Was it worth it?

[13 IL Cav & 64 GA Inf]

So if the Supreme Court ruled the 2nd amendment CAN be infringed and tries to take them, you obey the Supreme Court over the constitution? And of course the military would be used to take those guns away same as opposing secession so there's no basis to defend the 2nd amendment anyway, if they decide to take them that's that?

Take a look at this. It's from Encyclopedia Britannica, and is pretty accurate.

Texas v. White was a significant U.S. Supreme Court case decided on April 12, 1869. The case arose after Texas attempted to secede from the Union and join the Confederacy during the Civil War. The state legislature had sold U.S. bonds, which were originally issued to Texas, to finance its war efforts. After the war, Texas sought to reclaim these bonds, arguing that their sale was illegal.

Supreme Court Decision
The Supreme Court ruled that:

• Indissoluble Union: The United States is an "indestructible union" from which no state can unilaterally secede. This means that Texas, despite its claims of secession, remained a state within the Union.
• Nullification of Secession: The court declared that the Texas Ordinance of Secession and all related actions taken by the state were "absolutely null." Therefore, Texas had never legally left the Union.
• Ownership of Bonds: The court held that the bonds sold during the Civil War were still owned by the state of Texas, as the actions taken to sell them were invalid.

Implications
This ruling established a legal precedent that states do not have the right to secede from the United States, reinforcing the idea that the Union is perpetual and indivisible.

 

[kGs]

Take a look at this. It's from Encyclopedia Britannica, and is pretty accurate.

Texas v. White was a significant U.S. Supreme Court case decided on April 12, 1869. The case arose after Texas attempted to secede from the Union and join the Confederacy during the Civil War. The state legislature had sold U.S. bonds, which were originally issued to Texas, to finance its war efforts. After the war, Texas sought to reclaim these bonds, arguing that their sale was illegal.

Supreme Court Decision
The Supreme Court ruled that:

• Indissoluble Union: The United States is an "indestructible union" from which no state can unilaterally secede. This means that Texas, despite its claims of secession, remained a state within the Union.
• Nullification of Secession: The court declared that the Texas Ordinance of Secession and all related actions taken by the state were "absolutely null." Therefore, Texas had never legally left the Union.
• Ownership of Bonds: The court held that the bonds sold during the Civil War were still owned by the state of Texas, as the actions taken to sell them were invalid.

Implications
This ruling established a legal precedent that states do not have the right to secede from the United States, reinforcing the idea that the Union is perpetual and indivisible.

Thanks but that doesn't answer my question. If the Supreme Court and the Constitution contradict, which of them is it treason to disobey?

 

[rvbgrif]

So if the Supreme Court ruled the 2nd amendment CAN be infringed and tries to take them, you obey the Supreme Court over the constitution? And of course the military would be used to take those guns away same as opposing secession so there's no basis to defend the 2nd amendment anyway, if they decide to take them that's that?

Remember in 1857 we had Dred Scott v Sanford? You ask these people and they will say that was a "bad decision" but Texas v White (1868) was "rock solid".

 

[major bill]

Thanks but that doesn't answer my question. If the Supreme Court and the Constitution contradict, which of them is it treason to disobey?

I am not sure the Supreme Court and Constitution can contradict. It is the Supreme Court that decides what the Constitution says and it means.

While it may be illegal to disobey the Constitution it is not automatically treason. There have been many Supreme Court decisions that some or even many people disagreed with, perhaps some poor decisions by the Supreme Court. Still the Supreme Court 's rulings are the law of the land.

 

[repman66]

Understanding how federalism works is truly difficult and requires shifting through various webs of discourse.

Firstly, neither a state, nor a group of states has a unilateral right to secede from the Union. A person, born in Pennsylvania, has as much a right to enjoy Texas as citizen born in Houston and vice versa. To secede, arguably, would require a convention of states, or, at least, an Amendment to the Constitution.

This is because Federal Power is direct to the people of those states and not the state governments--
For example, in Federalist No. 39, James Madison writes:

"The proposed Constitution, so far from implying an abandonment of the State Governments, confirms and indeed establishes their authority in all cases to which the federal Constitution does not reach; and the powers delegated to the federal head are few and defined. In this sense it is a federal government. But, in another sense, it is a national government, because its jurisdiction extends to the citizens of the United States, and not to the states individually; because the operation of its powers is direct on the people, and not on the states; and because it is capable of making laws which are paramount to the laws of the individual states."

The implication here is that the Constitution creates a Union that is perpetual and binding, and that states do not retain a unilateral right to withdraw.

In Federalist No. 1, Hamilton warns that the alternative to a strong Union is dismemberment into separate confederacies of states which is a prospect he argues would be disastrous. That framing sets up the idea that breaking apart the Union is something which must be avoided for the good of all.

Importantly, multiple Federalist essays (e.g., Nos. 6–9) argue that without a strong union, the states would likely slide into conflict with one another. Hamilton makes a broad argument is that union is far preferable to fragmentation or rivalry among independent states (AKA Europe).

James Madison explains that the Constitution is a compound of national and federal elements and that since ratification required the unanimous assent of the states acting as sovereigns:

"…Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a federal, and not a national constitution."

Hamilton argued that a strong, united union protects the states from internal dangers and from falling into the same destructive patterns seen in fragmented confederacies:

"…A firm Union will be of the utmost moment to the peace and liberty of the States, as a barrier against domestic faction and insurrection.

Hamilton argued that a strong, united union protects the states from internal dangers and from falling into the same destructive patterns seen in fragmented confederacies:

"…A firm Union will be of the utmost moment to the peace and liberty of the States, as a barrier against domestic faction and insurrection.

Hamilton also explicitly identifies preservation of the Union as one of the Constitution's principal objects:

"…the principal purposes to be answered by union are these: the common defense… the preservation of the public peace… [and] the regulation of commerce…"

The Constitution wasn't designed to be temporary or conditional; its goal was to secure a lasting, stable government for all the states.
In Federalist No. 16 Hamilton emphasizes that a purely confederated system (like the one under the Articles) made breakup or armed conflict more likely:

He warned that if laws cannot be enforced without force between states, then "…the first war of this kind would probably terminate in a dissolution of the Union."

Federalist No. 13 (on the problems that would attend disunion):

"the entire separation of the States into thirteen unconnected sovereignties is a project too extravagant and too replete with danger to have many advocates."

Additionally, from my recollection, the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 (before the Constitution!) states that the states of the Northwest territory, once they become states, cannot leave the Union. The same design was used for the Southwest territories, so one can reasonable assume that the Founders did not intend for a state to leave the Union. The one exemption I suppose would be if the federal government overstepped its mandate, and some Founders, especially Jefferson, expressed some pretty radical sentiments on that issue. But really, there's no indication in the Constitution about whether a state could leave the Union.

Article 4 of the Ordinance states: "The said territory, and the States which may be formed therein, shall forever remain a part of this Confederacy of the United States of America, subject to the Articles of Confederation, and to such alterations therein as shall be constitutionally made..."

The Supreme Court, as final interpreters of the Constitution, were ruling on this issue in 1869 in Texas v. White. They basically held that because the Articles of Confederation were designed to be a "perpetual union," and the Constitution was formed to be an even "more perfect union," the corollary was that the The Constitution was indissoluble and perpetual. Aka, you have to play by those rules, you cannot unilaterally decide to take yourself out of the club, you're in.

This was known at the time of the founding of the Country. Secession was first used (ironically) by Jefferson and Madison as an appeal to populism and pro-French/anti-British rhetoric. Comically, it then spread to New England where it was not snuffed out until the 1820's. Finally, the silly, ignorant, haughty CHIVALRY in the South, starting in South Carolina, adopted it as their mantra in the 1830's until throwing a temper tantrum and igniting a civil war. Their actions were ILLEGAL, they had no right to secede, and they were NOT doing it for states' rights but for ego, control, and the protection and expansion of chattel slavery.

Here is Hamilton writing to would be secessionists from New England explicitly warning against discussions of breaking up the Union:

"Tell them from ME at MY request, for God's sake, to cease these conversations and threatenings about the separation of the Union. It must hang together as long as it can be made to."

 

[13 IL Cav & 64 GA Inf]

Thanks but that doesn't answer my question. If the Supreme Court and the Constitution contradict, which of them is it treason to disobey?

The Constitution is supreme. The Supreme Court decides how the Constitution is to be interpreted, so the impact of the Constitution and the Supreme Court is one and the same.

 

[kGs]

I am not sure the Supreme Court and Constitution can contradict. It is the Supreme Court that decides what the Constitution says and it means.

While it may be illegal to disobey the Constitution it is not automatically treason. There have been many Supreme Court decisions that some or even many people disagreed with, perhaps some poor decisions by the Supreme Court. Still the Supreme Court 's rulings are the law of the land.

If you're correct that'd make sovereignty centered in the supreme court, they could ignore states ratifications, even one to abolish the supreme court, transfer their power (and thus the United States) to one person or foreign head of state, and all of this would be illegal to resist, they could even redefine this as treason.

 

[repman66]

If you're correct that'd make sovereignty centered in the supreme court, they could ignore states ratifications, even one to abolish the supreme court, transfer their power (and thus the United States) to one person or foreign head of state, and all of this would be illegal to resist, they could even redefine this as treason.

That's not how separation of powers work, buddy.

 

[kGs]

That's not how separation of powers work, buddy.

So we agree there are overrides on the supreme courts interpretations. For instance the constitution says congress can remove members of the SC, but if the supreme court interprets the constitution does not grant congress this power, whose interpretation is illegal? The States are the final check on if the federal government has interpreted their constitutional powers correctly.

 

[repman66]

So we agree there are overrides on the supreme courts interpretations. For instance the constitution says congress can remove members of the SC, but if the supreme court interprets the constitution does not grant congress this power, whose interpretation is illegal? The States are the final check on if the federal government has interpreted their constitutional powers correctly.

Secession is illegal. Power for the Federal government is derived directly from the people of the states, NOT the individual state governments. What are you not understanding? The legislature of your state doesn't vote on Congressmen and women -- YOU DO. Your state cannot, unilaterally, leave the federal union.

To take a state OUT of the Union would need either:

• Congressional Proposal – Congress proposes an amendment by a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate.
• Convention of States (Article V Convention) – Two-thirds of state legislatures (34 out of 50) can call for a convention to propose amendments.

 

[DanSBHawk]

The States are the final check on if the federal government has interpreted their constitutional powers correctly.

No, the People are the final check over everything. The People created the Constitution, not the states.

 

[kGs]

Secession is illegal.

No, violating the constitution is illegal. The supreme court is doing this when it says states are prohibited to secede, a power nowhere prohibited to the states in the constitution. Once an amendment says "all powers are in the federal government, and delegated to states." then the supreme court would be right to interpret secession as illegal.

That's why the secession question isn't really the issue, it's a question of whether the supreme courts interpretations can ever be override against their consent, you can't say only the supreme court decides what the constitution means and then yourself interpret limits on what they can do. They're either limited only by themselves, or someone can check them, who do you believe checks them?

The people not the states? So if a president wins a majority he wins right? No, the states pick him. I agree people control their own state, (Tennessee's constitution states all power to abolish the government rests in the people of the state), but you're proposing the people of states can assert powers over other states never granted in the Constitution.

 

[kGs]

No, the People are the final check over everything. The People created the Constitution, not the states.

James Maddison Federalist 39:
On examining the first relation, it appears, on one hand, that the Constitution is to be founded on the assent and ratification of the people of America, given by deputies elected for the special purpose; but, on the other, that this assent and ratification is to be given by the people, not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong. It is to be the assent and ratification of the several States, derived from the supreme authority in each State, the authority of the people themselves. The act, therefore, establishing the Constitution, will not be a NATIONAL, but a FEDERAL act.

That it will be a federal and not a national act, as these terms are understood by the objectors; the act of the people, as forming so many independent States, not as forming one aggregate nation, is obvious from this single consideration, that it is to result neither from the decision of a MAJORITY of the people of the Union, nor from that of a MAJORITY of the States. It must result from the UNANIMOUS assent of the several States that are parties to it, differing no otherwise from their ordinary assent than in its being expressed, not by the legislative authority, but by that of the people themselves. Were the people regarded in this transaction as forming one nation, the will of the majority of the whole people of the United States would bind the minority, in the same manner as the majority in each State must bind the minority; and the will of the majority must be determined either by a comparison of the individual votes, or by considering the will of the majority of the States as evidence of the will of a majority of the people of the United States. Neither of these rules have been adopted. Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution.

 

[repman66]

James Maddison Federalist 39:
On examining the first relation, it appears, on one hand, that the Constitution is to be founded on the assent and ratification of the people of America, given by deputies elected for the special purpose; but, on the other, that this assent and ratification is to be given by the people, not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong. It is to be the assent and ratification of the several States, derived from the supreme authority in each State, the authority of the people themselves. The act, therefore, establishing the Constitution, will not be a NATIONAL, but a FEDERAL act.

That it will be a federal and not a national act, as these terms are understood by the objectors; the act of the people, as forming so many independent States, not as forming one aggregate nation, is obvious from this single consideration, that it is to result neither from the decision of a MAJORITY of the people of the Union, nor from that of a MAJORITY of the States. It must result from the UNANIMOUS assent of the several States that are parties to it, differing no otherwise from their ordinary assent than in its being expressed, not by the legislative authority, but by that of the people themselves. Were the people regarded in this transaction as forming one nation, the will of the majority of the whole people of the United States would bind the minority, in the same manner as the majority in each State must bind the minority; and the will of the majority must be determined either by a comparison of the individual votes, or by considering the will of the majority of the States as evidence of the will of a majority of the people of the United States. Neither of these rules have been adopted. Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution.

Dude, you don't know what you're talking about.

Madison is referring to previous a compact which was a CONFEDERATION, meaning that states theoretically could, withdraw to a new system of Federalism in which these "states" were subordinate to the will of the people. He is discussing the ratification of that document, the Constitution, that to establish a FEDERAL GOVERNMENT must be absolute and unanimous and cannot be a simple MAJORITY RULES. The people would have to, in their entirety agree to the Constitution. Spoiler - they did.

Once the Constitution was adopted then the only way out is to follow the rules of the Constitution itself - no mere minority of states or strong minority of peoples can effectuate a change, even by voluntary withdraw. IT DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY.

If it did, any whim or popular recourse would lead to disunion once the first unopposed withdrawal was allowed. There would be no country. That is decidedly NOT a Federal System.

You are arguing AGAINST yourself. Madison, simply put, is saying that because of the perpetual nature of the government presented, that to enact its creation must be by the consent of all, unanimous.

I suggest you read The Federalist Papers because you're firing broadsides way off the mark.

 

[repman66]

No, violating the constitution is illegal. The supreme court is doing this when it says states are prohibited to secede, a power nowhere prohibited to the states in the constitution. Once an amendment says "all powers are in the federal government, and delegated to states." then the supreme court would be right to interpret secession as illegal.

That's why the secession question isn't really the issue, it's a question of whether the supreme courts interpretations can ever be override against their consent, you can't say only the supreme court decides what the constitution means and then yourself interpret limits on what they can do. They're either limited only by themselves, or someone can check them, who do you believe checks them?

The people not the states? So if a president wins a majority he wins right? No, the states pick him. I agree people control their own state, (Tennessee's constitution states all power to abolish the government rests in the people of the state), but you're proposing the people of states can assert powers over other states never granted in the Constitution.

There are no PEOPLES OF STATES! It is THE UNITED STATES not THESE UNITED STATES. You are issued a US Passport. So yes, the citizens of other states control your life via the FEDERAL POWERS enumerated in the CONSTITUTION. It trumps all other law or regulation.

DEAL WITH IT.

 

[rvbgrif]

There are no PEOPLES OF STATES! It is THE UNITED STATES not THESE UNITED STATES. You are issued a US Passport. So yes, the citizens of other states control your life via the FEDERAL POWERS enumerated in the CONSTITUTION. It trumps all other law or regulation.

DEAL WITH IT.

The Constitution makes it clear that the United States is plural.

Article 3 Section 3

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

 

[repman66]

The Constitution makes it clear that the United States is plural.

Article 3 Section 3

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Ahem?

 

[rvbgrif]

Ahem?

You can put the in front of a plural word

We the People of the United States

 

[Belfoured]

As well any majority stating it was right, as haven't seen it. Probally why constitution purposely seems to left it vague without mentioning it expressly either granted or prohibited.............it certainly could been addressed it making it clear, but they didnt.

Often avoiding in politics is because there is not a consensus. Why they rather skirted around mentioning slavery also it would appear. It would seem folly to pretend there was not also certainly a Jeffersonion view among the founders.

It would strike me odd if valuing freedom, states were intended to be held against their will.......

It would strike anybody with common sense as very odd - indeed, insane - that the Founders went through all this work to establish a republic and that any member or members could simply decide to blow it up on a whim because they didn't like this or that. That is where Lee was coming from, just for example.

Then there are these quotes from Washington's Farewell Address in 1796:

"These considerations speak a persuasive language to every reflecting and virtuous mind and exhibit the continuance of the Union as a primary object of patriotic desire. ... But the Constitution which at any time exists, until changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government ... One method of assault may be to effect in the forms of the Constitution alterations which will impair the energy of the system and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown."

The Founders had enough integrity and self-awareness to realize that they had engaged in a rebellion against the Crown. They were smart enough to include in the Constitution the authority to suppress the exact same thing. Call it "hypocrisy" if you want. I call it basic common sense.

 

[Belfoured]

So we agree there are overrides on the supreme courts interpretations. For instance the constitution says congress can remove members of the SC, but if the supreme court interprets the constitution does not grant congress this power, whose interpretation is illegal? The States are the final check on if the federal government has interpreted their constitutional powers correctly.

Feel free to shop that one with anybody who actually knows what they're talking about - you won't like the answer.