Secession and the Constitution Revisited

Joined
Dec 5, 2018
Messages
43
#1
The people of the states never delegated any responsibility to the US Federal government to authorize or in any manner supervise the secession of states. What should have happened is the US political leadership should have acknowledged the constitutional, peaceful, and democratic secessions of the Deep South states.
 

(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
Joined
Dec 5, 2018
Messages
43
#2
Edited.

They never "joined" anything! They were created by the federal government on land that was either purchased, or in one case, annexed, by the federal government for the permanent benefit and advancement of the entire American citizenry, wherever they might reside. In many cases, the entire nation needed to expend additional blood and treasure to displace native Americans from the land that was purchased, in order to open it for white settlement. Unilateral secession is nothing short of theft.
You are arguing that the Federal government owns the states. That is a distinctly un-American and anti-constitutional position to take.

There is nothing either peaceful or democratic about it.
Edited. the secessions absolutely were peaceful and democratic. Months later, Lincoln chose to start a war in order to force the peacefully and democratically seceded states back into the US. You can make whatever case you want about the Feds owning the states and how offended you might personally feel if one or more states peacefully and democratically choose to disassociate with the Federal government, but your case is built entirely separate from what the law actually says. Edited.
 
Joined
May 8, 2015
Messages
1,902
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
#3
Edited.


You are arguing that the Federal government owns the states. That is a distinctly un-American and anti-constitutional position to take.



Edited. the secessions absolutely were peaceful and democratic. Months later, Lincoln chose to start a war in order to force the peacefully and democratically seceded states back into the US. You can make whatever case you want about the Feds owning the states and how offended you might personally feel if one or more states peacefully and democratically choose to disassociate with the Federal government, but your case is built entirely separate from what the law actually says. Edited.
The Constitution itself determines how Constitutional disputes are to be resolved, and unilateral action by a state is not one of them. The SCOTUS has ruled repeatedly that unilateral secession is unconstitutional. The Tenth Amendment has nothing to do with secession.

Edited. You have asserted that any unlawful act is "peaceful," as long as it does not result in immediate violence, even if it it is accomplished through the threat of violence and it directly threatens the peace by violating the Constitutional and civil rights of other citizens. I and every other US citizen have rights in your state, whether we live there or not, and unilateral secession violates those rights! And it is the entire American people who own the states. The federal government is merely their representative.

Edited. reactionary opinions like yours have been consistently debunked and rejected by informed scholars for over a century.
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,321
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#4
Edited.

You are arguing that the Federal government owns the states. That is a distinctly un-American and anti-constitutional position to take.

Edited. the secessions absolutely were peaceful and democratic. Months later, Lincoln chose to start a war in order to force the peacefully and democratically seceded states back into the US. You can make whatever case you want about the Feds owning the states and how offended you might personally feel if one or more states peacefully and democratically choose to disassociate with the Federal government, but your case is built entirely separate from what the law actually says. Edited.
If you are correct on secession, then you must have the relevant laws either Federal or State that says secession is Constitutional and the procedures thereof. Otherwise, you have only your opinion. If secession was a reserved power for the States, then it must be written down post Constitutional convention otherwise all we have is your Edited. imagination.
 
Joined
Dec 5, 2018
Messages
43
#5
The Constitution itself determines how Constitutional disputes are to be resolved, and unilateral action by a state is not one of them.
The constitution details the process of amending the constitution, but the people have never delegated any responsibility to the US federal government to authorize or supervise the secession of states. The constitution specifically says nothing of secession. Which is precisely why -- thanks to the 9th and 10th amendments -- the unilateral secession of states is perfectly constitutional.

The Tenth Amendment has nothing to do with secession.
The 10th Amendment has everything to do with secession by virtue of the fact that the people have never delegated any responsibility to the US federal government to authorize or supervise the secession of states. The constitution specifically says nothing of secession. And what the 10th Amendment affirms is the fact 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." The 9th Amendment affirms the fact that "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." There are no "except secession" clauses in either amendment.

The SCOTUS has ruled repeatedly that unilateral secession is unconstitutional.
Before or after the war?

Edited.
You have asserted that any unlawful act is "peaceful," as long as it does not result in immediate violence
Incorrect. I have not made any blanket statements about "unlawful acts."

even if it it is accomplished through the threat of violence and it directly threatens the peace by violating the Constitutional and civil rights of other citizens.
Your personal brand of the Unionist political ideology relies too heavily upon the logical fallacy of Presentism. In 1860, the people were the citizens of the states, not citizens of the federal government. In 1860, a Deep South state voting to secede for any reason it wanted neither broke the law, nor in any way wronged a citizen of any other state. Edited.

I and every other US citizen have rights in your state, whether we live ther.e or not, and unilateral secession violates those rights! And it is the entire American people who own the states.
The US constitution protects our constitutional rights throughout the Union, but even today, you absolutely do not have the same rights in my state as I do in yours. The only law which applies throughout the states equally is the Constitution, and it has always affirmed the fact that unilateral secession is perfectly legal - not to mention in keeping with the finest of American traditions.

Edited. reactionary opinions like yours have been consistently debunked and rejected by informed scholars for over a century.
I've cited my sources.
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,321
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#6
The constitution details the process of amending the constitution, but the people have never delegated any responsibility to the US federal government to authorize or supervise the secession of states. The constitution specifically says nothing of secession. Which is precisely why -- thanks to the 9th and 10th amendments -- the unilateral secession of states is perfectly constitutional.
I would love to see some tangible evidence of this opinion. Say laws, court decisions constitutional provisions.
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,321
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#7
The constitution details the process of amending the constitution, but the people have never delegated any responsibility to the US federal government to authorize or supervise the secession of states. The constitution specifically says nothing of secession. Which is precisely why -- thanks to the 9th and 10th amendments -- the unilateral secession of states is perfectly constitutional.
Thanks! You have just admitted that secession is not in the Constitution, therefore UnConstitutional, outside of the law and by its nature outlawry.
 
Joined
Dec 5, 2018
Messages
43
#8
If you are correct on secession, then you must have the relevant laws either Federal or State that says secession is Constitutional and the procedures thereof. Otherwise, you have only your opinion. If secession was a reserved power for the States, then it must be written down post Constitutional convention otherwise all we have is your vain imagination.
I have repeatedly cited "the relevant laws either Federal or State that says secession is Constitutional," so you could start there.

Edited.

Thanks! You have just admitted that secession is not in the Constitution, therefore UnConstitutional, outside of the law and by its nature outlawry.
And you have just admitted that you neither know nor care what the 10th Amendment says. Have a good day!
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,321
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#9
I have repeatedly cited "the relevant laws either Federal or State that says secession is Constitutional," so you could start there.

Edited.

And you have just admitted that you neither know nor care what the 10th Amendment says. Have a good day!
Your opinion is noted. Perhaps you can add to my knowledge by quoting the 10th.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
28,493
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
#11
Perhaps you can scroll back and read what I have already posted, since all you have done here is demand that I post what I have already posted.
Edited.
The 10th Amendment is not a "Get Out of the Union" free card.

And how, in your opinion, does the 9th Amendment support the concept/theory of unilateral secession?
 
Joined
Dec 5, 2018
Messages
43
#12
The 10th Amendment is not a "Get Out of the Union" free card.
How do you figure? The people of the states never delegated any constitutional responsibility of authorizing or supervising the secession of their states to the US federal government, so the 10th states very plainly that the authority is retained by the people and the states. What is the actual argument against that fact?

And how, in your opinion, does the 9th Amendment support the concept/theory of unilateral secession?
Rather than in anyone's opinion, the 9th Amendment in fact states that the "enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Secession is one of the others.
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,321
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#13
How do you figure? The people of the states never delegated any constitutional responsibility of authorizing or supervising the secession of their states to the US federal government, so the 10th states very plainly that the authority is retained by the people and the states. What is the actual argument against that fact?

Rather than in anyone's opinion, the 9th Amendment in fact states that the "enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Secession is one of the others.
So far all I have seen from you is just opinion, opinion is ok, but not factual.
If we agree that secession is not part of the law then it is outside the law and just outlawry. .
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
28,493
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
#14
How do you figure? The people of the states never delegated any constitutional responsibility of authorizing or supervising the secession of their states to the US federal government, so the 10th states very plainly that the authority is retained by the people and the states. What is the actual argument against that fact?

The 10th gives nothing extra nor does it take anything away from the Constitution. It certainly in no way specifies a right to unilateral secession by Constitutional means.

As the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court said at the time:

"The South contends that a state has a constitutional right to secede from the Union formed with her sister states. In this I submit the South errs. No power or right is constitutional but what can be exercised in a form or mode provided in the constitution for it's exercise. Secession is therefore not constitutional, but revolutionary; and is only morally competent, like war, on failure of justice."

Rather than in anyone's opinion, the 9th Amendment in fact states that the "enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Secession is one of the others.
The 9th Amendment has no enumeration of certain rights that pertain to unilateral secession. Chief Justice Taney stated that secession was not constitutional as there was no mode or form of the concept anywhere within the Constitution.

Unionblue
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,321
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#15
The 9th Amendment has no enumeration of certain rights that pertain to unilateral secession. Chief Justice Taney stated that secession was not constitutional as there was no mode or form of the concept anywhere within the Constitution.

Unionblue
I seem to recall going down this path before.
 
Joined
Dec 5, 2018
Messages
43
#16
So far all I have seen from you is just opinion, opinion is ok, but not factual.
But then again you were still demanding that I cite law and post the text of the 10th Amendment even after I had repeatedly done so.

If we agree that secession is not part of the law then it is outside the law and just outlawry.
Your opinion on the matter is directly opposed to the text of the 10th Amendment. We can agree to disagree on your opinion regarding the backwards interpretation of the plainly-worded amendment which affirms the fact that powers not specifically delegated to the federal government are reserved by the people and the states.

The 9th Amendment has no enumeration of certain rights that pertain to unilateral secession.
Right. That is the point. The enumeration of certain rights "shall not be construed to deny or disparage others." Secession is not enumerated. It falls into the "other" category.

Chief Justice Taney stated that secession was not constitutional as there was no mode or form of the concept anywhere within the Constitution.
And the 10th Amendment deals specifically with what is not anywhere within the Constitution. As for Taney, can you cite a source?

"Lincoln and Taney also differed on the law and policy of secession. In his inaugural address in 1861, Lincoln denied that a state had a right to secede. Taney, on the other hand, believed that secession was legal as well as preferable to civil war."
https://quod.lib.umich.edu/j/jala/2...-taney?keywords=rgn...;rgn=main;view=fulltext
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,321
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#17
But then again you were still demanding that I cite law and post the text of the 10th Amendment even after I had repeatedly done so.



Your opinion on the matter is directly opposed to the text of the 10th Amendment. We can agree to disagree on your opinion regarding the backwards interpretation of the plainly-worded amendment which affirms the fact that powers not specifically delegated to the federal government are reserved by the people and the states.



Right. That is the point. The enumeration of certain rights "shall not be construed to deny or disparage others." Secession is not enumerated. It falls into the "other" category.



And the 10th Amendment deals specifically with what is not anywhere within the Constitution. As for Taney, can you cite a source?

"Lincoln and Taney also differed on the law and policy of secession. In his inaugural address in 1861, Lincoln denied that a state had a right to secede. Taney, on the other hand, believed that secession was legal as well as preferable to civil war."
https://quod.lib.umich.edu/j/jala/2...-taney?keywords=rgn...;rgn=main;view=fulltext
Thanks for your opinions. I look forward to supporting evidence.
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,321
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#18
Let's take a look at the Tenth.
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.​
US Constitution Article I. Looks to be a significant disability in 'secession'.

SECTION 10​
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.​
 
Joined
Dec 5, 2018
Messages
43
#19
Thanks for your opinions. I look forward to supporting evidence.
Thanks for your opinions, please scroll up and read the facts I have posted.

Let's take a look at the Tenth.
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.​
US Constitution Article I. Looks to be a significant disability in 'secession'.

SECTION 10​
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.​
Article 1 section 10 does not address secession. And so we fall back to the 10th Amendment, which very plainly leaves the matter up to the people and the states.​
 
Last edited:

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,321
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#20
Thanks for your opinions, please scroll up and read the facts I have posted.


Article 1 section 10 does not address secession. And so we fall back to the 10th Amendment, which very plainly leaves the matter up to the people and the states.​
Thanks again for your opinions.
The 10th does not read "the people and the states". It reads "to the States respectively, or to the people." as below.
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.​
How can the honorable members of this forum have confidence with an advocate that misquoted his sources.
 



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