The USA Constitutional Convention

Surely it's superflous after the Articles of Confederation in any case?

Article XIII. Every state shall abide by the determinations of the united states in congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this confederation shall be inviolably observed by every state, and the union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a congress of the united states, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every state.
 

MAlexMatt

Banned
No, they did not. They reiterated the "self-evident truth" [for lack of a better phrase] that The People have an inalienable right to redistribute political power between the Federal Government and The People when the The People deem it necessary to do so by changing the Constitution. To put it another way, States, in the name of The People, can give or take power away from the Federal Government. There is no "right to leave the Union" reserved, explicit or implicit anywhere in the NY or VA certification documents.

Now, if either of those states had a clause in their initial state Constitution stating that they had a right to withdraw from the Union, then these words maybe could be interpreted differently, but neither did. The documents simply say "We're in and here are a few thoughts we feel strongly about and compelled to share and some suggestions on how the Constitution, which we now affirm, can be improved upon."

So what do you call it when the people of a state withdraw all powers from the Federal government?
 
So what do you call it when the people of a state withdraw all powers from the Federal government?
Would that be considered "Nullification"? South Carolina tried that in the 1830's and Jackson asked for a "Force Bill" to go hang some 'nullifiers'..probably starting with his former VP, Senator John C. Calhoun.
Nullification was first brought up by Jefferson and Madison in response to the Alien and Sedition Acts..since there was no 'judicial review' by the federal courts at that time. I don't know if that fits your situation of "the people withdrawing ALL powers from the federal government"..since it really only relates to discarding individual laws that states didn't like.
 
Would that be considered "Nullification"? South Carolina tried that in the 1830's and Jackson asked for a "Force Bill" to go hang some 'nullifiers'..probably starting with his former VP, Senator John C. Calhoun.
Nullification was first brought up by Jefferson and Madison in response to the Alien and Sedition Acts..since there was no 'judicial review' by the federal courts at that time. I don't know if that fits your situation of "the people withdrawing ALL powers from the federal government"..since it really only relates to discarding individual laws that states didn't like.

Not speaking for MAlexMatt, but I do indeed see that "nullification" might be useful label for describing the statement by those New York conventioneers ratifying the 1787 Constitution that "all [government] power is originally vested in and consequently derived from the people" and that the "Powers of Government may be reassumed by the people, whensoever it becomes necessary to their Happiness".
 

MAlexMatt

Banned
Would that be considered "Nullification"? South Carolina tried that in the 1830's and Jackson asked for a "Force Bill" to go hang some 'nullifiers'..probably starting with his former VP, Senator John C. Calhoun.
Nullification was first brought up by Jefferson and Madison in response to the Alien and Sedition Acts..since there was no 'judicial review' by the federal courts at that time. I don't know if that fits your situation of "the people withdrawing ALL powers from the federal government"..since it really only relates to discarding individual laws that states didn't like.

Nullification is when a state refuses to follow an official act of the Federal government.

Withdrawing all formally granted powers from the Federal government is secession. It's saying to the Fed, "You have no legitimate sovereignty here anymore". If that isn't secession nothing is.
 
I think we're back to the original point then. I don't think it really matters that 2 states made comments about the possibility of "getting out" of the union once they "got in". The Constitution doesn't have a "Get out of the Union free" card..sorry..clause. So, no clause, no out. If you get married in a civil ceremony..no "til death do us part"..just legal mumbo jumbo, but there were no divorce laws...then what? Marriage is a contract and your "I do" is binding. You marry your state to the union, and have second thoughts later...sorry Charlie, you'd better hope Buchannan just got elected, and not Honest Abe..cuz Abe ain't takin' no shit.
 

MAlexMatt

Banned
I think we're back to the original point then. I don't think it really matters that 2 states made comments about the possibility of "getting out" of the union once they "got in". The Constitution doesn't have a "Get out of the Union free" card..sorry..clause. So, no clause, no out. If you get married in a civil ceremony..no "til death do us part"..just legal mumbo jumbo, but there were no divorce laws...then what? Marriage is a contract and your "I do" is binding. You marry your state to the union, and have second thoughts later...sorry Charlie, you'd better hope Buchannan just got elected, and not Honest Abe..cuz Abe ain't takin' no shit.

The Constitution was really more like a corporate charter than a contract.

Regardless, the Constitution doesn't grant limited powers to the states and then up shit creek otherwise, it is itself a limited grant of powers to the newly chartered Federal government. That the Constitution says nothing about secession (it actually does - 10thth Amendment) does not mean no right of secession exists, it means the Constitution exercises no authoritative power over the matter.
 
I think we're back to the original point then. I don't think it really matters that 2 states made comments about the possibility of "getting out" of the union once they "got in". The Constitution doesn't have a "Get out of the Union free" card..sorry..clause. So, no clause, no out. If you get married in a civil ceremony..no "til death do us part"..just legal mumbo jumbo, but there were no divorce laws...then what? Marriage is a contract and your "I do" is binding. You marry your state to the union, and have second thoughts later...sorry Charlie, you'd better hope Buchannan just got elected, and not Honest Abe..cuz Abe ain't takin' no shit.
The Constitution doesn't have a "you can get married clause", either. Claiming that if something isn't in the Constitution means that it's prohibited is ridiculous. Sorry, but it is.
 
The Constitution doesn't have a "you can get married clause", either. Claiming that if something isn't in the Constitution means that it's prohibited is ridiculous. Sorry, but it is.
I'm just telling you what President Lincoln believed..tell him he's full of crap, not me. It seems to me...from what I've been able to distill out of the various readings I've perused since this question came up..the issue is one of "Right of Secession" versus "Right of Rebellion". It seems like there is no doubt that we have a right to rebel against a government that does us wrong (it's stated in the DOI)..but the Right of Secession is very debatable. That is why, in the end, the American Civil War, depending on your sympathies (and mine are definitely NOT with the Confederacy), refer to the war as The War of Secession or The War of Rebellion or War of Southern Independence or War Between the States or whatever.

I'm with Lincoln, the southern states had no right to seceed..they were simply in rebellion. Because of that fact he was not able to end slavery with a presidential declaration, it had to be done with an amendment to the Constitution, he could only issue an emancipation for those people enslaved in "territory still in rebellion within the United States", as Commander-in-Chief of the military..to weaken the rebels militarily. Since no foreign nation ever recognized the so-called 'Confederacy', it was never anything in legal standing. BTW, how did the 'Confederacy' pay for the CSS Alabama? I doubt the British company that built it would have accepted Conferate currency.
 

MAlexMatt

Banned
I'm just telling you what President Lincoln believed..tell him he's full of crap, not me. It seems to me...from what I've been able to distill out of the various readings I've perused since this question came up..the issue is one of "Right of Secession" versus "Right of Rebellion". It seems like there is no doubt that we have a right to rebel against a government that does us wrong (it's stated in the DOI)..but the Right of Secession is very debatable. That is why, in the end, the American Civil War, depending on your sympathies (and mine are definitely NOT with the Confederacy), refer to the war as The War of Secession or The War of Rebellion or War of Southern Independence or War Between the States or whatever.

I'm with Lincoln, the southern states had no right to seceed..they were simply in rebellion. Because of that fact he was not able to end slavery with a presidential declaration, it had to be done with an amendment to the Constitution, he could only issue an emancipation for those people enslaved in "territory still in rebellion within the United States", as Commander-in-Chief of the military..to weaken the rebels militarily. Since no foreign nation ever recognized the so-called 'Confederacy', it was never anything in legal standing. BTW, how did the 'Confederacy' pay for the CSS Alabama? I doubt the British company that built it would have accepted Conferate currency.

Don't you even dare turn this into a debate about slavery. That's a cheap trick and it has no rational foundation in the question. Abraham Lincoln's parents hadn't even hit puberty when the Constitution was drafted. He has as much say on the actual meaning of the document Rick Perry.
 
Don't you even dare turn this into a debate about slavery. That's a cheap trick and it has no rational foundation in the question. Abraham Lincoln's parents hadn't even hit puberty when the Constitution was drafted. He has as much say on the actual meaning of the document Rick Perry.
Okay..not slavery. Ask Jackson. When South Carolina tried to simply "nullify" the "Tariff of Abominations"...or Americans in geneeral when the New England states hinted that they may go their own way if the rest of the nation didn't submit to their will. It seems that people felt that it was okay to rebel against a tyrannical federal government..if you could show you were being injured..but the idea of leaving the union was not to be accepted. Perhaps some of the framers thought that secession was ok..and others not, but it seems to be more a matter to be settled by the courts and on the battlefield. No secession.
 
Top