Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 06-15-2019, 06:20 PM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
48,564 posts, read 23,986,197 times
Reputation: 21237

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2x3x29x41 View Post



Actually, that's not the case. Article VII makes clear that the ratification of the ninth state makes the Constitution binding upon only those ratifying states. That's why, for example, Rhode Island and North Carolina did not participate in the election for 1788/89 - they hadn't yet ratified and weren't yet a part of the United States. Indeed, it would be rather presumptuous in the extreme to presume that Rhode Island would be a state when it hadn't ratified the Constitution - it was so opposed to the very idea that it sent no delegates at all to the Constitutional Convention (it eventually joined only after the newly-comprised United States made it clear that it would treat Rhode Island like the foreign power that it was for over a year between the Constitution coming into effect in 1789 and Rhode Island joining the Union in 1790).
But it doesn't make it clear, it makes it ambiguous and thus open to arguments such as Michael B. Rappaport's :
Quote:
Article VII aside, the Constitution contemplates being the constitution for all thirteen states. The Preamble begins, “We the People of the United States,” and ends, “do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” The phrase “United States of America” is taken directly from Article I of the Articles of Confederation, which declares “The Stile of this Confederacy shall be ‘The United States of America.’” “The People of the United States” in the Preamble, thus, refers to the people of all thirteen states and not just the people of the states that ratified the Constitution.
https://constitutioncenter.org/inter...aber/interp/24

Rather than play lawyers with this, how about you producing any language from the Constitution which in any manner supports the notion of the process used by the states in rebellion, unilateral withdrawal, as being the proper one for secession. If such a process was lawful, then you are arguing that any of the states at all times possessed the power to overthrow the Federal government.

No nation as ever included in its national charter document, language which describes the lawful way to overthrow the government in unhappy regions. Why do you suppose that is? Because they all felt that such a right was implied and didn't need to be codified in law? Or was it because they felt that it was so obvious that the nation was intended to be permanent, that it didn't need to be codified?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-15-2019, 09:34 PM
 
Location: North America
4,430 posts, read 2,670,975 times
Reputation: 19314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander View Post
But it doesn't make it clear, it makes it ambiguous and thus open to arguments such as Michael B. Rappaport's :

https://constitutioncenter.org/inter...aber/interp/24
Yes. It makes it clear. Very clear.

Article VII consists of one sentence:
The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.

The underlined bit, particularly the bolded bit, makes it unequivocally clear that per the Constitution, only ratifying states were considered part of the new United States. Furthermore, you have ignored the fact that North Carolina and Rhode Island not participating in the 1788/89 election clearly demonstrates that no one at the time thought that what you have claimed was, and I quote you, 'understood'. You've also ignored the obvious fact that it would be absurd for those drafting the Constitution to understand that Rhode Island, which didn't even bother negotiating the document, was bound by it until it ratified said document.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander View Post
Rather than play lawyers with this, how about you producing any language from the Constitution which in any manner supports the notion of the process used by the states in rebellion, unilateral withdrawal, as being the proper one for secession. If such a process was lawful, then you are arguing that any of the states at all times possessed the power to overthrow the Federal government.
Weird. You seem to think that my historical interest in Article VII indicates that I think secession was lawful. I think no such thing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander View Post
No nation as ever included in its national charter document, language which describes the lawful way to overthrow the government in unhappy regions. Why do you suppose that is? Because they all felt that such a right was implied and didn't need to be codified in law? Or was it because they felt that it was so obvious that the nation was intended to be permanent, that it didn't need to be codified?
Your presumptions seem to be based on the idea that, since I've pointed out that your claim concerning Article VII is incorrect (be advised, I assume no deceit but mere innocent incorrectness on your part), that it must therefore follow that I think that secession was legal.

It doesn't follow. I suggest you stop seeing foes where none exist.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-16-2019, 07:29 AM
 
Location: West Virginia
16,591 posts, read 15,530,589 times
Reputation: 10829
Ah, here it is. I found this post. The issue of secession is a legal issue about the Constitution. As in "Is secession Constitutional?" If I remember correctly, jbgusa is a lawyer. Lawyers learn things in law school that are concepts that lay people rarely encounter. Besides the fact that they have entire graduate level classes about the Constitution, some of them keep studying that area of law and become Constitutional lawyers. It's worthwhile to pay attention to what lawyers say about basic elements of the law.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jbgusa View Post
The Constitution has an elaborate mechanism for admitting states and none for their exit. By the principal of the inclusion of one is the exclusion of all else, Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius, secession is unconstitutional.
We can all go study some law with the link in the post I quoted from another of the myriad of threads we have about the Civil War.

Secession is not Constitutional. California and Texas will have to stay in the United States. Admission to the Union is a one way street.
__________________
Moderator posts are in RED.
City-Data Terms of Service: //www.city-data.com/terms.html
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-16-2019, 07:59 AM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
48,564 posts, read 23,986,197 times
Reputation: 21237
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2x3x29x41 View Post



Your presumptions seem to be based on the idea that, since I've pointed out that your claim concerning Article VII is incorrect (be advised, I assume no deceit but mere innocent incorrectness on your part), that it must therefore follow that I think that secession was legal.

It doesn't follow. I suggest you stop seeing foes where none exist.
I did indeed think that because that is an argument that secession supporters use. I'm happy to learn that you do not plan to argue for the legality of secession. If I was seeing foes where they do not exist, it was because you were behaving in the same manner as the foes for whom I was looking. I have the straight of it now.

Do you agree that the ratification process was a national one? And if so, do you agree that a national process would have been required to unmake the union? That was my main point, that unilateral secession was not the way to go even if you are down with secession.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-16-2019, 02:09 PM
Status: "A solution in search of a problem" (set 19 days ago)
 
Location: New York Area
34,502 posts, read 16,591,230 times
Reputation: 29679
Quote:
Originally Posted by mensaguy View Post
Ah, here it is. I found this post. The issue of secession is a legal issue about the Constitution. As in "Is secession Constitutional?" If I remember correctly, jbgusa is a lawyer. Lawyers learn things in law school that are concepts that lay people rarely encounter. Besides the fact that they have entire graduate level classes about the Constitution, some of them keep studying that area of law and become Constitutional lawyers. It's worthwhile to pay attention to what lawyers say about basic elements of the law.
Thanks for the compliment. Actually the admission provisions are readily readable in the Constitution. One can search in vain for secession provisions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-18-2019, 09:33 AM
 
50 posts, read 24,319 times
Reputation: 80
Default Virginia's Ratification of the Constitution

Quote:
WE the Delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly, and now met in Convention, having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention, and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us, to decide thereon, DO in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will: that therefore no right of any denomination, can be cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified, by the Congress, by the Senate or House of Representatives acting in any capacity, by the President or any department or officer of the United States, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes: and that among other essential rights, the liberty of conscience and of the press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified by any authority of the United States.

With these impressions, with a solemn appeal to the searcher of hearts for the purity of our intentions, and under the conviction, that, whatsoever imperfections may exist in the Constitution, ought rather to be examined in the mode prescribed therein, than to bring the Union into danger by a delay, with a hope of obtaining amendments previous to the ratification:

We the said Delegates, in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, do by these presents assent to, and ratify the Constitution recommended on the seventeenth day of September, one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven, by the Foederal Convention for the Government of the United States; hereby announcing to all those whom it may concern, that the said Constitution is binding upon the said People, according to an authentic copy hereto annexed, in the words following:

(A copy of the Constitution was included in the ratification document.)

On motion, Ordered, That the Secretary of this Convention cause to be engrossed, forthwith, two fair copies of the form of ratification, and of the proposed Constitution of Government, as recommended by the Foederal Convention on the seventeenth day of September, one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven.
Source: https://www.usconstitution.net/rat_va.html
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-18-2019, 09:46 AM
Status: "A solution in search of a problem" (set 19 days ago)
 
Location: New York Area
34,502 posts, read 16,591,230 times
Reputation: 29679
Quote:
Originally Posted by TedF0ster View Post
"WE the Delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly, and now met in Convention, having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention, and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us, to decide thereon, DO in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will: that therefore no right of any denomination, can be cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified, by the Congress, by the Senate or House of Representatives acting in any capacity, by the President or any department or officer of the United States, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes: and that among other essential rights, the liberty of conscience and of the press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified by any authority of the United States."Source: https://www.usconstitution.net/rat_va.html
That reservation is unilateral and in no way binding on the other 12 states. Similar to my unilateral alteration of a contract after it's signed by other parties.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-18-2019, 11:21 AM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
48,564 posts, read 23,986,197 times
Reputation: 21237
Quote:
Originally Posted by TedF0ster View Post
Except that voting doesn't work that way, voting is yes or no, this person or that person, voters do not enjoy the right or ability to make their votes conditional regardless of what they may resolve or write. If you do not like some measure or initiative, you vote no, you don't get to vote "Yes, but only if..."

Virginia's choice was to ratify the document as it stood, or to reject it as it stood. Ratification with conditions wasn't on the menu.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-18-2019, 11:47 AM
 
50 posts, read 24,319 times
Reputation: 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander View Post
Except that voting doesn't work that way, voting is yes or no, this person or that person, voters do not enjoy the right or ability to make their votes conditional regardless of what they may resolve or write. If you do not like some measure or initiative, you vote no, you don't get to vote "Yes, but only if..."

Virginia's choice was to ratify the document as it stood, or to reject it as it stood. Ratification with conditions wasn't on the menu.
But Virginia's ratification was accepted as it was offered, no changes were required.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-18-2019, 11:54 AM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
48,564 posts, read 23,986,197 times
Reputation: 21237
Quote:
Originally Posted by TedF0ster View Post
But Virginia's ratification was accepted as it was offered, no changes were required.
All that was accepted was their yes, we ratify. The other stuff did not come with any force of law.

There is an extremely obvious reason that voting is done the way it is, can you not figure it out? If a measure or initiative is offered to the public, everyone must be voting on the same thing, not the measure plus whatever conditions an individual feels should be added. If it were any other way it would be chaos, as in a million votes cast with a million different agendas attached. Do you fail to see the sense of this?

You can take you ballot and color the margins blue, draw a smiley face on it, write personal comments at the bottom, but the only thing that counts is the actual vote, all the other nonsense will be ignored because none of it was on the ballot.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top