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.
One would think that if secession were a viable option one would think that the Framers wouldn't have neglected to put such a provision in the Constitution or at the very least discussed the issue.
What say you, did they just forget or perhaps it just wasn't an option?
I believe there's something in the Preamble, but I'd have to look it up again. Nope--but the Tenth is a good catch-all. Rights retained by the States.
And with this document so fresh in their collective memory, how could they NOT intend secession to be permissible?
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. (Declaration of Independence)
Yea, I realize this was an attempt at the funnay, but really? Weren't the Founding Fathers the growth of the Continental Congress which was the political result of the tea party and other acts of protest? They were "teabaggers" (used in context) and ultimately brought about the Revolution which is directly responsible for the freedoms we enjoy today.
Now, back on topic:
Quote:
Tucker takes for granted the right of secession, but he knows it is a step not lightly to be taken. The people of the several states consented to the Constitution not as a once-and-for-all commitment to eternal obedience, but with a right of withdrawal that is their right as the true sovereign of the nation. That view is affirmed by the nature of the Constitution itself and in the principles enshrined in the Declaration of Independence.
Yea, I realize this was an attempt at the funnay, but really? Weren't the Founding Fathers the growth of the Continental Congress which was the political result of the tea party and other acts of protest? They were "teabaggers" (used in context) and ultimately brought about the Revolution which is directly responsible for the freedoms we enjoy today.
Sorry, but teabaggers have nothing at all to do with Tea Party members. They were heros. Teabaggers are an embarrassment.
And with this document so fresh in their collective memory, how could they NOT intend secession to be permissible?
Well for one thing, the Declaration of Independence wasn't written in opposition not to a republican government but to a monarchy. And second, there were a few things fresher in their minds, notably the abject failure of the Articles of Confederation.
I believe there's something in the Preamble, but I'd have to look it up again. Nope--but the Tenth is a good catch-all. Rights retained by the States.
And with this document so fresh in their collective memory, how could they NOT intend secession to be permissible?
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. (Declaration of Independence)
See post #4. Madison speaks of secession due to intolerable conditions as another name for the right of revolution which he says is not in question. He goes to great pains to distinguish between secession at will and secession as a necessity. Conditions are not even close to being intolerable anywhere in these United States such that secession is a necessity. But they very well might be in the future.
Well for one thing, the Declaration of Independence wasn't written in opposition not to a republican government but to a monarchy. And second, there were a few things fresher in their minds, notably the abject failure of the Articles of Confederation.
While it says "king" over and over, in actuality, the abuses they cited in the Declaration were the product of an elected parliament, but one that did not represent them and did not respect their rights. Even if they were given representation in it they wanted no more of it, because they would not have enough power to stop it from abusing their rights.
The Declaration of Independence alone would suffice for why they did not mention secession in the Constitution; they did not prohibit it in the Constitution, and it was assumed to be a right of the people to replace their government or abolish it. You must also include in context the ideas of the Enlightenment, of popular sovereignty, of John Locke, which influenced the founders. Their ideology and the Revolution all centered around that philosophy, and the right of the people to have the government they want, was viewed as fundamental. There was no need in the 1780's or 90's to include in the Constitution a specific declaration of the right to secede as it was A) assumed to be a right and B) it was not prohibited. Several of the founders viewed including any specific rights in the Constitution (Bill of Rights) dangerous because it would cause people to believe those are the only rights they have.
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.
works for me!
