Should the Senate be Eliminated

Rich2018 · Feb 9, 2020

Samwise said:
Yes, it's obviously wrong. There is no language prohibiting any state leaving the union.

Awesome, so you say Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story is wrong when he says the Constitution prohibits secession. With his experience in law and legal taining and also as a SC justice tasked with interpreting the Constitution
(plus two other sources and I could cite more)

And you, some guy off the internet, with zero legal experience and zero legal training is right.

:lamo

I just wanted to be sure I got that right.

Samwise · Feb 9, 2020

Rich2018 said:
Awesome, so you say Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story is wrong when he says the Constitution prohibits secession. With his experience in law and legal taining and also as a SC justice tasked with interpreting the Constitution
(plus two other sources and I could cite more)

And you, some guy off the internet, with zero legal experience and zero legal training is right.

:lamo

I just wanted to be sure I got that right.

Just quote the text. It should not be that hard.

Rich2018 · Feb 9, 2020

Samwise said:
Just quote the text. It should not be that hard.

Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story did just that.

Do you often feel you know more than others even though they have far superior experience and training ?

I just wanted to get you to admit you thought Roberts (and I guess all the other sources, pretty much everyone concerned actually, was wrong and you, an untrained guy off the internet with zero experience at all, were right)

Now enough of your fatuous claim.

You make King Canute look astute.

:lamo

Samwise · Feb 9, 2020

Rich2018 said:
Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story did just that.

Do you often feel you know more than others even though they have far superior experience and training ?

I just wanted to get you to admit you thought Roberts (and I guess all the other sources, pretty much everyone concerned actually, was wrong and you, an untrained guy off the internet with zero experience at all, were right)

Now enough of your fatuous claim.

You make King Canute look astute.

:lamo

Can you cite the language you claim exists?

Rich2018 · Feb 9, 2020

Samwise said:
Can you cite the language you claim exists?

Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story did just that.

You know the SC justice, who trained for years, practiced for even more, became a member of the SC tasked with interpreting the Constitution.

The man you, with your untrained mind and zero experience, say is wrong.

:lamo

That guy.

Terryj · Feb 10, 2020

Rich2018 said:
Here is my gall, source already posted - see post #302. You can eat your words now (and your gall):

"The Constitution does not directly mention secession. ... The Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Constitution to be an "indestructible" union. There is no legal basis a state can point to for unilaterally seceding. Many scholars hold that the Confederate secession was blatantly illegal."

Secession in the United States - Wikipedia

Some more:

"But states hopes of succession are nothing more than California Dreamin', according to David A. Carrillo, Executive Director of the California Constitution Center at the University of California, Berkeley Law.
"There is no legal basis for a state to secede from the union." Carrillo said. "The U.S. Constitution (A4s3) has a procedure for adding new states or subdividing existing states--both require Congress to consent. But there is no procedure, at all, in the U.S. constitution for a state to secede."
In Texas v. White in 1869, the Supreme Court ruled that states cannot secede."

#Calexit: Is it possible for California to secede from U.S.?

"The arguments against legal secession are generally based on both a historical concept of the Union and the language of the Constitution itself....“one people” mentality was best articulated by Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story...

Story, who channeled John Marshall and Alexander Hamilton, reasoned that the Constitution was framed and ratified by the people at large, not the people of an individual state and thus held the same legal position of a state itself formed from many counties. “The constitution of a confederated republic, that is, of a national republic, formed of several states, is, or at least may be, not less an irrevocable form of government, than the constitution of a state formed and ratified by the aggregate of the several counties of the state.” In one sentence, Story reduced the states to the status of a county, shire, or province, and this general argument was used as a hammer both during Reconstruction and after against the sovereignty of the states.

Story additionally concluded, as did Chase in 1869, that the term “perpetual” found in the Articles of Confederation, deemed the Union indissoluble....hence, to Story and Chase, the Union continued to exist in an altered—i.e. consolidated—form and could not be dissolved.
Another argument against secession centers on the language of Article I, Section 10, which declares that “No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation….” To proponents of this position, Article I, Section 10 unequivocally shows that the states which formed the Confederate States of America were in clear violation of the Constitution, thus invalidating their government and the individual acts of secession which led to it..."

Is Secession Legal? | The American Conservative

I see that you only posted the piece of this article that supported your views, such as Justice Stories such as "ratified by the people at large, not the people of an individual state". Had you read the entire article you would have seen where Justice Stories opinion on this is a faillicy.
Even the founding fathers ideas on this doesn't support Justice Stories opinion:
James Madison argued that the Union was a different type of contract. “We are not to consider the Federal Union as analogous to the social compact of individuals: for if it were so, a majority would have a right to bind the rest, and even to form a new constitution for the whole… .” The Constitution was framed by the unanimous consent of the States present in convention assembled in Philadelphia, but it had no teeth until the States, in convention, ratified it. Even at that point, Madison suggested, the States could not bind the rest into accepting the document or remaining in the Union. The Constitution does not have a coercive principle, as Ellsworth called it. An “indissoluble” Union would suggest that it does.

The “one people” argument was dissected by John Taylor of Caroline and Abel P. Upshur in their respective commentaries on the document. In his New Views of the Constitution of the United States, Taylor contended that the continuity between the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution reinforced the sovereignty of the states, and declared that, “There are many states in America, but no state of America, nor any people of an American state. A constitution for America or Americans, would therefore have been similar to a constitution for Utopia or Utopians.”

Rich2018 · Feb 10, 2020

Terryj said:
I see that you only posted the piece of this article that supported your views, such as Justice Stories such as "ratified by the people at large, not the people of an individual state". Had you read the entire article you would have seen where Justice Stories opinion on this is a faillicy.
Even the founding fathers ideas on this doesn't support Justice Stories opinion:
James Madison argued that the Union was a different type of contract. “We are not to consider the Federal Union as analogous to the social compact of individuals: for if it were so, a majority would have a right to bind the rest, and even to form a new constitution for the whole… .” The Constitution was framed by the unanimous consent of the States present in convention assembled in Philadelphia, but it had no teeth until the States, in convention, ratified it. Even at that point, Madison suggested, the States could not bind the rest into accepting the document or remaining in the Union. The Constitution does not have a coercive principle, as Ellsworth called it. An “indissoluble” Union would suggest that it does.

The “one people” argument was dissected by John Taylor of Caroline and Abel P. Upshur in their respective commentaries on the document. In his New Views of the Constitution of the United States, Taylor contended that the continuity between the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution reinforced the sovereignty of the states, and declared that, “There are many states in America, but no state of America, nor any people of an American state. A constitution for America or Americans, would therefore have been similar to a constitution for Utopia or Utopians.”

In that article, Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, does consider the counter arguments but you can't deny that he opinionated that the union, as written, was indeed indissoluble.

I provided two other references, and there are more.

A US state, cannot unilaterally secede from the union.

"...James Madison, often referred to as "The Father of the Constitution", strongly opposed the argument that secession was permitted by the Constitution. In a March 15, 1833, letter to Daniel Webster (congratulating him on a speech opposing nullification), Madison discussed "revolution" versus "secession":

I return my thanks for the copy of your late very powerful Speech in the Senate of the United S. It crushes "nullification" and must hasten the abandonment of "Secession". But this dodges the blow by confounding the claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression. The former answers itself, being a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged. The latter is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy.

Thus Madison affirms an extraconstitutional right to revolt against conditions of "intolerable oppression"; but if the case cannot be made (that such conditions exist), then he rejects secession—as a violation of the Constitution...."

Secession in the United States - Wikipedia

prometeus · Feb 11, 2020

Rich2018 said:
So, are you saying that Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story's interpretation of the Constitution is wrong on secession when he said states can't secede ?

Can you please cite some of it or link to it. I'd like to learn more about it. Thanks.

Terryj · Feb 11, 2020

Rich2018 said:
In that article, Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, does consider the counter arguments but you can't deny that he opinionated that the union, as written, was indeed indissoluble.

I provided two other references, and there are more.

A US state, cannot unilaterally secede from the union.

"...James Madison, often referred to as "The Father of the Constitution", strongly opposed the argument that secession was permitted by the Constitution. In a March 15, 1833, letter to Daniel Webster (congratulating him on a speech opposing nullification), Madison discussed "revolution" versus "secession":

I return my thanks for the copy of your late very powerful Speech in the Senate of the United S. It crushes "nullification" and must hasten the abandonment of "Secession". But this dodges the blow by confounding the claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression. The former answers itself, being a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged. The latter is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy.

Thus Madison affirms an extraconstitutional right to revolt against conditions of "intolerable oppression"; but if the case cannot be made (that such conditions exist), then he rejects secession—as a violation of the Constitution...."

Secession in the United States - Wikipedia

Rich, who get to decide what "intolerable oppression" is? Is it the federal government or the state? According to the secession documents of most of the Southern States they deemed that the actions of the federal government was intolerable oppression.

Another thing, you pointed out Justice Story's remark about a "perpetual" union, this is found in the Articles of Confederation which were in operation at the time of the Constitutional Convention. According to these articles any change in these articles had to have 100% approval of the States. Seeing how Rhode Island refused to attend the convention this action and the actions of the other 12 States rendered the AoC worthless. My point is this, seeing how the AoC were dissolved then the idea of a "perpetual union" dissolved along with it, so Justice Story's opinion on this is a moot point.

Rich2018 · Feb 11, 2020

prometeus said:
Can you please cite some of it or link to it. I'd like to learn more about it. Thanks.

Sure, it's linked in post # 336

Or just Google him and "secession".

Rich2018 · Feb 11, 2020

Terryj said:
Rich, who get to decide what "intolerable oppression" is?

I guess the person or persons who perceive themselves to being oppressed and find this "oppression" intolerable.

Another thing, you pointed out Justice Story's remark about a "perpetual" union, this is found in the Articles of Confederation which were in operation at the time of the Constitutional Convention. According to these articles any change in these articles had to have 100% approval of the States. Seeing how Rhode Island refused to attend the convention this action and the actions of the other 12 States rendered the AoC worthless. My point is this, seeing how the AoC were dissolved then the idea of a "perpetual union" dissolved along with it, so Justice Story's opinion on this is a moot point.

He opinionated that in his opinion, bolstered as it were by his legal training and SC experience in interpreting the Constitution, that the Constitution prohibits a state from secession.

Are you saying his opinion is wrong ?

Terryj · Feb 11, 2020

Rich2018 said:
I guess the person or persons who perceive themselves to being oppressed and find this "oppression" intolerable.

He opinionated that in his opinion, bolstered as it were by his legal training and SC experience in interpreting the Constitution, that the Constitution prohibits a state from secession.

Are you saying his opinion is wrong ?

The short answer is YES, Justice Story's opinion was wrong.

Abraham Lincoln in 1847 on the floor of the United States House of Representatives:

“Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right, a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world.”

Samwise · Feb 11, 2020

Rich2018 said:
Sure, it's linked in post # 336

Or just Google him and "secession".

The language linked to in #336 actually supports the right of any of the several sovereign states to leave the union.

prometeus · Feb 11, 2020

Rich2018 said:
A bit like saying the truth of the Bible is substantiated because the Bible says it is true. Sorry, you do not substantiate yourself.

Your opinion, while nice to have, is not authoritative.

Ultimately your opinion means nothing next to what justices of the Supreme Court have said.

It seems you're just another keyboard commando who claims to know more about the Constitution than constitutional scholars do.

Scholars tend to be "right" more often than lay people in any field, but like all fallible humans they can be wrong too. Justice Story while certainly highly qualified and respected is still not an absolute, but only an opinion. Bottom line is that the Constitution does not address secession and while writings and opinions about the "union" abound, ultimately no people should be bound by the vagueness or lack of specificity of people long gone. It only contradicts the very essence of the foundation of the nation "we the people" the self determination to which any and all humans should have a fundamental right to.

prometeus · Feb 11, 2020

Rich2018 said:
Sure, it's linked in post # 336

Or just Google him and "secession".

I meant to your assertion, Story's words.

Rich2018 · Feb 12, 2020

Samwise said:
The language linked to in #336 actually supports the right of any of the several sovereign states to leave the union.

That's just your opinion, and not one shared by constitutional scholars.

Please list sources of reputable constitutional scholars who think otherwise.

Rich2018 · Feb 12, 2020

prometeus said:
Scholars tend to be "right" more often than lay people in any field, but like all fallible humans they can be wrong too. Justice Story while certainly highly qualified and respected is still not an absolute, but only an opinion.

But he was a legal and constitutional expert....who served on the USSC whose job is to interpret the Constitution
If there were constitutional scholars who disagreed with him, please list them

Samwise thinks he knows more than any constitutional expert and I find that ridiculous.

Bottom line is that the Constitution does not address secession and while writings and opinions about the "union" abound, ultimately no people should be bound by the vagueness or lack of specificity of people long gone. It only contradicts the very essence of the foundation of the nation "we the people" the self determination to which any and all humans should have a fundamental right to.

Story and all the following constitutional scholars state the the language of the Constitution is that the union is insoluble.

The framers saw a possible need for amending the Constitution, so the specified a process
They saw no possible need to leave the union, so it can't be done legally

Of course the people can always amend the Constitution, or rip it up and write another one that allows for secession
Right now it is not allowed.

prometeus · Feb 12, 2020

Rich2018 said:
But he was a legal and constitutional expert....who served on the USSC whose job is to interpret the Constitution
If there were constitutional scholars who disagreed with him, please list them

He was and I acknowledged as much, but that does not put him above being wrong at times. Look at Derschowitz. He is also considered a legal and constitutional and has the exact opposite view he held some years ago. Clearly one is wrong.

Samwise thinks he knows more than any constitutional expert and I find that ridiculous.

I do not believe that he took that position, but only that that there is nothing in the Constitution about secession. Keep in mind that even a broken clock can be right twice a day.

Story and all the following constitutional scholars state the the language of the Constitution is that the union is insoluble.

If there is one thing that is not in the Constitution is an absolute about anything and insoluble is quite absolute. It it would have been intended as such it would have been described as such.

The framers saw a possible need for amending the Constitution, so the specified a process

That they did.

They saw no possible need to leave the union, so it can't be done legally

They were less than perfect too and made a number of mistakes. They were not gods.

Of course the people can always amend the Constitution, or rip it up and write another one that allows for secession

That is not necessary.

Right now it is not allowed.

Only an opinion says that.

Rich2018 · Feb 12, 2020

prometeus said:
He was and I acknowledged as much, but that does not put him above being wrong at times...

Then as I invited you, please post any contrasting views.

AFAIK, constitutional scholars agree with Story on this

I do not believe that he took that position, but only that that there is nothing in the Constitution about secession.

You have to read what he said.
He most definitely took the position that the language of the Constitution is that the union is insolvable
If the framers wanted to allow a state to leave, there would have been a procedure for it to follow - like an amendment. As it is there is no prescribed mechanism - so even if a state wanted to secede, it wouldn't know how.
It's interesting that the old USSR constitution DID have a clause om how a republic could secede.

If there is one thing that is not in the Constitution is an absolute about anything and insoluble is quite absolute. It it would have been intended as such it would have been described as such.

The Constitution is full of absolutes.
The word "shall" appears numerous times

They were less than perfect too and made a number of mistakes. They were not gods.

Yeah, so much for jimmy's hero worship and his "genius founders"

That is not necessary.

Yes it is if a state is to legally secede

They don't have a mechanism otherwise

Only an opinion says that.

Yes, and it overwhelming against secession.

Are you aware of a single learned opinion otherwise ???

prometeus · Feb 12, 2020

Rich2018 said:
Then as I invited you, please post any contrasting views.

AFAIK, constitutional scholars agree with Story on this

Yet some leave a small door open in their arguments. Supreme Court Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase wrote that, “The union between Texas and the other states was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original states. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.” So there is a way.
Thomas Jefferson stated that the states that formed the union were "free and independent states" and that freedom and independence was not meant as a limited one. Madison argued that the Constitution does not have a coercive principle, which in turn means that states retain a large degree of freedom.
Then there is the Xth amendment.

You have to read what he said.

I was referring to the other poster.

If the framers wanted to allow a state to leave, there would have been a procedure for it to follow - like an amendment. As it is there is no prescribed mechanism - so even if a state wanted to secede, it wouldn't know how.

Was there a procedure to break with England? Is it necessary to put instructions on an exit door?

To be fair, while this is strictly theoretical debate on principles, a real secession is far more complex with complex hurdles.
An other point. Think what would have happened if the South would have won? Would the legality of their secession been disputed?

The Constitution is full of absolutes. The word "shall" appears numerous times

When referring to procedural matters.

Samwise · Feb 12, 2020

Rich2018 said:
That's just your opinion, and not one shared by constitutional scholars.

Please list sources of reputable constitutional scholars who think otherwise.

Stating a fact about a document is not an opinion. It's a statement of fact.

The constitution contains no language prohibiting any state from leaving the union.

If you disagree and insist that the constitution does contain such language, feel free to cite it, along with article and section. Otherwise, you're wasting everyone's time.

Rich2018 · Feb 13, 2020

prometeus said:
Yet some leave a small door open in their arguments. Supreme Court Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase wrote that, “The union between Texas and the other states was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original states. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.” So there is a way.
Thomas Jefferson stated that the states that formed the union were "free and independent states" and that freedom and independence was not meant as a limited one. Madison argued that the Constitution does not have a coercive principle, which in turn means that states retain a large degree of freedom.
Then there is the Xth amendment.

The reference to Madison I found stated he thought the Constitution didn't allow secession

We are talking about a unilateral secession here. If 3/4 of states vote that one or more states secede then they can as that is enough to pass a constitutional amentment that allows secession.

Where does the 10th amendment speak of secession ?

Was there a procedure to break with England? Is it necessary to put instructions on an exit door?

That's called a revolution/rebellion and is part of De Facto law not De Jure.
By what right has Russia annexed the Crimea? The right of conquest.

To be fair, while this is strictly theoretical debate on principles, a real secession is far more complex with complex hurdles.
An other point. Think what would have happened if the South would have won? Would the legality of their secession been disputed?

No, the South would probably write some form of constitution saying that it was legal. States generally accept reality - two notable exceptions would be Argentina (the Falklands) and China (Taiwan)
You could also mention the USA with it's rather pathetic attitude towards Cuba as an example of a country refusing to accept reality.

When referring to procedural matters.

Secession is a procedural matter.

Rich2018 · Feb 13, 2020

Samwise said:
Stating a fact about a document is not an opinion. It's a statement of fact.

In YOUR opinion it is a fact. In every constitutional scholar's view, I am aware of, it is not

Can you reference a source of ANYONE who agrees with you ?

So far you've been given THREE. You have failed to cite a source for any dissenting view.

Null, nada, ziltch, nicks, zero, the square root of SFA.

Unless you count yourself of course, a guy off the internet that knows more about the Constitution that a SC justice. (despite a total absence of legal training or experience)

prometeus · Feb 13, 2020

Rich2018 said:
Where does the 10th amendment speak of secession ?

The power of the states.

That's called a revolution/rebellion and is part of De Facto law not De Jure.

So you are saying that only violence can solve the problem. Keep in mind that through violence there is no justice only dictate by the winner.

By what right has Russia annexed the Crimea? The right of conquest.

Is there such a right?

Secession is a procedural matter.

No, it is a matter of exercising freedom.

Rich2018 · Feb 13, 2020

prometeus said:
The power of the states.

Does it say they can secede unilaterally ?

So you are saying that only violence can solve the problem....

Where did I say that ?

Did you miss the bit about passing an amending allowing for secession

Straw man fallacy, deliberately misrepresenting another's position

Is there such a right?

Click to expand...

England exists today by that very concept.

List of English monarchs - Wikipedia

Maybe you've heard of William the First, tell me, what was his claim to the English throne ultimately ?

If it wasn't for the USA, Kuwait would belong to Iraq now.

No, it is a matter of exercising freedom.

Click to expand...

Secession is still a procedural matter (we tried the armed conflict approach before remember)
If the states want to secede, it just takes 3/4 of them to pass an amendment allowing for it

The constitution actually prescribes a procedure for this.

Click to expand...