Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
they did not leave it out, it is not mentioned in the Constitution at all meaning that the act of secession is a right left to the states and not the central goverment.
I find it odd sometimes that people who profess to be all about rights and to oppose oppressive powers are unable to see the 9th Amendment as being sufficient to accommodate something so easily intuitable from the rest of the Bill of Rights as a right to privacy, while seeing the 10th Amendment as some sort of ten-lane tunnel by which to truck in all manner of powers that are then reserved to the states. Incongruous, at best.
Quote:
Originally Posted by monkeywrenching
the civil war did not answer the legality of whether secession was legal or not.
Well, it's an endorsement of revolution as the eternal right of oppressed peoples, but it doesn't go much further than that.[/quote]
Thomas Jefferson does however:
The future inhabitants of the Atlantic & Missipi States will be our sons. We leave them in distinct but bordering establishments. We think we see their happiness in their union, & we wish it. Events may prove it otherwise; and if they see their interest in separation, why should we take side with our Atlantic rather than our Missipi descendants? It is the elder and the younger son differing. God bless them both, & keep them in union, if it be for their good, but separate them, if it be better. Letters
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Wednesday, March 4, 1801
If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.
Letters
The future inhabitants of the Atlantic & Missipi States will be our sons. We leave them in distinct but bordering establishments. We think we see their happiness in their union, & we wish it. Events may prove it otherwise; and if they see their interest in separation, why should we take side with our Atlantic rather than our Missipi descendants? It is the elder and the younger son differing. God bless them both, & keep them in union, if it be for their good, but separate them, if it be better.
So what you are basically saying is that there is no way to ever escape an oppressive regime, other than by overthrowing the government (i.e., a rebellion).
No, what I am basically saying is that there is no right of secession. It isn't necessary to reword it into other forms. The countenanced remedy for repression is revolution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coon dog
But a rebellion is just as illegal as secession{In your opinion}.
Insurrection and rebellion are mentioned several times in the Constitution, though not in a favorable light, being grouped at times with other crimes. Secession is not a crime, there is simply no right to it. It is a meaningless act...sort of like declaring yourself to be invisible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coon dog
And since you oppose secession I suppose you think Tibet and Taiwan should belong to China in perpetuity and that Russia has a claim to Georgia, and for that matter that Britain has a claim to the United States.
I will certainly insist that none of these places has any right to secession just as soon as it shown or otherwise admitted that they are governed by the US Constitution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coon dog
Not to mention that the reason for secession would be that our government is no longer abiding by the law or the Constitution in the first place.
We have a superior body in the Supreme Court to appeal to in such matters. Of course, it is always possible that you might lose your argument there because someone else had a much better one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coon dog
Mr. Madison's PUBLIC writings in support of ratification...
Your collection of quotes is impressive in two regards...length, and a failure to establish any basis for a right of secession.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coon dog
BTW-{Chief Justice Chase, in his 1869 opinion in Texas vs. White (from which, btw, he should have recused himself, having been a Lincoln cabinet member through over three years of the Civil War}
Mr. Chief Justice Taft should then I presume have recused himself from every case for having been President of the United States for four years. Maybe you should review the guidelines for judicial recusal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coon dog
It was the secession of those States from the Articles that caused our current Constitution to be formed.
You'll certainly want to fact-check yourself on that one. No state ever seceded from the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union.
Jefferson appeals here for acts of God to support whatever may be the best interests of the people. This is hardly a call for the right of any state to secede.
It was discussed. It requires more than a superficial reading of American History. Read the Federalist Papers, Jefferson's writings and what was said during Va's Constitutional Convention among other writings.
I find it odd sometimes that people who profess to be all about rights and to oppose oppressive powers are unable to see the 9th Amendment as being sufficient to accommodate something so easily intuitable from the rest of the Bill of Rights as a right to privacy, while seeing the 10th Amendment as some sort of ten-lane tunnel by which to truck in all manner of powers that are then reserved to the states. Incongruous, at best.
The Supreme Court did, however.
The "right to privacy" is respected by conservatives as an actual protection against government intrusion, and is abused by liberals in order to subvert the right to life for the unborn and to twist marriage issues.
Sorry, but murder and marriage are public issues, not private ones.
Thomas Jefferson: First Inaugural Address. U.S. Inaugural Addresses.
Wednesday, March 4, 1801
-----
If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.
Well, Jefferson's monuments of error are those who would wish to dissolve the union. Hardly a ringing endorsement of secessionist theory there.
The other quote is the same one you posted just above. The copy and paste keys are getting a workout. Not so much the brain cells.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
