Was Lincoln wrong? - Page 20

Zarathustra · 10-25-2007, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guyker

Isn't that circular? If you are committed to not forming an independent state by the Constitutution, you are always a state of the US. It would make no sense at all: You're saying that you can't do this until you do it, and then you can. Show me the language of the Constitution that says states are entitled to secede. It was a right they did have under the Articles of Confederation, clearly stated as such. The founding fathers knew how to, and had previously provided for that right. They learned the folly of such a weak central authority, and their purposes in the Constitution and the government it constructed was to provide enough strength in the central government to sustain itself with enough checks and balances to avoid tyranny by majority, by individual, or by special interests. They didn't want and didn't provide for the right to secession. Read the Federalist, which details much of their intent. The 58th article of the Federalist, written by Madison specifically addresses secession. IT JUST AIN'T THERE!

All powers not specifically given to the federal gov't are reserved to the states.

Zarathustra · 10-25-2007, 09:12 AM

I give up. You win FFA. You seem so sure of yourself, there's no convincing you. Beleive what you want.

Guyker · 10-26-2007, 12:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

All powers not specifically given to the federal gov't are reserved to the states.

And this means secession is legal in your reading of the document? Curious, because the Constitution also says that it "shall be the supreme Law of the Land; judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or laws af any state notwithstanding...the senators and representatives before mentioned (meaning members of the US Congress), and members of state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, of the United States and the several states (meaning each individual state's officers as well as federal ones), shall be bound to support this Constitution." To me the clause you cite is essentially establishing the federal government's Constitution as the source of state power as a default of non-enumerated powers UNDER THAT CONSTITUTION, and my clause binds them to it. Again, the founders knew how to grant the states the right of secession (they had done so before). That last clause sealed their intent that there would not be the right of secession in this Constitution. You've shown me how the Constitution provided an establishment authorization for the states. Show me the right to secession in the Constitution, and not just a clause that must be stretched out of recognition in being interpreted as such. In other words, the Constitution commits the states to it. Union in the United States under this Constitution is a Federal power or right, and is therefore not "reserved to the states".

Freedom for All · 10-26-2007, 02:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

I give up. You win FFA. You seem so sure of yourself, there's no convincing you. Beleive what you want.

Of course I win.

You were wrong. Believe what you want. I don't need belief, I can read the Constitution.

conservative · 10-26-2007, 06:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freedom for All

Of course I win.

You were wrong. Believe what you want. I don't need belief, I can read the Constitution.

You are not right...and you interpret.