How Could The Framers Have Left Out Secession?? (Congressmen, Iraq, health care system)
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.
Since you guys are going 'round and 'round on Chase in this case let's look at his opinion; specifically, as to the Union (not the Texas perspective in the case):
"The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union." It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?"
I happen to agree with what is a complete and concisely accurate analysis. The cogent and undeniable observation being that which I've highlighted in bold.
You and I have no disagreement at all on that. Where I took contention was you CANNOT use that to say that, because it didn't specifically say such...that MEANS it condones such an effort. Once you do that, it's only one more leap to say that for the same reasoning it encourages such an effort. My sense is it was not addressed as it would have been an indication of doubt inserted at a time when doubt was the last thing they wanted to instill. They were all about unifying to a common commitment for a future built upon a certainty of confidence in the future, not doubt.
As I've previously acknowledged, in post comment #24, ergohead nailed it.
Hey Doc!
I see now what you mean and where the quibbles came into play. I stand by the "default" aspect of the 9th and 10th Amendments as concerns secession.
BUT...I see what you are saying when you say it could be interpretted as condoning it. And generally agree with you in all the major aspects.
That is to say, certainly the new Union did not intentionally plant the seeds (i.e. condone) for its eventually breakup. Like you and a few others have pointed out, this question was kinda left -- intentionally, I am sure -- for something for posterity to eventually settle. (which, as Winston Churchill once said, "the American Civil war was the most inevitable in history...")
On a related tangent, the preamble of the Constitution of the Confederate States of America is kind of interesting:
We, the people of the Confederate States, each State acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent federal government, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity — invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God — do ordain and establish this Constitution for the Confederate States of America.
Given the Lower South states -- South Carolina thru Texas -- had just seceded, it is noteworthy the language of the preamble is even stronger than the Original in terms of how the central govenment was intended to endure...
Totally agree. As to your CSA preamble comparative it is noteworthy to allow that in coming to grips with ALL philosphies, both northern and southern, reaffirmations to the greater goal of a firm and solid unionthat would endure had to be made to make it happen. A solid commitment to unity. A meeting of the minds in common principle.
To the original queation. I don't thin as setout the founding fathers saw the federal govewrnmnt as anyhtihng but having minimal conterolks over states. They saw sates as having much more control over their governance. The federal governmant wqas seen as very limited in its powewrs to things like defense etc. Tts a a mutual co-operation pact really between states with sates retaining most powers IMO.
Points all duly noted. However, in the final analysis it was still dicta and of no binding consequence on the question of the constitutionality of secession. Which is my main point.
No, they are not dicta. Points that must be established before any case can proceed to the law and facts of the matter are standing (does the plaintiff have a right to bring this case) and jurisdiction (is this court the proper place for the issue to be heard). This case was an original bill. That is, it was filed directly with the Supreme Court without first being heard in any lower court. Only a state can do that. Hence, if Texas had not been a state, the case would have been tossed out right there. The Chief Justice's explication for how and why Texas was always a state from the moment that it first entered the union is therefore precedent, and in eliminating even the idea of a valid secession, that precedent has great weight for the cases that the disenchanted today feel compelled to pursue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb
No, Chase didn't leave many stones unturned. However, the dicta presented was flawed in itself (IMHO)...as pertains to the true concept of Union (which is voluntary). It was more or less his own treatise...and even necessary to justify (in a corollary way) the North's invasion of the South. And as RedShadowz pointed out, it was a close call, anyway...
Well, anyone can be his own Justice. It just doesn't have the same impact as being an actual Justice, though. The true concept of the union has been perpetual since its first founding. The word in 1777 had the same meaning as today, and it did not accidentally work its way into the very title of the Articles of Confederation. It was deliberately put there, The opinion itself was written by the Chief Justice with the concurrence of four Justices. Three Justices dissented, none on the issue of Texas' standing. They objected on matters of jurisdiction, feeling that the matter should have been settled by Congress, not by the Supreme Court.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb
Really, those of us on both sides can present tortuous legal arguments all the live-long day, but (again, IMHO) it makes no historical sense whatsover that the states (which as you know, were originally referred to as "these" united states) would have entered into a compact they could never get out of. Chase's logic almost seems to be a deliberate distortion...
It was a cogent recitation of the facts. A similar recitation can be found in Lincoln's first Inaugural Address and on back into history. These ideas are not something that Chase manufactured on his own one April afternoon.
Got company coming over in just a bit, so will have to content with just a brief refutation for the time being! More, involved, later! LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
No, they are not dicta. Points that must be established before any case can proceed to the law and facts of the matter are standing (does the plaintiff have a right to bring this case) and jurisdiction (is this court the proper place for the issue to be heard). This case was an original bill. That is, it was filed directly with the Supreme Court without first being heard in any lower court. Only a state can do that. Hence, if Texas had not been a state, the case would have been tossed out right there. The Chief Justice's explication for how and why Texas was always a state from the moment that it first entered the union is therefore precedent, and in eliminating even the idea of a valid secession, that precedent has great weight for the cases that the disenchanted today feel compelled to pursue.
Yes, it was dicta. Of no legal consequence. We will just have to agree to disagree on that one...
That Texas was a state of standing at the time (1869) is kinda iffy. When convenient (ala' for the purpose of Chase) it was deemed to be so. When it suited the Radical Reconstuctionists, it was a conquered subject.
The Chief Justice's logic -- as I said earlier (even though I realize you don't agree) was at least largely based upon a desire to justify the Lincoln administations war policy. Which had the same ambiguity. When it suited, he considered the Southern states as a part of the country in rebellion. When it didn't, he sanctioned all the measures which "laws of war" reserved for a recognized nation (i.e. blockades, prisoner exchange, etc)
Quote:
Well, anyone can be his own Justice. It just doesn't have the same impact as being an actual Justice, though. The true concept of the union has been perpetual since its first founding. The word in 1777 had the same meaning as today, and it did not accidentally work its way into the very title of the Articles of Confederation. It was deliberately put there, The opinion itself was written by the Chief Justice with the concurrence of four Justices. Three Justices dissented, none on the issue of Texas' standing. They objected on matters of jurisdiction, feeling that the matter should have been settled by Congress, not by the Supreme Court.
Do you really think the individual states (recognized as such by the Treaty of Paris) would have entered into a compact with one another if they knew they were giving up a right they had just excercised by seceeding from England? C'mon. This just defies all common-sense, if nothing else.
A "union" by definition is voluntary. I have said before, secession may have unwise, rash-action, flat stupid (many Southern men such as Robert E. Lee and Sam Houston believed it was). But it did NOT violate the ever underlying principle the Founding Fathers embraced. To wit: Government derives its power from the consent of the governed.
BTW -- As I recall, both New York and Kentucky (later) had provisions for resuming -- if they felt it necessary -- the said soveriegn powers they delegated to the federal government...
Nothing is really apart from the initial and basic question.
Quote:
It was a cogent recitation of the facts. A similar recitation can be found in Lincoln's first Inaugural Address and on back into history. These ideas are not something that Chase manufactured on his own one April afternoon.
And Lincoln was wrong (IMHO). He even contradicted -- in the address you speak of -- things he had said in his earlier career as to the seeming right of any people to use proper means and sever connections with the larger body politic.
Speaking of, Lincoln once tried to (in justifying his decision to coerce the South) -- and this is simply absurd -- make the case that the Union was responsible for the formation of the individual states. Oh man...even you might agree this is just nuts! LOL
OK...gotta run for the moment! Enjoying the discussion/debate!
It's time for the US to break up into two countries. One for the lunatic left and one for Americans.
Three. You forget one for the right wing extremists. First thing they're going to want to do is wall off their territory, and encroach onto the others' territory so they can plant mines.
Three. You forget one for the right wing extremists. First thing they're going to want to do is wall off their territory, and encroach onto the others' territory so they can plant mines.
A typically ridiculous assertion built upon hyperbole of the left about the right.
The real current right-wing is the old center in this nation in case you've lost your way. The real left is the old "loyal opposition" who Mort Sahl had marked on his infamous old chalkboard to the left of the Republican Party, but still Americans. They ain't there anymore. They've wandered so far out into deep left-field that they're longer relevant. And they're about to learn that precise lesson come November.
The gratuitous, self-indulgence of the "plant mines" reference isn't even worthy of comment.
If anyone wants to read about the founders and how America was meant to be.....Ayn Rand explains it very well..it is capitalism and individual freedom...she said socialism is destructive to a country.
"If a province wants to secede from a dictatorship, or even from a mixed economy, in order to establish a free country—it has the right to do so. But if a local gang, ethnic or otherwise, wants to secede in order to establish its own government controls, it does not have that right." Ayn Rand.
No, the purpose of the Convention of 1787 was not to dissolve but to amend the disfunctional Articles of Confederation so as to define "a more perfect union", not a new union. You are a citizen (I assume) of the United States of America, an independent union that was declared on or about July 4, 1776, and formally defined and established on November 15, 1777.
Yes it did. As the Constitution would only apply to those states that ratified it, and any others would become independent.
Article VII:
"The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same."
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.
TexasReb
