Should The Senate Go Back To Being Elected By The State Legislatures?

[Polk]

The only real check on federal power was the ability of the states to secede if they got fed up. Lincoln destroyed that ability when he launched his invasion of the Confederacy.

States have no authority to secede; even the Confederacy recognized that. The only real check on federal power is an informed, vigilant electorate of good moral substance holding its elected leaders accountable for their fidelity to the Constitution.

Where does it say - in the Constitution, the state Constitutions, or any law for that matter - that states don't have the right to secede? Hell, two states - Arizona and Texas - have the right to secede written into THEIR Constitutions, and refused to join the US unless that right was confirmed. Furthermore, my reading of the Constitution turns up the 10th Amendment, which says:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Since the Constitution says nothing about preventing states from seceding, or delegating to the US any power regarding secession either way, it seems to me that that power is, then, reserved to the States and the people (people can, of course, remove themselves from the United States at will).

It didn't need to say so because it's pretty obvious from the history and structure of the document. Starting with preamble's "form a more perfect Union", it's clear the intended structure of government was one of exactly that, government. Not a "league", or "alliance", or "confederation", but "Union". This "more perfect Union" was designed to replace the Articles of Confederation which begins in the opening clause with a statement of "perpetual Union".

Also, there are clauses of the Constitution that simply would not function if states have the right to secede. It would not be possible "guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government", for example.

 

[Polk]

California, for example, has no more right to secede from the United States than Orange County has to secede from California, or Los Angeles from Orange County, for that matter. Lincoln's views were in line with the Founders. James Madison, for example, spent the later part of his life repudiating the notion of sucession.

So West Virginia shouldn't be a state, because pieces of states have no right to secede? That's what West Virginia did, around the same time Lincoln decided he had the right to conquer territory and force it to be part of the US whether it wanted to or not: it seceded from Virginia and became its own state.

The legislature that voted for form the state of West Virginia was the legal legislature of Virginia.

 

[bripat9643]

Since the Constitution says nothing about preventing states from seceding, or delegating to the US any power regarding secession either way, it seems to me that that power is, then, reserved to the States and the people (people can, of course, remove themselves from the United States at will).

It didn't need to say so because it's pretty obvious from the history and structure of the document.

Actually, precisely the opposite is the case. The history and structure of the document indicate that secession is perfectly legal and acceptable.

Starting with preamble's "form a more perfect Union", it's clear the intended structure of government was one of exactly that, government. Not a "league", or "alliance", or "confederation", but "Union".

I hate to break it to you, but leagues, alliances and confederation are all unions. In fact, the phrase "to form a more perfect union" acknowledges that a confederation is a union because that is the previous form of union that the Constitution was intended to make "more perfect."

Note, it does not claim to make a "perfect union" but only a "more perfect union." In other words, it only purports to make improvements on the previous arrangement.

This "more perfect Union" was designed to replace the Articles of Confederation which begins in the opening clause with a statement of "perpetual Union".

So the terms in a previous agreement that was voided are binding on the signatories to a subsequent agreement? If the previous agreement was "perpetual," then how did the signatories void it and create a new agreement?

You aren't helping your case with this nonsense.

Also, there are clauses of the Constitution that simply would not function if states have the right to secede. It would not be possible "guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government", for example.

The federal government certainly can't guarantee that states not under its jurisdiction will have a Republican form of government, just as a landlord can't require that the people living in the building next door will not blast their stereos. All he can do is require that his tenants will not blast their stereos.

 

[bripat9643]

The legislature that voted for form the state of West Virginia was the legal legislature of Virginia.

ROFL! The legal legislature of Virginia was at war with the United States, so how could that possible be true?

Furthermore, there is a clause in the Constitution that says the federal government will not create a state by carving territory out of another state. The creation of West Virginia was blatantly unconstitutional.

 

[bripat9643]

I have another question. Is it only OUR government that has this mystical "no exit" quality to it, where once you're in, you can't leave? Or is that ALL governments and nations that are indivisible, with no right to secede? Because if so, what does that mean for our own Revolution, where the colonies left the country they were part of - Great Britain - and formed their own? As a matter of fact, I believe many if not most countries got their start that way.

That's a big problem for the Lincoln apologists. The claim that states don't have the right to secede throws every principle of the American Revolution into the dustbin. If the Confederacy didn't have the right to secede, then what right did the Founding Fathers have to secede from the British Empire?

The Lincoln apologists don't have a leg to stand on. they've been spoon fed propaganda about the Civil War, so they are totally disarmed intellectually.

 

[Polk]

The legislature that voted for form the state of West Virginia was the legal legislature of Virginia.

ROFL! The legal legislature of Virginia was at war with the United States, so how could that possible be true?

Furthermore, there is a clause in the Constitution that says the federal government will not create a state by carving territory out of another state. The creation of West Virginia was blatantly unconstitutional.

The assembly of the rebel traitors in Virginia was not the lawful legislature of the state of Virginia.

Also, the Constitution does not state that. It states the federal government will not create a new state out of the territory of another "without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned". The legislature of the state concern ratified the decision.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The history and structure of the document indicate that secession is perfectly legal and acceptable.

Wrong again. See link below.

Where does it say - in the Constitution, the state Constitutions, or any law for that matter - that states don't have the right to secede?

Here:

Texas v. White

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Since the Constitution says nothing about preventing states from seceding, or delegating to the US any power regarding secession either way, it seems to me that that power is, then, reserved to the States and the people (people can, of course, remove themselves from the United States at will).

In McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) the Court ruled that the 10th Amendment does not authorize states to reject, ignore, or otherwise nullify acts of Congress, there is no ‘power reserved to the States and the people’ in this regard.

 

[Publius1787]

I assume that your answer - which you are trying assiduously to avoid - is "Yes, we stole the natives' land." I was hoping you would come out and actually say it so I could rep you for logical consistency. But you're trying really, really hard not to because it's problematic to your implicit defense of American mythology.

BTW are all women created equal? Are women equal to men?

A point that is based of justifying a wrong on whats perceived to be another wrong is mute. I did not want to get in to a debate of American history because it would have been a change of subject and bad for both of us. Byt the principle, no matter what the answer you wanted, is as true as the wind driven snow. Facts are stubborn things. I will not adhear toward your fallacies and false misdirections of descussions for some pritty colors at the top of my posts.

You keep obfuscating and avoiding the answer.

How is your question relevent to the topic we were descussing? Well, your trying to right a wrong with what you perceive to be another wrong. That evidence is inadmissable. Can you qualify your question? Of course not! Its irrelevent. Unles you can establish relevency. Which you cant!

 

[bripat9643]

The history and structure of the document indicate that secession is perfectly legal and acceptable.

Wrong again. See link below.

Where does it say - in the Constitution, the state Constitutions, or any law for that matter - that states don't have the right to secede?

Here:

Texas v. White

ROFL! Oh pluhleeze! First of all, that case was decided 1869, four years after the Civil War, not before it, and five of the justices on the court were Lincoln handpicked stooges selected when the Confederate states had no ability to vote on their appointments.

Salmon P. Chase, the Chief Justice when that decision was handed down. He was Lincoln's Secretary of Treasure. He was hardly a disinterested party. He spoke frequently to and corresponded with President Johnson and members of Congress on matters of policy. He made public comments before the case regarding the status of wartime and government in the state, which was the whole point of the case. He worked behind the scenes to obtain the Republican nomination for president in 1868 and then for the Democrat nomination in 1872

Furthermore, the case was moot. Whatever decision the court rendered, it would have no effect on either party to the case. The court accepted the case solely so it could hand down a contrived decision to provide legal cover for its illegal invasion of sovereign confederate states.

In short, Chase was a scheming unprincipled politician on the bench who had improper and prejudicial contact regarding regarding policy matters that were in the hands of the executive and legislative branches of government.

According to the decision in this case, "The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to be an indestructible Union; composed of indestructible states." However, at the time the ruling was issued, Texas, on of the parties to the case, was under military rule. In other words, it was a conquered province, not an "indestructible state." In the dissenting opinion, Justice Robert Cooper Grier said the following:

Is she [Texas] not now held and governed as a conquered province by a military force? . . . I am not disposed to join in any essay to prove Texas to be a state of the Union when Congress have decided the she is not. It is a question of fact, I repeat, and of fact only. Politically, Texas is not a state in this Union. Whether rightfully out of it or not is a question not before this court.

So the claim that the union is "indestructible" and that states are indestructible is clearly false. A people under military rule cannot be a member state of the United States of America.

That decision is a farce.

In McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) the Court ruled that the 10th Amendment does not authorize states to reject, ignore, or otherwise nullify acts of Congress, there is no ‘power reserved to the States and the people’ in this regard.

When did Congress pass any law saying a state could not secede?

 

[bripat9643]

The assembly of the rebel traitors in Virginia was not the lawful legislature of the state of Virginia.

This just gets more hilarious with every post. Some puppet legislature setup by Lincoln and his cronies is the legal legislature of Virginia? Do you really expect anyone with an I.Q. above room temperature to swallow that? When did the entire people of virginia have an opportunity to vote on the members of this legislature? How could it possibly be legitimate if not all the citizens had an opportunity to vote on it?

Furthermore, the Constitution defines treason this way:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Note that it says "them" [the states]. Treason consists of waging war against the states - any state, not against the federal government. If anyone was guilty of treason, it was Lincoln and the federal government. Lincoln invaded Virginia. The later did not invade any Union state until after hostilities had commenced.

Also, the Constitution does not state that. It states the federal government will not create a new state out of the territory of another "without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned". The legislature of the state concern ratified the decision.

It most certainly did no such thing. The legally elected legislature of Virginia resided in Richmond. Any claims to the contrary are simply a bald faced lie.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

That decision is a farce.

LOL – hokay, well – take it up with SCOTUS, then.

When did Congress pass any law saying a state could not secede?

Um, never – because it would be un-Constitutional per Texas v. White. (hello…?)

This just gets more hilarious with every post…blah, blah, blah, blah…

Pathetic.

 

[Publius1787]

That decision is a farce.

LOL – hokay, well – take it up with SCOTUS, then.

When did Congress pass any law saying a state could not secede?

Um, never – because it would be un-Constitutional per Texas v. White. (hello…?)

This just gets more hilarious with every post…blah, blah, blah, blah…

Pathetic.

Thomas Jefferson:

First Inaugural Address said,

"If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it."

letter to John C. Breckinridge,Aug. 12, 1803):

“…Besides, if it should become the great interest of those nations to separate from this, if their happiness should depend on it so strongly as to induce them to go through that convulsion, why should the Atlantic States dread it? But especially why should we, their present inhabitants, take side in such a question?…The future inhabitants of the Atlantic & Missipi [sic] States will be our sons. We leave them in distinct but bordering establishments. We think we see their happiness in their union, & we wish it. Events may prove it otherwise; and if they see their interest in separation, why should we take side with our Atlantic rather than our Missipi descendants? It is the elder and the younger son differing. God bless them both, & keep them in union, if it be for their good, but separate them, if it be better.”

letter to To Dr. Joseph Priestley, Jan. 29, 1804

“Whether we remain in one confederacy, or form into Atlantic and Mississippi confederacies, I believe not very important to the happiness of either part. Those of the western confederacy will be as much our children & descendants as those of the eastern, and I feel myself as much identified with that country, in future time, as with this; and did I now foresee a separation at some future day, yet I should feel the duty & the desire to promote the western interests as zealously as the eastern, doing all the good for both portions of our future family which should fall within my power.”

letter to Secretary of War William Crawford

“If any State in the Union will declare that it prefers separation with the first alternative, to a continuance in union without it, I have no hesitation in saying “let us separate." I would rather the States should withdraw which are for unlimited commerce and war, and confederate with those alone which are for peace and agriculture.”

letter to former U.S. Attorney General Richard Rush

“The experiment of separation would soon prove to both that they had mutually miscalculated their best interests. And even were the parties in Congress to secede in a passion, the soberer people would call a convention and cement again the severance attempted by the insanity of their functionaries.”

At Virginia's ratification convention, the delegates said,

"The powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression.

Federalist Paper 39, James Madison

The father of the Constitution, cleared up what "the people" meant, saying the proposed Constitution would be subject to ratification by the people, "not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong."

 

[bripat9643]

That decision is a farce.

LOL – hokay, well – take it up with SCOTUS, then.

SCOTUS isn't participating in this debate.

When did Congress pass any law saying a state could not secede?

Um, never – because it would be un-Constitutional per Texas v. White. (hello…?)

Texas .v White is a farce perpetrated by an illegitimate Kangaroo court. That's what you put your faith in.

Pathetic.

In other words, you're out of arguments.

 

[smokin_kat]

Should The Senate Go Back To Being Elected By The State Legislatures?

Most of us know that the U.S. Senate used to be elected by the state legeslatures. The founding fathers did this on purpose so that the states would have a say in government. Of course, this was done away with via the 17th amendment despite the fact that the U.S. House of Represenatives was allready the peoples house which was popularly elected. To date, all congressmen are elected via popular vote and we now have a federal government that caters to popularism at the expense of the 10th Amendment in the Bill of Rights. Today the federal government raises taxes on the states and forces the states to pass laws that the federal government cannot constitutionaly make them do in order to get their money back, an extortion that no doubt our founders wanted to prevent. Moreover, the Supreme Court Justices, Treaty's, and other nominations and Senate duty's are carried out by a popularly elected body opposite the wishes of the founding fathers. Furthermore, in light of the current health care law (Obamacare) being contested by 25, if not currently more, states, would this have been prevented if the states had a say in the federal government as they used to? For those who wonder what happened to the 10th amendment, look no further than the 17th. Should The Senate Go Back To Being Elected By The State Legislatures?


Article 1 Section 3: The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof

The 17th Amendment: The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof

The 10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
YouTube - ‪Thomas DiLorenzo - The 17th Amendment‬‏

You're dead on. I couldn't agree more. They further that power with the 16th amendment, the income tax. With trillions of dollars going to the federal government, the states are forces to suck at the federal tit, and are loath to do anything that might interrupt the flow of money back to the states. We have sold ourselves to our masters.

And if anyone complains about Congress not being "democratically" elected, all they have to do is remove the state senators who made disagreeable choices in choosing who to send to Washington. The result is the same. At least this way, the states still have some measure of control over the shenanigans going on in Washington.

 

[Toro]

A point that is based of justifying a wrong on whats perceived to be another wrong is mute. I did not want to get in to a debate of American history because it would have been a change of subject and bad for both of us. Byt the principle, no matter what the answer you wanted, is as true as the wind driven snow. Facts are stubborn things. I will not adhear toward your fallacies and false misdirections of descussions for some pritty colors at the top of my posts.

You keep obfuscating and avoiding the answer.

How is your question relevent to the topic we were descussing? Well, your trying to right a wrong with what you perceive to be another wrong. That evidence is inadmissable. Can you qualify your question? Of course not! Its irrelevent. Unles you can establish relevency. Which you cant!

Thanks for not answering.

 

[Luissa]

A point that is based on justifying a wrong on whats perceived to be another wrong is mute. I did not want to get in to a debate of American history because it would have been a change of subject and bad for both of us. Byt the principle, no matter what the answer you wanted, is as true as the wind driven snow. Facts are stubborn things.

Whenever you discuss the historical facts of the American Constitution, liberals always want to divert the discussion to every wrong ever committed by this Republic. That's because they know they are wrong. They can't win on the facts, so they attack the country which they claim to love.

Wrong. Again.

You resort to base tribalism and wrap yourself in the flag every time you get cornered because you can't, or won't, answer.

The premise is simple, and I've repeated it several times in this thread but which you and PI 2.0 have not addressed directly. The Constitution was written in the 18th century based on an 18th century moral construct. The ideals of the American constitution are the most noble ideals anywhere IMHO. But you want, or appear to want, to adhere to a strict interpretation of the constitution, as written 230 years ago. If that's your argument, then, for example, where does say that all "women" are created equal? And if it doesn't, and we have a strict interpretation of the constitution, are women subservient to men under the law? Or, if you don't believe in the strict, literal interpretation of the constitution, and instead attempt to read into what the founding fathers were getting at and apply those principles to today's society, you would read that "All men AND women are created equal." Likewise, if you apply 18th century morals to today, is slavery acceptable today? Because it was acceptable in the 1780s since at least a dozen founding fathers owned slaves at the time. If it is not acceptable today, even though the founding fathers were not willing to extend the rights of men to all men, then how can you argue in the strict, literal interpretation of the constitution?

Now, an intelligent person would realize this is not an attack on the founding fathers but is rather a philosophical refutation of the ideas propagated by you and your ilk today. So you can mindlessly huff and puff about this argument being an attack on America, or you can try to answer the question intelligently.

Toro ate both of yours lunches.

 

[NYcarbineer]

There is no "Supremacy Clause" in he Constitution, and the states never relinquished any such authority.

SUPREMACY CLAUSE

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." U.S. Const. art. VI, Paragraph 2

All that says is that when the federal government approves a treaty, it has the same force of law as any other legislation passed by Congress. It certainly doesn't say that states cannot secede. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has ruled numerous times that states cannot contractually surrender the slightest fraction of their sovereignty unless the fact is stated in "unmistakable terms." I've already quoted a couple of the cases where that was part of the decision.

You apparently missed this part of the series in the above:

and the Laws of the United States

there I made it bigger for you. The Supremacy Clause is not just about 'treaties' and whatever you're blathering on about nonsensically.

The Supremacy Clause makes the Constitution the Supreme Law of the Land. Secession would de facto reject the Supremacy of the Constitution, therefore it cannot be done constitutionally/legally.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The only real check on federal power was the ability of the states to secede if they got fed up. Lincoln destroyed that ability when he launched his invasion of the Confederacy.

States have no authority to secede; even the Confederacy recognized that. The only real check on federal power is an informed, vigilant electorate of good moral substance holding its elected leaders accountable for their fidelity to the Constitution.

Where does it say - in the Constitution, the state Constitutions, or any law for that matter - that states don't have the right to secede? Hell, two states - Arizona and Texas - have the right to secede written into THEIR Constitutions, and refused to join the US unless that right was confirmed. Furthermore, my reading of the Constitution turns up the 10th Amendment, which says:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Since the Constitution says nothing about preventing states from seceding, or delegating to the US any power regarding secession either way, it seems to me that that power is, then, reserved to the States and the people (people can, of course, remove themselves from the United States at will).

The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land. The States accept that when they agree to join the Union. The Constitution is a contract.

Residents of the States are American Citizens first (assuming they have citizenship). As American Citizens they hold rights, protections, and privileges guaranteed them by the Constitution of the United States. They are also subject to obligations to the Constitution of the United States, such as taxes, obedience to federal criminal statutes, registration for the draft, etc., etc.

No state can arbitrarily, unilaterally, at once both deny the US citizen residents of that state the above rights, etc, nor can it exempt them from the above obligations.

What sort of contract allows one party to simply void in, in total, because they've decided they don't like it?

 

[NYcarbineer]

[I wouldn't make land ownership the test for voting. However, I think collecting a check from the government for any reason other than a sale of goods or services should bar you from voting.

Then what goods or services did you sell when the government gave you a check representing the tax credit you got just for having kids?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Thomas Jefferson:

First Inaugural Address said,

"If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it."

letter to John C. Breckinridge,Aug. 12, 1803):

“…Besides, if it should become the great interest of those nations to separate from this, if their happiness should depend on it so strongly as to induce them to go through that convulsion, why should the Atlantic States dread it? But especially why should we, their present inhabitants, take side in such a question?…The future inhabitants of the Atlantic & Missipi [sic] States will be our sons. We leave them in distinct but bordering establishments. We think we see their happiness in their union, & we wish it. Events may prove it otherwise; and if they see their interest in separation, why should we take side with our Atlantic rather than our Missipi descendants? It is the elder and the younger son differing. God bless them both, & keep them in union, if it be for their good, but separate them, if it be better.”

letter to To Dr. Joseph Priestley, Jan. 29, 1804

“Whether we remain in one confederacy, or form into Atlantic and Mississippi confederacies, I believe not very important to the happiness of either part. Those of the western confederacy will be as much our children & descendants as those of the eastern, and I feel myself as much identified with that country, in future time, as with this; and did I now foresee a separation at some future day, yet I should feel the duty & the desire to promote the western interests as zealously as the eastern, doing all the good for both portions of our future family which should fall within my power.”

letter to Secretary of War William Crawford

“If any State in the Union will declare that it prefers separation with the first alternative, to a continuance in union without it, I have no hesitation in saying “let us separate." I would rather the States should withdraw which are for unlimited commerce and war, and confederate with those alone which are for peace and agriculture.”

letter to former U.S. Attorney General Richard Rush

“The experiment of separation would soon prove to both that they had mutually miscalculated their best interests. And even were the parties in Congress to secede in a passion, the soberer people would call a convention and cement again the severance attempted by the insanity of their functionaries.”

At Virginia's ratification convention, the delegates said,

"The powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression.

Federalist Paper 39, James Madison

The father of the Constitution, cleared up what "the people" meant, saying the proposed Constitution would be subject to ratification by the people, "not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong."

Yes, I know these citations, they’re interesting, quaint, and moot.

I don’t see what they have to do with the case law I’ve posted, however.

Texas v. White is settled law: per the Constitution states may not secede from the Union. McCulloch v. Maryland is also settled law: again, per the Constitution, the 10th Amendment does not authorize states to secede from the Union, it does not authorize the states to ignore, reject, or otherwise nullify Federal legislation, the 14th Amendment applies the Bill of Rights to the states, and Ex Parte Young (1908) authorizes Federal enforcement of the Constitution.

If it’s your position that the above case law manifests some sort of ‘Constitutional heresy,’ that it is in conflict with the original intent of the Framers, then your only recourse is to have the Supreme Court overturn the above actions or amend the Constitution accordingly.