US Constitution

[LOki]

The 10th Amendment does not <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/grant">grant</a> powers to the States--Check it out for yourself:<blockquote><i>"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reserve">reserved</a> <b>(n.b. do you see this? Not <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/grant">granted</a>, just <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reserve">reserved</a>)</b> to the States respectively, or to the people."</i></blockquote>As I keep saying, there is no 10th Amendment argument, because failing to prohibit a power to the states; placing a power (by virtue of not being prohibited) in reserve to the States, IS NOT GRANTING THAT POWER TO THE STATES.

The People <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/grant">grant</a> powers to the States, the Tenth Amendment <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reserve">reserves</a> the powers not prohibited to the States by the Constituion to the States respectively, or to The People.

The Tenth Amendment does not empower the States to change the compostion of the Union by secession, any more than it empowers the States to change the composition of the Union by adding other States, or kicking other States out of the Union. The PEOPLE can do this, through legislative action, passage, and ratification, by the rules of the Constitution.

There is no provision in the Constitution for unilateral secession from the Union.

"The People" of the United States of America, represented in Congress by their respective elected Representatives and Senators (including Southern Representatives and Senators from the Southern States), and represented by their elected President (elected in part, by the way, by the Southern People), did not sanction any dissolution of the Union, or any secession of any of the States.

Not prohibiting a power to the states, and placing a power (by virtue of not being prohibited) in reserve to the States, IS NOT GRANTING THAT POWER TO THE STATES.

The Southern States were not empowered by The People to alter, or otherwise dictate the compostion of the Union on their own.

The People of the South were not and, are not, the entire set of people who are "The People." The People of the South were not, and are not, empowered to alter or otherwise dictate the compostion of the Union on their own.

Unilateral secession of a state was not a power granted by The People.



It's not confusing: Secession does not <i>have</i> to be an illegal act by a State or its People--it just was in this case because "The People" of the United States of America, represented in Congress by their respective elected Representatives and Senators (including Southern Representatives and Senators from the Southern States), and represented by their elected President (elected in part, by the way, by the Southern People), did not sanction any dissolution of the Union, or any secession of any of the States.



I think my reasoning is pretty clear: The Southern States were not empowered by The People, or the Constitution, to change the compostion of the Union by secession, any more than the Southern States were empowered to change the composition of the Union by adding other States, or kicking other States out of the Union. The PEOPLE can do this; through legislative action, passage, and ratification, by the rules of the Constitution.

Yet, "The People" of the United States of America, represented in Congress by their respective elected Representatives and Senators (including Southern Representatives and Senators from the Southern States), and represented by their elected President (elected in part, by the way, by the Southern People), did not sanction any dissolution of the Union, or any secession of any of the States.



Dude, the train is running over you.

nice play on words...I'll give you that.

And I see what you're talking about, but you're generalization about THE PEOPLE is just as much a generalization about states being granted (RESERVED) the powers by the 10th Amendment. All of what you have said, is assuming that there is equal representation, which there obviously was not.
With this logic about the people, other states can take away the right(s) of another state regardless of the opinion and support in that state. All of the states can gang up on another state and pass law that would take away rights of another state. So in your eyes, if THE PEOPLE in 40 states want to want to take away a specific right from another state, they could. Because if it's what THE PEOPLE want, it will happen. This puts a spin on states rights.

I have already addressed this, and you are wrong.

 

[BrianH]

I have already addressed this, and you are wrong.

You've addressed the fact that THE PEOPLE give states their rights...because they are not granted by the 10th Amendment. So if the majority of the PEOPLE (In your opinion) represented by representatives in Congress can decide what a state's power is and if it is exercised, then THE PEOPLE of a majority of states, can take away power(s) from other states who wish to exercise said power(s). By this logic, the Northern half (larger population--therefore a larger representation in Congress) of the U.S. could get together, gang up on the Southern half, and tell them they have no right to own slaves, or they have no right to secede.

 

[LOki]

You've addressed the fact that THE PEOPLE give states their rights...because they are not granted by the 10th Amendment. So if the majority of the PEOPLE (In your opinion) represented by representatives in Congress can decide what a state's power is and if it is exercised, then THE PEOPLE of a majority of states, can take away power(s) from other states who wish to exercise said power(s). By this logic, the Northern half (larger population--therefore a larger representation in Congress) of the U.S. could get together, gang up on the Southern half, and tell them they have no right to own slaves, or they have no right to secede.

Here's something you just can't seem to grasp: There is a difference between Rights and Powers.

Get back to me when you are on sound footing, and you can decide what you're talking about.

 

[BrianH]

Here's something you just can't seem to grasp: There is a difference between Rights and Powers.

Get back to me when you are on sound footing, and you can decide what you're talking about.

Don't deflect from my assumption...Go ahead and clarify what you mean since you're so knowledgable and all. I know there is a difference between Rights and Powers...but isn't it someone's Right to exercise certain Powers??? The Fed. Gov. has RIGHTS to exercise certain POWERS. People have certain RIGHTS to exercise certain POWERS.

By your logic, 40 other states can take away powers that one state may choose to exercise. Simply because they are the majority of PEOPLE, and the PEOPLe decide what powers are exercised or granted. So under your current theory, 40 states could get together in Congress, and prohibit Texas from using the Death Penalty, among other things.

Explain yourself Loki, instead of worrying about my "sound footing."

 

[LOki]

Don't deflect from my assumption...Go ahead and clarify what you mean since you're so knowledgable and all. I know there is a difference between Rights and Powers...but isn't it someone's Right to exercise certain Powers??? The Fed. Gov. has RIGHTS to exercise certain POWERS. People have certain RIGHTS to exercise certain POWERS.

By your logic, 40 other states can take away powers that one state may choose to exercise. Simply because they are the majority of PEOPLE, and the PEOPLe decide what powers are exercised or granted. So under your current theory, 40 states could get together in Congress, and prohibit Texas from using the Death Penalty, among other things.

Explain yourself Loki, instead of worrying about my "sound footing."

I have explained myself, but if you just refuse to grasp the difference between Rights and Powers, then you will just continue to be confused and there's no point in explaining how so monumentally wrong you are about the logic of my argument.

Get back to me when you are clear on the distinction between Rights and Powers (here's a clue: they are NOT interchangeable--particularly in the case of the U.S. Government), and you can decide what you're talking about.

 

[Ravi]

Loki, are you saying that we could vote as a country to allow individual states to secede but that individual states (as a group of citizens) cannot make that decision themselves?

 

[BrianH]

I have explained myself, but if you just refuse to grasp the difference between Rights and Powers, then you will just continue to be confused and there's no point in explaining how so monumentally wrong you are about the logic of my argument.

Get back to me when you are clear on the distinction between Rights and Powers (here's a clue: they are NOT interchangeable--particularly in the case of the U.S. Government), and you can decide what you're talking about.

You have not explained yourself. Instead of posting the same thing over and over again and just expecting some one to "get" your claim, explain why you believe it to be so. You've simply said that THE PEOPLE can determine what powers a state exercise by their representation in Congress. By your logic, other states can decide what powers one state may or may not exercise.

By your theory, the U.S. as a whole can get together and prohibit one state from exercising a power. That totally prohibits any notion of states rights. This may not be exactly what you are saying, but with this logic, it could be so. 40 states can vote that Texas cannot exercise the death penalty, or use state lotteries to fund education. This is not how the system works.

The PEOPLE cannot collectively forbid a state power that is not prohibited in the first place. It does not have to be granted by the majority of the population of the U.S. by their representatives in Congress. In your frame of mind. All states can get together and vote on powers a state can have when it comes to it's elections.

If it's not prohibted, then the state can do it. No one is saying that the North didn't have the right to invade. But the South did not act illegally in seceeding. The southern states suceeded.(THE PEOPLE of those states favored secession ---but were not represented equally in Congress---.) The people of the state granted the State it's right to secede....much like they granted the state's right to annex into the U.S.

 

[BrianH]

Loki, are you saying that we could vote as a country to allow individual states to secede but that individual states (as a group of citizens) cannot make that decision themselves?

That's basically what he's saying. I'll admit, that it does envoke a large amount of national pride, but under this thinking, states would have no power and no rights to do things for themselves. With this frame of thought, Colorado could be forced to make state-level decisions based on the popular opinoin of a majority of people from collective states. Which, states can't be collective in this matter, because the Constitution prohibits alliances of states for this very purpose. Other states cannot gang up on other states and force them to exercise or not exercise powers that they wish.

 

[LOki]

You have not explained yourself. Instead of posting the same thing over and over again and just expecting some one to "get" your claim, explain why you believe it to be so.

I have explained it. Painstakingly so.

You've simply said that THE PEOPLE can determine what powers a state exercise by their representation in Congress.

I don't think I've said precisely this, but maybe I can clarify: The only legal means by which States can obtain Federal Powers (such as the composition of the Union) is through Constitutional delegation by The People of The United States.

By your logic, other states can decide what powers one state may or may not exercise.

This is patently false--derived from a peristent denial of my logic.

By your theory, the U.S. as a whole can get together and prohibit one state from exercising a power.

In so far as a 2/3 majority of Congress, and 3/4 of the States can <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Five_of_the_United_States_Constitution">amend</a> the Constitution to place additional prohibitions regarding State Powers on the States, this is true; but these prohibition must apply to all the states unless that also, is changed by amendment--and this is not <i>my</i> theory.

That totally prohibits any notion of states rights. This may not be exactly what you are saying, but with this logic, it could be so.

What you described clearly does not prohibit the notion of State's Rights, and since it is not what I'm saying, or what I have said, I cannot imagine why you insist I am saying it, except to be persistently and intentionally obtuse to what I am saying.

40 states can vote that Texas cannot exercise the death penalty, or use state lotteries to fund education. This is not how the system works.

Nor does it work that Texas is empowered, unilaterally, without regard to the rights of The People and the other States, without regard to it's responsibilities and obligations to the Union, dictate the compostion of the Union.

The PEOPLE cannot collectively forbid a state power that is not prohibited in the first place.

Sure they can; since no governmental powers are presumed, The People can prohibit State Powers simply by NOT granting them--the way they don't grant the power to eat babies to the State.

It does not have to be granted by the majority of the population of the U.S. by their representatives in Congress.

If the power being granted to a State is a Federal Power, it most certainly must be granted by an act of Congress.

In your frame of mind. All states can get together and vote on powers a state can have when it comes to it's elections.

Sure. That is exactly how Constitutional Conventions work.

If it's not prohibted, then the state can do it.

States cannot excercise powers not granted by The People.

No one is saying that the North didn't have the right to invade.

Oh, I'm sure somebody is saying that.

But the South did not act illegally in seceeding.

They did. Secession without the consent of The People cannot be considered legal.

The southern states suceeded.(THE PEOPLE of those states favored secession ---but were not represented equally in Congress---.) The people of the state granted the State it's right to secede....much like they granted the state's right to annex into the U.S.

There is a distinct difference between the responsibilities and obligations of territories before they become States and after they become States--you are demanding that no State has any responsibilities or obligations to the Union at all. Your postion is that once part of the Union, a State can legally reneg upon at will, and without due process, all of its responsibilities and obligations to the Union. This is simply an indefensible position.

I can agree that The People of the Southern States in question had (as did/do The People of other States) a right to seceed from the Union, I just don't agree that the right was excersized in a legal manner.

The Southern States were in no way empowered by The People of the United States of America to change the composition of the Union, or the Compostion of the Government of the Union through secession. Legal secession <i>could</i> have been accomplished through Constitutionally sanctioned legislative action, passage, and State ratification--it just wasn't.

Loki, are you saying that we could vote as a country to allow individual states to secede but that individual states (as a group of citizens) cannot make that decision themselves?

That's basically what he's saying.

No, it's not. You should be careful to not put words in my mouth. I'm saying that for a secession to be legal, the rights of all involved parties must be considered. This consideration is accomplished through legislative action, passage, and ratification, by the rules of the Constitution. And in the case of the Southern States, this did not occur.

I'll admit, that it does envoke a large amount of national pride, but under this thinking, states would have no power and no rights to do things for themselves.

This is not true. This impression of yours derives from your insistence that Rights and Powers are interchangeable concepts, and are fungible regarding The People and The State.

With this frame of thought, Colorado could be forced to make state-level decisions based on the popular opinoin of a majority of people from collective states.

This is also not true of my "frame of thought", for the same reasons previously stated.

Which, states can't be collective in this matter, because the Constitution prohibits alliances of states for this very purpose. Other states cannot gang up on other states and force them to exercise or not exercise powers that they wish.

No State was empowered, Constitutionally or otherwise, to unilaterally alter or dictatate the composition of the Union by secession or other means.

 

[BrianH]

That's assuming that secession is considered a Federal Power. Your assumption is that the power of secession is a Federal Power and not a state power. How have you come across this conclusion?

 

[Ravi]

 

[BrianH]

If that's directed at me, I'm sorry you feel that way. I just don't see how secession is considered a Federal power, if it's not granted to anyone in the Constitution.
10th Amendment says that if it's not delegated to the Fed Gov. or prohibited by the Constitution, then it's reserved to the states. They can exercise the power if they wish...it's reserved for their discretion. Secession is not delegated to the Fed. Gov. and not prohibited to the states.

 

[Ravi]

If that's directed at me, I'm sorry you feel that way. I just don't see how secession is considered a Federal power, if it's not granted to anyone in the Constitution.

No, I'm sorry, it wasn't directed at you. Loki actually made a pretty interesting point but his habit of parsing every friggin' word gives me a headache and I can't figure out if he answered your question or my question or is just babbling mindlessly.

 

[AllieBaba]

It's Ravir's avatar.

 

[BrianH]

No, I'm sorry, it wasn't directed at you. Loki actually made a pretty interesting point but his habit of parsing every friggin' word gives me a headache and I can't figure out if he answered your question or my question or is just babbling mindlessly.

Oh ok..that's alright. I feel the same way.

He's obviously done his research. But he's not doing a good job of explaining it. He's making his point more confusing than it has to be.

IMO, the Constitution does not grant secessional power to the Fed. Gov. either, which puts it more in the realm of the states having the power if they choose to exercise it.

10th Said, "powers not delegated to the Fed. Gov nor prohibted by the Constitution are reserved to the states respectively."

Reserved does not mean that any other states can collectively get together in Congress and prohibit another state from exercising a power. Reserved powers for the state means that they are free to exercise the power if they wish. If a state wishes to use the death penalty it can... if it doesn't, then the state exercises its reserved power to not use the death penalty.

Just like a reserved seat at a basketball game, if the people wish to show up and sit in them, that's their decision. But anyone else, from which they are not reserved, cannot sit there. Same concept. The meaning of "reserved" doesn't change just because it's in the Constitution

 

[Ravi]

Yeah, it kind of makes sense but there's just something wrong there that I can't put my finger on.

 

[LOki]

That's assuming that secession is considered a Federal Power. Your assumption is that the power of secession is a Federal Power and not a state power. How have you come across this conclusion?

I don't consider secession a power at all--but if it is one, it's certainly a Federal power in that excercising it affects, and involves the entire nation--not just the State(s) in secession.

I just don't see how secession is considered a Federal power, if it's not granted to anyone in the Constitution.

I can't see how you can consider it a State power after you spent so much vitriol on me regarding one State (or group of States) getting up in the grill of another State (or States).

10th Amendment says that if it's not delegated to the Fed Gov. or prohibited by the Constitution, then it's reserved to the states. They can exercise the power if they wish...it's reserved for their discretion.

The discretion of The People.

Secession is not delegated to the Fed. Gov. and not prohibited to the states.

Correct.

He's obviously done his research. But he's not doing a good job of explaining it. He's making his point more confusing than it has to be.

Nope. I'm clear and consistent. You're confused about the differences between rights and powers, the division of State and Federal powers, the role of the Constitution in The People in granting powers, ..the list goes on as if you never attended 8th grade.

What I'm not doing is holding your hand as if you were in 8th grade. I hope that doesn't make me a douche.

IMO, the Constitution does not grant secessional power to the Fed. Gov. either,...

You're right, because really, how the fuck is the Federal Government going to seceed?

...which puts it more in the realm of the states having the power if they choose to exercise it.

There is just no way that a state can legally exercise a power that has national impact without the sanction and consent of the whole nation--without that power being granted by The People of the Nation.

10th Said, "powers not delegated to the Fed. Gov nor prohibted by the Constitution are reserved to the states respectively."

Reserved does not mean that any other states can collectively get together in Congress and prohibit another state from exercising a power.

It doesn't empower them to unilaterally take charge of the Nation either.

Reserved powers for the state means that they are free to exercise the power if they wish.

No.

If a state wishes to use the death penalty it can... if it doesn't, then the state exercises its reserved power to not use the death penalty.

Yet a State cannot excercise it's death penalty powers over the rest of the Nation. How the fuck can that be? Is it because a State that wants to have 200 Senators to make it a national death penalty can't just empower itself to send 200 Senators to the Senate that will make it happen? That's not prohibited, therefore it's reserved, therefore it's granted--Yes?

Just like a reserved seat at a basketball game, if the people wish to show up and sit in them, that's their decision. But anyone else, from which they are not reserved, cannot sit there. Same concept. The meaning of "reserved" doesn't change just because it's in the Constitution

That's exactly right! Those seats aren't the beginning and the end of the basketball game--if the people who reserved them don't show up, everyone else still gets to see the game. The number of players in the game stays the same, none of the rules change, and the seats don't magically disappear--but even so, the seats are still paid for by the reservee. The reservee can wish NOTHING to do with the game, but they still have a responsibility, an obligation, to the event--they can't reserve their seats and not pay for them too. ANd the reservation has limits--the reservee can't reserve the seats, and take them away so that no-one can sit in those seats for any other game.

 

[Ravi]

So you are saying they can only secede if the entire country votes to let them.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Loki, are you saying that we could vote as a country to allow individual states to secede but that individual states (as a group of citizens) cannot make that decision themselves?

That is correct. An act of Congress is required or an amendment detailing a method.

 

[BrianH]

That is correct. An act of Congress is required or an amendment detailing a method.

WEll shit....that's already been established. I thought Loki was bringing a "different" argument to the table. Numerous posters have already brought up the whole Congress route. And don't make assumptions about my level of education. I don't make assumptions about yours.

Damn Loki, RGS summed it up in once sentence. But this has already been established. You seem to contradict yourself some.

The South did not make all of the state's secede, nor encourage the northern states to secede. And the South did not "Get up in the Grill" of the North. It was the other way around. And your opinion that secession is not a power is strictly that, an opinion...Much like my opinion of secession being a power would be an opion. SO really, we're right where we started.

You're assuming just as much as I am.