RERomine
Posts: 280
Joined: 7/19/2006 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Greyshaft The Constitution does NOT have the right to prohibit power to states. All it does in list the powers that the states have agreed not to exercise while they are within that Federal Union. Anything not mentioned is reserved to the states. So the USA has no power to prohibit the states from doing something which is not mentioned in the constitution. Since secession is not mentioned then I don't see where the states gave up that right. It may be morally or politically wrong for them to secede but there ain't nothing in the rulebook against it. Sure it does. There are powers specifically prohibited to the states in Article I, Section 10. Also, no one has yet, shown me the escape clause that says a state can leave if they aren't happy. I have admitted my opinion of the illegality of secession is just that, opinion and I may well be wrong, but no one is going to prove that to me with another opinion. There are many aspects of the U.S. Constitution that indicate the powers of states are second to the power of the Federal Government. I have yet to see anywhere where it says states powers override the power of the Federal Government. quote:
The States agreed to cede powers to the Union and as part of that agreement agreed to refrain from making navies, minting coins etc but that doesn't mean that they don't retain the right - they have just agreed not to exercise that right as a condition of remaining within the union. Besides which, I seem to recall that the southern States were actually invaded so therefore they were entitled to "... keep troops, or Ships of War...". Remember that the war was fought by Abraham Lincoln's volunteers rather than the regular Army so the southern states were actually entitled to petition the Federal Government under Article 4 section 4 to use the USA regular army to "... protect each of them against invasion;" Wouldn't you hate to be the Federal Judge needing to rule on that point of law ? Kinda makes the United States sound like a hotel. As long as you are checked in, you must follow the rules Sure, states could build navies and coin money, if they could legally nullify the Constitution. Even if they can't, nothing prevents them from doing so, but they would do so in violation of the Constitution. Lots of guns carry more power than any piece of paper (ICBM launch codes excluded ). quote:
Here's an excerpt from the US constitution.. Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. Now lets try Constitutional Law for 20 points... Which President of the US declared a naval blockade on the State of North Carolina PRIOR to that state making any official pronouncement on a change of its status as a member of the United States? Sounds like Treason to me... especially when you realize that the same President did not recognize the 'legality' of the declarations of secession by the southern states and was therefore invading what he still considered to be members of the United States. Now I'm not waving a flag here... to me the whole deal was done and dusted in 1865 and States Rights is effectively a dead issue. I'm just pointing out that Lincoln technically committed Treason in order to win the war. For Bonus Points discuss the legality of that same President calling for volunteers to invade a number of southern states in order to eliminate "...combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the Marshals by law.". Include an analysis of Article 4 section 4 of the constitution in your answer. (I will now retreat to the other side of the planet until the dust settles ) Declaring a blockade, whether a state was in rebellion or not, was an error in judgement on Lincoln's part, but not illegal. In declaring a blockade, he gave the Confederacy a belligerent status to the rest of the world. Such a status can only be attained by nations. As to the other points, in 1833, Congress passed the Force Bill in response to tariff Nullification by South Carolina (yes, them again). This bill was oriented towards tariff laws permitted the President to use whatever force he deemed necessary to enforce Federal law. This bill was repealed as part of a compromise with South Carolina over the tariff issue. The point is it showed how far Congress was willing to let the President go to enforce laws protected by the Constitution. One thing I did find out after someone earlier in this thread had eluded to it is the U.S. Supreme court has visited and resolved the secession issue. In the decision for Texas v. White (1869), it found that Texas had not left the Union and a state cannon secede from the Union. I will admit this is like closing the gate after the cows have gotten out. It is just as likely they would have reach a similar decision in late 1860. The court at the time was composed of eight justices (one died during the summer of 1860 and had not been replaced), of which four were from the North, three from the South and one a boarder state. During the war, two of the three justices left, implying the third to be a Unionist. That being the case, it is likely secession would have been ruled illegal by at least 5 of the justices.
< Message edited by RERomine -- 11/16/2006 8:00:40 PM >
|