Succession Threads: Merged

[KevDen2005]

Not particularly vehement about it but think it's an interesting discussion. Until 1861 secession was accepted practice and some Con-Law scholars contend secession among the unenumerated or assumed "inalienable" rights. If a person has the inalienable right to control over himself, forced participation in a union he does not consider beneficial is servitude, as such the right to separate is inalienable as well and essential to the protection of other enumerated rights deemed inalienable such as life and liberty.

I agree for sure an interesting discussion. I wanted to add, and forgot to last night, that very early case law in the Supreme Court, while the great John Marshall was sitting as chief justice. That case law provides that states are not sovereign. They are recognized as having some government control and some ability to govern themselves, however the Federal government is the governing body overall. There are recognized eras of cooperative federalism, which states get less rights and the federal government controls much more of their ability to funcion (usually around the same period a Supreme Court will more broadly define "Commerce" for more control as well). Then there are eras of dual federalism which gives states more rights to function freely without federal interference (likewise, it isn't uncommon during these eras for the SC to more narrowly define "Commerce" for less federal control). People argue that we are currently in an era of dual federalism coming out of an era of cooperative federalism at the end of 1990's and early 2000's. I would argue that that era is ending and we are rapidly heading towards a cooperative federalism era.

[Teufelhund]

I agree for sure an interesting discussion. I wanted to add, and forgot to last night, that very early case law in the Supreme Court, while the great John Marshall was sitting as chief justice. That case law provides that states are not sovereign. They are recognized as having some government control and some ability to govern themselves, however the Federal government is the governing body overall. There are recognized eras of cooperative federalism, which states get less rights and the federal government controls much more of their ability to funcion (usually around the same period a Supreme Court will more broadly define "Commerce" for more control as well). Then there are eras of dual federalism which gives states more rights to function freely without federal interference (likewise, it isn't uncommon during these eras for the SC to more narrowly define "Commerce" for less federal control). People argue that we are currently in an era of dual federalism coming out of an era of cooperative federalism at the end of 1990's and early 2000's. I would argue that that era is ending and we are rapidly heading towards a cooperative federalism era.

That statement directly contradicts the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. The U.S. Constitution is not written in a foreign language or even an archaic version of our own; everything it says is very clear and needs no translation. Allowing it to be interpreted by and bent to the bias of a single person or small group of people without recourse by the People makes that document meaningless.

[KevDen2005]

That statement directly contradicts the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. The U.S. Constitution is not written in a foreign language or even an archaic version of our own; everything it says is very clear and needs no translation. Allowing it to be interpreted by and bent to the bias of a single person or small group of people without recourse by the People makes that document meaningless.

I am not necessarily disagreeing with you, merely providing information about a subject that I have done much studying on, and I don't claim to be an expert. But I can tell you that because of the vagueness of the tenth amendment, the justices don't like to use it very often, or without support from other portions of the Constitution, when deciding a case. I haven't done nearly as much research on the 9th, however I beleive that the amendment doesn't really restrict government control. It doesn't give a state, neither does the 10th, any sovereign powers or rights.

[Whistler]

It wasn't intended to grant sovereign powers to the states, they already had them and (imo) did not surrender them as implied by the 9th and 10th Amendments. Yes Justice Marshall ruled time and again in favor of larger, more centralized government and increasing the power of the Fed over the states and people which you would expect as an agency of the Fed. I don't particularly agree with John Marshall's opinion (quoted below) as many of the framers of the Constitution including Jefferson spoke passionately to the opposite. I believe the interpretation is in conflict with the spirit of the Constitution which overwhelmingly is one of self-governance. I also believe it is why the Constitution and it's Amendments clearly limited and delineate the powers of the Federal union as was likewise stated by many of the fine gentlemen who undertook to write it.

"Reference has been made to the political situation of these states, anterior to [the Constitution's] formation. It has been said that they were sovereign, were completely independent, and were connected with each other only by a league. This is true. But, when these allied sovereigns converted their league into a government, when they converted their congress of ambassadors, deputed to deliberate on their common concerns, and to recommend measures of general utility, into a legislature, empowered to enact laws on the most interesting subjects, the whole character in which the states appear underwent a change."

That said I realize there is nothing more than the (legally questionable) actions taken by Lincoln and the decisions of the Supreme Court in their own interest to preclude a peaceful separation and I believe it is a power retained by the people. Allowing the Supreme Court to decide on the issue is a bit like allowing the fox to count the chickens. The people created the union and the people clearly have the right to dissolve it.

Bennett Paterson writes;

“The Declaration of Independence was a forerunner of the Ninth Amendment.”As we have seen, in the context of announcing secession from Great Britain, the Declaration explicitly supports the right to alter or abolish government. To deny this right [secession] would be inconsistent with the principle on which all our political systems are founded, which is, that the people have in all cases, a right to determine how they are governed.

[Teufelhund]

I am not necessarily disagreeing with you, merely providing information about a subject that I have done much studying on, and I don't claim to be an expert. But I can tell you that because of the vagueness of the tenth amendment, the justices don't like to use it very often, or without support from other portions of the Constitution, when deciding a case. I haven't done nearly as much research on the 9th, however I beleive that the amendment doesn't really restrict government control. It doesn't give a state, neither does the 10th, any sovereign powers or rights.

I'm obviously no expert either. I like the intelligent discussion though, and we can't have much of that unless we disagree on something. Cheers, friend.

The 9th Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." I think that is pretty clear. If I may be so bold as to paraphrase, this specifies no powers of government may be assumed which are not specifically enumerated, nor rights of the people denied by virtue of not being specified. The 9th was a result of statements made by Hamilton and Jefferson in the Federalist Papers, in which they expound upon the issue in more detail than I could ever hope to.

The 10th Amendment: "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." This is even more clear than the 9th. Any power not specifically granted to Congress by the Enumerated Powers may not be assumed by Congress arbitrarily. This implies State Sovereignty in any matter the authority of which is not specifically granted to Congress by the Constitution. This Amendment negates much of the power usurped by the Federal government over the years, and invalidates laws such as the Controlled Substances Act, the Patriot Act, NDAA, et al. (I'm sure I'll get some blow back on that last statement from those who believe lawmakers and judges are smarter and maintain a higher standard of ethics than the lowly, common People, but these are foregone conclusions if one has read and understood the aforementioned Amendments.)

[82ndShooter]

I understand you haven't been around here for a while. Your mistake is thinking all of us here are Romney supporters. There are quite a few of us around who didn't buy into the GOP's bullshit and are still quite aware that your candidate is an incompetent socialist with a proven record of failure. The GOP is largely to blame for the re-election of this turd, and you Liberal morons sped it along.

Well said!!!

[KevDen2005]

I'm obviously no expert either. I like the intelligent discussion though, and we can't have much of that unless we disagree on something. Cheers, friend.

The 9th Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." I think that is pretty clear. If I may be so bold as to paraphrase, this specifies no powers of government may be assumed which are not specifically enumerated, nor rights of the people denied by virtue of not being specified. The 9th was a result of statements made by Hamilton and Jefferson in the Federalist Papers, in which they expound upon the issue in more detail than I could ever hope to.

The 10th Amendment: "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." This is even more clear than the 9th. Any power not specifically granted to Congress by the Enumerated Powers may not be assumed by Congress arbitrarily. This implies State Sovereignty in any matter the authority of which is not specifically granted to Congress by the Constitution. This Amendment negates much of the power usurped by the Federal government over the years, and invalidates laws such as the Controlled Substances Act, the Patriot Act, NDAA, et al. (I'm sure I'll get some blow back on that last statement from those who believe lawmakers and judges are smarter and maintain a higher standard of ethics than the lowly, common People, but these are foregone conclusions if one has read and understood the aforementioned Amendments.)

I pretty much agree. I certainly don't agree with NDAA or the Patriot Act at least the majority of those acts. I am somewhat supportive of controlling substances, just not as strict as we make it. I am a firm believer that drugs are part of the demise of society (I used the word "part"). Of course there is the argument of how much better this world might be if we allowed for those heavy drugs to somewhat act as a "chlorine" in our society. I also wouldn't just assume that a sitting member of the any bench is smarter....that is like us giving into complete control.

And of course, I love debates that don't get heated and are intriguing. You make me do my research every time before I post to make sure I stated the right thing. Ha.

[Teufelhund]

I agree there is probably some value in control of certain substances, or at least regulating those things with proven potential to cause harm to those other than those ingesting it. Regardless, it is not authority granted to Congress and is therefore an issue relegated to the individual States.

[Teufelhund]

Perspective: Yeah, it's kinda like that:

[Whistler]

Okay now that's funny! Or sad... now I'm conflicted damn you!