Interesting that no on has noted

TylerDurden

Apr 10, 2015 at 9:10am

LOST said:
TylerDurden said:
LOST said:

They did more than just delegate specific powers to a central authority. They formed "A more perfect Union". They set up an entire new Government with two Houses of Congress, a President chosen separately from Congress and by a different method and a Federal Judiciary.

The preamble was general statements of principle. They then went on to outline the powers delegated.

TylerDurden said:

Recourse to whom, if not the Court?
Further, you are arrested by Federal Marshals for violating the Law by saying something negative about the President. You are brought before the Federal Magistrate for arraignment. That Federal Magistrate has sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution. What should Her Honor, Judge Judy, do?

They should let you go of course.

On what basis other than the Judge declaring the Law unconstitutional?

I don't understand. Why was I dragged to her court if she has no jurisdiction? I would add if she throws my ass in the pen I would hope my state has some real issues with this.

TylerDurden

Apr 10, 2015 at 9:10am Edited

LOST said:
TylerDurden said:
LOST said:
" 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 . . ."

Now since Power doesn't concede anything without a struggle (don't remember the full quotation) the only true recourse is either violence or non-violent civil disobedience.

So Tyler, which do you suggest?

I would always prefer non-violent civil disobedience.

So we finally agree.

If you and I were to sit down and talk, I bet we'd agree on a lot. We tend to focus on our differences around these parts. I think it makes for a more spirited discussion.

I don't agree with the argument but I can kind of see how someone could argue that one of the original colonies* which had, at the time of the Declaration of Independence, essentially been a sovereign state, might be considered a sovereign state even after it had chosen to ratify the Constitution.

What I don't see is how a state like Tennessee which had never been a sovereign state, which existed as an entirely synthetic creation and which had come into its very being as a territory of the United States could argue that it had magically acquired sovereignty.

*(and possibly Texas)

tom

Apr 10, 2015 at 3:42pm

That's another one of those unanswered questions.

mfpark

Apr 11, 2015 at 4:02am

tom said:
That's another one of those unanswerable questions.

SouthernBaron

Apr 11, 2015 at 4:52am

mfpark is right, I think. We aren't going to find one. It has the potential for a noble legal debate but at the end of the day, like I said earlier, secession is as legal as your ability to pull it off. De facto matters more than de jure, uh, de facto.

You've got to have a good reason. If one were to arise, and I am just imagining here, but if there were some situation where the only way to do what is Right were to split off, you've got to go for it. If that point has been reached, all these constitutional arguments become moot. We'd be in a seriously different situation. Sort of like 1776. That document was a big deal and basically a de facto argument, whatever it's shout-outs to colonial sovereignty and royal oversteps.