State Sovereignty Question

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
7,115
Reaction score
4,148
Paterson said:
You can point to a provision which provides a constitutional form or mode for a state to build a bridge?
Are you suggesting that the Colonies and AOC states never built roads or bridges?
 

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
7,115
Reaction score
4,148
Paterson said:
I'm not concerned in the least. And both you and the audience can read the paper if you wish to become more knowledgeable about the subject. Conley is a fine historian.
Could be that, but other accounts of RI Island makes me think it is overly biased. That is the problem with reading assignments, one never knows what shows up as a result.
 

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
7,115
Reaction score
4,148
Paterson said:
Are you suggesting that the Constitution enumerates powers to enable the states to build schools and bridges?
Not at all, the States were doing internal improvements before the Constitution and that became a right reserved to the States. Unlike secession, the States were exercising the right to build roads and bridges and as that is not prohibited, then it becomes a reserved right. That is the problem with imaginary rights, there is no tangible evidence of them.
 

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
7,115
Reaction score
4,148
Paterson said:
Indeed. Like the imaginary constitutional prohibition against secession. Or, as I said, kinda like looking for the Loch Ness Monster.
I've looked for a preexisting power of secession, but like Nessie, have not found it.
 

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
7,115
Reaction score
4,148
Paterson said:
Of course he is not wrong. I have said over, and over, and over again that there is no constitutional prohibition against secession.
Is secession the acquiring of independent sovereignty?
 

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
7,115
Reaction score
4,148
Paterson said:
Indeed, because secession is not prohibited by the Constitution it remains a power to be exercised by the states at their discretion.
How can you assert a power of secession exists without knowing what secession is?
 

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
7,115
Reaction score
4,148
Paul Yancey said:
Some good points made by many who have replied. I always thought it would be interesting to have a panel of Constitutional lawyers look at the question of state sovereignty and the right of states to secede. Does anyone know if such a panel has ever been formed to decide this question?
The Texas v White Court is such a panel.
 

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
7,115
Reaction score
4,148
leftyhunter said:
Not true at all. Are you aware of Article 1 Section 10? Can you cite one judicial decision that supports the right of a state to secede?

Leftyhunter
At the moment, the poster is avoiding defining secession. Until we know what he means by secession, we don't know what part of it is prohibited.
 

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
7,115
Reaction score
4,148
leftyhunter said:
I will go out on a limb and say that @Patterson is arguing that the Confederate States had a right to secede. If I am wrong I am sure he will let me know.
Leftyhunter
I agree. That is the normal line of argument. This line of argument is along the lines, but secession was not illegal, therefore it was legal.
 

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
7,115
Reaction score
4,148
unionblue said:
But it was not constitutional no matter what it's legality.
Not Constitutional means that there is no protection from Lincoln calling it a rebellion/insurrection and calling out the militia.
 

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
7,115
Reaction score
4,148
Paterson said:
Oh, I see. So the constitutional right of secession was not actually argued before the Court? Again, interesting.
I have a wonderful 282-page transcript of the Case. It is an informative reading of the case. The constitutional right of secession was not actually argued before the Court.

Link
Questions before the Court.
* Was Texas eligible to seek redress in the Supreme Court?
* Could Texas constitutionally reclaim the bonds?
To answer these questions the Chase Court ruled.
link
7. Considered as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention, and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give[p701] effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union.[/center]
Since you agree that the word 'secession' is not in the Constitution, you must also agree with this ruling. Secession does not have to be prohibited to be a nullity.​
 

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
7,115
Reaction score
4,148
Paterson said:
It's absolutely mystifying that you argue against something without knowing what it is. Must be that overactive imagination of yours at it again.
It would be soothing to have you define what secession is.
 

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
7,115
Reaction score
4,148
Paterson said:
"The constitutional right of secession was not actually argued before the Court. "

Indeed it was not. So that's that.
You forgot the rulling that secession is a nullity because it is not in the Constitution.
Not only are we lacking your definition of 'secession' but it is null on arrival.
 

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
7,115
Reaction score
4,148
Paterson said:
You have forgotten that the right of secession was not the question before the Court. That fact reduces the obiter dictum of Chase to worthless rot.
Texas v White is still alive and kicking.
SCOTT KOHLHAAS v. STATE OF ALASKA argued 2010.
In Texas v. White, an opinion issued just after the Civil War, the United States Supreme Court stated:[/center]
The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States. When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States.[[22 ][/center]
This is the law to which we Alaskans bound ourselves at the moment we achieved statehood. We recognized in Kohlhaas I: “When the forty-nine-star flag was first raised at Juneau, we Alaskans committed ourselves to that indestructible Union, for good or ill, in perpetuity.” 23 We concluded that because “Secession is clearly unconstitutional” 24 and “because the initiative [sought] a clearly unconstitutional end, the lieutenant governor correctly declined to certify it.” 25[/center]​
 

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
7,115
Reaction score
4,148
unionblue said:
Perception is our apparent problem.

I agree with you and Chief Justice Taney that secession cannot be found in the constitution. You yourself have said over and over the words secession and secede cannot be found anywhere in the constitution, is that not correct?

So in what way, when a form or mode to exercise secession cannot be found anywhere within the constitution, does it's lack or mention give any credence whatsoever that it is a right reserved to states that are no longer sovereign since the adoption of that constitution?

Further, is it was a right reserved to the states, as no attempt made to implement this hidden, unmentioned right, via the Supreme Court or by the constitutional method of amendment? Why was war chosen vice this peaceful means, if secession was so obvious a constitutional option?

Because the Southern states know they didn't have a snowflakes chance in hades to present ANY constitutional justification for unilateral secession.

Hence all that shooting from 1861 - 1865.

You state that will be "stuck" if I can't show you an "explicit prohibition against secession in the Constitution." I have produced a statement by the then Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court who stated, as you have, that secession cannot be found in the constitution and that secession is not constitutional.

I'm "stuck" with the Chief Justice. You're stuck with no mention of the words "secede" or "secession" within the same document, but infer that somehow, in spite of the lack of mention of them, that the right of secession is in there somewhere, invisible to all who read that document.

I'm going with the Chief Justice.
2 Chief Justices. Chase said the same thing. In any case, a nullity does not have to be prohibited because it does not exist.
 

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
7,115
Reaction score
4,148
Paterson said:
It's too bad Chase couldn't use any language from the Constitution to support his dishonest and worthless prattle. But in all fairness to Chase, it's only because there is no language in the Constitution that prohibits secession.
How do we know that if you will not share your definition of secession?
 

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
7,115
Reaction score
4,148
Paterson said:
Don't feel bad or embarrassed if you can't find an explicit prohibition against secession anywhere in the Constitution, because Chase couldn't do it either. So in Texas, a case that had nothing to do with the constitutionality of secession, he fraudulently presented the language of the AoC as evidence that the Constitution prohibited secession. It was utterly corrupt and fooled no one. But please, by all means, go with Chase.
As Host.
If you cannot post without referring to your fellow members' characteristics please do not post.
Thanks.
 
Top