Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Reiryc
RESOLVED: That the principle and construction contended for by sundry of the state legislatures, that the general government is the exclusive judge of the extent of the powers delegated to it, stop nothing short of despotism; since the discretion of those who administer the government, and not the constitution, would be the measure of their powers:
That the several states who formed that instrument, being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction; and that a nullification, by those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts done under colour of that instrument, is the rightful remedy.
-- Thomas Jefferson, 1799

The line you have in bold I find very interesting and seems to relate to the problem. As one of the framers of the Constitution, it clearly indicates what, at least he intended. While I don't see it referring to secession one way or another (it is after all, one sentence), it seems to me to authorized states to nullify Federal laws, taxes and the like, if they are deemed as unauthorized. This I interpret as any law or tariff that seems to single out a specific section or group of people unfairly.

The problem is South Carolina tried to nullify some tariffs they felt fell in the unauthorized category in 1833 and Andrew Jackson was prepared to use the military to enforce the tariffs. A negotiated settlement resulted, but the crisis indicated the Federal Government was willing to use force to support their position.

In 1860, when South Carolina felt the Federal Government was going to overstep their limits and found in 1833 nullification wasn't going to work, secession was felt to be the only option.

The problem is, over time, we lose the intent and only have the written text to refer to. It may be that secession was intended to be allowed. Logic dictates that a nation formed by what was effectively secession, would be hypocritical to outlaw such actions. At least from the statement you have, the first step should be to nullify offensive acts, which as pointed out South Carolina previously tried and failed. Jefferson's intent, in that single sentence, doesn't seem to consider failure as a possibility. Also, over time, we focus more in the literal and not the intent. That is how courts seem to be today. Intent seemed to carry more weight a long time ago.

In the end, this legality argument seems to pit intent against literal. I admit I tend to fall on the literal side because I program computers. Intent doesn't matter because if my program doesn't literally spell out each step, it will fail. None the less, I understand that intent is very important. Without intent, the desired result can never be achieved.

One sentence can be very powerful, afterall one sentence Jefferson wrote in a letter to a friend mentioned "separation between church and state" has generated numerous cout decisions that have caused extreme interpretations of the Constitution. NOTE: I am NOT trying to hijack the thread or change the topic, I am simply making a point.

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey
The territory and resources aren't lost: they're still in active use and providing the same benefits as they did before. They're just reassigned to different management.

LOL. Maybe I phrased it poorly. Yes, I agree, they didn't go POOF, but they are "lost" to the original management.

As for the defence risk: in defeating the Confederacy the Northern states suffered hundreds of thousands of casualties and spent a vast amount of money. That's definite, a matter of record. It seems unlikely that they could have suffered any worse from recognizing Confederate independence.

Close proximity might be deemed a defense risk. Some country in South America declaring independence from Spain isn't a defense risk to Spain. Having a new country, right next door, formed because they disagreed with you in the first place, might be deemed a defense risk.

ORIGINAL: AU Tiger

One sentence can be very powerful, afterall one sentence Jefferson wrote in a letter to a friend mentioned "separation between church and state" has generated numerous cout decisions that have caused extreme interpretations of the Constitution. NOTE: I am NOT trying to hijack the thread or change the topic, I am simply making a point.

I understand you Auburn types. Probably in a state of panic that Alabama might actually get a good coach [:D]

ORIGINAL: RERomine

ORIGINAL: AU Tiger

One sentence can be very powerful, afterall one sentence Jefferson wrote in a letter to a friend mentioned "separation between church and state" has generated numerous cout decisions that have caused extreme interpretations of the Constitution. NOTE: I am NOT trying to hijack the thread or change the topic, I am simply making a point.

I understand you Auburn types. Probably in a state of panic that Alabama might actually get a good coach [:D]

I am off my food with worry that it will be Spurrier.[X(]

ORIGINAL: RERomine



Close proximity might be deemed a defense risk. Some country in South America declaring independence from Spain isn't a defense risk to Spain. Having a new country, right next door, formed because they disagreed with you in the first place, might be deemed a defense risk.

AHA! Finally the Casus Belli we need to invade Canada!

Once again an enumerated power is worthless if all one need do is say " no, I quit"

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

Once again an enumerated power is worthless if all one need do is say " no, I quit"

No it is not worthless.

It still has value to those that are still in the union.

ORIGINAL: RERomine

ORIGINAL: Reiryc
RESOLVED: That the principle and construction contended for by sundry of the state legislatures, that the general government is the exclusive judge of the extent of the powers delegated to it, stop nothing short of despotism; since the discretion of those who administer the government, and not the constitution, would be the measure of their powers:
That the several states who formed that instrument, being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction; and that a nullification, by those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts done under colour of that instrument, is the rightful remedy.
-- Thomas Jefferson, 1799

The line you have in bold I find very interesting and seems to relate to the problem. As one of the framers of the Constitution, it clearly indicates what, at least he intended. While I don't see it referring to secession one way or another (it is after all, one sentence), it seems to me to authorized states to nullify Federal laws, taxes and the like, if they are deemed as unauthorized. This I interpret as any law or tariff that seems to single out a specific section or group of people unfairly.

The problem is South Carolina tried to nullify some tariffs they felt fell in the unauthorized category in 1833 and Andrew Jackson was prepared to use the military to enforce the tariffs. A negotiated settlement resulted, but the crisis indicated the Federal Government was willing to use force to support their position.

In 1860, when South Carolina felt the Federal Government was going to overstep their limits and found in 1833 nullification wasn't going to work, secession was felt to be the only option.

The problem is, over time, we lose the intent and only have the written text to refer to. It may be that secession was intended to be allowed. Logic dictates that a nation formed by what was effectively secession, would be hypocritical to outlaw such actions. At least from the statement you have, the first step should be to nullify offensive acts, which as pointed out South Carolina previously tried and failed. Jefferson's intent, in that single sentence, doesn't seem to consider failure as a possibility. Also, over time, we focus more in the literal and not the intent. That is how courts seem to be today. Intent seemed to carry more weight a long time ago.

In the end, this legality argument seems to pit intent against literal. I admit I tend to fall on the literal side because I program computers. Intent doesn't matter because if my program doesn't literally spell out each step, it will fail. None the less, I understand that intent is very important. Without intent, the desired result can never be achieved.

Well technically, jefferson wasn't a framer. He was in fwance at the time of the constitutional debates although he did have a strong influence with madison.

I understand your point about the intent and legality and I would suggest that the literal translation of the tenth amendment would be to say that the listed powers are are the federal government has and any and all other powers are for the states and what they don't take/use are for the people.


Edit:

As an aside, I would argue we concentrate more on literal today than intent and that's one of our problems. That's why we had a ruling recently that is forcing the government to change our currency for the blind. The basis for the ruling was based upon the disability act which I don't think intended that our currency should have to be changed, although I could be wrong. Anyways... I think it's time they release this damn game!

ORIGINAL: Twotribes
Once again an enumerated power is worthless if all one need do is say " no, I quit"

Understood. I'm just not sure what the actual intent was. Do you see what I mean how it appears hypocritical that a country formed essentually by secession, even if that term wasn't actually used in 1776, would outlaw secession?

ORIGINAL: AU Tiger

ORIGINAL: RERomine



Close proximity might be deemed a defense risk. Some country in South America declaring independence from Spain isn't a defense risk to Spain. Having a new country, right next door, formed because they disagreed with you in the first place, might be deemed a defense risk.

AHA! Finally the Casus Belli we need to invade Canada!

LOL. I almost spit sunflower seeds all over my desk [:)]

ORIGINAL: RERomine

I understand you Auburn types. Probably in a state of panic that Alabama might actually get a good coach [:D]

ORIGINAL: AU Tiger

I am off my food with worry that it will be Spurrier.[X(]

Hey now...War of Northern Aggression debates is one thing but do not attack football [:@] (and noone is taking our coach - if we could afford to pay Holtz for his stats that he put up here, we can keep Steve )

ORIGINAL: Reiryc
Well technically, jefferson wasn't a framer. He was in fwance at the time of the constitutional debates although he did have a strong influence with madison.

I understand your point about the intent and legality and I would suggest that the literal translation of the tenth amendment would be to say that the listed powers are are the federal government has and any and all other powers are for the states and what they don't take/use are for the people.

Back when the Constitution was written and some period after it was signed, it was possible to go to those who participated in it's create and just ask what they intended. After they died, we can go back to read any notes, views, etc., they had written to try to determine what was intended, but it starts getting cloudier. Intent starts to get lost and the literal takes over.

I don't know that the 10th Amendment was intended to be used to nullify authorized acts by the Government, but at the same time, it doesn't appear Jefferson felt unauthorized acts be enforced at the point of a bayonet. The operative there is "I don't know." I'm not disputing it, but just pleading ignorance to the intent.

Amendment X - Powers of the States and People.

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 leaves much open to interpretation. Too much. To this I point to the fact that both sides have cited it as why secession is and is not legal, both using the literal wording to support their position. This is were intent is so critical. Some say the intent was to allow the Constitution to be voided (nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively Example: Secession is not prohibited thus the States right). Others say no such thing is permitted because they aren't allowed to void other granted powers (powers not delegated to the United States Example: Secession voids right of taxation in the seceding state). Overall, it seems just too subject to debate as written.

ORIGINAL: Murat

ORIGINAL: RERomine

I understand you Auburn types. Probably in a state of panic that Alabama might actually get a good coach [:D]

ORIGINAL: AU Tiger

I am off my food with worry that it will be Spurrier.[X(]

Hey now...War of Northern Aggression debates is one thing but do not attack football [:@] (and noone is taking our coach - if we could afford to pay Holtz for his stats that he put up here, we can keep Steve )

Speaking of the recently terminated coach Mike Shula....
This is worth a chuckle:
http://www.theauburner.com/mark_psa.html

ORIGINAL: AU Tiger
AHA! Finally the Casus Belli we need to invade Canada!

Excellent! Great response!

ORIGINAL: RERomine

ORIGINAL: Reiryc
Well technically, jefferson wasn't a framer. He was in fwance at the time of the constitutional debates although he did have a strong influence with madison.

I understand your point about the intent and legality and I would suggest that the literal translation of the tenth amendment would be to say that the listed powers are are the federal government has and any and all other powers are for the states and what they don't take/use are for the people.

Back when the Constitution was written and some period after it was signed, it was possible to go to those who participated in it's create and just ask what they intended. After they died, we can go back to read any notes, views, etc., they had written to try to determine what was intended, but it starts getting cloudier. Intent starts to get lost and the literal takes over.

I don't know that the 10th Amendment was intended to be used to nullify authorized acts by the Government, but at the same time, it doesn't appear Jefferson felt unauthorized acts be enforced at the point of a bayonet. The operative there is "I don't know." I'm not disputing it, but just pleading ignorance to the intent.

Amendment X - Powers of the States and People.

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 leaves much open to interpretation. Too much. To this I point to the fact that both sides have cited it as why secession is and is not legal, both using the literal wording to support their position. This is were intent is so critical. Some say the intent was to allow the Constitution to be voided (nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively Example: Secession is not prohibited thus the States right). Others say no such thing is permitted because they aren't allowed to void other granted powers (powers not delegated to the United States Example: Secession voids right of taxation in the seceding state). Overall, it seems just too subject to debate as written.

I guess when I read the 10th, I don't find the dispute. While yes, secession does void the right of taxation, such taxation would be void of any 'entity' that is not part of the US. Thus I can't see that as being a viable argument to void secession.

I can't see the logic in the theory that reads: We need to be able tax you, thus you can't leave. While I do see logic in the theory that reads, once you leave, we can't tax you because you are no longer under our jurisdiction. Thus I don't see where the 10th or any other enumerated power specifically states or implies, "Stay in the union so we can tax you." Rather I see powers that say, "Those that are in the union, these are the powers we have over you and the powers you have for yourself."

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey

Excellent! Great response!

OK, I just crossed you off the list of those to round up...

EDIT

ORIGINAL: Reiryc

I guess when I read the 10th, I don't find the dispute. While yes, secession does void the right of taxation, such taxation would be void of any 'entity' that is not part of the US. Thus I can't see that as being a viable argument to void secession.

I can't see the logic in the theory that reads: We need to be able tax you, thus you can't leave. While I do see logic in the theory that reads, once you leave, we can't tax you because you are no longer under our jurisdiction. Thus I don't see where the 10th or any other enumerated power specifically states or implies, "Stay in the union so we can tax you." Rather I see powers that say, "Those that are in the union, these are the powers we have over you and the powers you have for yourself."

That is one interpretation for it. Not saying it's right or wrong, but that it is one way to look at it. Obviously, there are others who see it the other way. The question is how did the framers of the Constitution intend it to be interpreted? I don't know what was intended. Was the Union a club or a prison? Both have rules while you are there. The difference between the two is you can leave a club, but if you leave a prison, WE WILL BRING YOU BACK! [:D]

I don't believe the 10th Amendment preserves any "right of secession" to the states, because no such right existed prior to the Constitution.
 
Prior to the Constitution, we had the Articles of Confederation. Well, actually, no...the FULL title of the document being the "Articles of Confederation and PERPETUAL UNION between...[list of 13 states explicitly spelled out by name]."  Note the word "PERPETUAL."  http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/articles/1.html
 
Art III of the AoC starts out by saying the colonies are entering into a "...FIRM league of friendship with each other..."  Emphasis mine, see link above.
 
Any wiggle room as to what this means is completely eliminated by the final article XIII: "And the articles of this confederation shall be INVIOLABLY observed by every state, and the union shall be PERPETUAL;..."  http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/articles/9.html
 
FIRM. PERPETUAL. INVIOLABLE.  These are not wiggle words, folks.  The drafters of the AoC were in the middle of fighting a war for their lives vs. Great Britain, and they had to ensure that none of the 13 states would be permitted to quit, and to submit to a seperate peace.  So, the language above was clearly intended to bar ANY notion of quitting the alliance (ie, secession).  Barring amendment to the terms of the document, of course, for which procedure was spelled out under the same article XIII, see link above.
 
So now, we fast forward to the drafting of the Constitution (and it later 10th Amendment).  This document when it got ratified immediately replaced the prior AoC...there was no time of limbo between these constitutions.  At this moment, the states were still legally bound in PERPETUAL UNION.
 
Hence, the 10th Amendment retains no right of secession to the states, because under the AoC such a right CLEARLY and EXPLICITLY did not exist.  You cannot retain a right you never had to begin with.
 
This same argument, by the way, certainly applies even more logically to Florida (purchased by US from Spain), the Louisiana Purchase southern states (same, from France), and Texas (essentially "purchased" from Mexico at US expense, not only in dollars but in lives as well).
 
I mean, take Florida.  Could you imagine how ridiculous it would be, if instead of waiting until the ACW to try and secede, it had done so right after purchase from Spain???  "Hey, United States, Florida here...say...now I know you guys just spent a TON of $$$ buying us from Spain (and btw...thanks!), but you know...well, we just had this convention, and, well, um, we decided we'd like to secede.  So...BYE!  And once again, thanks for buying our independance from Spain, that was real SWELL of ya!!!  Kisses!"
 
LOL.  But this is the sort of absurdity you get from the theory that there is this inherent right of secession.