of secession. Outside of the Constitution, there are paths forward, but they cannot be argued as Constitutional powers/rights.
 



(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
Top