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.
You seem to be operating on some confused idea that the Constitution is one thing and the Bill of Rights is something different. It's all the Constitution, amendments and all.
No, the Bill of Rights were AMENDMENTS to the original Constitution. That's why I operate on that premise. They were changes, granted, they were the EARLIEST changes, but they are still changes to the original document as written.
There was no attempt by the South to seek court or Congressional approval for their actions, they simply acted. If the complaint was that the contract which bound the states to the Federal Union was one which would "shock the conscience" of a court, then perhaps they should have found a court which would have acted on that shock.
Even without a court, they don't have to abide by something that is clearly injurious to them.
No, the Bill of Rights were AMENDMENTS to the original Constitution. That's why I operate on that premise. They were changes, granted, they were the EARLIEST changes, but they are still changes to the original document as written.
You are flatly wrong. The amendments are every bit as much a part of the Constitution, have every bit as much force of law, as any other part. The Constitution is the whole document, including the changes. That some laws came before others has zero impact on whether or not they are the laws of the land. I really have no idea of what sort of point you think that you are making. The amendments are no less the law of the land for being amendments rather than original articles. For legal purposes, there is no distinction.
RhettB......I get the sense that you have interchangable definitions of facts and opinions. What you have presented are the opinions of an individual, the author of a dicument which in itself, is interpreting someone else's opinion.. You seem to believe that the presentations of opinions (which you are liberally interpreting as supportive of secession as a right) somehow or other morphs into fact.
That author makes the same error as you.
That is not a little known fact, that is the author interpreting historical evidence.
What is fact here? If Virginia and New York had actually made such a clause a precondition of their accepting the Constitution, then how is it that even though no such right was spelled out, they ratified the Constitution?
Be careful whom you read, just because someone knows how to post on the internet does not mean that they also know what they are talking about when they post. This author whom you champion, is obviously in contradiction.
Sticking with actual facts, the Constitution authors presented us with a document which did not spell out any specific right to leave or process for doing so. It also failed to spell out any specific prohibition against doing so.
Where we differ is that I say that if something is neither enumerated, nor forbidden, then it will be a matter that must be resolved through either negotiation,(politics) resort to arbitration (legal) or simply asserted and established by force of arms. You seem to think that in the absense of either permission or prohibition, it is permitted.
If you were actually right, there would have been no Civil War. If the right you insist existed, indeed did exist, then it would not have required a fight to establish it. Had the South won that fight, then retroactively they would have established that right.
It's not an opinion, here is Virginia's notice of ratification of the US Constitution in black and white again...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Virginia's Ratification
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.
Look it up whereever you'd like..... It's language is quite clear.
The author from the other site I linked wasn't providing an opinion, but a fact that when Madison said that no conditional ratifications would be accepted meant just that, and the fact that Virginia's ratification was accepted as written meant that, in Madison's opinion, the state's rights to take these powers afforded to the federal government back was simply understood and not at issue.....
You are trying to attack the source without reading what is fact within.... It's hard to argue against Madison regarding issues relating to the Constitution....
The only defense you could possibly have is that it was an oversight by Madison, but since he was actually a part of the Virginia Ratification Convention, that is highly unlikely....
You are making a moral argument. We have been discussing the legality of secession, so you are in the wrong discussion here.
But the court will recognize, legally, that you don't have to abide by something injurious to you. WHEN it comes to them. No matter when it comes to them.
You are flatly wrong. The amendments are every bit as much a part of the Constitution, have every bit as much force of law, as any other part. The Constitution is the whole document, including the changes. That some laws came before others has zero impact on whether or not they are the laws of the land. I really have no idea of what sort of point you think that you are making. The amendments are no less the law of the land for being amendments rather than original articles. For legal purposes, there is no distinction.
But the amendments are STILL an addition to the original.
But the court will recognize, legally, that you don't have to abide by something injurious to you. WHEN it comes to them. No matter when it comes to them.
You're reading a lot into that "shocks the conscience" quote you provided. Contract law lets you make a bad deal, it takes a lot to "shock the conscience."
Courts will certainly make you abide by an agreement that is injurious to you. While proponents of efficient breach as a legal doctrine may agree with you in principle, the courts do not.
But the amendments are STILL an addition to the original.
True..... The Constitution was ratified by many states with a "recommendation" that they add a 'Bill of Rights' that most states wanted added to the original...
Kind of irrelevent, but what you're saying isn't untrue.
You're reading a lot into that "shocks the conscience" quote you provided. Contract law lets you make a bad deal, it takes a lot to "shock the conscience."
Courts will certainly make you abide by an agreement that is injurious to you. While proponents of efficient breach as a legal doctrine may agree with you in principle, the courts do not.
So did the professor of the business law class I took. Who was a lawyer.
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.
