Discussion in 'Opinion POLLS' started by modernpaladin, Dec 3, 2018.
Scalia, Leader of the Corrupt Liberal Elite!
You think I need to argue against 10A to craft an argument against the constitutionality of unilateral secession?
There's also A1S10 to think about; but what mostly bears consideration in this context is US jurisdiction, under which we exist as American citizens residing in the US, and under which every state also exists. Now when you go abroad, unless you're under a constitutional oath, you leave US jurisdiction behind; but of course states don't have that option, so everything they do, they do under US jurisdiction; and that means that even the exercise of unenumerated state powers reserved under 10A happens under US jurisdiction. With that in mind, I invite you to explain how exactly an act that rejects US jurisdiction root and branch can possibly be cognizable as a power reserved to the states under 10A.
Furthermore, bearing in mind what I quoted in the post you're responding to, does it not beggar belief that a transition between a perpetual union and one in which any state could leave on a whim would have been left to an inference drawn from one amendment out of ten?
The question here is if they do indeed have that option, and even if they don't why would you not let them leave?
yeah because the UN promoting human rights is such a horrible concept...
Where did I say you needed to do anything?
You claimed you haven't heard an argument that you can't take apart like a clock, I presented one and then mentioned my interest in hearing a better case if you had one.
You no more need to make your argument than I need to hear it. This is only a discussion forum and the arguments, in my estimation, are merely academic. Even though the 10A argument is the strongest one I've seen in either direction I'm not a proponent of secession, however I'm genuinely interested in hearing people's arguments because the Constitution is strangely quiet about this matter and it leaves a lot of room for debate.
The A1S10 argument is interesting, particularly because I haven't heard it before.
I just finished reading an article that you might find interesting yourself, and the author appears to have an answer to your jurisdiction question. If you're interested in responding I'd be interested to hear it:
Back to your post...
That's a good question, and in the article I cited James Calhoun and Thomas Jefferson have this answer:
What mystifies me is the absence of any direct and explicit mention and prohibition of secession in the Constitution, which left those who would advocate it in the future with "an inference drawn from one amendment", as you so nicely put it, as a legal/constitutional opening and/or justification for secession. For all their wisdom and prescience, it appears that the Framers didn't - or couldn't - think of everything.
From what I've read, this might be the strongest argument against the legality of secession, and its from a Wiki article titled "Perpetual Union":
Along with Hamilton and Jay I agree with Madison on this, but when he mentions compacts he's opening up a massive can of worms there. As anyone familiar with contract law knows, once a party breaks a contract the other parties are no longer bound to it. One would presume that this applies to the Constitution and the states, as well, and operating on that presumption it follows that if the contract is broken it becomes null and void and the parties to that contract are no longer bound to it.
So on and so forth. At this point I'll leave the floor, so to speak, to you...
Pre-Civil War, it was accepted that any state could leave. A state joined voluntarily, the federal govt was merely a temporary "loan" of some state power, and a state could leave if it desired.
And post-civil war, those facts still remain.
Everything in your post is inventive thinking created in the modern world, nothing in your post was even remotely considered true by the Founders of the nation.
While esoterically interesting, people argueing the legality of secession ignore one glaring problem - if a state is so disgruntled that it wants to leave, all viable options have been investigated, then why would you want to force that state to remain a part of something it deeply hates? Its a guarantee of trouble.
Look at the US civil war, the South was ruined, it did not recover economically (as measured by "Southern GDP") until the middle 20th century, and there is resentment by Southerners even today, and don't forget the contempt that Northerners still feel for Southerners.
Consider the cost of that war - the lives lost, the disabled, the huge economic cost from both sides which was a drag on the USA economy for 100 years. It would have been better to just let the Southern states leave.
Its global, not just the USA. When a nation forces a group to stay, its a chronic problem. For example, the Catalan region of Spain.
I asked this 4 times now.
Talon, As is known by my approach to this discussion, I am one who views the Constitution of the United States of America, as an open contract. In using the term "open", it is approached as ratified, that it is incomplete, meaning that there is room for improvement, via Constitutional Amendments. Also, I am one in the anti-federalist camp, because the more power given to a body that is disconnected from most of the population, tends to open the door for the growth and development despotic and tyrannical behavior, as seen in the behaviors of the DOJ, James Comey, The Clinton Foundation, George Soros, Sheldon Adelson, Sayer, Micheal R. Bloomberg, etc.
Probably because thats a defining question. It puts a person with the murderous tyrants or the Constitution and the people.
It's no real wonder why those most opposed to secession are liberals and/or Democrats.
I think it all boils down to this question: At what point are we willing to deprive people of their fundamental human, civil and political right of self-determination?
I know all about - I live in Virginia and our state bore the brunt of that war. In fact, towns like Petersburg - the site of the siege that was the last great battle in the East - have never recovered and probably never will, and as your correctly pointed out old animosities still linger amongst us, although things have gotten much better since the 1960s.
I get what you're saying, but as a Southerner who never sympathized with the Confederacy and its defense of the indefensible - slavery - I can't say that we would have been better off just letting the South leave. As William Faulkner pointed out Man cannot defy Nature - most particularly his own - with impunity, and the South made the mistake of thinking it could and paid the consequences for its arrogance.
As the old saying goes, it's complicated...
No doubt about it.
Because people understand that too many 'people', corporations, and the Federal government - outside the state - hold assets and real property in a state...and have no say in if that state should stay or leave the union.
Wait... if the population of California overwhelmingly wants to leave, they should not be allowed to because of a relative handful of people that do not live in California?
I'm pretty much of the same mind, Alif. I revere the principles that the Constitution was based on but I regret that it was joined at the hip with a federal government that is increasingly becoming the bane of our existences.
I've often wondered what Alexander Hamilton would make of his creation today. It seems his colleague Madison came to second-guess himself about it...
If the population of California overwhelmingly wants to leave, there is nothing stopping them from leaving.
I posted nothing stating that people outside the state would keep a state from seceding. I stated that a reason a state could not seceded is all the contracts and connections a state has with other states, people, corporations and the federal government to stay a state.
It has nothing to do with the relative size of either group.
Think about your statement - you are willing to deprive people of their fundamental rights. You do not believe in inalienable rights, but believe that people should control other people. You have answered the question, you are siding with the tyrants.
Slavery is a false arguement.
The Civil War was not fought over slavery, Lincoln agreed to grandfather slavery in the seceding states if they would not secede. Lincoln only freed the slaves in the South because he thought it would cause problems for the seceding states and give the North an advantage. The civil war was fought over economics.
There were even talks behind the scenes about a negotiated split, the South had even agree to 99 year leases on Union naval bases in Southern states. If it was not for some overly active Southern officer firing on Ft. Sumter, the USA may have peaceably split.
The days of slavery in the South were ending due to mechanization and industrialization, and social pressure. Civil War or not, slavery would have ended.
Epic strawman, Battle.
First of all, I made my answer to the question "Would you allow secession?" crystal clear:
Secondly, the question I asked does not imply some willingness on my part to deprive people of their fundamental right to self-determination. If the people of California or any other state/commonwealth wanted to secede from the United States today I would be perfectly fine with it. The point of my question was to articulate exactly what we're talking about when we talk about secession.
The CW was fought over a lot of things but the root cause was slavery. Evidently, we're going to have to agree to disagree on that.
No, it would not, Slaves were the largest single block of assets in the South, possibly the entire US and maybe even the world. No government then existing could have afforded to buy them all, let alone afforded to buy and free them and nobody was going to just give up that much value without a fight.
Mechanization and industrialization could have continued right along with slavery. Contrary to slavery apologists but in keeping with common sense you could indeed staff factories with slaves. Quite a few plantations did and many others had large numbers of highly skilled slave workers. Field work could be and was mechanized some even before slavery ended. Slaves were quite useful as large numbers of domestics supporting owners in a standard of luxury unavailable in ANY sort of salaried arrangement. And finally you are forgetting that a slave could be made to sleep with you and breeding them could be, (and often was, even for Thomas Jefferson,) the really fun part of slave ownership. Slavery was NOT going away on its own.
Just because the following is always trotted out, it never makes the argument right: "
The Civil War was not fought over slavery, Lincoln agreed to grandfather slavery in the seceding states if they would not secede. Lincoln only freed the slaves in the South because he thought it would cause problems for the seceding states and give the North an advantage. The civil war was fought over economics."
Slavery caused the war. Every symptom of the conflict is always traced back to slavery as the root cause.
Separate names with a comma.