Modern conservatives sympathizing with The Confederacy... Is this a thing now?

[OKTexas]

States rights mean a states right to violate the rights of its citizens

That is why we need a strong federal government

OK, here's why you're stupid this time. The discussion is on secession. I'll give you the 411, big guy. If a State secedes, they aren't actually ... a State. Is that a mind fuck or what? My God, you are not a bright guy. In fact you're a black hole

Have to disagree with you on that one Kaz, they were a State, meaning a sovereign State, when they elected to join the union and they remained a State after withdrawing from it.

They continue to be a State of the United States subject to the Constitution after they withdraw from the United States and are no longer a State of the union? You're going to have to explain that one. So if I divorce my wife, I'm still cheating on her if I date other women?

Shouldn't be that hard to follow, they were independent sovereign States before they joined the union, they remained independent sovereign States while in the union with other independent sovereign States and they remained independent sovereign States when they left the union, the only thing that changed was external political alignments. Get it now?

They were sovereign before joining under the constitution. That status changed after joining. See Gibbon v. Ogden in 1824.

You do realize that the States have the power to reverse and void all those BS court decisions with one Article V Amendment, right? The States loaned specific powers they held to the feds, they have the right and the power to call in the loan at any time. So tell me, who is truly sovereign in that scenario?

 

[Skylar]

OK, here's why you're stupid this time. The discussion is on secession. I'll give you the 411, big guy. If a State secedes, they aren't actually ... a State. Is that a mind fuck or what? My God, you are not a bright guy. In fact you're a black hole

Have to disagree with you on that one Kaz, they were a State, meaning a sovereign State, when they elected to join the union and they remained a State after withdrawing from it.

They continue to be a State of the United States subject to the Constitution after they withdraw from the United States and are no longer a State of the union? You're going to have to explain that one. So if I divorce my wife, I'm still cheating on her if I date other women?

Shouldn't be that hard to follow, they were independent sovereign States before they joined the union, they remained independent sovereign States while in the union with other independent sovereign States and they remained independent sovereign States when they left the union, the only thing that changed was external political alignments. Get it now?

They were sovereign before joining under the constitution. That status changed after joining. See Gibbon v. Ogden in 1824.

You do realize that the States have the power to reverse and void all those BS court decisions with one Article V Amendment, right?

Yup. And? I'm speaking of what is. Not imaginary hypotheticalls. And no such amendment that makes states sovereigns again exists. Or is even remotely likely to.

The States loaned specific powers they held to the feds, they have the right and the power to call in the loan at any time. So tell me, who is truly sovereign in that scenario?

Through amendment in greater than super majority groups, you betcha. But not individually. And given that we're discussing the idea the right of an individual state to secede, we're not discussing collective authority. But the authority of an individual state to act as a sovereign.

Which it can't.

Its analogous to the differences between a monarchy and a republic. The states were individual sovereigns.....essentially, their own little kingdoms. After joining under the constitution, they are no longer sovereigns. But instead, more like citizens voting in a republic. Where individually, they have comparatively little power. But in large enough groups, can exercise the sovereign power they once had all by themselves.

Which only goes to underscore the fact that they are no longer the sovereigns they once were. Which is exactly my point.

 

[OKTexas]

Have to disagree with you on that one Kaz, they were a State, meaning a sovereign State, when they elected to join the union and they remained a State after withdrawing from it.

They continue to be a State of the United States subject to the Constitution after they withdraw from the United States and are no longer a State of the union? You're going to have to explain that one. So if I divorce my wife, I'm still cheating on her if I date other women?

Shouldn't be that hard to follow, they were independent sovereign States before they joined the union, they remained independent sovereign States while in the union with other independent sovereign States and they remained independent sovereign States when they left the union, the only thing that changed was external political alignments. Get it now?

They were sovereign before joining under the constitution. That status changed after joining. See Gibbon v. Ogden in 1824.

You do realize that the States have the power to reverse and void all those BS court decisions with one Article V Amendment, right?

Yup. And? I'm speaking of what is. Not imaginary hypotheticalls. And no such amendment that makes states sovereigns again exists. Or is even remotely likely to.

The States loaned specific powers they held to the feds, they have the right and the power to call in the loan at any time. So tell me, who is truly sovereign in that scenario?

Through amendment in greater than super majority groups, you betcha. But not individually. And given that we're discussing the idea the right of an individual state to secede, we're not discussing collective authority. But the authority of an individual state to act as a sovereign.

Which it can't.

Its analogous to the differences between a monarchy and a republic. The states were individual sovereigns.....essentially, their own little kingdoms. After joining under the constitution, they are no longer sovereigns. But instead, more like citizens voting in a republic. Where individually, they have comparatively little power. But in large enough groups, can exercise the sovereign power they once had all by themselves.

Which only goes to underscore the fact that they are no longer the sovereigns they once were. Which is exactly my point.

Right, that's why the individual State were compelled to expand their medicade programs and establish State exchanges under moabamacare, right.............oh wait, that didn't happen, did it?

 

[thanatos144]

Only a willfully blind monkey needs to have it proven to them the Civil War was about slavery.

A profoundly retarded willfully blind monkey.

But, I have proven it to them now since it appears we have a few profoundly retarded willfully blind monkeys around here.

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world."

Only a blind monkey would swallow the claim that the Civil War was fought over slavery. I know that's a sacred part of liberal brainwashing, but it's just fiction. When Lincoln sent that armed federal convoy to Fort Sumter, there were more slave states in the Union than there were in the Confederacy, and the four Upper South states had recently voted against leaving the Union over slavery. Free your mind.

That there were slave states that did not secede over slavery in no way repudiates that those which did secede did so over slavery.

Logic. Get some. Free your mind.

That slavery was ending all over the western world around this time (without a war) implies that a war was not necessary to abolish slavery.

History. Get some. Free your mind.

No it wasn't. But that didn't stop the Confederates from starting one

 

[Missourian]

They were sovereign before joining under the constitution. That status changed after joining. See Gibbon v. Ogden in 1824.

And Corporations are entitled to freedom of unlimited political speech. See Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

Just because a court rules it doesn't mean it's right.

 

[Skylar]

They continue to be a State of the United States subject to the Constitution after they withdraw from the United States and are no longer a State of the union? You're going to have to explain that one. So if I divorce my wife, I'm still cheating on her if I date other women?

Shouldn't be that hard to follow, they were independent sovereign States before they joined the union, they remained independent sovereign States while in the union with other independent sovereign States and they remained independent sovereign States when they left the union, the only thing that changed was external political alignments. Get it now?

They were sovereign before joining under the constitution. That status changed after joining. See Gibbon v. Ogden in 1824.

You do realize that the States have the power to reverse and void all those BS court decisions with one Article V Amendment, right?

Yup. And? I'm speaking of what is. Not imaginary hypotheticalls. And no such amendment that makes states sovereigns again exists. Or is even remotely likely to.

The States loaned specific powers they held to the feds, they have the right and the power to call in the loan at any time. So tell me, who is truly sovereign in that scenario?

Through amendment in greater than super majority groups, you betcha. But not individually. And given that we're discussing the idea the right of an individual state to secede, we're not discussing collective authority. But the authority of an individual state to act as a sovereign.

Which it can't.

Its analogous to the differences between a monarchy and a republic. The states were individual sovereigns.....essentially, their own little kingdoms. After joining under the constitution, they are no longer sovereigns. But instead, more like citizens voting in a republic. Where individually, they have comparatively little power. But in large enough groups, can exercise the sovereign power they once had all by themselves.

Which only goes to underscore the fact that they are no longer the sovereigns they once were. Which is exactly my point.

Right, that's why the individual State were compelled to expand their medicade programs and establish State exchanges under moabamacare, right.............oh wait, that didn't happen, did it?

What 'sovereign' has someone else with concurrent jurisdiction over their land? What 'sovereign' can be overridden by a judiciary that isn't even their own? What 'sovereign' has to scramble for votes from 3/4 of the other states before they can make ONE act with the authority of a sovereign? What 'sovereign' has to accept the outcome of amendments they voted against?

None.

Sorry.....but states aren't sovereigns. They were sovereigns....for about a decade. And when they joined the union, they transitioned into a republic. One voice among many. With the threshold of exercising the kind of authority you describe a 3/4 majority. Not the individual state. That's not a sovereign. Or even close to it. Nor was it meant to be.

 

[Skylar]

They were sovereign before joining under the constitution. That status changed after joining. See Gibbon v. Ogden in 1824.

And Corporations are entitled to freedom of unlimited political speech. See Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

Just because a court rules it doesn't mean it's right.

See my post above. The States were never meant to be sovereigns after joining the union. The Federalists made that ludicrously clear and the States knew it. The Anti-Federalists fought them tooth and nail.

The Anti-Federalists lost. Badly. It wasn't even close. With the founders overwhelmingly and decisively settling on a federalist constitution with the leading federalist the primary writer of it. You can pretend it didn't happen. You can wish it was different. You can moralize on if it was 'right or wrong'. But there's one undeniable fact that overrides it all:

It is.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Oh, and there's no constitutional right to secede. When NY was debating the ratification of the US constitution NY included a provision for unilateral withdrawl from the union after a 'certain number of years'. Hamilton and the Federalists opposed the inclusion of this passage. With Madison stating in a letter read for the convention by Hamilton himself which stated 'the Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever".

New York eventually ratified the new constitution without the provision for withdraw. It was expressly understood by the founders that at the time of the ratification of the constitution that there was no right to unilaterally withdraw. The right to withdraw was an expressly ANTI-federalist position, strongly advocated by anti-federalists like Patrick Henry.

The Anti-federalists lost.

Our federal constitution is overwhelmingly the product of the Federal perspective. With James Madison the 'father of the constitution' expressly, publically, and openly making it clear that unilateral withdraw wasn't an option upon ratification.

States did not retain the sovereignty they had before ratification. If an amendment was passed, those States that voted against the amendment were still bound to it. The fundamental change from State sovereignty with the ratification of the constitution has also been codified by the USSC. And BEFORE the secession of South Carolina, which means that it created binding precedent UPON South Carolina:

Reference has been made to the political situation of these states, anterior to [the Constitution's] formation. It has been said that they were sovereign, were completely independent, and were connected with each other only by a league. This is true. But, when these allied sovereigns converted their league into a government, when they converted their congress of ambassadors, deputed to deliberate on their common concerns, and to recommend measures of general utility, into a legislature, empowered to enact laws on the most interesting subjects, the whole character in which the states appear underwent a change."

Those arguing that a constitutional right of secession existing must ignore Madison and the USSC to hold such a position.

Ignoring what the USSC has to say on the matter since that is nothing but a hand-picked gang of political hacks who make decisions based on their benefactors wishes.

As for Madison, consider this:

http://www.ditext.com/dilorenzo/yankee.html​

Jefferson was the co-author (with James Madison) of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, which suggested that "where powers were assumed by the national government which had not been granted by the States, nullification is the rightful remedy" and that every state has an original, natural right "to nullify of its own authority all assumptions of power by others, within its limits."26 Thus, both major political parties believed in the inviolable states' rights of nullification and secession in the early nineteenth century.
​

The bottom line is that there is no prohibition of secession in the Constitution.

The Union Army of the 1860's disagrees with you.

Secession is prohibited by the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Only a willfully blind monkey needs to have it proven to them the Civil War was about slavery.

A profoundly retarded willfully blind monkey.

But, I have proven it to them now since it appears we have a few profoundly retarded willfully blind monkeys around here.

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world."

Only a blind monkey would swallow the claim that the Civil War was fought over slavery. I know that's a sacred part of liberal brainwashing, but it's just fiction. When Lincoln sent that armed federal convoy to Fort Sumter, there were more slave states in the Union than there were in the Confederacy, and the four Upper South states had recently voted against leaving the Union over slavery. Free your mind.

That there were slave states that did not secede over slavery in no way repudiates that those which did secede did so over slavery.

Logic. Get some. Free your mind.

That slavery was ending all over the western world around this time (without a war) implies that a war was not necessary to abolish slavery.

History. Get some. Free your mind.

No it wasn't. But that didn't stop the Confederates from starting one

Kudos.

You may mostly be a clown, but at least you're not a Lost Causer.

 

[Agit8r]

Isn't "modern conservatism" an oxymoron?

 

[Missourian]

They were sovereign before joining under the constitution. That status changed after joining. See Gibbon v. Ogden in 1824.

And Corporations are entitled to freedom of unlimited political speech. See Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

Just because a court rules it doesn't mean it's right.

See my post above. The States were never meant to be sovereigns after joining the union. The Federalists made that ludicrously clear and the States knew it. The Anti-Federalists fought them tooth and nail.

The Anti-Federalists lost. Badly. It wasn't even close. With the founders overwhelmingly and decisively settling on a federalist constitution with the leading federalist the primary writer of it. You can pretend it didn't happen. You can wish it was different. You can moralize on if it was 'right or wrong'. But there's one undeniable fact that overrides it all:

It is.

As it is fact that the same founders that in 1787 hammered out the Constitution had themselves for all intents and purposes, seceded from England just a short 11 years earlier...forgive me if I take exception to your conclusion.

 

[Skylar]

They were sovereign before joining under the constitution. That status changed after joining. See Gibbon v. Ogden in 1824.

And Corporations are entitled to freedom of unlimited political speech. See Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

Just because a court rules it doesn't mean it's right.

See my post above. The States were never meant to be sovereigns after joining the union. The Federalists made that ludicrously clear and the States knew it. The Anti-Federalists fought them tooth and nail.

The Anti-Federalists lost. Badly. It wasn't even close. With the founders overwhelmingly and decisively settling on a federalist constitution with the leading federalist the primary writer of it. You can pretend it didn't happen. You can wish it was different. You can moralize on if it was 'right or wrong'. But there's one undeniable fact that overrides it all:

It is.

As it is fact that the same founders that in 1787 hammered out the Constitution had themselves for all intents and purposes, seceded from England just a short 11 years earlier...forgive me if I take exception to your conclusion.

It really doesn't matter what exceptions you take. The States were sovereigns under the articles of confederation. They aren't under the constitution. They could exercise their authority unilaterally before joining the Union under the Constitution. They had to do it collectively after.

And regardless of your 'exception taking', the Federalists still won against the Anti-Federalists. IT was the Anti-Federalists that wanted the States to remain sovereigns. And the Federalists who convinced the States to give it up.

With even the USSC recognizing this fact. But hey, 'exception' away. It doesn't amount to much. As its not me you're disagreeing with. Its just history.

 

[OKTexas]

Shouldn't be that hard to follow, they were independent sovereign States before they joined the union, they remained independent sovereign States while in the union with other independent sovereign States and they remained independent sovereign States when they left the union, the only thing that changed was external political alignments. Get it now?

They were sovereign before joining under the constitution. That status changed after joining. See Gibbon v. Ogden in 1824.

You do realize that the States have the power to reverse and void all those BS court decisions with one Article V Amendment, right?

Yup. And? I'm speaking of what is. Not imaginary hypotheticalls. And no such amendment that makes states sovereigns again exists. Or is even remotely likely to.

The States loaned specific powers they held to the feds, they have the right and the power to call in the loan at any time. So tell me, who is truly sovereign in that scenario?

Through amendment in greater than super majority groups, you betcha. But not individually. And given that we're discussing the idea the right of an individual state to secede, we're not discussing collective authority. But the authority of an individual state to act as a sovereign.

Which it can't.

Its analogous to the differences between a monarchy and a republic. The states were individual sovereigns.....essentially, their own little kingdoms. After joining under the constitution, they are no longer sovereigns. But instead, more like citizens voting in a republic. Where individually, they have comparatively little power. But in large enough groups, can exercise the sovereign power they once had all by themselves.

Which only goes to underscore the fact that they are no longer the sovereigns they once were. Which is exactly my point.

Right, that's why the individual State were compelled to expand their medicade programs and establish State exchanges under moabamacare, right.............oh wait, that didn't happen, did it?

What 'sovereign' has someone else with concurrent jurisdiction over their land? What 'sovereign' can be overridden by a judiciary that isn't even their own? What 'sovereign' has to scramble for votes from 3/4 of the other states before they can make ONE act with the authority of a sovereign? What 'sovereign' has to accept the outcome of amendments they voted against?

None.

Sorry.....but states aren't sovereigns. They were sovereigns....for about a decade. And when they joined the union, they transitioned into a republic. One voice among many. With the threshold of exercising the kind of authority you describe a 3/4 majority. Not the individual state. That's not a sovereign. Or even close to it. Nor was it meant to be.

So you're saying the States didn't insist on the 10th Amendment to delineate the limited powers of the Federal Government from their own broader powers? I think you need to do a bit more reading.

 

[Skylar]

They were sovereign before joining under the constitution. That status changed after joining. See Gibbon v. Ogden in 1824.

You do realize that the States have the power to reverse and void all those BS court decisions with one Article V Amendment, right?

Yup. And? I'm speaking of what is. Not imaginary hypotheticalls. And no such amendment that makes states sovereigns again exists. Or is even remotely likely to.

The States loaned specific powers they held to the feds, they have the right and the power to call in the loan at any time. So tell me, who is truly sovereign in that scenario?

Through amendment in greater than super majority groups, you betcha. But not individually. And given that we're discussing the idea the right of an individual state to secede, we're not discussing collective authority. But the authority of an individual state to act as a sovereign.

Which it can't.

Its analogous to the differences between a monarchy and a republic. The states were individual sovereigns.....essentially, their own little kingdoms. After joining under the constitution, they are no longer sovereigns. But instead, more like citizens voting in a republic. Where individually, they have comparatively little power. But in large enough groups, can exercise the sovereign power they once had all by themselves.

Which only goes to underscore the fact that they are no longer the sovereigns they once were. Which is exactly my point.

Right, that's why the individual State were compelled to expand their medicade programs and establish State exchanges under moabamacare, right.............oh wait, that didn't happen, did it?

What 'sovereign' has someone else with concurrent jurisdiction over their land? What 'sovereign' can be overridden by a judiciary that isn't even their own? What 'sovereign' has to scramble for votes from 3/4 of the other states before they can make ONE act with the authority of a sovereign? What 'sovereign' has to accept the outcome of amendments they voted against?

None.

Sorry.....but states aren't sovereigns. They were sovereigns....for about a decade. And when they joined the union, they transitioned into a republic. One voice among many. With the threshold of exercising the kind of authority you describe a 3/4 majority. Not the individual state. That's not a sovereign. Or even close to it. Nor was it meant to be.

So you're saying the States didn't insist on the 10th Amendment to delineate the limited powers of the Federal Government from their own broader powers? I think you need to do a bit more reading.

Odd, I don't recall saying that at all. Perhaps you can quote me.

I recall saying that the States aren't sovereigns. And that they transitioned from being sovereigns to being part of a republic. Where they were able to excercise their authority collectively. Not individually.

Just like citizens in a republic. Which in a very real way, they are.

The States share concurrent jurisdiction with the US government. Meaning that the Federal government has jurisdiction throughout their territory. The Feds can collect taxes from any citizen. While an individual state can't necessarily return the favor. With the Federal Constitution being the Supreme Law of the land.

And that's all *before* the 14th amendment which granted the Feds vast new powers over the States. Like, say....applying the Bill of Rights.

 

[OKTexas]

Oh, and there's no constitutional right to secede. When NY was debating the ratification of the US constitution NY included a provision for unilateral withdrawl from the union after a 'certain number of years'. Hamilton and the Federalists opposed the inclusion of this passage. With Madison stating in a letter read for the convention by Hamilton himself which stated 'the Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever".

New York eventually ratified the new constitution without the provision for withdraw. It was expressly understood by the founders that at the time of the ratification of the constitution that there was no right to unilaterally withdraw. The right to withdraw was an expressly ANTI-federalist position, strongly advocated by anti-federalists like Patrick Henry.

The Anti-federalists lost.

Our federal constitution is overwhelmingly the product of the Federal perspective. With James Madison the 'father of the constitution' expressly, publically, and openly making it clear that unilateral withdraw wasn't an option upon ratification.

States did not retain the sovereignty they had before ratification. If an amendment was passed, those States that voted against the amendment were still bound to it. The fundamental change from State sovereignty with the ratification of the constitution has also been codified by the USSC. And BEFORE the secession of South Carolina, which means that it created binding precedent UPON South Carolina:

Reference has been made to the political situation of these states, anterior to [the Constitution's] formation. It has been said that they were sovereign, were completely independent, and were connected with each other only by a league. This is true. But, when these allied sovereigns converted their league into a government, when they converted their congress of ambassadors, deputed to deliberate on their common concerns, and to recommend measures of general utility, into a legislature, empowered to enact laws on the most interesting subjects, the whole character in which the states appear underwent a change."

Those arguing that a constitutional right of secession existing must ignore Madison and the USSC to hold such a position.

Ignoring what the USSC has to say on the matter since that is nothing but a hand-picked gang of political hacks who make decisions based on their benefactors wishes.

As for Madison, consider this:

http://www.ditext.com/dilorenzo/yankee.html​

Jefferson was the co-author (with James Madison) of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, which suggested that "where powers were assumed by the national government which had not been granted by the States, nullification is the rightful remedy" and that every state has an original, natural right "to nullify of its own authority all assumptions of power by others, within its limits."26 Thus, both major political parties believed in the inviolable states' rights of nullification and secession in the early nineteenth century.
​

The bottom line is that there is no prohibition of secession in the Constitution.

The Union Army of the 1860's disagrees with you.

Secession is prohibited by the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.

Show me anywhere in the Constitution where it specifically prohibits a States succession. Hint the supremacy clause as you call it only grants the feds the power to exercise the limited powers vested to them in the Constitution, nothing else.

 

[Skylar]

Oh, and there's no constitutional right to secede. When NY was debating the ratification of the US constitution NY included a provision for unilateral withdrawl from the union after a 'certain number of years'. Hamilton and the Federalists opposed the inclusion of this passage. With Madison stating in a letter read for the convention by Hamilton himself which stated 'the Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever".

New York eventually ratified the new constitution without the provision for withdraw. It was expressly understood by the founders that at the time of the ratification of the constitution that there was no right to unilaterally withdraw. The right to withdraw was an expressly ANTI-federalist position, strongly advocated by anti-federalists like Patrick Henry.

The Anti-federalists lost.

Our federal constitution is overwhelmingly the product of the Federal perspective. With James Madison the 'father of the constitution' expressly, publically, and openly making it clear that unilateral withdraw wasn't an option upon ratification.

States did not retain the sovereignty they had before ratification. If an amendment was passed, those States that voted against the amendment were still bound to it. The fundamental change from State sovereignty with the ratification of the constitution has also been codified by the USSC. And BEFORE the secession of South Carolina, which means that it created binding precedent UPON South Carolina:

Reference has been made to the political situation of these states, anterior to [the Constitution's] formation. It has been said that they were sovereign, were completely independent, and were connected with each other only by a league. This is true. But, when these allied sovereigns converted their league into a government, when they converted their congress of ambassadors, deputed to deliberate on their common concerns, and to recommend measures of general utility, into a legislature, empowered to enact laws on the most interesting subjects, the whole character in which the states appear underwent a change."

Those arguing that a constitutional right of secession existing must ignore Madison and the USSC to hold such a position.

Ignoring what the USSC has to say on the matter since that is nothing but a hand-picked gang of political hacks who make decisions based on their benefactors wishes.

As for Madison, consider this:

http://www.ditext.com/dilorenzo/yankee.html​

Jefferson was the co-author (with James Madison) of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, which suggested that "where powers were assumed by the national government which had not been granted by the States, nullification is the rightful remedy" and that every state has an original, natural right "to nullify of its own authority all assumptions of power by others, within its limits."26 Thus, both major political parties believed in the inviolable states' rights of nullification and secession in the early nineteenth century.
​

The bottom line is that there is no prohibition of secession in the Constitution.

The Union Army of the 1860's disagrees with you.

Secession is prohibited by the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.

Show me anywhere in the Constitution where it specifically prohibits a States succession.

NY tried to add a secession clause into their ratification of the Constitution. Madison shut them down, declaring in a letter read by Hamilton to the NY convention meeting to ratify that '"the Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever'.

For ever. Not a lot of wiggle room there.

And the NY convention ratified the Constitution. Without the secession clause. The Anti-Federalists argued for the right to secede. The Federalists opposed them. The Federalists won. The issue was already addressed specifically and directly when the constitution was ratified.

Unless you think you know better than James 'Father of the Constitution' Madison what it was supposed to mean.

 

[OKTexas]

You do realize that the States have the power to reverse and void all those BS court decisions with one Article V Amendment, right?

Yup. And? I'm speaking of what is. Not imaginary hypotheticalls. And no such amendment that makes states sovereigns again exists. Or is even remotely likely to.

The States loaned specific powers they held to the feds, they have the right and the power to call in the loan at any time. So tell me, who is truly sovereign in that scenario?

Through amendment in greater than super majority groups, you betcha. But not individually. And given that we're discussing the idea the right of an individual state to secede, we're not discussing collective authority. But the authority of an individual state to act as a sovereign.

Which it can't.

Its analogous to the differences between a monarchy and a republic. The states were individual sovereigns.....essentially, their own little kingdoms. After joining under the constitution, they are no longer sovereigns. But instead, more like citizens voting in a republic. Where individually, they have comparatively little power. But in large enough groups, can exercise the sovereign power they once had all by themselves.

Which only goes to underscore the fact that they are no longer the sovereigns they once were. Which is exactly my point.

Right, that's why the individual State were compelled to expand their medicade programs and establish State exchanges under moabamacare, right.............oh wait, that didn't happen, did it?

What 'sovereign' has someone else with concurrent jurisdiction over their land? What 'sovereign' can be overridden by a judiciary that isn't even their own? What 'sovereign' has to scramble for votes from 3/4 of the other states before they can make ONE act with the authority of a sovereign? What 'sovereign' has to accept the outcome of amendments they voted against?

None.

Sorry.....but states aren't sovereigns. They were sovereigns....for about a decade. And when they joined the union, they transitioned into a republic. One voice among many. With the threshold of exercising the kind of authority you describe a 3/4 majority. Not the individual state. That's not a sovereign. Or even close to it. Nor was it meant to be.

So you're saying the States didn't insist on the 10th Amendment to delineate the limited powers of the Federal Government from their own broader powers? I think you need to do a bit more reading.

Odd, I don't recall saying that at all. Perhaps you can quote me.

I recall saying that the States aren't sovereigns. And that they transitioned from being sovereigns to being part of a republic. Where they were able to excercise their authority collectively. Not individually.

Just like citizens in a republic. Which in a very real way, they are.

The States share concurrent jurisdiction with the US government. Meaning that the Federal government has jurisdiction throughout their territory. The Feds can collect taxes from any citizen. While an individual state can't necessarily return the favor. With the Federal Constitution being the Supreme Law of the land.

And that's all *before* the 14th amendment which granted the Feds vast new powers over the States. Like, say....applying the Bill of Rights.

Actually they retained their sovereignty as part of a federation with a republican form of government. And the fed are only supreme in the powers granted them by the States. See article 6.

 

[Skylar]

Yup. And? I'm speaking of what is. Not imaginary hypotheticalls. And no such amendment that makes states sovereigns again exists. Or is even remotely likely to.

Through amendment in greater than super majority groups, you betcha. But not individually. And given that we're discussing the idea the right of an individual state to secede, we're not discussing collective authority. But the authority of an individual state to act as a sovereign.

Which it can't.

Its analogous to the differences between a monarchy and a republic. The states were individual sovereigns.....essentially, their own little kingdoms. After joining under the constitution, they are no longer sovereigns. But instead, more like citizens voting in a republic. Where individually, they have comparatively little power. But in large enough groups, can exercise the sovereign power they once had all by themselves.

Which only goes to underscore the fact that they are no longer the sovereigns they once were. Which is exactly my point.

Right, that's why the individual State were compelled to expand their medicade programs and establish State exchanges under moabamacare, right.............oh wait, that didn't happen, did it?

What 'sovereign' has someone else with concurrent jurisdiction over their land? What 'sovereign' can be overridden by a judiciary that isn't even their own? What 'sovereign' has to scramble for votes from 3/4 of the other states before they can make ONE act with the authority of a sovereign? What 'sovereign' has to accept the outcome of amendments they voted against?

None.

Sorry.....but states aren't sovereigns. They were sovereigns....for about a decade. And when they joined the union, they transitioned into a republic. One voice among many. With the threshold of exercising the kind of authority you describe a 3/4 majority. Not the individual state. That's not a sovereign. Or even close to it. Nor was it meant to be.

So you're saying the States didn't insist on the 10th Amendment to delineate the limited powers of the Federal Government from their own broader powers? I think you need to do a bit more reading.

Odd, I don't recall saying that at all. Perhaps you can quote me.

I recall saying that the States aren't sovereigns. And that they transitioned from being sovereigns to being part of a republic. Where they were able to excercise their authority collectively. Not individually.

Just like citizens in a republic. Which in a very real way, they are.

The States share concurrent jurisdiction with the US government. Meaning that the Federal government has jurisdiction throughout their territory. The Feds can collect taxes from any citizen. While an individual state can't necessarily return the favor. With the Federal Constitution being the Supreme Law of the land.

And that's all *before* the 14th amendment which granted the Feds vast new powers over the States. Like, say....applying the Bill of Rights.

Actually the retained their sovereignty as part of a federation with a republican form of government. And the fed are only supreme in the powers granted them by the States. See article 6.

A sovereign doesn't have to share jurisdiction over his own lands. A sovereign's citizens doesn't have to pay someone ELSE taxes. A sovereign doesn't have someone else commanding his military. A soveriegn doesn't have submit to the rulings a judiciary that isn't his own. A sovereign isn't subordinate to ANOTHER constitution. A sovereign doesn't have to get 3/4 vote to exercise his authority. A sovereign doesn't have to submit to amendments that they voted against. Or even have to vote.

I don't think 'sovereign' means what you think it means. As none of those things are the act of a sovereign. The USSC laid it out in 1834. The States *were* sovereigns. But that status changed when they joined together under the constitution.

 

[OKTexas]

Oh, and there's no constitutional right to secede. When NY was debating the ratification of the US constitution NY included a provision for unilateral withdrawl from the union after a 'certain number of years'. Hamilton and the Federalists opposed the inclusion of this passage. With Madison stating in a letter read for the convention by Hamilton himself which stated 'the Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever".

New York eventually ratified the new constitution without the provision for withdraw. It was expressly understood by the founders that at the time of the ratification of the constitution that there was no right to unilaterally withdraw. The right to withdraw was an expressly ANTI-federalist position, strongly advocated by anti-federalists like Patrick Henry.

The Anti-federalists lost.

Our federal constitution is overwhelmingly the product of the Federal perspective. With James Madison the 'father of the constitution' expressly, publically, and openly making it clear that unilateral withdraw wasn't an option upon ratification.

States did not retain the sovereignty they had before ratification. If an amendment was passed, those States that voted against the amendment were still bound to it. The fundamental change from State sovereignty with the ratification of the constitution has also been codified by the USSC. And BEFORE the secession of South Carolina, which means that it created binding precedent UPON South Carolina:

Reference has been made to the political situation of these states, anterior to [the Constitution's] formation. It has been said that they were sovereign, were completely independent, and were connected with each other only by a league. This is true. But, when these allied sovereigns converted their league into a government, when they converted their congress of ambassadors, deputed to deliberate on their common concerns, and to recommend measures of general utility, into a legislature, empowered to enact laws on the most interesting subjects, the whole character in which the states appear underwent a change."

Those arguing that a constitutional right of secession existing must ignore Madison and the USSC to hold such a position.

Ignoring what the USSC has to say on the matter since that is nothing but a hand-picked gang of political hacks who make decisions based on their benefactors wishes.

As for Madison, consider this:

http://www.ditext.com/dilorenzo/yankee.html​

Jefferson was the co-author (with James Madison) of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, which suggested that "where powers were assumed by the national government which had not been granted by the States, nullification is the rightful remedy" and that every state has an original, natural right "to nullify of its own authority all assumptions of power by others, within its limits."26 Thus, both major political parties believed in the inviolable states' rights of nullification and secession in the early nineteenth century.
​

The bottom line is that there is no prohibition of secession in the Constitution.

The Union Army of the 1860's disagrees with you.

Secession is prohibited by the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.

Show me anywhere in the Constitution where it specifically prohibits a States succession.

NY tried to add a secession clause into their ratification of the Constitution. Madison shut them down, declaring in a letter read by Hamilton to the NY convention meeting to ratify that '"the Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever'.

For ever. Not a lot of wiggle room there.

And the NY convention ratified the Constitution. Without the secession clause. The Anti-Federalists argued for the right to secede. The Federalists opposed them. The Federalists won. The issue was already addressed specifically and directly when the constitution was ratified.

Unless you think you know better than James 'Father of the Constitution' Madison what it was supposed to mean.

If it wasn't written in the document itself and ratified it's just another mans opinion, isn't it.

 

[Skylar]

Oh, and there's no constitutional right to secede. When NY was debating the ratification of the US constitution NY included a provision for unilateral withdrawl from the union after a 'certain number of years'. Hamilton and the Federalists opposed the inclusion of this passage. With Madison stating in a letter read for the convention by Hamilton himself which stated 'the Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever".

New York eventually ratified the new constitution without the provision for withdraw. It was expressly understood by the founders that at the time of the ratification of the constitution that there was no right to unilaterally withdraw. The right to withdraw was an expressly ANTI-federalist position, strongly advocated by anti-federalists like Patrick Henry.

The Anti-federalists lost.

Our federal constitution is overwhelmingly the product of the Federal perspective. With James Madison the 'father of the constitution' expressly, publically, and openly making it clear that unilateral withdraw wasn't an option upon ratification.

States did not retain the sovereignty they had before ratification. If an amendment was passed, those States that voted against the amendment were still bound to it. The fundamental change from State sovereignty with the ratification of the constitution has also been codified by the USSC. And BEFORE the secession of South Carolina, which means that it created binding precedent UPON South Carolina:

Those arguing that a constitutional right of secession existing must ignore Madison and the USSC to hold such a position.

Ignoring what the USSC has to say on the matter since that is nothing but a hand-picked gang of political hacks who make decisions based on their benefactors wishes.

As for Madison, consider this:

http://www.ditext.com/dilorenzo/yankee.html​

Jefferson was the co-author (with James Madison) of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, which suggested that "where powers were assumed by the national government which had not been granted by the States, nullification is the rightful remedy" and that every state has an original, natural right "to nullify of its own authority all assumptions of power by others, within its limits."26 Thus, both major political parties believed in the inviolable states' rights of nullification and secession in the early nineteenth century.
​

The bottom line is that there is no prohibition of secession in the Constitution.

The Union Army of the 1860's disagrees with you.

Secession is prohibited by the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.

Show me anywhere in the Constitution where it specifically prohibits a States succession.

NY tried to add a secession clause into their ratification of the Constitution. Madison shut them down, declaring in a letter read by Hamilton to the NY convention meeting to ratify that '"the Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever'.

For ever. Not a lot of wiggle room there.

And the NY convention ratified the Constitution. Without the secession clause. The Anti-Federalists argued for the right to secede. The Federalists opposed them. The Federalists won. The issue was already addressed specifically and directly when the constitution was ratified.

Unless you think you know better than James 'Father of the Constitution' Madison what it was supposed to mean.

If it wasn't written in the document itself and ratified it's just another mans opinion, isn't it.

Says you. The USSC and James Madison say otherwise.

Why would I ignore them and instead believe you?

I mean seriously.......you may want to imagine that your opinion on what the constitution means carries as much weight as James Madison and the USSC combined. But I'm gonna let you in on one of the worst kept secrets on this board:

It doesn't. No court quotes you on shit.