GraniteStater wrote:I'm going to say one thing and one thing only.
Obeying the law and not having a temper tantrum because you don't like the results of an election would have prevented it.
It is indeed that simple, gentlemen.
The facts are that SC had passed an illegal ordinance before the incoming Administration had taken office. The facts are that six other states had passed similar illegal ordinances.
No law, Federal or state, that is repugnant to the US Constitution is valid - it is prima facie null and void (Marbury vs. Madison).
When Lincoln took his oath of office, seven states of the Union were defying lawful Federal authority and had openly asserted their willingness to continue this defiance by force of arms.
Thats Marshal, but it does not mean what you think, here is marshal explaining why VA can secede in teh debate over if to ace3de“We are threatened with the loss of our liberties by the possible abuse of power, notwithstanding the maxim, that those who give may take away. It is the people that give power, and can take it back. What shall restrain them? They are the masters who give it, and of whom their servants hold it.” (Elliot’s Debates, Vol III, p. 233.)
Judge Pendelton agreed:
We, the people, possessing all power, form a government, such as we think will secure happiness: and suppose, in adopting this plan, we should be mistaken in the end; where is the cause of alarm on that quarter? In the same plan we point out an easy and quiet method of reforming what may be found amiss. No, but, say gentlemen, we have put the introduction of that method in the hands of our servants, who will interrupt it from motives of self-interest. What then?... Who shall dare to resist the people? No, we will assemble in Convention; wholly recall our delegated powers, or reform them so as to prevent such abuse; and punish those servants who have perverted powers, designed for our happiness, to their own emolument.
We have the evidence of those who signed it, Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania ,“a mere compact resting on the good faith of the parties.” That compact can be unilaterally broken at any point by the same people of the States which ratified it."
Secession is not repugnent to tne constitution, there being no bar against it in the constitution, but is allowed to happen because States ratified it as seperate states with the xpressed condition of secion included in state ratifications. all contracts are between those who sign and ratify, the federal governemnet is created by those who signed the Constitution, and acts as their representaivs. The Constitution creates the Federal government and defines and grants it authority to act in the Constitution, it had no sovreignty before the States gifted it to it to act on their behalf, it does not sign the AoC or the Constitution. It existed not before the States created it, and no one from it signs teh Constitution. Only competent authorty can enter into a compact, the federal Governemnt only becomes such after the required number of States ratified the Constitution.
You miss the central premise of the DOI, the consent of the governed, while being ignorant of who are the parties that create and are bound by the Constittion, Madison explaining it for us:
‘MW‘Who are the parties to…[the Constitution]? The people – but not the people as composing one great body; but the people as composing thirteen sovereignties.” This is because the UK crown who had sovreign rights over the citizens of the colonies, in the treaty of Paris passed it to the 13 seperate States, not to congress or the federal government.
Congress agreed with Madsion whenever they voted on the nature of the compact, “Resolved, That the people of the several States thus united by the constitutional compact, in forming that instrument, and in creating a general government to carry into effect the objects for which they were formed, delegated to that government, for that purpose, certain definite powers, to be exercised jointly, reserving, at the same time, each State to itself, the residuary mass of powers, to be exercised by its own separate government; and that whenever the general government assumes the exercise of powers not delegated by the compact, its acts are unauthorized, and are of no effect; and that the same government is not made the final judge of the powers delegated to it, since that would make its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among sovereign parties, without any common judge, each has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of the infraction as of the mode and measure of redress.
US Congreess 1833, motion passed and won by vote in congress
Resolved, That in the adoption of the Federal Constitution, the States adopting the same acted severally as free and independent sovereignties, delegating a portion of their powers to be exercised by the Federal Government for the increased security of each, against dangers domestic as well as foreign; and that any intermeddling by any one or more States, or by a combination of their citizens, with the domestic institutions of the others, on any pretext, whether political, moral, or religious, with the view to their disturbance or subversion, is in violation of the Constitution, insulting to the States so interfered with, endangers their domestic peace and tranquillity--objects for which the Constitution was formed--and, by necessary consequence, serves to weaken and destroy the Union itself.
US Congress 1860 motion passed 36 to 19 by vote in congress.
Madison to d Webster during nulification crisses, telling Webster he was just wrong It is fortunate when disputed theories, can be decided by undisputed facts. And here the undisputed fact is, that the Constitution was made by the people, but as embodied into the several States, who were parties to it; and therefore made by the States in their highest authoritative capacity. (Letter from James Madison to Daniel Webster, March 15, 1833)
Read the First Inaugural Address. Read it. Read the Articles of Confederation, wherein all agreed to a perpetual Union. Read the Preamble of the Constitution, wherein the six great objects of the instrument, the very purposes for which it was established, are set out: the first one is a "more perfect Union."
AoC was ended by each seperate state unilatewraly secedding untill NC and RI remained, they never leave, but the people of each state at convention enter into the newer Union under the Constition. Madison explains the union is more perfect because sovreign rights are ezxcercised by teh4 seperate people of the state, not their elected reps. The perpetual Un ion with england, given in colonial cjharters and given the seperate right of unliaterl secesion by james the first , which every colony was in was also ended by seperate states between 1774 and 1776. Theyhad done so beofe in 1689 when chosing which mionarch to follow and before that in the ECW in 1643 again choseingf parliment or Monarch.
The Constitution of the United States is not a contract, nor a compact between polities who had been exercising powers as completely sovereign states. As Lincoln asked, "When was South Carolina ever a sovereign State outside of this Union?"
Except it is both as you are taught in every law class. SC is shown to be so in the Constitution, which requiresa the consent of 9 AoC members to give it authoritive power, if SAc did no acede, it is outside the Union, and still in the AoC and still soveriegn. Not least because its state constitution asserst it to be soveriegn state.“We, the Delegates of the people of Virginia do, in the name of the people, declare that the powers granted under the constitution, being derived from the people, may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression. . . .[On this basis], we do assent to and ratify the Constitution recommended, on the 17th day of September, 1787.” (Elliot’s Debates Vol. I, p. 327.) Others states had the same, all have it once the 1oth amendment comes into force.
The several States do, indeed, retain all powers not granted to the Federal government by the Constitution, but the grant of power to the Federal government was granted by the sovereign people of this nation, a nation conceived in the matrix of the Union, a Union which antedates the nation itself, the Articles, and the Constitution. Indeed, George Washington took lawful command of the Continental Army under the authority of the Second Continental Congress, which was the lawful instrument of this Union before the Union, and the good people thereof, had declared themselves to be a nation, a nation conceived in liberty and whose nationhood is predicated upon the principles enounced by Jefferson in the Declaration. As Jackson said during the Nullification Crisis, when SC had tried this nonsense once before and declared it would not enforce Federal law and hinder its execution: "The United States is not a league. It is a government."
Jacksoin citied the same law Lincoln used to call up the militia, he was told thats a crimi al act and he would be impeached, by D Webster, he instead sought and gained a force act from congress. Sinbce the constitution in no article moves sovreignty to the federal governmnet except where exprisly granted, it temains, asa right of the sovreign, with the people, who are those who acede or secede from treaties.
Gentlemen, you may trot out any and all documents and essays and whatever you wish, but you cannot escape the facts of history, as Lincoln so succintly and dispositively demonstrated in his first Inaugural Address and which I have recapitulated here.
Except lincoln cites no law just gives incorrect opinion and sells a story to the dim witted.
The Union created the nation; the nation created the Articles and the Confederation, the nation replaced that instrument with a new one, the Constitution. The people of this nation, all of them, are the source of sovereignty and lawful authority. No polity, no hamlet, town, village, city, county, nor any state may, on its own accord, declare that it is no longer part of this Union nor refuse to obey and abide by the laws enacted by the Congress of the United States.
Not bad history, not history at all.
Madison for example to explain the Constitution to you since you fail to grasp its import :
If we consider the federal Union as analogous not to the social compacts among individual men: but to the conventions among individual States. What is the doctrine resulting from these conventions? Clearly, according to the Expositors of the law of Nations, that a breach of any one article, by any one party, leaves all the other parties at liberty, to consider the whole convention as dissolved, unless they choose rather to compel the delinquent party to repair the breach.
On examining the first relation, it appears, on one hand, that the Constitution is to be founded on the assent and ratification of the people of America, given by deputies elected for the special purpose; but, on the other, that this assent and ratification is to be given by the people, not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong. It is to be the assent and ratification of the several States, derived from the supreme authority in each State, the authority of the people themselves. The act, therefore, establishing the Constitution, will not be a national, but a federal act.
That it will be a federal and not a national act, as these terms are understood by the objectors; the act of the people, as forming so many independent States, not as forming one aggregate nation, is obvious from this single consideration, that it is to result neither from the decision of a majority of the people of the Union, nor from that of a majority of the States. It must result from the unanimous assent of the several States that are parties to it, differing no otherwise from their ordinary assent than in its being expressed, not by the legislative authority, but by that of the people themselves. Were the people regarded in this transaction as forming one nation, the will of the majority of the whole people of the United States would bind the minority, in the same manner as the majority in each State must bind the minority; and the will of the majority must be determined either by a comparison of the individual votes, or by considering the will of the majority of the States as evidence of the will of a majority of the people of the United States. Neither of these rules have been adopted. Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a federal, and not a national constitution.
When one feels that a law is unconstitutional, one may go to court. If one doesn't like the decision, one may appeal. If the court of final appeal renders a judgment not to your liking, you have a political process available to, in the course of time, correct a perceived injustice either through elections and appointments or by the amending of the US Constitution.
All bases in UK law, and the ultimate remidy is to use force if required to secede, as gaurentted by Magna carta when the sov p[ower does not rule acording to the law, since every first wave states aserted that slaery was not to be permitted in thje terr of thew Union, this federal breach allows secession asa remidy, as set out again by madson as the lawfull action of teh people.
Madison was quite clear it wasa federal republic, each state bound nly by its own vol act, to creatyea singl;e nation was proposed and rejected by every state but one, so we know your post are fantasy not fact, Madison http://www.freedomformula.us/articles/f ... araphrase/
The ratification by the people separately from so many independent states will be a federal and not a national act. It is obvious from this single consideration that it is to result neither from the decision of a majority of the people of the Union, nor from that of a majority of the states. It must result from the unanimous assent of the states that are parties to it. This is no different than their ordinary assent to matters of their states other than it is being expressed, not by the legislative authority, but by the authority of the people themselves. If the people were regarded in this transaction as forming one nation, the will of the majority of the whole people of the United States, would bind the minority; in the same manner as the majority in each state must bind the minority. The will of the majority would have to be determined either by counting the individual votes nationwide or by considering the will of a majority of the states, as evidence of the will of a majority of the people of the United States. Neither of these rules has been adopted. Each state in ratifying the Constitution is considered as a sovereign body independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this regard the new Constitution will be a federal and not a national Constitution.
There is one, and only one, set of circumstances, by which any just man could possibly advocate armed resistance to Federal authority and that is an unmistakable attempt to establish a tyranny and overthrow Constitutional order and the rule of law.
Which is why teh second wave secedeedd over coercion of the first wave and ilegal use of the militia act, which does not give potus the right to coerce states against the Union, only parts of a state agaionst the state itself.
Northern states agreed they would do so in teh same circumstances.
Caldrv Bull 1798, Justice Chase who also signed the DOI for Mass.
The nature and end of legislative power limit the excercise of it.This fundamental principle flows from the very principle of our free Republican government, that no man should be complelled to do what the laws do not require, nor refrain from that acts the laws pemit. These acts whether federal or state, Legilsature cannot do, without excedding their authority.There are ceratin fixed vital principles in our free republican governments, which will determine and overule a flagrant abuse of legilsative power, as to authorise manifest injustice by posutive law, or take away that security for personal liberty or protection private propertry whereof the government was established.
Upto the creation of the Republican party practiacly every state used threats of secesion as the norm, to get a better comrimise. This is waht the Republicnas said was wrong with the system, it was placing the majority at the mercy of the minority and preventing things betting done that the majority wanted. but thats the whole point of the constition, it was excatly amde to do that to prevent exactly that kind of theng! and is an undeniable product of a Union of equal state in vol Union. The Republicans were the revoltionarys, they wanted to end the ststes rights and repalce it with majority rule. Now the Southernstates stood on the principle of consent to be governed, and its only when incoln uses coercion that the WBTS starts, slavery had abeen a moral fulcrume to move public opion and sentiment to be sure, just as the tariff was used as a economic fulcrome, but the issue was soley on the form of government and who would control the federal Union. The republ;icans found a wayt to make their section dominate in perpetuaty by forbidding the extension of slavery into new states, this ment that soverthen state would be unable to effect federqal government because they would alwyas be outvoted in the future, or by using the rules of the game the Republicans had found a away to be in power for the next century, which is what happened anyway pretty much, this was no different from the Southern ststes haveing been in control for the prev century and doing things there way.
Hayne crushed webster argument in Congress,
Sir i put the case home to the gentleman.Is there any violation of the constition rights of states and the liberties of citizens, which if sanctioned by congress and the Sc, he would belive to be thright and duty of a state to resist?.Does he contend for the right opf passive obiedience and non rsoistance?.Would he justfioy open resistance to an act of congress, sanctioned by the courts, which would abolish trail by jury?, or destroy freedom of religion or freedom of the press/. yes he would advocate resoistance in such case and so would i, so would all of us.But such reasistance in his doctrine would be rebelion and revolution, in mine it would be legal and constional resistance.
So what does secesion do?, well it romoves from the whole that which the whole did not own, so the whole losses nothing it had a claim on, it losses access to resources etc it had access to and will no doubt now miss, it is a peacfull remedy that could otherwise require force to settle, now if there is an undeniable right of revolution to abolish government whay is there not a peacfull and lawfull way to remove yourself?, easy peasy there is, its called secesion, you cannot be a member of the UN and not have signed the aceptence of the constional right of secesion contained in your entry into the UN, there are no countrys not in the Un btw. USA currently usses this as part of its legal protection and aceptence of Taiwan secesion from China. Where does the principle come from?, it comes from Romns sessio, in which the plebs when the patricians passed a law they felt unjust simply left the city and went to beocme citizens in another city and left the patricians with no one to govern, when they repealled whatever law that upset those it governed, the plebs returened to pay tax, be sent to war and generally be governed.
Madison, Federalist Papers, Number XXXIX.
"The Constitution is to be founded on the assent and ratification of the people of America, given by deputies elected for the special purpose; but this assent and ratification is to be given by the people, not as individuals comprising one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong. It is to be the assent and ratification of the several States, derived from the supreme authority in each State — the authority of the people themselves. The act, therefore, establishing the Constitution will not be a national, but a federal act.
That it will be a federal, and not a national act, as these terms are understood by objectors, the act of the people, as forming so many independent States, not as forming one aggregate nation, is obvious from this single consideration, that it is to result neither from the decision of a majority of the people of the Union, nor from that of a majority of the States. It must result from the unanimous assent of the several States that are parties to it, differing no otherwise from their ordinary assent than in its being expressed, not by the legislative authority, but by that of the people themselves. Were the people regarded in this transaction as forming one nation, the will of the majority of the whole people of the United States would bind the minority; in the same manner as the majority in each State must bind the minority; and the will of the majority must be determined either by a comparison of the individual votes, or by considering the will of the majority of the States, as evidences of the will of a majority of the people of the United States. Neither of these has been adopted. Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its voluntary act."
"When resort can be had to no common superior, the parties to the compact must themselves be the rightful judges, whether the bargain has been pursued or violated."