View single post by Shadowrebel
 Posted: Tue Apr 25th, 2006 10:34 pm
 PM  Quote  Reply  Full Topic 
Shadowrebel
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 13th, 2005
Location: Old Forge, Pennsylvania USA
Posts: 71
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

David,

The states voluntarily joined together to created and join the federal government, if you voluntarily join something do you not have the right to leave when you wish? You still have not shown me where in the Constitution there is anything stating that a state can not leave. It is still not in there today that a state can not leave the Union. Again if it is not in the Constitution it is a states' right. I would not expect to find in the Constitution what the states keep as a states' right i.e. a state can leave the Union. On what legal grounds regarding the Constitution would the southern states file a court case? There is nothing in the Constitution preventing them from leaving, so why file with the courts. The better question would be why did not the federal govt. not file a court case to pervent the southern states from leaving? Since the govt. felt the states had no right to leave they should have filed with the courts, not the states that felt they had a right to leave.

The Declaration of Independence is all you need to look at for writtings of the founding Fathers to see they clearly felt you could throw of you govt. if you felt the need. Article two of the AoC Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled. There is no mention of not being able to leave the firm league of friendship with each other. John Adams:

June 21, 1776
"Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand.

"The only foundation of a free Constitution is pure Virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People in a greater Measure, than they have it now, they may change their Rulers and the forms of Government, but they will not obtain a lasting liberty.

Thomas Jefferson: "The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

-Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950)

Fort Sumter was an unfinished fort that was on land belonging to South Carolina, which want to reclaim their land. The federal govt. had no claims to any land in the 1860s. but the land donated for the capitol.

The preamble to the Constitution is only a cover letter and there is no mention of a "more perfect union" in the Constitution itself therefore with your agruement a more perfect union is not legal entity. You can still have a more perfect union if states leave the union, I do not see what a more perfect union has to do with secession. Also the CoA could only be replace with a unaniamous vote of the states, it was replace when nine state ratified it, does this not make the Constitution an  illegal document? As you state if it is not in a contract it is not binding on the parties, so since it is not stated in the Constitution a state can not leave the Union it has every right to do leave.

 I never stated one state could disolve the Union only leave it. One state can not disolve the Union, because the other remain to make the Union minus the one that left.

As to the AFB you are talking about today which has no bearing on 1860. The federal govt. now I think lease land from the states to form military bases in most instances, this was not the case in 1860. This is why I stated you need to think in the what was the climate and laws of the time period, not as if it were happening today.

As to NYC you misunderstand my statements. NYC was chartered by the state of NY the land belongs to the state not the city therefore the city can not take the land from the state.

To disolve the U.S. it would take the Constitutional amendment process to do it. This is still not the same as a state leaving the U.S., which would leave the U.S. intact.

Why must I show where it says in the Constitution a state can leave, but no one must show me where it says a state can not leave?

Here is a link that might help: http://www.lewrockwell.com/ostrowski/ostrowski31.html

Thanks

Shadowrebel

Last edited on Wed Apr 26th, 2006 12:31 am by Shadowrebel

 Close Window