[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
It is funny that Madison is brought up to defend the constitution from the idea that succession is a right of the states. After all, he was one of the main arbitrators of illegally violating the articles of confederation, and the conventions charter to modify them, in order to write the constitution in the first place. And he did it without the expressed will of the people. He was a guy who was all about the not only the right, but the duty to tare up a legally binding contract if he thought it inefficient or outdated. And even proceeded to do it without the participation of some states.
It’s also ironic that the founders would think to deny in the constitution the original basis for it’s existence. The notion that the right of succession comes from God and is higher than any contract.
“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them…” [/quote]
This Tenth Amendment argument needs to be abandoned.
First it was Madison who framed it and reluctantly introduced it, thinking it superfluous. Certainly he would remember, even in 1832, his intents in the Tenth Amendment, and no matter what Lew Rockwell imagines, secession and nullification were not among them.
(When he introduced the Tenth Amendment in Congress, James Madison explained that many states were eager to ratify this amendment, despite critics who deemed the amendment superfluous or unnecessary:
"I find, from looking into the amendments proposed by the State conventions, that several are particularly anxious that it should be declared in the Constitution, that the powers not therein delegated should be reserved to the several States. Perhaps words which may define this more precisely than the whole of the instrument now does, may be considered as superfluous. I admit they may be deemed unnecessary: but there can be no harm in making such a declaration, if gentlemen will allow that the fact is as stated. I am sure I understand it so, and do therefore propose it.")
Next, to those who doubt me, I direct them to the Yale archives, which contain Madison’s notes on the Constitutional Convention. The right of nullification or secession is nowhere–nowhere—mentioned or entertained. It is not they “forgot”–as Nick puts it–it was simply not even considered by a single member of the CC. (The word “secession” is used only in the context of a parliamentary maneuver, and not the right of a state to secede.)
Last, re-read Madison’s letter to Trist. He is justifying the Virginia Resolutions, which he acknowledged that he did write, in the context of rejecting specifically the Alien and Sedition laws. He is not caught by his own rhetoric: he makes it clear the there is no constitutional right to secession or nullification (that is addressed in the Constitutional remedies), but with “abhorrent” tyranny the people retain the right to revolution. Note: “people” not states. (This is clearly a nod to the deceased Jefferson; Madison was not as fervent a revolutionary.)
[/quote]
I wasn’t quoting the constitution, much less the 10th amendment. I was quoting a declaration of secession that the founding fathers wrote and founded our current government on.