should jeff davis have been hanged?

[DownWithTheLeft]

Of the two presidents during the Civil War the proper president was executed.

^^^^
Truer words have never been said on this forum

[Emsworth]

There is also an argument that the Earth is flat, but the facts suggest otherwise.  Whether the states could secede or not is not a matter of opinion, the 10th amendment makes their right to secede a fact.

There is absolutely no basis for this interpretation of the 10th amendment. Secession is inconsistent not only with the spirit and framework of the Constitution, but also with the text. A declaration of secession is equivalent to a declaration that the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States shall no longer apply to a particular state. But the supremacy clause makes the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States the "supreme Law of the Land," "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

[Kaine for Senate '18]

There is also an argument that the Earth is flat, but the facts suggest otherwise.  Whether the states could secede or not is not a matter of opinion, the 10th amendment makes their right to secede a fact.

There is absolutely no basis for this interpretation of the 10th amendment. Secession is inconsistent not only with the spirit and framework of the Constitution, but also with the text. A declaration of secession is equivalent to a declaration that the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States shall no longer apply to a particular state. But the supremacy clause makes the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States the "supreme Law of the Land," "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Thank you!

[J. J.]

No.  Because I oppose the death penalty AND because if you executed Davis for treason, you'd have to execute a lot of other Southerners.  That's all this country needed after the Civil War.  More bloodshed.

I do support the death penalty, but I think using it would have been more divisive.

I might have ask Lee to head up Reconstruction as well.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

I might have ask Lee to head up Reconstruction as well.

That would have been wonderful, but the RR's would have never allowed it.

[DownWithTheLeft]

There is also an argument that the Earth is flat, but the facts suggest otherwise.  Whether the states could secede or not is not a matter of opinion, the 10th amendment makes their right to secede a fact.

There is absolutely no basis for this interpretation of the 10th amendment. Secession is inconsistent not only with the spirit and framework of the Constitution, but also with the text. A declaration of secession is equivalent to a declaration that the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States shall no longer apply to a particular state. But the supremacy clause makes the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States the "supreme Law of the Land," "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Thank you!

Benconstipated, if you thought that, why didn't you say it?  Although I think your both wrong

[J. J.]

I am familiar with the 10th Amendment, thank you.

However, I maintain that secession is unconstitutional, resting still on the old argument that the Constitution is a permanently binding document, from which you cannot break out.

There is also an argument that the Earth is flat, but the facts suggest otherwise.  Whether the states could secede or not is not a matter of opinion, the 10th amendment makes their right to secede a fact.

I disagree on that point.

Its called a fact, you can disagree on opinions, facts cannot be disagreed with.  This is like me telling you the sky is blue and you insist that it is gold.

No, it's not.  I interpret the Constitution as an unbreakble contract, and apparently you do not.

In theory, I do not believe there is an "unbreakable" contract.  While I don't see the 10th Amendment as granting a right to secede, I think in 1861, could have been done.

A state could have requested disassociation and the remainder of the states could have granted it.  I think the problem is equal representation in the Senate. 

The Constitution  is not an unbearable contract, but one that cannot be broken by one party without the consent of the others.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

There is also an argument that the Earth is flat, but the facts suggest otherwise.  Whether the states could secede or not is not a matter of opinion, the 10th amendment makes their right to secede a fact.

There is absolutely no basis for this interpretation of the 10th amendment. Secession is inconsistent not only with the spirit and framework of the Constitution, but also with the text. A declaration of secession is equivalent to a declaration that the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States shall no longer apply to a particular state. But the supremacy clause makes the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States the "supreme Law of the Land," "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Thank you!

Benconstipated, if you thought that, why didn't you say it?  Although I think your both wrong

Seriously, DWDL, if "Benconstipated" is the best insult you can think of, then that's pretty pathetic.  And I did say that the 10th Amendment did not apply to secession, you responded by asking if I disregarded the other Amendments as well.

[DownWithTheLeft]

There is also an argument that the Earth is flat, but the facts suggest otherwise.  Whether the states could secede or not is not a matter of opinion, the 10th amendment makes their right to secede a fact.

There is absolutely no basis for this interpretation of the 10th amendment. Secession is inconsistent not only with the spirit and framework of the Constitution, but also with the text. A declaration of secession is equivalent to a declaration that the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States shall no longer apply to a particular state. But the supremacy clause makes the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States the "supreme Law of the Land," "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Thank you!

Benconstipated, if you thought that, why didn't you say it?  Although I think your both wrong

Seriously, DWDL, if "Benconstipated" is the best insult you can think of, then that's pretty pathetic.  And I did say that the 10th Amendment did not apply to secession, you responded by asking if I disregarded the other Amendments as well.

Q: Is the issue of secession addressed in the constitution?
A: No

Q: Does the 10th amendment allow the states to decide what is not in the constitution?
Y: Yes

It really does not get much more simplier

[J. J.]

I might have ask Lee to head up Reconstruction as well.

That would have been wonderful, but the RR's would have never allowed it.

Lincoln might have pulled it off and Lee freed his slaves in 1859 and was aware of the problems with trying to integrate them into Southern society.

There were actually good examples where it was done in the local community.  One thing, which everyone forgets, is that a lot of the former slaves were the children of their former masters.  In some places, even after Reconstruction ended, that was recognized.

Or, as I like to say, in the history of the US, race has never been black and white. 

[Хahar 🤔]

I might have ask Lee to head up Reconstruction as well.

That would have been wonderful, but the RR's would have never allowed it.

[shudders]

Uh...no thanks. The last thing we needed was the symbol of the Lost Cause in a position of power.

[Emsworth]

In theory, I do not believe there is an "unbreakable" contract.  While I don't see the 10th Amendment as granting a right to secede, I think in 1861, could have been done.

The Constitution  is not an unbearable contract, but one that cannot be broken by one party without the consent of the others.

I agree that secession would be permissible with the consent of the other states. However, there appears to be only one constitutionally recognized mechanism by which the states can grant such consent: ratifying a constitutional amendment.

I reiterate my view that secession is inconsistent with the text of the Constitution (specifically, the supremacy clause). However, I do not see the legality or constitutionality of secession as a remotely relevant issue. Remember that the United States itself became independent by "seceding" from Great Britain. Declaring and fighting for independence was technically an act of treason, and a manifest violation of British law. That does not mean, however, that the American War of Independence was immoral or philosophically unjustified. Indeed, practically nobody cares that the war was illegal.

[A18]

The Supremacy Clause argument is circular. The issue is precisely whether a state, upon declaration of secession, is still a part of "the Land."

[SPC]

Absolutely not. If anything, Abe Lincoln should have been hanged for treason.

[Emsworth]

The Supremacy Clause argument is circular. The issue is precisely whether a state, upon declaration of secession, is still a part of "the Land."

That's a rather literalistic interpretation of the term of art "law of the land."

The Constitution cannot be "supreme" if another legislative act (namely, the declaration of secession) can completely displace it, nor can it be "law" if obedience to it is purely voluntary.

[A18]

If I understand you correctly, the argument runs like this: The Constitution explicitly declares contrary provisions of state law to be void. But this is futile if a form of state law (i.e., the will of a state convention) can displace that very same Constitution. The more natural reading of the Supremacy Clause, then, is that it bars secession.

Put another way, "once American soil, always American soil." I don't buy it. It would not be in and of itself absurd to subordinate states to the federal government while they are part of the union, while at the same time leaving them free to leave. Take the Union or leave it, this policy would say: take all the benefits and burdens of membership, or take none of them--but take nothing else.

The Constitution's text, moreover, confirms that its application to a particular place may cease. Congress can unquestionably dispose of acquired territory; see Article IV, Sect. 3, cl. 2: "[t]he Congress shall have power to dispose of ... Territory ... belonging to the United States."

Let me be clear that I have zero doubt that secession is unconstitutional. But I base that on the nature of the instrument and the understanding of the ratifiers, rather than on explicit text.

[J. J.]

In theory, I do not believe there is an "unbreakable" contract.  While I don't see the 10th Amendment as granting a right to secede, I think in 1861, could have been done.

The Constitution  is not an unbearable contract, but one that cannot be broken by one party without the consent of the others.

I agree that secession would be permissible with the consent of the other states. However, there appears to be only one constitutionally recognized mechanism by which the states can grant such consent: ratifying a constitutional amendment.

I submit that it could have been done with the consent of the several states, but all would have had agreed.

[Emsworth]

The Constitution's text, moreover, confirms that its application to a particular place may cease. Congress can unquestionably dispose of acquired territory; see Article IV, Sect. 3, cl. 2: "[t]he Congress shall have power to dispose of ... Territory ... belonging to the United States."

I believe that I have discussed this objection to the supremacy clause argument before (see here).

Of course, you are perfectly correct that the territory clause allows Congress to dispose of federal territory, thereby terminating the applicability of the Constitution in that territory. Likewise, the amendment clause in Article V allows the states to terminate the applicability of the Constitution, either in part or in whole, with respect to any part of the country whatsoever. Clearly, the "once American soil, always American soil" principle is utterly invalid. But that was not the principle I was advancing. Rather, I was arguing that a state may not unilaterally adopt a declaration that it is no longer subject to the Constitution and laws of the United States (which is all secession amounts to).

I agree that the nature and framework of the Constitution are inconsistent with secession. Indeed, to some extent, I accept the reasonability of your alternative reading of the supremacy clause, and only prefer my interpretation because it is more consistent with the intentions of the framers and ratifiers as expressed in the Preamble, and with the nature of the document as a whole.

[SPC]

The Supremacy Clause argument is circular. The issue is precisely whether a state, upon declaration of secession, is still a part of "the Land."

That's a rather literalistic interpretation of the term of art "law of the land."

The Constitution cannot be "supreme" if another legislative act (namely, the declaration of secession) can completely displace it, nor can it be "law" if obedience to it is purely voluntary.

First of all, the Constitution was ratifed under the pretext that states could secede from the Union, so changing that interpretation would be illegal. Second, any contract that prevents one party from withdrawing from the contract would be a slave contract, and thus invalid. Third, the fact is that the Constitution is not binding since all of the original signers are dead.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

The Supremacy Clause argument is circular. The issue is precisely whether a state, upon declaration of secession, is still a part of "the Land."

That's a rather literalistic interpretation of the term of art "law of the land."

The Constitution cannot be "supreme" if another legislative act (namely, the declaration of secession) can completely displace it, nor can it be "law" if obedience to it is purely voluntary.

First of all, the Constitution was ratifed under the pretext that states could secede from the Union, so changing that interpretation would be illegal. Second, any contract that prevents one party from withdrawing from the contract would be a slave contract, and thus invalid. Third, the fact is that the Constitution is not binding since all of the original signers are dead.

But the states that ratified the Contract are still alive.

[SPC]

The Supremacy Clause argument is circular. The issue is precisely whether a state, upon declaration of secession, is still a part of "the Land."

That's a rather literalistic interpretation of the term of art "law of the land."

The Constitution cannot be "supreme" if another legislative act (namely, the declaration of secession) can completely displace it, nor can it be "law" if obedience to it is purely voluntary.

First of all, the Constitution was ratifed under the pretext that states could secede from the Union, so changing that interpretation would be illegal. Second, any contract that prevents one party from withdrawing from the contract would be a slave contract, and thus invalid. Third, the fact is that the Constitution is not binding since all of the original signers are dead.

But the states that ratified the Contract are still alive.

Last time I checked, states weren't human. As far as I'm concerned, only individuals can ratify contracts.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

The Supremacy Clause argument is circular. The issue is precisely whether a state, upon declaration of secession, is still a part of "the Land."

That's a rather literalistic interpretation of the term of art "law of the land."

The Constitution cannot be "supreme" if another legislative act (namely, the declaration of secession) can completely displace it, nor can it be "law" if obedience to it is purely voluntary.

First of all, the Constitution was ratifed under the pretext that states could secede from the Union, so changing that interpretation would be illegal. Second, any contract that prevents one party from withdrawing from the contract would be a slave contract, and thus invalid. Third, the fact is that the Constitution is not binding since all of the original signers are dead.

But the states that ratified the Contract are still alive.

Last time I checked, states weren't human. As far as I'm concerned, only individuals can ratify contracts.

But the States were the main groups in the Contract.

[Emsworth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Firstly, you have not provided any evidence whatsoever for this claim. Secondly, the claim is, even disregarding the lack of evidence, utterly without merit.

The Articles of Confederation, which predated the Constitution, explicitly provided that "the Union shall be perpetual." It is hard to imagine that the Constitution, which was clearly intended to authorize more centralization rather than less, would have repealed the perpetuity of the Union. It is even harder to imagine that such a repeal would have been achieved by implication, rather than by the insertion of an express clause authorizing secession.

More importantly, however, the pretext under which the Constitution may or may not have been ratified is utterly irrelevant. More relevant are the text and nature of the document. Both suggest that secession is forbidden.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There are a number of problems with this view. Most importantly, the Constitution is not a mere contract. It is the "law of the land."

But even if we accept the idea that the Constitution is a contract, your analysis is inadequate. By definition, a contract is binding. The whole point of a contract is that all parties irrevocably commit themselves to the terms. This is why breach of contract is forbidden.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I am not attempting to discuss whether secession is just or unjust. I am merely saying that it is unconstitutional. If you want to argue that the Constitution is not binding because its signers are dead, you are free to do so, but I doubt that any reasonable person would take you seriously.

But the states that ratified the Contract are still alive.

Last time I checked, states weren't human. As far as I'm concerned, only individuals can ratify contracts.

But the States were the main groups in the Contract.

If only individuals can ratify contracts, then the Constitution is not a contract, because it was ratified by the states. You are simply contradicting yourself.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

But the states that ratified the Contract are still alive.

Last time I checked, states weren't human. As far as I'm concerned, only individuals can ratify contracts.

But the States were the main groups in the Contract.

If only individuals can ratify contracts, then the Constitution is not a contract, because it was ratified by the states. You are simply contradicting yourself.

I see the States as individual parties, each of whom signed a contract: the Constitution.  Perhaps that doesn't make sense, but it does to me.

[SPC]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Firstly, you have not provided any evidence whatsoever for this claim.

It has been documented several times in The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution and The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History that Rhode Island, Virginia, and New York ratified the Constitution under the pretext that they could withdraw from it at any time.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Where does it say secession is forbidden? I do not see secession mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, and the 10th Amendment gives states any powers not mentioned in the Constitution. Therefore, states have the right to secede. In addition, the Constitution does not grant the federal government any power to stop secession, so even if secession were illegal, it would have to go unenforced.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There are a number of problems with this view. Most importantly, the Constitution is not a mere contract. It is the "law of the land."

But even if we accept the idea that the Constitution is a contract, your analysis is inadequate. By definition, a contract is binding. The whole point of a contract is that all parties irrevocably commit themselves to the terms. This is why breach of contract is forbidden. [/quote]

So by that definition, quitting your job is also forbidden, for it is a breach of contract. It would be illegal if one party commited themselves to the terms but the other didn't, however that is not the case. I quit my job, The employer stops paying me. I secede from the United States, I no longer have the 'protection' of the United States government. Also, why should a social contract be looked at any differently than a civil contract? Does calling it the "law of the land" suddenly give the contract the magical power to become binding on people who have never signed it?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I am not attempting to discuss whether secession is just or unjust. I am merely saying that it is unconstitutional. If you want to argue that the Constitution is not binding because its signers are dead, you are free to do so, but I doubt that any reasonable person would take you seriously. [/quote]

Obviously you think it is unjust, because otherwise the unconstitutionality of it would be a moot issue. Also, the justness of secession is important, because based on your responses, I would take it that you would like to hang Jefferson Davis for a just cause, more evidence that you think it is unjust. Also, could you name a contract besides a charter or constitution that is binding on people who have not signed it?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Last time I checked, states weren't human. As far as I'm concerned, only individuals can ratify contracts.
[/quote]

But the States were the main groups in the Contract.
[/quote]
If only individuals can ratify contracts, then the Constitution is not a contract, because it was ratified by the states. You are simply contradicting yourself.
[/quote]

That is not a contradiction, it is simply stating that the Constitution was never valid in the first place.