Was seccession illegal?

[there4eyeM]

Perpetual Union, more perfect Union; do you understand English? They did.

 

[bripat9643]

You're going to use the constitution to says you are no longer part of the constitution?

I'd say at best you would have to pass an amendment to let state X out of the union . That would require 3/4ths approval .

You're going to use the constitution to says you are no longer part of the constitution?

I'd say at best you would have to pass an amendment to let state X out of the union . That would require 3/4ths approval .

Why does that not make sense? The constitution doesn't give the federal government power of secession. Therefor, leaving it up to the states.
Obviously, that isn't the case anymore. But back then..

LIke I said, get a copy of Grant's memoirs and read it.

He is using the absence of any such language in the Constitution to say the Constitution does not bar a state from leaving, just as any rational person would say that the absence of a law against barbequing in your back yard means barbequing in your back yard is perfectly legal.

 

[TNHarley]

Perpetual Union, more perfect Union; do you understand English? They did.

Without quoting, that response is equivalent to throwing a hotdog down a hallway

 

[yiostheoy]

... And your own fallacies TNHarley are like an old lady screaming in the night over her nightmares. Same difference.

 

[TNHarley]

... And your own fallacies TNHarley are like an old lady screaming in the night over her nightmares. Same difference.

Care to counter my argument with law? You know, something you haven't been able to do yet?

 

[Crixus]

We all know the SC ruled on it AFTER it was all said and done. If you apply the principle of legality, well, the idea it was illegal is shot to hell. But what about 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."
I have never heard anyone discuss this issue.
Thoughts?

Mm, it's a weird one. I have noticed that people not typically seen talking about it are talking about it here in a sane matter.

 

[danielpalos]

Perpetual Union, more perfect Union; do you understand English? They did.

Without quoting, that response is equivalent to throwing a hotdog down a hallway

States leaving would be a less perfect Union.

 

[danielpalos]

... And your own fallacies TNHarley are like an old lady screaming in the night over her nightmares. Same difference.

Care to counter my argument with law? You know, something you haven't been able to do yet?

Yes, it was illegal. Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union, regardless of all of the other ones.

 

[there4eyeM]

Perpetual Union, more perfect Union; do you understand English? They did.

Without quoting, that response is equivalent to throwing a hotdog down a hallway

States leaving would be a less perfect Union.

Those at the time fully understood the Union was the continuation and improvement of the original Union and thus, perpetual. That's the way the language worked, and still should. There was no need for a law to establish what 'perpetual' meant.
Preferring to see it otherwise is just that.

 

[danielpalos]

Perpetual Union, more perfect Union; do you understand English? They did.

Without quoting, that response is equivalent to throwing a hotdog down a hallway

States leaving would be a less perfect Union.

Those at the time fully understood the Union was the continuation and improvement of the original Union and thus, perpetual. That's the way the language worked, and still should. There was no need for a law to establish what 'perpetual' meant.
Preferring to see it otherwise is just that.

Except, the term, perpetual, was not used in our federal Constitution.

 

[Marion Morrison]

We all know the SC ruled on it AFTER it was all said and done. If you apply the principle of legality, well, the idea it was illegal is shot to hell. But what about 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."
I have never heard anyone discuss this issue.
Thoughts?

My answer: It wasn't until Lincoln made it so.

It probably is these days.

 

[radical right]

He is using the absence of any such language in the Constitution to say the Constitution does not bar a state from leaving, just as any rational person would say that the absence of a law against barbequing in your back yard means barbequing in your back yard is perfectly legal.

Read the constitution, while it allows territories to apply for statehood, it gives no guarantees, and gives congress the power to admit a state into the union, just as it gives congress the power to expel a state from the union. These are powers of congress, not of the states.

 

[danielpalos]

He is using the absence of any such language in the Constitution to say the Constitution does not bar a state from leaving, just as any rational person would say that the absence of a law against barbequing in your back yard means barbequing in your back yard is perfectly legal.

Read the constitution, while it allows territories to apply for statehood, it gives no guarantees, and gives congress the power to admit a state into the union, just as it gives congress the power to expel a state from the union. These are powers of congress, not of the states.

There is no power to expel a State, by Congress.

 

[radical right]

There is no power to expel a State, by Congress.

Then what do you call article 4 section 3 clause 2?

 

[danielpalos]

There is no power to expel a State, by Congress.

Then what do you call article 4 section 3 clause 2?

That is a limitation on Congress.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Any law that the citizenry is, in large measure, unwilling to obey is a moot law, most especially if one of the modes of expressed disobedience is war. Sure, one can have an abstract discussion about it, but where's that discussion supposed to go, regardless of its resolution? If one or several states secede from the union, there're really only two options the union has for dealing with it: allow them to do so and move on, or forcibly return them to the union. Succession is an act, not mere talk and threats. Once that act is undertaken, the realm of options for what to do about it narrow to a binary set.

 

[radical right]

There is no power to expel a State, by Congress.

Then what do you call article 4 section 3 clause 2?

That is a limitation on Congress.

Limitations enumerate what congress can't do, such as congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech.

Article 4 Sction 3, clause 1 and 2 enumerate the powers of congress to admit and reject states.

 

[radical right]

Any law that the citizenry is, in large measure, unwilling to obey is a moot law, most especially if one of the modes of expressed disobedience is war. Sure, one can have an abstract discussion about it, but where's that discussion supposed to go, regardless of its resolution? If one or several states secede from the union, there're really only two options the union has for dealing with it: allow them to do so and move on, or forcibly return them to the union. Succession is an act, not mere talk and threats. Once that act is undertaken, the realm of options for what to do about it narrow to a binary set.

You're arguing enforcement. What steps the government can take to enforce the law, the ultimate being military force.

 

[bripat9643]

Perpetual Union, more perfect Union; do you understand English? They did.

Without quoting, that response is equivalent to throwing a hotdog down a hallway

States leaving would be a less perfect Union.

Those at the time fully understood the Union was the continuation and improvement of the original Union and thus, perpetual. That's the way the language worked, and still should. There was no need for a law to establish what 'perpetual' meant.
Preferring to see it otherwise is just that.

. . . and if the Cotton States shall become satisfied that they can do better out of the Union than in it, we insist on letting them go in peace. The right to secede may be a revolutionary one, but it exists nevertheless; and we do not see how one party can have a right to do what another party has a right to prevent. We must ever resist the asserted right of any State to remain in the Union and nullify or defy the laws thereof: to withdraw from the Union is quite another matter. And whenever a considerable section of our Union shall deliberately resolve to go out, we shall resist all coercive measures designed to keep it in. We hope never to live in a republic, whereof one section is pinned to the residue by bayonets.

- Horace Greeley -​

 

[bripat9643]

There is no power to expel a State, by Congress.

Then what do you call article 4 section 3 clause 2?

That is a limitation on Congress.

Limitations enumerate what congress can't do, such as congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech.

Article 4 Sction 3, clause 1 and 2 enumerate the powers of congress to admit and reject states.

That's the Bill of Rights, numskull. The enumerated powers are in the main body of the document. They list things that government can do. If government can do whatever it wants, then why list things that it can do?