Alexander H

James Madison wrote and offered this amendment up for consideration and inclusion.

10th Amendment....
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

Now, granted... if you look at this in a mirror, while drunk, and standing on your head...
you may find a glimmer of a slight chance in one thousand that this may, perhaps, kinda, possibly, in a way, allow secession...
That is if you rub your gennie-lamb and make wish... while clicking your heals three times... and yet then...only if dreaming.

James Madison himself puts this to rest...

Montpellier, Decr 23, 1832.
Dr. Sir I have received yours of the 19th, inclosing some of the South Carolina papers. There are in one of them some interesting views of the doctrine of secession; one that had occurred to me, and which for the first time I have seen in print; namely that if one State can at will withdraw from the others, the others can at will withdraw from her, and turn her, nolentem, volentem, out of the union. Until of late, there is not a State that would have abhorred such a doctrine more than South Carolina, or more dreaded an application of it to herself. The same may be said of the doctrine of nullification, which she now preaches as the only faith by which the Union can be saved.
I partake of the wonder that the men you name should view secession in the light mentioned. The essential difference between a free Government and Governments not free, is that the former is founded in compact, the parties to which are mutually and equally bound by it. Neither of them therefore can have a greater fight to break off from the bargain, than the other or others have to hold them to it......

It is high time that the claim to secede at will should be put down by the public opinion; and I shall be glad to see the task commenced by one who understands the subject.


* And yet some still choose to just post over and over again that the 10th amendment magically makes it A-OK to seceed... bizarre

Could someone make a clear, thought out, understandable argument that it would possibly allow it ?

tjadams

We all know the Constitution has been bent, flattened, pressed, rolled and twisted
to justify any cause. Its like seeing a movie or hearing music.
One person sees it one way and another sees it yet another and no amount
of words can change the way some interpret it.

botully

I'm going to have to say....no, never. You will never get a clear, thought out, understandable argument on this.

Never.

Alexander H

The Constitution is like music or a movie? ...
let me write that one down...... I was lost and now I see

If you're a strict constructionist...
it doesn't allow secession
If you're a wide open / implied powers / loose interpretationist...
it still doesn't allow secession.

I just assumed that since some on here throw that little "legally seceded" statement out willy nilly that they or someone at least might actually attempt to explain it.

diddyriddick

While I agree with you on the substance of the US Constitution in general and the 10th amendment specifically, I would remind you that Hamilton was not the sole arbiter of that document. In fact, he was frequently out of step with the majority of Americans of the time, being virtually a monarchist.

Viperlord

I"m a little confused. Where did Alex bring up Hamilton? He was quoting Madison in the OP.

Alexander H

a) Why would you feel the need to "remind me" about Alexander Hamilton ?

b) Saying he was a monarchist is so simplistic it isn't even worth discussion.... I will say that he was not one... there, we're even
Do you know what a monarchist is ?... does this relate at all to the OP ?
Did I say Hamilton wrote the 10th ?

c) He was opposed by the leaders of the first opposition party...
and he was not an elected official when Jefferson was elected...
He knew Adams' Alien and Sedition acts were unwise... and said so...
so when you say "out of step... frequently"... you're just regurgitating the views of the oposition party of the time.

Rhysbans

Pff, S. Carolina is totally the state that would.

From a Yank living in South Carolina for the summer

Scamp

After the Civil War was over a Union witch-hunt ensued. They were upset that 300,000 of their soldiers were dead and hundreds of thousands were wounded. And their beloved Tyrant President was dead.

They wanted revenge.

So they arrested or indicted several Confederate leaders. Some of them were charged with treason.

They were never found guilty of treason.

They were never even charged with the crime of secession.

The best Constitutional lawyers the US had agreed that secession was certainly not prohibited by the Constitution and was therefore, legal.

Viperlord

And this concludes your unsupported Lost Cause nonsense of the day.

It's quite hilarious how ignorant this statement is. I for one remain rather taken aback at just how forgiving the North was once the South was defeated. Try reading Grant or Sherman's surrender terms to Lee and Johnston. None of the military officers who betrayed their oath to the United States by fighting for the Confederacy were punished. The story of the former political leaders of the Confederacy is a interesting one but not really relevant to the thread.

Now, back to your regularly scheduled programming.