Secession, right or wrong?

[Twotribes]

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey

ORIGINAL: Twotribes
IF the Government has the power then the States cant simply say, "Damn we quit" and negate that power... claiming they can ignores the reality.

Let's play with this a bit and see how much we can agree on (if anything).

1. The powers of the US government don't apply to other countries.

2. But that does not 'negate' those powers.

3. US citizens can emigrate to other countries and take foreign citizenship, in which case the powers of the US government no longer apply to them.

4. But that does not 'negate' those powers.

5. In theory, the whole population of the southern states could have emigrated to other countries in 1861, in which case the powers of the US government would no longer have applied to them.

6. But that would not have 'negated' those powers.

I'm not sure whether we can agree on all these points, but there seems some possibility of it.

Assuming for the time being that we can agree on all these points, we seem to have agreed that any number of US citizens could choose at any time to take themselves permanently out of US jurisdiction, without even negotiating with the US government, and yet without the powers of the US government being 'negated'.

If they could do this by one method, why it is so outrageous to suggest that they could do it by a slightly different method? And why it is that one method is deemed to 'negate' the powers of the US government, but the other method is not?

Individuals can leave anytime they want ( with restrictions even there) Governments can NOT. No State or local Government can tell the US Government that the Authority and power of the local supercedes the Federal, because it DOESNT. IF the state wanted to leave and had the votes to do so it had to petition the Federal Government OR it had to create and pass an amendment to the Constitution otherwise the Federal Authority and Power LISTED in detail in the Constitution take precedent over ANY state law action or desire.

As to Rieryc, can you read? Have you READ the Constitution? Are you asking me to write here the provisions so clearly stated in the Constitution? If so why? Are you in capable of locating said document on the internet and reading it? Are you claiming that the Provisions that provide SPECIFIC powers to the Federal Government are unclear?

I can provide you a link to said document if you would like, I however have never figured out how to copy and paste in this forum and have NO intention of rewriting what you clearly should have access to yourself.

[Twotribes]

For those unable to grasp the writings of the Constitution and unable to descern from it the appropeiate Articles and sections dealing with the Powers of said entity and those of the several States....

Article I provides all the powers of the Legislative Branch, in this Article one will find the majority of enumerated powers of the federal Government and certain prohibitions to the States in particular.

Article II deals with the Executive Branch

Article III deals with the Judicial Branch

One will find specific powers in those articles that also place the Federal over the State in authority and power and jurisdiction.

Article IV Deals with the States.

Section 1, section 3 and section 4 are of most interest.

They clearly TAKE power and authority FROM the States and put it in the Federal Government.

Article VI has a section on Oaths of Office and this INCLUDES individual States not just Federal offices.

[Santee Mtd Rifleman]

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey

ORIGINAL: RERomine
Except they gave up all rights to property in 1836:

Committee on Federal Relations
In the House of Representatives, December 31st, 1836

"The Committee on Federal relations, to which was referred the Governor's message, relating to the site of Fort Sumter, in the harbour of Charleston, and the report of the Committee on Federal Relations from the Senate on the same subject, beg leave to Report by Resolution:

"Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state.

"Also resolved: That the State shall extinguish the claim, if any valid claim there be, of any individuals under the authority of this State, to the land hereby ceded.

"Also resolved, That the Attorney-General be instructed to investigate the claims of Wm. Laval and others to the site of Fort Sumter, and adjacent land contiguous thereto; and if he shall be of the opinion that these parties have a legal title to the said land, that Generals Hamilton and Hayne and James L. Pringle, Thomas Bennett and Ker. Boyce, Esquires, be appointed Commissioners on behalf of the State, to appraise the value thereof. If the Attorney-General should be of the opinion that the said title is not legal and valid, that he proceed by seire facius of other proper legal proceedings to have the same avoided; and that the Attorney-General and the said Commissioners report to the Legislature at its next session.

"Resolved, That this House to agree. Ordered that it be sent to the Senate for concurrence. By order of the House:

"T. W. Glover, C. H. R."
"In Senate, December 21st, 1836

"Resolved, that the Senate do concur. Ordered that it be returned to the House of Representatives, By order:

Jacob Warly, C. S.

Thanks for this interesting document, which of course I knew nothing about. It seems rather conclusive, except that it appears to have been a resolution of the US House of Representatives (the recipient of the gift!) rather than a resolution of the State of South Carolina (the donor). It is quite possible that South Carolina was willing at the time to give up all claims to Fort Sumter (in which case I would agree that it had no legal case for claiming it back in 1861), but the document you quote doesn't seem to provide evidence of that.

My take on the document is that it is a South Carolina Legislative document originating in the state government, but I don't know. The Clerk of the House of Representatives and the Clerk of the Senate could be officer's of SC's bicameral legislative government, ie- the State House and the State Senate...

Moultrie

[Santee Mtd Rifleman]

Glad to see another South Carolinian

Glad to be here, Murat! . I grew up right under the guns of Sumter, across the harbor mouth on Sullivan's Island (literally under the guns of Moultrie!). This is a great discussion!

W.G.U.M.

[Jonathan Palfrey]

ORIGINAL: Twotribes
Individuals can leave anytime they want (with restrictions even there) Governments can NOT.

Sounds like a good way of getting rid of those tedious old politicians, then... [:)]

You've given me a great idea for the next big thing after Harry Potter: a magical land where people can go but governments can't follow. I like it.

ORIGINAL: Twotribes
IF the state wanted to leave and had the votes to do so it had to petition the Federal Government OR it had to create and pass an amendment to the Constitution otherwise the Federal Authority and Power LISTED in detail in the Constitution take precedent over ANY state law action or desire.

Come on now, you're making this up. I've read the US constitution and I don't remember seeing any procedure for secession mentioned in it.

Though in any case my interest is in morality rather than legality.

[Santee Mtd Rifleman]

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

Individuals can leave anytime they want ( with restrictions even there) Governments can NOT. No State or local Government can tell the US Government that the Authority and power of the local supercedes the Federal, because it DOESNT. IF the state wanted to leave and had the votes to do so it had to petition the Federal Government OR it had to create and pass an amendment to the Constitution otherwise the Federal Authority and Power LISTED in detail in the Constitution take precedent over ANY state law action or desire.

WHAT? Can you point me to the reference in the US Constitution that ennumerates the constitutional process by which a State can leave? Because, um, in December of 1860 South Carolina certainly had the votes to do so. In fact, She so voted in convention in the Holy City of Charleston and she passed an Ordinance of Secession. She voted to leave, just as She had voted to enter.

Also, you may want to check your US Constitution again. Specifically, the 10th Amendment "Powers of the States and People", also known as the "State's Rights Amendment" which reads verbatim " 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 a BEDROCK tennet of the Bill of Rights. It was so in 1791, it was so in 1860 and it is so today in 2006. Nowhere in the Constitution that existed in 1860 can I find the ennumerated Federal Authority or Power that outlaws secession... Where is it?

I believe that your grasp of the Constitution is the Constitution as we know it today, after the Union used force of arms to demolish the rights of the many States and to strengthen the Federal entity. I believe the the Antebellum Constitution and the concept that the peoples of the several States had of themselves, their States, and their identity as Americans, was fundamentally different. In 1860, South Carolinians were South Carolinians first, and Americans second. And heck, some of us still are!

Wm. Moultrie

[Greyshaft]

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey
I was replying to Twotribes, who keeps claiming that secession is unthinkable because it would 'negate' (his word) all the powers of the US government. Therefore I tried to point out that it is possible for US citizens to quit the USA and leave its jurisdiction -- by emigrating -- without, apparently, negating the powers of the US government. If they can quit the USA in one way, it shouldn't be unthinkable for them to quit in another way.

You are mixing two concepts here.

I agree that a citizen of the USA can renounce his citizenship. However the individual states are not citizens. They have rights which the citizens do not have (and vice versa). The laws which deal with renouncing citizenship are quite different from those which deal with the relationship of the states to the Federal government.

[RERomine]

ORIGINAL: Santee Mtd Rifleman

Glad to see another South Carolinian

Glad to be here, Murat! . I grew up right under the guns of Sumter, across the harbor mouth on Sullivan's Island (literally under the guns of Moultrie!). This is a great discussion!

It gets a little wild sometimes, but it is good. Be glad we live in a country where we can freely voice our opinions and not find outselves in front of a wall looking as some very determined gentlemen with rifles. Every opinion, even differing ones are worth something.

Hey, is your "William Moultrie" a "pen name" for this forum or is it really your name? If so, are you related to the Revolutionary War general William Moultrie?

[Reiryc]

ORIGINAL: Twotribes


As to Rieryc, can you read?

Yes, I can read. This is why I'm asking you for specifics.

Have you READ the Constitution?

Yes I have, many times.

Are you asking me to write here the provisions so clearly stated in the Constitution?

Yes I am.

If so why?

It's your argument and thus your responsibility to back up.

Are you in capable of locating said document on the internet and reading it?

Yes, I have located said document and no where does it prohibit any state from seceding.

Are you claiming that the Provisions that provide SPECIFIC powers to the Federal Government are unclear?

I am claiming they are clear and they do not contain any mention of secession.

I can provide you a link to said document if you would like, I however have never figured out how to copy and paste in this forum and have NO intention of rewriting what you clearly should have access to yourself.

The issue isn't to simply copy and paste the document. If it was, I wouldn't be asking you for that. The issue is whether or not you can cite where secession is barred by the constitution from it's clearly listed powers. Your follow up post failed to do that and just gave some generalities. Cite the specific language that bars secession from the constitution.

[RERomine]

Here is a link to the Constitution for a common reference:

U.S. Constitution

There does seem to be a lot of argument in there about what isn't included. Some things are assumed, while not specifically listed. A basic example is there is no reference forbidding states from having an air force. The reason why it isn't listed is obvious, but I think it is generally assumed they can't.

In general, I don't think any answer is going to be found in our interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. I, for one, am willing to admit that I am not qualified to interpret it. The best I can do is look into history to see how it was interpretted at various times. Even then, such interpretations might be time capsuled for that specific period of time.

As I've mentioned before, arguing the legality of the situation seems pointless. Even if the Constitution had spelled out in big bold letters SECESSION IS ILLEGAL, I believe it wouldn't have altered events one bit. The sequence of events probably would have played out pretty much the way it did. On the otherhand, if it said in big bold letters SECESSION IS LEGAL, there probably wouldn't have been a war. In fact, the country probably would have splintered long before 1860.

[Santee Mtd Rifleman]

ORIGINAL: RERomine

It gets a little wild sometimes, but it is good. Be glad we live in a country where we can freely voice our opinions and not find outselves in front of a wall looking as some very determined gentlemen with rifles. Every opinion, even differing ones are worth something.

Hey, is your "William Moultrie" a "pen name" for this forum or is it really your name? If so, are you related to the Revolutionary War general William Moultrie?

Yes, I'm very glad I live in a country where we can have this kind of a discussion. Our diversity is definitely a great strength and I agree that every opinion has value. I learn more from the opinions of others than I could ever learn on my own! An excellent debate!

Also for the record, I think we Americans are supremely lucky that the Union prevailed in the War of Northern Aggression. I'm very proud of my State, I'm Palmetto through and through, but I do believe Providence has always been on the side of the United States, right or wrong. In 1860, I would have put on the gray and gone off to defend my beloved South Carolina against all enemies, foreign or domestic. Today, I would consider the thought of bearing arms against the United States to be a vile, treasonous act not worthy of a patriot. Times, and wars, change ideas! IMO, it was an act of the Almighty that the South lost, and one of the greatest gifts to a people in the history of human freedom was when She furled the banner of secession and bowed to the Union once and for all.

"William Moultrie" is only pen name. He was one of my State's first heroes, first Colonel of our finest Revolutionary War regiment (Second SC Regt of Foot), defender of my Island, and father of our flag. I am actually just a simple Jones of Scots-Irish, French Huguenot (Mouzon, not Moultrie) and Welsh descent. In other words, your typical American mutt!


William Moultrie

[keystone]

There is language in the Constitution that bars secession, provisons added after 1866. If you disagree with the South's right to secede you cannot debate with modern day arguments. No one can even comprehend the state of mind of the typical man then. Many men that fought for the South had Grandfathers that fought in the Revolutionary War, my ancestors fought for the Old Palmetto Flag in both wars. The same attitude from the Revolution was in the men who defied the U.S. govt., if they could defeat the greatest power in the world they thought they could beat the North. Lincolns demands meant nothing to these men, they just fired them up even more. They felt that Sumter &
any other part of S.C. was thiers no matter what the Congress agreed to. There was no compromise that would satisfy them, either leave or we do what we said we were
going to do. Lincoln thought they would back down, he thought wrong.

[AU Tiger_MatrixForum]

ORIGINAL: Santee Mtd Rifleman I am actually just a simple Jones of Scots-Irish, French Huguenot (Mouzon, not Moultrie) and Welsh descent. In other words, your typical American mutt!


William Moultrie

Interesting. My family immigrated to Alabama from North Carolina and Virginia in the mid-18th century. I an a simple Johnson of the same pedigree with Huguenot (Bondurant) thrown in.
I wonder if your people were on the same boat as mine?

[RERomine]

ORIGINAL: Santee Mtd Rifleman
Also for the record, I think we Americans are supremely lucky that the Union prevailed in the War of Northern Aggression. I'm very proud of my State, I'm Palmetto through and through, but I do believe Providence has always been on the side of the United States, right or wrong. In 1860, I would have put on the gray and gone off to defend my beloved South Carolina against all enemies, foreign or domestic. Today, I would consider the thought of bearing arms against the United States to be a vile, treasonous act not worthy of a patriot. Times, and wars, change ideas! IMO, it was an act of the Almighty that the South lost, and one of the greatest gifts to a people in the history of human freedom was when She furled the banner of secession and bowed to the Union once and for all.

I can easily respect fighting for your home state in 1860. To a great extent, the war wiped away the individuality of the states and defined the country as more important. No longer are military units identified by their state of origin other than Something National Guard. I can understand concerns, even fears, that the way of life was changing in the South as 1860 approached. Differences between States wasn't unheard of before 1860 as well. The Toledo War in 1835-36 was between Ohio and Michigan over a little strip of land. End up being a fairly bloodless affair and has subsequently moved to the football field.[:D] These days, states don't hash things out by picking up guns anymore. Can't say it wouldn't ever happen again, but it doesn't look like it.

"William Moultrie" is only pen name. He was one of my State's first heroes, first Colonel of our finest Revolutionary War regiment (Second SC Regt of Foot), defender of my Island, and father of our flag. I am actually just a simple Jones of Scots-Irish, French Huguenot (Mouzon, not Moultrie) and Welsh descent. In other words, your typical American mutt!


William Moultrie

Typical American mutt here as well. Still trying to fill in the blanks, but know my family lived in Kentucky and Virginia back in the day, and probably half a dozen other places. I have a distant relative who died during the American Revolution in a Kentucky battle that had Daniel Boone in it. And [&o] Robert E. Lee's picture adorns a wall in my house.

[Murat]

ORIGINAL: RERomine

The first is no one, other than the Confederacy itself, considered the South to be another country. I believe England and France considered the Civil War to be an internal problem to the United States.

Completely wrong. Britain and France did not want war with the US while the US seemed strong which is what Lincoln told them would happen if they recognized the CSA so they did acts short of war to aid the CSA, and may have gone to war if they found a way to gain from it so long as the CSA was winning.

[Murat]

ORIGINAL: RERomine
Yes, I've heard of eminent domain and there is a process. It varies some from state to state, but it doesn't starts with, "WE WANT IT, GET OUT". The first step is to negotiate the prices, if the seller is willing to sell. For sake of argument, we can conclude the Federal Government made it very clear they didn't want to sell. Hearings are then held to deteremine if the property is required for public use. Again, we can conclude South Carolina would have found this to be the case. Then South Carolina would have determined a fair market value of the property and this amount would be paid and the title transferred. Therein lies the rub. No fair market price was ever established and certainly no payment rendered other than steel. Appeals may take place at the end of the process.

All that aside, I don't believe State courts can seize Federal property under eminent domain laws. The simple fact is their was a fort in Charleston Harbor that South Carolina deemed a threat and wanted it. This I understand, but there weren't any laws existed that gives them legal rights to it. Rebellion is a sometimes violent process where people break away from parent nation. It all depends on how the parent country reacts to this. There is no international court of law where a country can go and declare their independence. If this was the case, Taiwan would have done that a long time ago. They act independent, up to and including having their own military, but no one officially recognizes them because China has made it clear they do not view they as independent and would consider any foreign recognition an act of war. Military threats have the ability to veto right.

We could go all day long on the legal aspects of rebellion and get nowhere. Courts interpret and enforce laws and often they don't agree. There are many things in life that are right, but illegal. Was the legal for the colonies to break away from England? I'm sure England felt it was not. Was it right for the colonies to break away? For them, they felt it was, just as the people of South Carolina felt it was right for them. I didn't live then and don't know how they felt. Through books, I can read how they felt, but I can't feel it anymore than I can feel how people thought about Pearl Harbor.

I was going to quote Two Tribes but he has left reality so in short:

1] get a law degree. I worked hard to get mine.
2] International law as it existed at the time was followed by South Carolina in seceeding and in reclaiming all property from the US, research it.
3] As for getting reimbursed for property previously owned that had been seized, the US made treaties to handle such circumstances (Britain and the Oregon Territories for example) both prior to the War and after it.
4] There is an International Court of Justice in the Hague today. Each of the 5 permanent members f the UN Security Council has veto power over its cases. The US does not grant it jurisdiction over any matters wherein the US would be a party but much of the rest of the world uses it.
5] Taiwan was recognized by the US for quite a while, now they are in limbo. China would veto any case in the Hague by Taiwan involving independence.

6] As to what right South Carolina (and others) have to seceed, look no further than the Declaration of Independence (Recognized along with the US Constitution, Articles of Confederation, and the Common Law as being the Supreme Law of the Land by the US Supreme Court in 1803):

We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

This is still in effect today although I think none would use it but an extremely few who could be handled by local police without much difficulty.

ALSO South Carolina almost seceeded in 1832 (Nullification Crisis), but President Jackson invaded then too and we relented (but got most of our concerns addressed in the Tariff of 1833).

[Greyshaft]

ORIGINAL: Reiryc

ORIGINAL: Twotribes


As to Rieryc, can you read?

Yes, I can read. This is why I'm asking you for specifics.

Have you READ the Constitution?

Yes I have, many times.

Are you asking me to write here the provisions so clearly stated in the Constitution?

Yes I am.

If so why?

It's your argument and thus your responsibility to back up.
{snip}

I also would like Twotribes to back up his arguments.

This fine gentleman of the Federalist cloth has poured scorn on his correspondents by claiming that we (myself included) cannot see where the US Constitution prohibited seccesion. You are right sir... we cannot see it because such a prohibition IS NOT THERE. In the absence of such a prohibition the power resides with the states by virtue of Amendment Ten.

The fact that such secession might cripple the US Federal government is irrelevant. The fact that a divorce might leave one party emotionally, financially or otherwise crippled is no bar to the divorce actually occuring.

[RERomine]

ORIGINAL: Murat
I was going to quote Two Tribes but he has left reality so in short:

1] get a law degree. I worked hard to get mine.

Unwarranted. At no point have I made condescending remarks to you and this is the second time you have done so to me. My responses, although I may not agree and may not be correct, I have kept my responses professional. Should something I have said seemed sharp, I do apologize in this forum to you and everyone I may have offended.
I have made it clear that I am not a lawyer and my legal opinion and 50 cents will get you a cup of coffee ($1 for Starbucks) [:D]

The comments aside, lawyers often don't agree. While I haven't checked, there are probably very few unanimous decisions by the U.S. Supreme court, an official body composed of lawyers.

2] International law as it existed at the time was followed by South Carolina in seceeding and in reclaiming all property from the US, research it.

Some degree of International Law did exist at the time, but please provide any supporting documentation that covered the process.

3] As for getting reimbursed for property previously owned that had been seized, the US made treaties to handle such circumstances (Britain and the Oregon Territories for example) both prior to the War and after it.

Don't forget Mexico. Okay, I concur that the situation of reimbursement after the fact is not unprecidented.

4] There is an International Court of Justice in the Hague today. Each of the 5 permanent members f the UN Security Council has veto power over its cases. The US does not grant it jurisdiction over any matters wherein the US would be a party but much of the rest of the world uses it.

That is today, but what ruling body existed in 1860? I'm not saying one didn't exist, but simply asking what it was.

5] Taiwan was recognized by the US for quite a while, now they are in limbo. China would veto any case in the Hague by Taiwan involving independence.

This is correct. Once official recognition of mainland China took place, official diplomatic relations with Taiwan were severed on January 1, 1979. This is primarily to the hardcore stance on the issue by China.

6] As to what right South Carolina (and others) have to seceed, look no further than the Declaration of Independence (Recognized along with the US Constitution, Articles of Confederation, and the Common Law as being the Supreme Law of the Land by the US Supreme Court in 1803):

At no point have I disputed the right of South Carolina to secede. Being right and legal don't have to go hand in hand. The legality of secession was determined in 1869 (Texas v. White), after the barn door had been left open and the cow got out. Legality is pointless as people who view themselves as oppressed are going to do what is necessary to correct the problem.

We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

This is still in effect today although I think none would use it but an extremely few who could be handled by local police without much difficulty.

ALSO South Carolina almost seceeded in 1832 (Nullification Crisis), but President Jackson invaded then too and we relented (but got most of our concerns addressed in the Tariff of 1833).

Under the authority of the Force Bill of 1833 expressly passed for that purpose and repealed as a negociated settlement with South Carolina.

[RERomine]

ORIGINAL: Murat
Completely wrong. Britain and France did not want war with the US while the US seemed strong which is what Lincoln told them would happen if they recognized the CSA so they did acts short of war to aid the CSA, and may have gone to war if they found a way to gain from it so long as the CSA was winning.

Half wrong, the offical policy was one of neutrality, with belligerent rights granted to both sides. This policy obviously effected the Confederacy more than it effected the Union. While neither France nor England was willing to go to war with the United States over this issue, although England would have over the Trent Affair.

While England didn't formally support the Confederacy, they did turn a blind eye on occasion (or the activity was just well hidden) to activity that supported them. They were required by an internation court (not positive where the case was heard) to pay some reparations to the United States for shipping sunk by vessels built in England.

As to the last part, there is no doubt. Somewhere, someone floated the idea or England got the idea, that the Southern states might "return to the fold" with England. Doubt that would have worked because of the slavery issue, but economic reasons certainly were viable.

[Twotribes]

You people amaze me... you can not on one hand say the federal Government had Authority and power over the States ( as they CLEARLY do) and in the same breath say "well until the State decides to just leave the Union."

The act of leaving the Union VIOLATES EVERY Enumerated power that the Federal Government has over the State in question. Unless the Federal Government agrees to this act or unless an amendment is established delinating how succession would work a State can not simply leave the Union.

So I must assume your going to argue that a bank robber can rob his bank run into Mexico and declare he is no longer a US citizen so Federal Law doesnt apply to him?

States dont get to supercede Federal authority or Federal law. That is CLEAR in the Constitution. The act of leaving the Union, establishing a new Country and then preforming the actions of a country VIOLATE every enumerated power of the Federal Government.

One has no power if those whom the power exsists over can simply say, "well not today"

Any ACTION by the States that violates the authority and power and Jurisdiction of the Federal Government is illegal on its face. When it happens the Federal Government has several choices to make... they can accept the violation or the other extreme is they can enforce Federal Authority at the point of a gun.

Every State JOINED knowing they gave away rights, powers , authority and control on a host of Issues. The document does not have to say they couldnt leave, it is clearly the intent and implied by the entire list of enumerated powers. And prior to 1860 no insurrection or rebellion was tolerated.

And AFTER the fact we have settled the question. By force of Arms, acts of Congress AND rulings of the Courts.

Once again I dont need to cite any specific line or paragraph, the entire Document applies. Every power enumerated in the Articles of I, II and III prevent a State from simply leaving the Union cause they want to. Article IV further clarifies the loss of power for the States.

Article VI provides an Oath of Office that clearly indicates ones loyalty is to the Constitution not ones State.

Amendment X clearly states that those powers that are federal can NOT be usurped by the States. Again that would be all the Enumerated powers in Article I, II and III as well as the prohobitions listed in Article IV.

The entire Bill of Rights was to appease the People and States, yet NO where is any mention of a right to leave the Union even brouched. Instead there is Amendment X that states Federal Power is Supreme.