saintmichaeldefendthem
Gold Member
I don't think it can be dumbed down any further. The purpose of the 9th and 10th amendments was to restrict the federal government to 18 enumerated powers and to establish the states with powers that cannot be defined by the federal government. This is what made Lincoln's war illegal, because there was no power delegated to empower the federal government to dragoon seceding states. The power to secede need not to have been defined because the powers of the federal government are defined, not the powers of the states.You are mixing rights with powers. No individual has a right to choose not to consent to being governed. Don't pay taxes ... go to jail. Even blacks in the South did not claim that right when they were being denied the right to vote, but perhaps they should have. The founders argued that without political representation in Parliament, their consent was not given. Therefore, Britain lost any power to govern them.I have argued that States have the right to secede. I have not argued who can or should do that. How is that being an "apologist" for anyone?
You are arguing that government does not require the concent of the governed, they can compel submission. Now that is not the principle we were founded on as a nation, that makes us subjects of government, not citizens
I never said individuals have the right to not consent to be governed, so this is a non point
The question is where does the power of a state to leave a union it voluntarily joined come from? No doubt the constitution could be amended to explicitly provide for such a power, and Articles of Confederation specified that if 9 out of 13 ratified any change to the Articles ... it was good to go.
You fundamentally don't understand the Constitution. States don't need a source of power in the Constitution, the Federal government does. Read the 10th amendment
Actually, the do. Where does anyone have the right to tell others what to do if they aren't voilating your rights in any way?
I was referring to the Constitution specifically. The Constitution restricts the Federal government to certain enumerated powers. And then in the 10th amendment says, period. If a power is not in the Constitution, the Federal government is prohibited from that power.
Originally the Constitution placed no limit on State powers. Later the 14th said limits on Federal powers were extended to limit State powers as well, but nowhere does the Constitution say that State powers need to be justified, only they couldn't do certain things
I'm not quite sure what you mean. State's can't coin money, enter into treaties, deny full faith and credit to other state's citizens .... They gave up those powers. that they had BEFORE the constitution (and articles of confederation). But there was no right to secede, if one exists, in existence before they ratified the Constitution and Articles ... because there was nothing to secede from.
So, I think we're back to the question of whether the southern states ratified the constitution on a premised belief that they "deratify." The Articles of Confederation did not provide that right for and individual, and to end the Articles or amend them, 9 of the 13 had to agree.