Robert E Lee's Birthday

[OnBoard]

I'll help you out. There's nothing in the Constitution about secession. Any attempt by lost cause fanatics to construct a constitutional argument in support of secession is little more than masturbatory fantasy. Hell, allowing states to secede from the Union would contradict the entire purpose of creating the Constitution in the first place, which was to establish a country with a strong central government that could keep the states in line.

The mere fact that the Constitution was created by delegates of the states did not give the states the right to secede if they decided to take their toys and go home. James Madison was quite clear on this matter:



And before you begin to think that the line "or absolved by an intolerable abuse by the power created," leaves his position on secession open for interpretation, he was referring not to secession but revolution, which was a right he believed was reserved by the people, not the states:



Next time you should probably think a little harder before trying to speak down to people you don't know as if they're children. There has never been a right to secede in the Constitution. The states that seceded and those who fought for them committed treason, and did so for the worst of all possible causes. They didn't fight for their freedom against a tyrannical government, they fought to maintain the institution of slavery, itself the worst possible kind of tyranny. They should be universally condemned for their actions, not celebrated as "gentlemen", nor should their actions be rationalized away as a product of their times. Lee's personal issues with slavery are well documented, yet he chose to fight for it. Everything else is window dressing.

Did you really write "to establish a strong central govt to keep the states in line" ? That is among the funnier things I've read in a while with regard to this topic. Strong central govt to keep the states in line..... That's rich is what that is. Yeah the founders wanted a strong central govt to keep all those pesky troublesome states in line and toe the federal govts line. I think the words your looking for are "limited", and " those powers not specifically granted the federal govt are the rights of the states" ( not the other way around).

[wildcat09]

Did you really write "to establish a strong central govt to keep the states in line" ? That is among the funnier things I've read in a while with regard to this topic. Strong central govt to keep the states in line..... That's rich is what that is. Yeah the founders wnt Ed s front cereal govt to keep all those pesky troublesome states in line and young the federal govts line. I think the words your looking for are "limited", and " those powers not specifically granted the federal govt are the rights of the states" ( not the other way around).

Are you drunk?

Yes, the entire purpose of the Constitution was to create a strong central government that would smack down the states when needed. Under the Articles of the Confederacy, the states were all levying usurious taxes on all products from other states and severely inhibiting trade. The entire purpose of convening to modify the Articles, which resulted in scrapping them altogether and writing the Constitution, was to create a stronger central government that would prevent that $#@! from happening. What, was that not in your book?

[OnBoard]

I appreciate your politeness but OnBoard has essentially criticized others for not reading and then admitted he doesn't remember what he may have read.

1) The states, including virginia, ratified the Constitution.
2) The constitution does not contain a right of secession, but does include a definition of treason, which includes those who wage war against the United States.
3) Texas v. White found that Texas had no right to secede and in fact was simply in the state of rebellion.

As to your theory that the founding fathers would have wanted our states to be able to secede piecemeal, I think history and the language of the Constitution say otherwise. The way to overcome our government is to revolt, just like we did. Or participate in the processes as defined in the Constitution.

I may have forgotten lots of things I've read about, bit I didn't come on here and present as fact or false facts anything I wasn't fairly certain about or make statements that absolutely are patently false. If I offended someone with my read a book remarks again I apologize, but there are posts here that obviously have absolutely no basis in fact and are just unfounded biased opinion.

[bozo_casanova]

I dont think I got any relevant information in my first reading of your re posted thoughts, I doubt I'll find any now. The fact you say this isn't relevant is all I need to hear. You cant put the issue of slavery or secession in a vacuum and try to say all the issues around both issues aren't relevant. It's not black and white no matter what you might want to think.

The relevance of the context doesn't dismiss or mitigate the core issue.

If you think your apologia for slavery and secession are relevant, please state an affirmative position on the issue and define the connection.

[wildcat09]

I may have forgotten lots of things I've read about, bit I didn't come on here and present as fact or false facts anything I wasn't fairly certain about or make statements that absolutely are patently false. If I offended someone with my read a book remarks again I apologize, but there are posts here that obviously have absolutely no basis in fact and are just unfounded biased opinion.

Yeah, they're yours.

You don't get to act like a $#@!, then when called on it and made to look like an ass apologize while still acting like a $#@!.

[OnBoard]

Are you drunk ?

Yes, the entire purpose of the Constitution was to create a strong central government that would smack down the states when needed. Under the Articles of the Confederacy, the states were all levying usurious taxes on all products from other states and severely inhibiting trade. The entire purpose of convening to modify the Articles, which resulted in scrapping them altogether and writing the Constitution, was to create a stronger central government that would prevent that $#@! from happening. What, was that not in your book?

Right back at you slim. The concept of a strong central govt that controlled states was not the stated goal. the goal was a central govt with limited powers that could not become another monarchy and run rough shod over the states. There definitely were a couple camps on the concept of strong vs.weak. The very concept of the wording of "those powers not specifically given to the fed. Govt Are the responsibilities and rights of the states," speaks volumes about what the states wanted from a central govt.

[wildcat09]

Right back at you slim. The concept of a strong central govt that controlled states was not the stated goal. the goal was a central govt with limited powers that could not become another monarchy and run rough shod over the states. There definitely were a couple camps on the concept of strong vs.weak. The very concept of the wording of "those powers not specifically given to the fed. Govt Are the responsibilities and rights of the states," speaks volumes about what the states wanted from a central govt.

I'm going to ask again. Are you drunk? Because your reading comprehension sucks even more than your spelling and grammar.

[tantric superman]

... but there are posts here that obviously have absolutely no basis in fact and are just unfounded biased opinion.

I have to agree with wildcat. You aren't citing to anything or providing any basis to your opinions, other than some notions of what the founding fathers were thinking before the articles of confederation and the important debates leading up to the Constitution provided a framework for the discussion we are having now. We have the language of the Constitution. We have at least one case related to the issue of secession.

[VAPA]

First things first. You need to point to whatever it is you believe gives states a "right" to succeed in the first place, thus pulling those in the states who levied war against the US outside the definition of treason.

http://thegooddemocrat.wordpress.com...-constitution/

No problem. The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution states:

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 power of secession is not delegated to the U.S. or prohibited to the States, therefore it's reserved to the States or the people.

Unless you can find some mention of secession in the Constitution.

[VAPA]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White

This reminds me very much of a debate we had regarding abortion on another thread. VAPA continued to argue that there was no right of privacy and thus abortion rights were somehow void.

I don't mind an argument that something should or should not be constitutional.

What I do mind is someone pretending that the law is settled on something, when in fact the exact opposite is true.

Please find a case that has found that the states succession during the civil war was a constitutionally valid action.

Please show me a court case that says the government can't quarter troops in your home during peacetime. There isn't one? Well, good thing the Constitution covers that. You don't need Nine dudes to tell you what's already clear in the Bill of Rights. At least I don't need that.

Yes, Texas v. White (I talked about that previously in this thread and what a joke of an opinion it was from Justice Chase). The states have no right to secede because the PREAMBLE to the Constitution (you know the introduction to the Constitution) used the phrase "more perfect union?" That's why States can't secede? What horse$#@!.

Here is a blog post on the topic I kinda like: http://www.pickyourbattles.net/2011/...k-in-time.html

[wildcat09]

No problem. The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution states:



The power of secession is not delegated to the U.S. or prohibited to the States, therefore it's reserved to the States or the people.

Unless you can find some mention of secession in the Constitution.

That's a pretty strained reading of the 10th amendment, which is largely regarded as a mere truism. For one, how could the power of secession be given to the federal government? What would it secede from?

Why don't you simply go by the words of the guy who wrote the Constitution, which I posted already? I'd say he probably knew better than anyone how secession fares constitutionally.

[tantric superman]

Did you really write "to establish a strong central govt to keep the states in line" ? That is among the funnier things I've read in a while with regard to this topic. Strong central govt to keep the states in line..... That's rich is what that is. Yeah the founders wanted a strong central govt to keep all those pesky troublesome states in line and toe the federal govts line. I think the words your looking for are "limited", and " those powers not specifically granted the federal govt are the rights of the states" ( not the other way around).

Either state your case or don't. You are citing the 10th amendment to support your case? Fine. I think it is the best argument.

Since the power to declare war war is that of the federal legislature and the power to lead the troops is in the legislature and the power to make a finding of treason is within the power of the federal judiciary and the power to define the punishment for treason is with the federal legilsture, I think the US Constitution does more than an adequate job of conferring those powers on the federal government, and in fact Section 10 of Article One prohibits states from one prohibits states from entering into any Treaty, Alliance or Confederation.

I'd argue that the privileges and immunities clause (Section 2, Article IV) also prohibits states from attempting to prohibit their citizenry from the privilges and rights of US citizenship by secession.

So I don't think the right to secede has been retained by the states.

[OnBoard]

No problem. The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution states:



The power of secession is not delegated to the U.S. or prohibited to the States, therefore it's reserved to the States or the people.

Unless you can find some mention of secession in the Constitution.

Thanks, the 10th definitely gives a $#@! load more rights and potential rights to the states as they are not specifically unumerated as are the rights to the federal gov't. So does that answer the question? Is there more specific language with regard to secession ? If there is no mention then secession would be legal unless a constitutional convention were held to ratify an amendment strictly forbidding secession. Is that correct ?

[VAPA]

I'll help you out. There's nothing in the Constitution about secession. Any attempt by lost cause fanatics to construct a constitutional argument in support of secession is little more than masturbatory fantasy.

Exactly. Now I'll help you out, the TENTH AMENDMENT says that if the Constitution doesn't cover a power - it is reserved to the States/People.

[tantric superman]

Yes, Texas v. White (I talked about that previously in this thread and what a joke of an opinion it was from Justice Chase). The states have no right to secede because the PREAMBLE to the Constitution (you know the introduction to the Constitution) used the phrase "more perfect union?" That's why States can't secede? What horse$#@!.

We got it, VAPA. You think its a great argument that a case on point is, in your opnion, horse$#@!.

[wildcat09]

Exactly. Now I'll help you out, the TENTH AMENDMENT says that if the Constitution doesn't cover a power - it is reserved to the States/People.

The Constitution doesn't say anything about raping your mother either. By your interpretation, the 10th amendment leaves the power to rape your mother to the states to do what they will with it. I'd personally argue that that's too broad an interpretation, but it seems consistent with your view.

[VAPA]

Thanks, the 10th definitely gives a $#@! load more rights and potential rights to the states as they are not specifically unumerated as are the rights to the federal gov't. So does that answer the question? Is there more specific language with regard to secession ? If there is no mention then secession would be legal unless a constitutional convention were held to ratify an amendment strictly forbidding secession. Is that correct ?

Yup.

If it was so important that the voluntary UNION of the several colonies/states meant being LOCKED IN FOREVER - then it would have been covered. It wasn't because that idea is $#@!ing retarded. To think that a State would have agreed to that given the history is ludicrous. Sure, the Articles of Confederation were weak, but there is no way Americans went into this great compact thinking they were locked in after that point. That is why it is NOT mentioned in the Constitution, and why the Tenth makes it clear they can leave if they feel the federal government is trampling their rights.

You don't have to agree with their decision to leave, and we can all agree it's going to be a fight regardless of the law (see Civil War), but it's silly to think the States agreed to be locked into a union.

[OnBoard]

I'd argue that the privileges and immunities clause (Section 2, Article IV) also prohibits states from attempting to prohibit their citizenry from the privilges and rights of US citizenship by secession.

So I don't think the right to secede has been retained by the states.

Fine, this is what I was looking for. Remember I didn't say they had the right I said that the right had been contested by some and enpmbraced by others (including legal scholars) I have no problem bowing to fact when presented. I don't know that this is it, but it's a legit. point.

[VAPA]

The Constitution doesn't say anything about raping your mother either. By your interpretation, the 10th amendment leaves the power to rape your mother to the states to do what they will with it. I'd personally argue that that's too broad an interpretation, but it seems consistent with your view.

That's true. But fortunately she lives in a state that had outlawed it. I'm fine with that state law personally, they can handle it. The Feds can go back to doing what they do best...which is...I'm drawing a blank.

[wildcat09]

Yup.

If it was so important that the voluntary UNION of the several colonies/states meant being LOCKED IN FOREVER - then it would have been covered. It wasn't because that idea is $#@!ing retarded. To think that a State would have agreed to that given the history is ludicrous. Sure, the Articles of Confederation were weak, but there is no way Americans went into this great compact thinking they were locked in after that point. That is why it is NOT mentioned in the Constitution, and why the Tenth makes it clear they can leave if they feel the federal government is trampling their rights.

You don't have to agree with their decision to leave, and we can all agree it's going to be a fight regardless of the law (see Civil War), but it's silly to think the States agreed to be locked into a union.

You're going to have to address why James Madison, the guy who actually wrote the $#@!ing thing, is wrong.

[OnBoard]

Yup.

If it was so important that the voluntary UNION of the several colonies/states meant being LOCKED IN FOREVER - then it would have been covered. It wasn't because that idea is $#@!ing retarded. To think that a State would have agreed to that given the history is ludicrous. Sure, the Articles of Confederation were weak, but there is no way Americans went into this great compact thinking they were locked in after that point. That is why it is NOT mentioned in the Constitution, and why the Tenth makes it clear they can leave if they feel the federal government is trampling their rights.

You don't have to agree with their decision to leave, and we can all agree it's going to be a fight regardless of the law (see Civil War), but it's silly to think the States agreed to be locked into a union.

This is precisely what I've been taught by many different teachers and professors. Comparing secession to rape ? Really wildcat that's grasping at straws.

[OnBoard]

You're going to have to address why James Madison, the guy who actually wrote the $#@!ing thing, is wrong.

Did James Madison leave writings, essays, opinions that he meant that the union created by a group of independent states could not secede ? I've never read anything, not that it's not out there.

[VAPA]

You're going to have to address why James Madison, the guy who actually wrote the $#@!ing thing, is wrong.

Sure no problem. James Madison didn't write it. He was instrumental, but there were others also in the process. Part of that process meant disagreements and compromise. There are plenty of interesting and useful viewpoints from the many different founders....but that doesn't make one person's viewpoint Constitutional gospel (ie TJ's view of separation of Church and State which I really really like, but my integrity compels me to admit that it just ain't $#@!ing found in the First Amendment).

If secession was out of the question, and the decision was permanent, it would have been covered. It wasn't. End of story.

[wildcat09]

Sure no problem. James Madison didn't write it. He was instrumental, but there were others also in the process. Part of that process meant disagreements and compromise. There are plenty of interesting and useful viewpoints from the many different founders....but that doesn't make it so.

If secession was out of the question, and the decision was permanent, it would have been covered. It wasn't. End of story.

I suppose you think you're free to break any contract you enter into without the consent of the other parties to the contract as well.

[wildcat09]

Did James Madison leave writings, essays, opinions that he meant that the union created by a group of independent states could not secede ? I've never read anything, not that it's not out there.

...I've already posted it in this thread in a post you have quoted and responded to.

[VAPA]

I suppose you think you're free to break any contract you enter into without the consent of the other parties to the contract as well.

No I don't. Please show me where in the contract it says the union is permanent? If I rent an apartment and it says that the powers and authority not granted to the landlord are reserved to the tenant, and it does NOT say that I must continue to rent the apartment for any specific time period, then wouldn't you agree our contract then allows me to leave for whatever reason I want?

[OnBoard]

I suppose you think you're free to break any contract you enter into without the consent of the other parties to the contract as well.

The other parties would be the other states. Not the federal govt as it only derives it's powers from those that are specifically given it by the states. And as the concept of states rights was that the state held the ultimate power with regards to itself, the vote it took was among it's own state legislature. Again this is getting silly because the right to secede ws considered legit by as many if not half of the states.

[VAPA]

I just want to mention again that I don't like the South. Except their women. Mmmm....yeah, I'd like to carpetbag the $#@! out of that...

[Mizzou415]

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution

That right there is why secession was unconstitutional. Because the legislative and executive officers of the seceding states violated their oath to support the Constitution of the United States.

[tantric superman]

If secession was out of the question, and the decision was permanent, it would have been covered. It wasn't. End of story.

It was covered by ratification of the constitution wherin the states agreed to be part of the union. Article IV covered the acceptance of new states, and importantly, guaranteed to the states the form of govenrment outlined in the Consitution. This was the obvious consideration for the states giving up their rights.

Since the Constitution involved a far stronger federal government than the articles of confenderation, if secession was a viable alternative, it would have been covered. It wasn't. End of story.

[VAPA]

That right there is why secession was unconstitutional. Because the legislative and executive officers of the seceding states violated their oath to support the Constituion of the United States.

Really? Which part of the Constitution did they violate pray tell?

[Mizzou415]

Really? Which part of the Constitution did they violate pray tell?

I just told you which part. Article VI.

[tantric superman]

That right there is why secession was unconstitutional. Because the legislative and executive officers of the seceding states violated their oath to support the Constitution of the United States.

Jesus, Mizzou, you're missing the whole point. These Congresspeople, and Lee, were bound to support the CONSTITUTION, which obviously is in favor of treason.

Try to keep up.

[OnBoard]

That right there is why secession was unconstitutional. Because the legislative and executive officers of the seceding states violated their oath to support the Constitution of the United States.

That's good, but it doesn't answer questions with regards as to why if slavery was legal in the country why would new states not be allowed to be slave states ? Where would the federal govt derive the power to tell a state that it couldnt practice a legally covered right ? There was no clause added to the Constitution that disallowed slavery at the time of Dred Scott, Missouri Compromise, etc. Pre 1860.....

[VAPA]

It was covered by [registration on the Shag] wherin the [mid life crisis couch potato football watchers] agreed to be part of the [best combination of debauchery and intellect ever]. [The terms of registration] covered the acceptance of new [users], and importantly, guaranteed to the [users that their information wouldn't be sold to spammers]. This was the obvious consideration for [users] giving up their rights [to ever leave the Shag, knowing that if they try, they will be hunted down and slaughtered because, you joined us mother $#@!ers and if you leave you'll find out what "$#@!s" really means].

FIFY. Great way to increase traffic. But very un-American in my view, and not actually supported by the contract.

[VAPA]

I just told you which part. Article VI.

How about you quote that $#@! and tell me a little more precisely how they violated it? You talking about the oath to support the Constitution? That same Constitution that leaves the power of secession to the States, so therefore if an officer secedes he has in fact acted in accordance with his oath?

And treason, for those who haven't taken a look, is MAKING WAR and support enemies against one or more of the several States. Just leaving is not making war or supporting enemies.

[Mizzou415]

That's good, but it doesn't answer questions with regards as to why if slavery was legal in the country why would new states not be allowed to be slave states ? Where would the federal govt derive the power to tell a state that it couldnt practice a legally covered right ? There was no clause added to the Constitution that disallowed slavery at the time of Dred Scott, Missouri Compromise, etc. Pre 1860.....

When did Congress say new states were not allowed to be slave states?

[Mizzou415]

How about you quote that $#@! and tell me a little more precisely how they violated it? You talking about the oath to support the Constitution? That same Constitution that leaves the power of secession to the States, so therefore if an officer secedes he has in fact acted in accordance with his oath?

And treason, for those who haven't taken a look, is MAKING WAR and support enemies against one or more of the several States. Just leaving is not making war or supporting enemies.

The very nature of supporting the Constitution means you can't vote to no longer be subject to the Constitution.

[VAPA]

The very nature of supporting the Constitution means you can't vote to no longer be subject to the Constitution.

According to what?

So are we locked into the United Nations because I'm sure we've had some treaty or another that says we will support the mission of the U.N. to bring good on earth and joy to all. So if the U.N. changes and we don't like it, are we by "the very nature" of pledging support to the U.N. locked in and deserving if they send troops to bomb us if we choose to leave that union?

[tantric superman]

No I don't. Please show me where in the contract it says the union is permanent?

The Consitution and the union are permanent unless the Constitution is amended by Article V.

[OnBoard]

When did Congress say new states were not allowed to be slave states?

New states entering the Union west of the Mississippi were not going to be allowed to enter as slave states. That was one of the issues that sparked the final act of secession. If states couldn't enter as slave then the slave states knew they'd be outnumbered and out voted eventually. There was an economic battle being waged between the agrarian south and industrialized norths economies.

[VAPA]

The Consitution and the union are permanent unless the Constitution is amended by Article V.

I'm a little dumb. Can you please quote for me the section that says what you say it does?

[Mizzou415]

According to what?

Are you being obtuse on purpose? According to any ounce of common sense.

Just as you can't support your marriage by divorcing your wife. It's intrinsic that in order to support a union, you can't leave the union.

[tantric superman]

According to what?

So are we locked into the United Nations because I'm sure we've had some treaty or another that says we will support the mission of the U.N. to bring good on earth and joy to all. So if the U.N. changes and we don't like it, are we by "the very nature" of pledging support to the U.N. locked in and deserving if they send troops to bomb us if we choose to leave that union?

Well, since wildcat brought in rape and you brought in the UN to these discussions, I think we are even.

[tantric superman]

I'm a little dumb. Can you please quote for me the section that says what you say it does?

You are. The Consitution was ratified and has no end date. It provides for amendment. That's how it operates. A lease or other contract would operate differently.

That is your method of getting out of the Constitution. That and rebellion. Lee and the south tried rebellion.

[OnBoard]

Are you being obtuse on purpose? According to any ounce of common sense.

Just as you can't support your marriage by divorcing your wife. It's intrinsic that in order to support a union, you can't leave the union.

Just where is this common sense of which you speak contained in the Constitution. Common sense is not a legal argument. No matter how many ounces you have in your possession. Heh heh heh........

[VAPA]

Are you being obtuse on purpose? According to any ounce of common sense.

Just as you can't support your marriage by divorcing your wife. It's intrinsic that in order to support a union, you can't leave the union.

I see, so now people cannot divorce their wives because it's intrinsic and "common sense?" Please tell me more about this common sense.

Well, since wildcat brought in rape and you brought in the UN to these discussions, I think we are even.

Nice try. The UN was a great example and your attempt to paint me as fringe because I mentioned it falls flat. I have no issues with the UN. Nice work though.

[Mizzou415]

New states entering the Union west of the Mississippi were not going to be allowed to enter as slave states.

Under what law?

[tantric superman]

FIFY. Great way to increase traffic. But very un-American in my view, and not actually supported by the contract.

Joining the UN, joining shaggy, signing a rental agreement. Everything but actually the issue at hand, which is ratifying the consitution.

[Mizzou415]

I see, so now people cannot divorce their wives because it's intrinsic and "common sense?" Please tell me more about this common sense.

Sure they can, but they would be violating an oath to support their marriage.