37148Re: [civilwarwest] Legality of secession: were the states sovereign nations?
- Feb 2, 2006Brian:The question of the right of secession has been debated many times by more learned men than I and never has it been upheld. The method of admission as a member state of the United States is provided but no method of secession is part of the Constitution. Your citation of Madison in Federalist 39 is only one of the many position papers included in the long discussions held in the constitutional debates and is a position paper at best. The many rulings of the supreme court has defined, expanded and restricted the powers of the federal government while at the same time defined, expanded and restricted the powers of the states governments. All of this based on the Constitution. Which of these rulings do you wish to cite as an authority? If your assumption is correct, what is your purpose?Remember the quotation "We must hang together or, surely we will hang separately". Ben Franklin (I believe)RegardsRon----- Original Message -----From: brianmccandlissSent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 2:59 AMSubject: [civilwarwest] Legality of secession: were the states sovereign nations?
This question addresses the legality of secession, under mutual understanding and original legal-intent between the states.
In Federalist 39, Madison assures the states that the Constitution won't usurp their individual sovereign character, stating that "Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a federal, and not a national constitution."
Rather, Amendment 10 states that powers are simply delegated to the United States by the states, via the Constitution-- and that all other powers are reserved to the states respectively-- or the people (thereof).
Likewise, nothing in the Constitution specifically in any way negates this assurance; Amendment 9 states that the enumeration of certain rights in the Constition, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people; such rights would include this sovereign character, i.e. the simple lack of enumeration of such, cannot in itself be construed to deny it.
In contrast, Lincoln's claims halting secession under national authority were entirely without merit, historically or legally.
Rather, it seems that the Union was not a nation of states; rather, the states were sovereign nations unto themselves. As such, they recognized no superior, and had every right to secede, under the terms mutual understanding and agreement regarding the laws between them.
I have also noticed a conspicuous absence of debate on this issue, leading me to believe that there's some type of "code of silence" on the matter, by those professionals whose interests are conflicted by discussing it; however I'm not afraid of rocking the boat in the name of truth.
In fact, if such silence exists, we need to investigate and expose it.
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.0/248 - Release Date: 2/1/2006
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>