Presidential Election: 2012

[dautolover]

Yet posts above indicate it had legally seceded according to the requirements of the Constitution, thus becoming a new country of its own...

The whole bit of "legally" seceded can be debated. James Madison, "the father of the Constitution" was a strong opponent of secession, denying its existence in the Constitution.

Some scholars have argued that the entire nation would have to vote on whether it would allow a state to secede. And I don't know how secession squares well with federalism. It's not very clear, the case that the South was its own country.

And like I said, the North had to regain what at one point in time belonged to them. It's recovery, not intervention.

No country ever recognized the Confederacy either.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

The whole bit of "legally" seceded can be debated. James Madison, "the father of the Constitution" was a strong opponent of secession, denying its existence in the Constitution.

Some scholars have argued that the entire nation would have to vote on whether it would allow a state to secede. And I don't know how secession squares well with federalism. It's not very clear, the case that the South was its own country.

And like I said, the North had to regain what at one point in time belonged to them. It's recovery, not intervention.

No country ever recognized the Confederacy either.

This is true 👍

The only thing the Confederacy ever had foreign wise, was a sympathetic shoulder to cry on but never true international recognition as a sovereign nation. GB and France at the beginning felt for them it could be said, but at the end sided with the north if I remember my history.

 

[Famine]

Since there was a legal framework for secession that, it is argued, the South adhered to it would seem that their claims to be a new country is rather stronger than the claims of the British colonies was nearly a century earlier - to which all of the same negative points apply yet none of the affirmative ones...

 

[dautolover]

Since there was a legal framework for secession that, it is argued, the South adhered to it would seem that their claims to be a new country is rather stronger than the claims of the British colonies was nearly a century earlier - to which all of the same negative points apply yet none of the affirmative ones...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White

The Supreme Court argued that Texas' ordinances that established its secession were "absolutely null."

Article 4, Section 3, Clause 1: New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

There is nothing that points to secession, but the Supreme Court held that one way to secede was by "Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress" [italics mine].

The opinion also contrasted the American revolution and the Confederate secession. For the Supreme Court, the second way to secede would be through revolution--declare war on its colonizer (the Union) and reach an agreement subsequently. The South never "rebelled" against the US the same way the Original Colonies rebelled against the British.

 

[Danoff]

Oh dear, there you go again. Your posts & Danoffs constantly put forward these kinds of sweeping statements that are based on an absurd over-simplification of the issues & a lack of any kind of in-depth knowledge of the history. And Lincoln was “butthurt”?! That is your assessment of one of the most conflicted, heroic figures in US history who agonized over his decisions & ultimately paid for them with his life? Please!

Hey don't drag me into this. There's no way the South was "right" when it came to the civil war. I'm not with Keef (or Paul) at all on that one.

You don't get to keep human beings as slaves (according to human rights). Doesn't matter if you're part of the US or not. We get to attack and annex you (if we feel like it) if you feel otherwise.

Having lived in the south I know all the arguments about the "war of northern aggression". That the war was over property rights (whether people could be property that is), that the war was over federalism, that the war was over being a permanent minority, that the war was started by the north (and is therefore bad?), that the war was over economics and a refusal to shift from slavery gradually... or to pay slave owners to compensate them for property loss, etc. etc.

Bottom line.... you don't get to have human beings as slaves (violates human rights). If you try to establish a country based on that (even if you're doing so with land that used to be in the US), you're open to being slapped. Prior to the civil war any nation would have been justified in attacking the US to free the people we were keeping as slaves.

 

[Keef]

...nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

There is nothing that points to secession, but the Supreme Court held that one way to secede was by "Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress" [italics mine].

That's exactly correct, and I will proceed to explain how you have just proved yourself wrong.

Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1 is concerned with the formation of States within the United States. It does not refer to the secession of States from the United States, to become a nation separate the United States. The word State in the Constitution refers to just that, a State as part of the United States. For example, if Texas were to secede, New Texaslandia would no longer be a State within the United States and therefore the Constitutional rules regarding the formation of States would not apply.

The Tenth Amendment might clarify the issue for you: "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."

The Constitution does not give the United States the power to prevent a State from seceding, nor does it prohibit the States from seceding, which means the power of secession is reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Therefore, it is perfectly legal for a State government to secede from the Union, or for the people of that State to petition their government to leave the Union.

 

[Dotini]

The Constitution does not give the United States the power to prevent a State from seceding, nor does it prohibit the States from seceding, which means the power of secession is reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Therefore, it is perfectly legal for a State government to secede from the Union, or for the people of that State to petition their government to leave the Union.

Interesting thought, but lets be patient and careful here, please, Keef. Earlier this morning, I emailed my nephew, a juris doctor, this question: "Was there a Constitutional or legal framework for the South to have seceded? Is it in any way debatable?"

His reply: "No. I've heard some try to argue for a "natural right" of secession, but there isn't a Constitutional right."

At this point, I'm not sure who's entirely right, if anybody.

The limited slip differential in my head says, if it was legal, the South would have done it. They tried it, but got their head handed back to them on a plate. Bottom line: whether by might or by right, they lost and were therefore wrong.

I suppose we could keep looking into it, but it's pretty discouraging business to have to re-fight the Civil War.

Respectfully yours,
Steve

 

[dautolover]

That's exactly correct, and I will proceed to explain how you have just proved yourself wrong.

Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1 is concerned with the formation of States within the United States. It does not refer to the secession of States from the United States, to become a nation separate the United States. The word State in the Constitution refers to just that, a State as part of the United States. For example, if Texas were to secede, New Texaslandia would no longer be a State within the United States and therefore the Constitutional rules regarding the formation of States would not apply.

The Tenth Amendment might clarify the issue for you: "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."

The Constitution does not give the United States the power to prevent a State from seceding, nor does it prohibit the States from seceding, which means the power of secession is reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Therefore, it is perfectly legal for a State government to secede from the Union, or for the people of that State to petition their government to leave the Union.

The Texas case I linked here brushed off the notion of unilateral secession (which is what Texas and the other Southern states did). It stated something like "the states in deciding to enter the US entered into contract with other states and the Federal Government. Secession would necessitate not only an intent to leave the union, but permission from the Federal Government as well." Texas, at one point, wanted to become a state. They created a delegation, drafted a State Constitution, submitted it, and the Fed accepted. The process to terminate state-hood runs in the other direction, but still with the two parties involved. That's why Art IV, Sec 3, Clause 1 is relevant. It implies a process of secession that involves both parties of the contract. The South simply said, "we're leaving, bye!" Thus, their secession is void.

What if the Federal Government doesn't want you to pull away from the US? That's where the revolution bit kicks in. [edit]: You can say that the Confederates tried this, despite the fact that the North struck first. But they lost.

 

[Keef]

At this point, I'm not sure who's entirely right, if anybody.

You should be, as the Tenth Amendment specifically - it honestly can't do it more specifically - explains how the people of a State, and thereby the State itself, is allowed to remove itself from the Union if it sees fit. Now, if that were to actually happen it would undoubtedly lead to an armed conflict between the Union and the removed state, through the United States's misinterpretation (I'd call it a stalwart refusal to recognize) then Tenth Amendment. The evidence is there - the Department of Education is unconstitutional per the Tenth Amendment, among others. I suppose the argument for some of these departments stems from the power of Congress to "provide for the...general Welfare of the United States." It then goes on to say that all Federal taxes shall be uniform, which makes our entire tax code unconstitutional, but that's for another thread.

Please note that many members of government at various levels possess advanced dergees of astounding Latin-ness; the most of them also possess an obvious misunderstanding of the Constitution's original meaning, and an absolute refusal to adhere to it. I suppose that's the reason you should believe them no more than you should believe a 23 year old community college student.

 

[dautolover]

You should be, as the Tenth Amendment specifically - it honestly can't do it more specifically - how the people of a State, and thereby the State itself, is allowed to remove itself from the Union if it sees fit. Now, if that were to actually happen it would undoubtedly lead to an armed conflict between the Union and the removed state, through the United States's misinterpretation (I'd call it a stalwart refusal to recognize) then Tenth Amendment. The evidence is there - the Department of Education is unconstitutional per the Tenth Amendment, among others. I suppose the argument for some of these departments stems from the power of Congress to "provide for the...general Welfare of the United States." It then goes on to say that all Federal taxes shall be uniform, which makes our entire tax code unconstitutional, but that's for another thread.

There were discussions of whether the Tenth Amendment would say "The powers not expressly 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."

"Expressly" wasn't included, so implied powers are one of those things the States are not reserved to the States.

A process of secession is implied, but the South never went through the process.

Please note that many members of government at various levels possess advanced dergees of astounding Latin-ness; the most of them also possess an obvious misunderstanding of the Constitution's original meaning, and an absolute refusal to adhere to it. I suppose that's the reason you should believe them no more than you should believe a 23 year old community college student.

There's only one reason why you shouldn't believe politicians. They lie.

 

[Keef]

"the states in deciding to enter the US entered into contract with other states and the Federal Government. Secession would necessitate not only an intent to leave the union, but permission from the Federal Government as well."

Let us look up the definition of the word "consent", shall we?

consent

noun

3. permission, approval, or agreement; compliance; acquiescence: He gave his consent to the marriage.

4. agreement in sentiment, opinion, a course of action, etc.: By common consent he was appointed official delegate.

5. Archaic . accord; concord; harmony.

I didn't skip the first and second definitions, as those pertain to the word as a verb, which is not the correct usage in this situation.

As you can see, consent is merely an agreement amongst parties. Even the archaic definitions, which may have been used in the late 1700s, suggest a mere agreement or approval. Nowhere is there a suggestion of a legally binding contract.

I would go as far as to suggest that the Supreme Court is wrong *gasp*. It's not like they've never been wrong before.

The Federal government has historically had an unfavorable view of State secession. Why? Perhaps it is that if all the States were to secede, the Federal government would cease to exist. If you were the government that would be a scary thought, and you would do what it took to make sure that never happened. Including denying States their Constitutional power of secession, and even having your high court make an unconstitutional ruling on the matter (which can simply be nullified by the States if they wish to do so, nullification being another Constitutional power of States, or would you like to argue that also?).

The idea of Statehood being a contractual engagement is ridiculous, as it would imply terms within the contract which allow a State to exit that contract, possible incurring a reasonable penalty as is often the case. Let's think about this logically - do you actually think the US would simply allow California, the most populace State in the Union, the largest State economy within the Union at 13% of national GDP, and the ninth largest economy in the world, to exit the Union by paying nothing more than a fine? You're out of your mind if you think the Feds would allow to just leave without first trying to change a law barring any State from leaving the Union at all.

But honestly, I can't offer you any more conclusive evidence than the words of the Constitution itself. It's so clearly stated and thorough that I cannot explain it any more clearly. One thing I will add is that I find your attitude toward this issue and the Tenth Amendment's effect on it rather amusing, as it is the same stance the Federal government has upheld for hundreds of years - disavowing the existence of the Tenth Amendment, continuously limiting State sovereignty, and working diligently to pull all power from the States and transfer them to the Federal government. Perhaps Foolkiller can offer a simpler explanation than what the Constitution already does.

There were discussions of whether the Tenth Amendment would say "The powers not expressly 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."

"Expressly" wasn't included, so implied powers are one of those things the States are not reserved to the States.

It didn't need to be included. In that context, all the word "expressly" would add is emphasis. It does not change the meaning of the sentence, except for enticing the reader to think in italics.

A process of secession is implied, but the South never went through the process.

There is no process implied; the power is implied, but there in fact is no process of secession, beyond the appropriate declaration and nullification.

There's only one reason why you shouldn't believe politicians. They lie.

Ron Paul isn't a politician. He's a doctor.

 

[FoolKiller]

Yes it does.

It didn't in 2008.

 

[Biggles]

Danoff Hey don't drag me into this. There's no way the South was "right" when it came to the civil war. I'm not with Keef (or Paul) at all on that one.

Fair enough - I'm glad to see that!

Legalistic arguments about secession entirely miss the point. The Constitution explicitly states life, LIBERTY & the pursuit of happiness. By any standards, this most fundamental of statements logically excludes the possibility of mass, forced enslavement. By insisting on protecting & even expanding slavery, the southern states were acting "unconstitutionally". To claim they had the constitutional right to secede so that they could continue to act unconstitutionally makes a mockery of the whole idea of constitutionally protected human rights.

OMNIS What if they just thought Abraham Lincoln was a dick and thought they might as well go ahead and secede at that point in time. They knew the union was going to be a headache and didn't like how overreaching the federal government had become.

The slavery argument is stupid because they would have had to abolish it anyway. Capitalism is much cheaper and more beneficial than keeping slaves against their will.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Yes, presumably at some point slavery in the southern states would have come to an end. Eventually a serial killer will die of old age. Does that mean there's no point in arresting him & prosecuting him before that happens?

Famine Just out of curiousity Biggles, if the South had legally seceded as according to the requirements of the Constitution, would your last paragraph not be justifying the USA invading another country to enforce morality?

There are definitely circumstances in which I believe the US, or any other country, might be justified in invading another country to enforce "morality".

 

[dautolover]

The idea of Statehood being a contractual engagement is ridiculous, as it would imply terms within the contract which allow a State to exit that contract, possible incurring a reasonable penalty as is often the case. Let's think about this logically - do you actually think the US would simply allow California, the most populace State in the Union, the largest State economy within the Union at 13% of national GDP, and the ninth largest economy in the world, to exit the Union by paying nothing more than a fine? You're out of your mind if you think the Feds would allow to just leave without first trying to change a law barring any State from leaving the Union at all.

The terms are in the Constitution. Consent and contract are not opposites as you make them sound... ever heard of the social contract? Locke's notion of the social contract is intimately tied to consent.

I see it as a contract--in exchange of some authority and sovereignty, the State gets civil rights in return (all residents of that territory become US Citizens, with all the rights and responsibilities accorded to them).

Think of Texas... not many people acknowledge that Texas actually benefited from annexation. Once admitted into the US, the federal government could protect Texas from attacks by the stronger Mexican Army. Mexico never really accepted Texas' independence, and it could have (it would have actually) sent troops that could have easily outnumbered the new Texas Republic. Texas needed the US, and it easily surrendered some sovereignty for protection. *It's also interesting to see how the Texan annexation was a product of slavery disputes... we can talk about this some other time though.

But honestly, I can't offer you any more conclusive evidence than the words of the Constitution itself. It's so clearly stated and thorough that I cannot explain it any more clearly.

The text of the Constitution exist in a vacuum. It really means nothing. While I may not agree with his overall jurisprudence, Antonin Scalia puts it well. I paraphrase: "the text is the starting point, not the end point, of inquiry." Both originalists and living constitutionalists try to attribute some meaning to the words of the Constitution, because the document alone, without any context, can say any number of things. This is why I pointed, some posts back, to Madison, and his views against secession. He never really thought it existed in the Constitution... nor did he think the Constitution allowed it.

It didn't need to be included. In that context, all the word "expressly" would add is emphasis. It does not change the meaning of the sentence, except for enticing the reader to think in italics.

.
You'd be surprised how the inclusion/exclusion of such a word can send textualists and originalists in a scramble to figure out why that word wasn't included or was. The Constitution is a vague document. It's not that clear at times, and sometimes it contradicts itself. It was purposefully made that way (I think) to fit into the common law system the Founders wanted to establish.

Uniltateral secession would have been justified under the Articles of Confederation, which gave the US a weak central government. But not under the Constitution, which was centered on Federalism.

Ron Paul isn't a politician. He's a doctor.

Are we talking about a different Paul? Because the only Ron Paul I know is the House Representative running for President. House representatives are politicians. Does he lie? Maybe not as much as others.

Legalistic arguments about secession entirely miss the point. The Constitution explicitly states life, LIBERTY & the pursuit of happiness. By any standards, this most fundamental of statements logically excludes the possibility of mass, forced enslavement. By insisting on protecting & even expanding slavery, the southern states were acting "unconstitutionally". To claim they had the constitutional right to secede so that they could continue to act unconstitutionally makes a mockery of the whole idea of constitutionally protected human rights.

While I agree that there was hypocrisy by selling one's country to the world as one of "life, liberty, and happiness," while simultaneously having slavery, legally, slavery was permitted. The three-fifths compromise (included in the Constitution) drew a clear line between those who were entitled to freedom, and those who were not. The Supreme Court argued so, in its Dred Scott decision, when it stated that blacks, even freed ones, could never be Citizens of the US. The 1787 Constitution was racist, it permitted slavery, and it had to be amended (the Fourteenth Amendment) to overturn the Dred Scott decision, even after the Emancipation Proclamation.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Yes, presumably at some point slavery in the southern states would have come to an end. Eventually a serial killer will die of old age. Does that mean there's no point in arresting him & prosecuting him before that happens?

Agreed!

 

[Keef]

The text of the Constitution exist in a vacuum. It really means nothing.

It really means nothing.

It really means nothing.

Oh well I guess that settles it then. It appears I have been beaten. Welcome to the Dapper Club - hope you shined your shoes so you may slither out from under any argument you face.

 

[Dapper]

Oh well I guess that settles it then. It appears I have been beaten. Welcome to the Dapper Club - hope you shined your shoes so you may slither out from under any argument you face.

Keef, you have never proven an argument. You are the one who continually refuses to accept reality.
Granted you aren't alone, which includes about every frequenter or this sub forum, but you can't back up any view you have.

 

[Sach]

Screw this absent-minded piece of 🤬.

Romney Would Cut National Funding for the Arts in Half





​

 

[Danoff]

Why do we have national funding for the arts? I would cut it 100%.

 

[Famine]

Anything

 

[mamrhein]

I don't care who wins the primary I'm voting republican

 

[Liquid]

I don't care who wins the primary I'm voting republican

Explain why or vacate this thread with moderate velocity.

 

[mamrhein]

I was just staying relevent to the title of the forum. Then I was going to join the on going debate

 

[Liquid]

I was just staying relevent to the title of the forum. Then I was going to join the on going debate

I eagerly anticipate a response.

I think it's weird that you'll simply vote for a party, regardless of who is in charge. Especially with some of the laughable candidates the GOP has offered this year.

 

[mamrhein]

The only reason I will be voting republicans, is the democrats want more government spending. Puting the Us more in debt. The debt keeps rising and eventually the us will be in the same boat as Greece. Now as I am a man of logic if you want to present facts that could persuade me to vote for Obama go ahead.

 

[Liquid]

The only reason I will be voting republicans, is the democrats want more government spending. Puting the Us more in debt. The debt keeps rising and eventually the us will be in the same boat as Greece. Now as I am a man of logic if you want to present facts that could persuade me to vote for Obama go ahead.

What if the Republican candidate is a complete buffon apart from wanting to cut Government spending? Would that justify a blind vote?

I'm against some of the traditional Republican ideology but I've been impressed with how Ron Paul had conducted himself. I'd almost certainly vote for him if a) he was the candidate and b) I was eligable to vote. Ron Paul isn't even a traditional Republican anyway, he's a more modern libertarian. He can get the youth vote and that is important.

I don't think voting for a party because you don't like the other party is smart. Vote based on the men, instead.

 

[mamrhein]

Honestly I have not detailedly looked into each canidate, but I based upon what I did read mitt romney ( sorry I cant spell) or ron paul would be good in office

 

[Zenith]

I don't care who wins the primary I'm voting republican

The only reason I will be voting republicans, is the democrats want more government spending. Puting the Us more in debt. The debt keeps rising and eventually the us will be in the same boat as Greece. Now as I am a man of logic if you want to present facts that could persuade me to vote for Obama go ahead.

Honestly I have not detailedly looked into each canidate, but I based upon what I did read mitt romney ( sorry I cant spell) or ron paul would be good in office

So you even admit that you are ignorant of the issues relevant to this election. Beyond this, your held beliefs about the Democratic Party's suggested policies are so vague and dated that they might as well be irrelevant. Furthermore, You cannot spell.

All of these factors taken into account (two of them you admit to without prompting) you still believe that you should vote.

You think your poorly thought out viewpoint should count just as much as someone who is an expert on this matter.

You are the ignorant and arrogant voter. You are the weakness of democracy.

 

[mamrhein]

Weather a voter is ignorant or not he/ she has the right.to.vote

 

[Liquid]

Weather a voter is ignorant or not he/ she has the right.to.vote

Unfortunately, this is true.

Just make your vote count and don't use it flippantly or blindly.

 

[mamrhein]

Unfortunately, this is true.

Just make your vote count and don't use it flippantly or blindly.

If you read one of my above comments I will be soon looking into the canidates deeply. I have been busy with school and work