quote:
The Articles of Confederation also had the same language about "perpetual Union" ( LINK): "Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the states".

Did you type that right?

All the states explicitly pledged perpetual Union in 1779.

quote:
But that doesn't tell you anything about where true sovereignty lies.

Start the bullshite. Won't work.

"... we find the proposition that in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was "to form a more perfect Union."

But if destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the States be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity.

It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances."

A. Lincoln 3/4/61

LINK

Not only can no state get out of the Union on its own resolve, it is dishonorable to even suggest they can.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by Doc Fenton

New York, NY

Member since Feb 2007

52698 posts

Posted on 5/29/17 at 10:05 am to WhiskeyPapa

quote:
It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances."

A. Lincoln 3/4/61

Haha... nice use of Abraham Lincoln as an unbiased source.

This is a topic where there are legitimate arguments for each side. See e.g., Wikipedia's Secession in the United States.

But for me, the following point carries the day:

quote:
The delegates to the Philadelphia Convention convened and deliberated from May to September 1787. Instead of pursuing their official charge they returned a draft (new) Constitution, proposed for constructing and administering a new federal—later also known as "national"—government. They further proposed that the draft Constitution not be submitted to the Congress (where it would require unanimous approval of the states); instead that it be presented directly to the states for ratification in special ratification conventions, and that approval by a minimum of nine state conventions would suffice to adopt the new Constitution and initiate the new federal government; and that only those states ratifying the Constitution would be included in the new government. (For a time, eleven of the original states operated under the Constitution without two non-ratifying states, Rhode Island and North Carolina.) In effect, the delegates proposed to abandon and replace the Articles of Confederation rather than amend them.[a]

The Articles of Confederation were a confederate union that required unanimous consent of the sovereign states. Yet RI & NC were left behind without having given their consent. This was the point that Jefferson Davis emphasized.

Another good argument is the following:

quote:
'Compliance' was typically perceived as a matter of interpretation by each individual state. Emerich de Vattel, a recognized authority on international law, wrote at the time that "Treaties contain promises that are perfect and reciprocal. If one of the allies fails in his engagements, the other may ... disengage himself in his promises, and ... break the treaty."[19] Thus, each state could unilaterally 'secede' from the Articles of Confederation at will; this argument for abandoning the Articles—for its weakness in the face of secession—was used by advocates for the new Constitution and was featured by James Madison in Federalist No. 43.[e]

Although Madison might have wanted the 2nd Constitution to make secession invalid, in practice, it didn't actually make this point, which caused those arguing for perpetual union to have to fall back to the 1st Constitution to make their case... which has already been demonstrated to be a flawed argument.

This post was edited on 5/29/17 at 10:14 am

3 ...

Report Post

Political Talk - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board