Skip to main content

View Diary: Article I, Section 8 ... gives We the People the Right to ... (54 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The Constitution is a piece of paper (0+ / 0-)

    the union of the states is exactly that - a club of recognized sovereign states that agreed to join together in a limited fashion giving limited autonomy to a central structure.

    If you can find something in the Constitution mentioning that Congressional approval is required for leaving the union I would be more inclined to agree.

    Intellectual questions are not settled on the battlefield - aggressive and coercive force is the realm of the barbarian not the man who relies on metered thought.

    •  If you find something in the (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sewaneepat, litho

      constitution stating that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court, rather than the congress,  your argument would be stronger.  Not every contingency is contained in the exact words of the document.  

      It is emphatically the province of the courts to interpret the law, including the supreme law of the land.  But that is because, in deciding a case where one of the parties was the primary author of the constitution, James Madison, the Supreme Court ignored the opinion of said author, and declared that it is emphatically the province of the courts to interpret the constitution.  

      And, in interpreting the constitution, the Supreme Court has emphatically ruled that states do not have the right to secede.  See Texas v. White.

      Intellectual questions should not be decided by force.  And in a perfect world, Republicans should not win elections.  Sometimes shit happens.

      I'd rather stand with the down-trodden than lie with the wealthy.

      by Endangered Alaskan Dem on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 08:37:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Author is more than a bit much as a label for (0+ / 0-)

        Madison as it was a collaborative effort.  The fact that the courts agree or disagree with one person who played a part in it's creation is immaterial - the law as written is the law.

        Of course your position depends that I agree with the result of Marbury which I don't.  Handing any power to define meaning of the Constitution should not belong to any one branch of government but if it must it should be the legislature where the voice of the people is the strongest.

        Supreme Court rulings are in my opinion entirely secondary to the words as listed in the Constitution for that reason.  As the Supremacy clause does say it is the Constitution that is supreme not the decisions of an entity created by it.  In fact it would be organizationally and logically impossible for the meaning of a document to be decided by a creation of the document.

        •  Clearly Supreme Court decisions (0+ / 0-)

          are irrelevant to you.  We get that.  The Supreme Court has declared that states do not have the right to secede, and you insist that your interpretation of the constitution is superior.

          Let me ask you this:  The U.S. built a fort in South Carolina.  South Carolina, acting solely on its own authority, secedes.  Does it get to take federal property with it?  Who, in your opinion, owned Fort Sumter after secession?

          If North Dakota secedes, does she own the nuclear missiles stored there, but paid for by American taxpayers?

          If Colorado secedes, does she own the water rights to the Colorado River?

          If Pennsylvania secedes, does she get to keep the Liberty Bell?

          If Tennessee secedes, does she control the TVA?

          Your view, while no doubt sincerely held, is not only misguided and uninformed, but sheer lunacy.

          I'd rather stand with the down-trodden than lie with the wealthy.

          by Endangered Alaskan Dem on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 09:11:51 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It is not my interpretation. (0+ / 0-)

            No such power to restrict, approve, decide, weigh, judge - or any other verb you wish was granted to the Federal government in regards to secession.  From there we read the 9th and 10th amendments.  Historically we can look at the Anti-Federalist papers, the secessionist movement in New England long before the Civil War and the personal writings of the Founders.

            The negotiations of the property would have to be done between the US and the new nation of South Carolina.  The property stored within the fort is the property of the US and the land and fortification itself is not.  Now to remain on agreeable terms I feel some remuneration to the US for the actual construction of the facility should be made but that is my personal feeling on the subject.

            All of these issues can be worked out civilly if individuals in question wish to remain civil.  Secession has occurred before and empires have removed themselves from occupation before peacefully (Britain and India was mostly peacefully separated).  

            My view is misguided (no reason given) and lunacy (insult).

            You resort to childish name calling because while such negotiations would be tense, complicated, and long - you realize in your post that they would also be possible.

            Your series of questions is no more than an expanded view that a person who has a few sub-letters as roommates cannot let one of the rent-payers leave because sorting out whose stuff is whose would be "too complicated" and they would rather use violence to subdue them.

            Its not either a nuanced nor moral position and it mandates not only that the idea of self-rule be oppressed but that violence should be used to do so.

            •  Hey dipshit: (0+ / 0-)

              It is your interpretation.  And it flies in the face of a contrary U.S. Supreme Court interpretation.

              Texas v. White is the law of the land.  Your opinion is what?

              I'd rather stand with the down-trodden than lie with the wealthy.

              by Endangered Alaskan Dem on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 02:59:30 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  The same as my opinion on Kelo, Raich, Korematsu (0+ / 0-)

                and other Supreme Court decisions where they chose to ignore what is stated in the law.

                You act as if the SC is the definition of truth - it is not and it is evidenced as not by the fact it has reversed its own previous rulings.

                I find that you understand your own argument to be weak since you believe you must use insults so I would suggest you stop using them.

                •  No, the insults are there (0+ / 0-)

                  merely to point out that your belief that your interpretation of the constitution supercedes the opinions of the supreme court makes you a dipshit.

                  Most people who would argue that their opinion is superior to the court's decision would at least try to rebut the analysis of the supreme court.  You act as if you've never read it.  And why should you?  You know more than anyone.  Which makes you a dipshit.

                  I'd rather stand with the down-trodden than lie with the wealthy.

                  by Endangered Alaskan Dem on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 12:13:02 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

    •  You are misinformed and incorrect, the reason... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Endangered Alaskan Dem, litho

      the Federal government was formed was because under the Articles of Confederation states had just such a power as you say exists under the Constitution and it didn't work.  There is no such provision in the 10th Amendment as you aver, and the argument that you are trying to give some validity, was settled by the adoption of the Constitution and was further validated by the successful conclusion of the Civil War. Entertaining such arguments is a ridiculous exercise in revisionist history which I would have expected to read in Stalinist Russia not the USA of the 21st Century.

      "Intelligence is quickness in seeing things as they are..." George Santayana

      by KJG52 on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 08:37:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not true at all. (0+ / 0-)

        Just one example of a power given to the Federal government in the Constitution that was absent in the Articles was the power to lay and collect taxes (in addition the Navy, the Post Office and Routes, office of weights and measures, patent...).

        •  Your response has nothing to do with the... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          litho, Endangered Alaskan Dem

          secessionist argument that you are championing and the false allegation that states at the time of the Civil War had the "right" to secede. There is plenty of precedent prior to the acts of secession passed by the several states that came to constitute the Confederacy, between 1864 and the firing on Ft.Sumter, that support the contention that states had no right to either nullify the laws of the federal government or chart a seperate course by secession.

          Try reading the Federalist Paers or the Supreme Court decisions regarding tariff nullification and rights of commerce prior to the Civil War. It is clearly put forth that the supremacy of the Federal government arises from the assent of the people within the states, not the state governemnts.

          This whole line of argument is bizarre on your part and reflects a poor understanding of both the Constitution and its antecedents in history.

          "Intelligence is quickness in seeing things as they are..." George Santayana

          by KJG52 on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 10:01:29 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I am simply pointing out that the previous (0+ / 0-)

            argument was invalid.

            I wouldn't expect it to have anything to do with the argument I am championing as pointing out that others arguments are false isn't part of my argument at all.  This makes me wonder what your post has to do with mine.

            I've read both the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers (you seem to ignore that there were two sides in the argument which must be terribly convenient for you).  As I said before the Supreme Court itself is a lesser entity than the Constitution since it is derived from the Constitution's authority.  It is logically impossible, morally hazardous, and legally questionable for the Supreme Court to assume the power to rule on the Constitution itself.

            Let me dissect your argument you make here: "It is clearly put forth that the supremacy of the Federal government arises from the assent of the people within the states, not the state governemnts."

            So the power of the entire Federal government arises from the people the "consent of the governed" - we agree and so do both the DOI and the Constitution in that regard (see the 10th amendment for powers retained - retained as in originally possessed by and then ceded to the Federal government by entering the Union).

            If this is the case and since that right is possessed by the people (who vote to give a portion to their state representatives) then you fully support the 10th amendment's restrictions on Federal power not explicitly granted to the Federal government by these collective representative organizations called States and support the decisions of the people to self-rule.

            How then can you take this position and not view secession as an inherent right of the people and necessary power of the states?

            You seem to be contradicting yourself.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site