It's not slinging shit when it's the same [dadgum] point I'm making again and again. I know you feel that you have an airtight argument and interpretation of the Constitution, but you don't. The idea that the government under the Constitution was made to be subjective to the whims of states coming and going is patently absurd and in no way defined or floated as a possibility in the Constitution. Article 1, Section 1 establishes Congress, so what the hell are you talking about there? And, your use of the AoC as an example is stupid and you know it. The AoC was, as you know, made to for the federal government be subservient to the states, whereas the Constitution was made for the creation of a strong central government whose authority superseded the states. Hell, the AoC implicitly says the states have sovereignty, which the Constitution does not. The AoC allowed for the states to destroy it, which is why it was scrapped for the Constitution. Your second paragraph is utter nonsense. C'mon pseudo-historian, try harder.
Also, Ben, keep in mind that secession is a legal process of dissolution of bonds. However, what legal process exists for secession? Is it outlined in the Constitution? Within the laws passed by legislature? Anything? So, how can a legal process of secession be processed without a legal pathway or existence of laws for its legal execution? Because, without it, then it becomes an extra-legal activity and not secession, but rebellion and the Constitution clearly does have references to this.
The teacher can only get that power back if a) the students give it back or b) the teacher has enough power to take it back. The states showed they did not have that power during the Civil War. Ergo, they were no longer sovereign, and can be extrapolated backwards that they had not been sovereign since they ratified the Constitution, even if they thought they were.
The Subjugated South This will be the discussion from the POTUS thread, regarding the unabashedly fraudulent means by which the North first begged The South to voluntarily join, only to later and unilaterally decide that they could not similarly and voluntarily secede, requiring that they must instead remain against their will, and did so by the completely brutish force of military might alone, and in the complete absence of either any modicum of moral correctness or proper legal standing, whatsoever. I'll start moving those posts, here, so that the discusson can continue, and not interfere with the POTUS thread.
Like many things in life, you can find evidence on both sides of the argument. But the fact that the Federalists won out, ultimately, answers all questions. Secession was deemed illegal by the fact we still have a Union and all of its members are still in the Union.
I'm most glad that we all remain red, white and blue. That the North insists that The South entered into an indissoluble Union, and enforced this belief by purely military might alone, is just the truth. It is what it is.
TIL: Buddhists believe that "might makes right". I very much look forward to your serving as Secretary of State in the Tenny D cabinet, given that mindset.
Again, why the fight and trouble to ratify a document that was meant to allow those who took part in the ratification process to leave? Why would ratification matter at all?
I propose another title change to: "The North's (And East Tennessee's) Heroic and Successful Fight to Preserve American and Destroy the Infernal Institution of Slavery"
For Christ's sake History Major, you are making a mockery of constitutional history. You honesty have no idea what you are talking about. Of course my argument is airtight because it is backed by historical reference and common sense. Yours is a hodgepodge of incoherent thought and bad history. The Constitution can be the supreme law of the land and the states still hold sovereignty. These are not competing ideas, you understand that right? As for Article 1 Section 1, it does more than just establish Congress. What else does it do? I like your dance around the issue. The sovereign states created the AoC and then destroyed it. The sovereign states created the General Gov't through the Constitution. Can the states abolish the general government? Can the general government abolish the states? Simple questions. You know the answer, but it puts your argument in quite the bind. We don't need more bad history from you as you dance around the issue trying to play semantical word games.
You still don't get it because you believe yourself to be above common sense. The AoC specifically outlined that the states had sovereignty, so, of course, they could dissolve the document. They had given themselves that measure of authority explicitly - "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated". It mentions, repeatedly, the ideas of a mutual friendship and cooperation among the states, as if they were separate entities. The AoC is then an obvious failure and a much stronger document in the Constitution is adopted. Tell me where the same phrases and ideas as noted above in the AoC is in the Constitution. Where does it say the states are "independent" and "sovereign" in the Constitution? Ideas of "friendship" among the states, as in a confederation? If it was meant to be the same measure of sovereign status, then why was this concept not included in the Constitution except for the obvious reason that it wasn't meant to be included? And, of course there is more to Article 1, Section 1, but it refers to legislative powers, separation of the branches and federal authority ("All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives"). Also, you haven't mentioned the available legal avenue available in the Constitution or laws of the U.S. for the legal procedure of secession. I'm curious as to where that one might exist.
