[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Push thinks that because a concept was contended, that both sides must have (equal) merit.
[/quote]
Push made no such claim (equal).
He does believe there are valid arguments on both sides.
The authority of the one side was made vacant by sheer force. That is inarguable.[/quote]
It is distinctly odd to see you consider a position inarguable, particularly one–secession and nullification–that was declared vacant by no less a Constitutional authority than Madison.
So I will channel Madison for a moment. Did “sheer force” render the question of secession vacant, or was it never allowed?
I have given ample evidence that Madison, during and after the CC, considered the question “inarguable” and the answer was “never.”
But was there a challenge in his life time that proves his practical opposition?
Yes–I–with Nick–posted his thoughts on the Nullification Crisis in 1832.
And another one: the Whiskey Rebellion.
Recall that he wrote in 1832 that nullification and secession were impermissible but popular rebellion was allowable.
Did he have opinions on the Whiskey Rebellion?
Yes, and they were the usual politicized ambivalences one sees from him so often when he served as a Politician and not as the Statesman. In the House, he disapproved of Hamilton’s whiskey excise task, so he commented favorably on–wait for it–the Second Amendment, since this “allowed” the rebels of western Pennnsylvania to arm themselves against an unpopular or unjust law. But when the dust settled, he commented that Washington’s strong response to the Whiskey Rebellion became “a lesson to every part of the Union against disobedience to the laws.”
(Whether written with approval or irony is left to the reader. Madison was not generally given to irony.)
So, The Channel to Madison says: nullification and secession are not permissible and not a right of the States individually; popular rebellion is mystically permissible (and arms are a right), but the laws are to be enforced against disobedience.
Madison might argue that the merits of an idea are not determined by “sheer force,” but by the logic of law and custom. If sheer force determined rights, there likely would have been a failure of the Colonies against the Crown. But the Revolution and the right of rebellion were ideas which were retained by the people; defended by force, but not [/i]justified[/i] by it. “Sheer force” was not needed to vacate the question of constitutional secession, to Madison; it was a nullity from the get go.
[/quote]
Neither the British Constitution nor the Articles of Confederation provided a right to secession either. Yet Madison participated in the illegal withdrawal from both of those. The right of withdrawing from political ties was far more than a mystical thing to madison, since he did it twice (once through violence). Hence, according to Madison’s own actions, there need be no provisions for withdrawal in the Constitution since not having legal provisions never stopped him for a moment. Madison drew outside the lines to create the constitution in the first place, so it makes little sense to argue that the new lines prevent the same thing happening again. And again quoting the rhetoric of a ardent federalist politician defending the survival of his masterpiece should be taken with a grain of salt anyway, much the same way you’ve dismissed anti-federalist quotes.