USA v. CSA (Continued from Tea Party thread)

My point, which you carefully danced around, is that his strict constructionism went out the window when he became president. L Purchase is just one example of many.
I honestly didn't mean to dance around it, sorry. I really just think he was being terribly overly-cautious in this case as it was clearly okay via the treaty powers granted the President by the Constitution.
What I find most aggravating is that people act as if the 10th Amendment exists in some kind of vaccuum, where there is no competing, compelling, or over-riding arguments, of which there are many... and they happen to have legislative and judicial historical precedence.
:confused: I honestly don't understand that. Legislative precedence in particular, since any legislation without Constitutional backing is just a house built on sand.

In my case, I can see that their is, at least, an argument to be made for the legality of secession. But, I see compelling counter-arguments. And, in balance, I come down on the side of that it most likely was illegal, but once the shots started firing it didn't matter.

One idea that I have evolved from these threads is that (and this fits my pragmatic nature) in the end, it does NOT MATTER. There is a de facto reality that most people are ignoring, because its funner to be pedantic than practical. And that is, that if they won, it would've been legal. Just like the US in 1776. If we had lost, the FF's would've all been hung as traitors. If the CSA had won, it wouldn't matter if the US could make an argument that it was illegal because the CSA had taken their independence and there nothing to do about it.
For what it is worth, I agree with this. I even touched on this in a post I made ages ago about terrorism... (mind you, the 'rebellion' part of this doesn't apply to the CSA since secession was legitimate ;) but it jives totally with your point that winning would have made its own legitimacy.)
Scenario 1: Rebellion/Civil War
Rebellion against the lawful governing authority of a nation is not terrorism in and of itself. It is, however, a very interesting situation because the only thing that makes it legitimate is victory. Example - If the British had summarily stomped the holy living snot out of the colonies, then the leaders of the rebellion would all have most likely been hanged as traitors and the rebellion may not have been more than a footnote in the history of the British Empire. However, the colonies won and The British recognized the legitimacy of the new nation via The Treaty of Paris.

Btw, I certainly hope you don't think I sit around pining for the CSA. I totally and fully accept that it's dead and gone and in the past and I'm a most loyal citizen of America.
 
So, who has the power in this minimalist interpretation of the federal government to boot out Senators and Representatives neccesary to complete seccesion? Is that an implied power?
 
Each chamber has the authority to evict its own members. That said, once a Senator's or Rep's State seceded, doesn't it stand to reason that as that State is no longer a part o the union, they are automatically no longer Senators or Reps?
 
Each chamber has the authority to evict its own members
It could evict the individual senators and representatives, but not deny a state it's representation. A seceeded state would then have to provide a new member of congress.
That said, once a Senator's or Rep's State seceded, doesn't it stand to reason that as that State is no longer a part o the union, they are automatically no longer Senators or Reps?
Not at all. The Senator can refuse to recognize the seccession, and no one can actually disagree with him because they don't have to power to declare a state to be in seccession.
 
There does not have to be a 'declaration' by the feds on it. In fact, the federal government has nothing to do with it at all. Perhaps the only declaration would be the sergeant at arms 'declaring' to the wayward ex-Senator trying to enter that he'll get his ass kicked if he doesn't quit trying to enter the Senate chamber.
 
Yes that's exactly what I'm saying. That the feds can have nothing to do with it at all, including allowing it to happen. Under such a strict reading of the constitution, the Federal government is obligated to act as if seccesion did not happen because it doesn't have the power to recognize any such change. They would be obligated to continue laying duties on states in seccession, and no one in the federal government has the power to prevent it.

Perhaps the only declaration would be the sergeant at arms 'declaring' to the wayward ex-Senator trying to enter that he'll get his ass kicked if he doesn't quit trying to enter the Senate chamber.
Point to me where in the constitution the Seargant-at-arms can decide who's a senator? Can he do this even when no seccesion has happened?
 
I really honest to God cannot wrap my head around what you are getting at with this 'recognition' need by the Feds. There is nothing the Feds would need to do. It's done, it's over, the State is gone. They adjust the House representation at the next census accordingly and move on.
 
But how would they adjust the House representation if, according to the Feds, the state hasn't seceded?
 
I guess those reps just wouldn't be seated *shrug*. If they want to live the delusion, that's on them. They could pretend they have 435 voting members and only have 426 consistently show up.
 
I really honest to God cannot wrap my head around what you are getting at with this 'recognition' need by the Feds.
Because otherwise, the Feds have the authority (and no particular branch of the feds) to simply declare parts of the United States don't have to pay taxes, don't get represenation, don't count for the census, etc.
There is no check on it, and anyone in the government can choose to activate it. That's not a defense of states rights, it's a flagrant trampling of them.
 
And what happens when the federal government continues collecting taxes and duties and administering the laws in the territories that claim to have seceded but which the federal government can't recognize by strict constructionism because that would be an implied power?
 
I guess those reps just wouldn't be seated *shrug*. If they want to live the delusion, that's on them. They could pretend they have 435 voting members and only have 426 consistently show up.
They would also have to collect taxes in those representatives districts.
 
The fact you are not quoting me means I'm right. :)

What is your definition of succession? One person, a private entity, a public one, many people?
 
The solution is easy imo.

If a state wants to break off and declare independence then it becomes a private entity. The problem is would it be strong enough morally and ethically to support itself.

If it's concerning the U.S. alone would they practice witch-hunts, trials without due process, a government without checks and balances.

The underlying question is can it manage its affairs without annihilating itself and falling into oppression. If that happens it's most likely to be reclaimed by the federal government anyway.

The fact you are not quoting me means I'm right. :)

What is your definition of succession? One person, a private entity, a public one, many people?
Sorry, your post came at the end of the last page and I missed it.

States are the building blocks of the Union. They are what voluntarily join, and what may unilaterally secede. As far as them being able to stand alone, well that's for fate to determine.
 
The irony of it all is that the government is the one most dependent on public assistance.
 
States are the building blocks of the Union. They are what voluntarily join, and what may unilaterally secede.
Only applies - even by your theory - to the original Thirteen, since they were never territories and so "pre-dated" the United States of America "super-state" entity. All other states that previously were territories would simply be reverting back to territorial government under the United States.
 
States are the building blocks of the Union. They are what voluntarily join, and what may unilaterally secede.
In your view. With obvious exceptions (original 13, Texas...) all states are carved out of the public domain. The Federal govt determined how land moved to territorial status and then statehood. Congress (don't recall the exact mechanism) approves and adds states.

If Congress has the responsibility to create and add states, it also, by implication (and now by precedence and other consequent law) the right to determine how they leave.

This is attention the necessary and proper clause, Federal rights to uphold the law and put down rebellion, etc....

I've said enough, I really shouldn't get drawn into this, it will go nowhere.


@Dachs, same wavelength, I've made this point many times, but deaf ears, etc...

@VRWC, tx for the good reply. :) As always, we settle nothing. ;)
 
I guess those reps just wouldn't be seated *shrug*. If they want to live the delusion, that's on them. They could pretend they have 435 voting members and only have 426 consistently show up.

That is better than what we have now!
 
Back
Top Bottom