Tactic_Thrawn posted: "Secession is legal in the US, but not unilateral secession. It requires the consent of not just the seceding state, but the rest of the nation" - Kimball Kinnison. ----- Where in the Constitution do you read that? Secession, unilateral or otherwise, isn't even mentioned in the Constitution. The closest you have is that states can't merge or break up into multiple states or shift borders without the consent of those state legislatures and Congress (note, Congree cannot unilaterally change states' land areas unilaterally, either).
Article VII posted:The ratification of the conventions of nine states, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the states so ratifying the same.
Article VI posted:This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
Obi-Wan McCartney posted:Yes, I agree with that analysis. KK, do you view the confederate flag as sessesshist treason like I do?
LordNyax113 posted:I'm neutral in politics, but I do grow curious as to why some take pride in a symbol of racism and rebellion.
Kimball_Kinnison posted:Because it's not just a symbol of racism and rebellion. It is also a symbol of heritage and pride for some people.
Master_SweetPea posted:Kimball_Kinnison posted:Because it's not just a symbol of racism and rebellion. It is also a symbol of heritage and pride for some people. Exactly. my Great-Great-Great-Grandfather was a Confederate Soldier, no one in our family ever owned slaves. It's a symbol of heritage, and yes rebellion against Northern Aggression I've known many minorities that have had "rebel" flags in/on their cars and homes. To tell someone else what their symbol means to them is foolish. Because one group defiles a symbol does not mean that symbol can never again be used.
Amendment Ten (to the Constitution) posted: "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."
Tactic_Thrawn posted: To Kimball's response (the one with Constitution quotes): Still don't quite see eye to eye with your analysis. By ratifying the Constitution, the states make the Constitutional rules supersede state rules. However, secession is not a Constitution rule. In contrast: Amendment Ten (to the Constitution) posted: "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." The right of secession, or the prohibition of secession, is a power "not delegated to the United States by the Constitution," and state secession is not "prohibited by it to the States." Therefore, the right of secession should be "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." That seems to be a much stronger Constitutional argument than the two quotes you gave (obviously would personally be biased in that respect). The Constitution could be the top dog of American legality, but it doesn't state that states can't secede (or that they can). Therefore, the Constitution doesn't have jurisdiction over state secession. Indeed, the Constitution absolves itself of that jurisdiction. The states or the people have that right.
LordNyax113 posted: I hope I didn't offend you...
Kimball Kinnison posted: "the states do not have the authority to supersede it [the Constitution]."
Tactic_Thrawn posted: Kimball Kinnison posted: "the states do not have the authority to supersede it [the Constitution]." State laws cannot be in conflict with the Constitution's laws. The prohibition of state secession is not a Constitutional law, therefore a state law giving the state the right to secede is not in conflict with the Constitution, nor does it supersede the Constitution. As previously stated, precedent for this is that Virginia and Texas were able to make contracts with the federal government which permit them to secede unilaterally. Neither Congress nor the courts argued that such treaties were unconstitutional. Here's a link from Capitalist Magazine on the topic, with some quotes from Founding Fathers, including Jefferson, primary author of the Constitution.
Virginia's Ordinance of Secession posted:AN ORDINANCE to repeal the ratification of the Constitution of the United State of America by the State of Virginia, and to resume all the rights and powers granted under said Constitution. The people of Virginia in their ratification of the Constitution of the United States of America, adopted by them in convention on the twenty-fifth day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, having declared that the powers granted under said Constitition were derived from the people of the United States and might be resumed whensoever the same should be perverted to their injury and oppression, and the Federal Government having perverted said powers not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern slave-holding States: Now, therefore, we, the people of Virginia, do declare and ordain, That the ordinance adopted by the people of this State in convention on the twenty-fifth day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, whereby the Constitution of the United States of America was ratified, and all acts of the General Assembly of this State ratifying and adopting amendments to said Constitution, are hereby repealed and abrogated; that the union between the State of Virginia and the other States under the Constitution aforesaid is hereby dissolved, and that the State of Virginia is in the full possession and exercise of all the rights of sovereignty which belong and appertain to a free and independent State. And they do further declare, That said Constitution of the United States of America is no longer binding on any of the citizens of this State. This ordinance shall take effect and be an act of this day, when ratified by a majority of the voter of the people of this State cast at a poll to be taken thereon on the fourth Thursday in May next, in pursuance of a schedule hereafter to be enacted. Adopted by the convention of Virginia April 17,1861. Source: Official Records, Ser. IV, vol. 1, p. 223. [ratified by a vote of 132,201 to 37,451 on May 23, 1861]
Article VI posted:This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby; any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
