Confederate Flag License Plate Sparks Debate

[August]

Originally Posted by Bakkels

...who has the right to oppose"

As an American citizen I have that right. The entire United States is my home, not just the state in which I currently reside.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

But it's not a "flimsy and temporal" legal precedent that says the Union is perpetual. It's the Constitution that does

Where, exactly? One of the biggest thorns in the side of the Constitutional Convention was the question of State Sovereignty, and it was never properly resolved. As to the question of secession, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison believed it was legal, though Madison councilled against it.

"We are determined to...sever ourselves from that union we so much value, rather than to give up the rights of self-government which we have reserved, and in which alone we see liberty, safety and happiness."
-Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, August 23, 1799, regarding the Alien and Sedition Acts.

"We should never think of separation except for repeated and enormous violations..."
-Madison's reply; showing that they both thought of it as acceptable in the right circumstances.

and the Articles of Confederation before that.

Not precisely. The preamble to the Articles describes the Union as "perpetual", but Article 2 says "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled" and Article 3 describes the whole thing as "a firm league of friendship with each other".

As to Texas v. White, Chief Justice Chase made an interesting reach in his comments on Article 4 of The Constitution, granting, to my mind at least, powers to Congress that are not explicit in the Article. But the Supreme Court made their decision, and it is binding, at least until overturned by a later court, which has happened more than once.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

But it's not a "flimsy and temporal" legal precedent that says the Union is perpetual. It's the Constitution that does, and the Articles of Confederation before that. Salmon P. Chase:

"(The Union of the States) was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to 'be perpetual.' And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained 'to form a more perfect Union.' It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?"

That's really reaching, in my opinion. Reminds me of Bible interpretating. If the Constitution had declared right out "Once a state enters into the Union, it cannot leave, ever." that would have made an arguement of indissolublity.

If you want to throw out the Constitution and say screw you guys, we're outta here, that's one thing. It could be the will of the people. It could be the right thing to do. But you can't say it wouldn't be treason and destroying the existing governmental structure, and no state has the legal right to do it.

Again, I disagree. I'm not a Constituional scholar at all, but in the end, as I see it, the Constitution, awesome as it is, is still just a document of law and laws change. It's like the War Powers Act, it can be circumvented. The Constitution was created on the basis of rebellion. Hard to argue that is it the last word in non-rebellion.

Some would say that they don't mean it as advocating slavery, but the way I see it, the history of that flag and slavery are so intertwined as to be inseparable. It was an ugly time in our nation's history, and nothing to be romanticized or celebrated.

Yeah, "state's rights" they say. The "state right" that mattered the most was the right to slavery. The war was over slavery, simple as that. Without slavery, there would have been nothing contentious between the North and South, nothing to get secession started. The Conferedate flag will always be linked to slavery advocation.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Where, exactly? One of the biggest thorns in the side of the Constitutional Convention was the question of State Sovereignty, and it was never properly resolved. As to the question of secession, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison believed it was legal, though Madison councilled against it.

"We are determined to...sever ourselves from that union we so much value, rather than to give up the rights of self-government which we have reserved, and in which alone we see liberty, safety and happiness."
-Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, August 23, 1799, regarding the Alien and Sedition Acts.

"We should never think of separation except for repeated and enormous violations..."
-Madison's reply; showing that they both thought of it as acceptable in the right circumstances.


Not precisely. The preamble to the Articles describes the Union as "perpetual", but Article 2 says "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled" and Article 3 describes the whole thing as "a firm league of friendship with each other".

As to Texas v. White, Chief Justice Chase made an interesting reach in his comments on Article 4 of The Constitution, granting, to my mind at least, powers to Congress that are not explicit in the Article. But the Supreme Court made their decision, and it is binding, at least until overturned by a later court, which has happened more than once.

I'm in line with his reasoning. The preamble (and the very name of the document - Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union) said that the Union is perpetual. Article 2 doesn't grant the right to secede as it would directly contradict that perpetual nature of the Union. That is the basis of the Constitution forming a more perfect Union. A more perpetual, a more binding Union. That phrase alone in my mind builds on the Articles and reaffirms the notion that once a state is admitted to the Union, it's permanent.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

I'm in line with his reasoning. The preamble (and the very name of the document - Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union) said that the Union is perpetual.

The Constitution didn't supplement or add to the Articles, it overwrote it. Legally speaking the Articles are nonexistant. In the matter of intent, I tend to agree, but there is always that argument between Literal Interpretation and Original Intent.

Article 2 doesn't grant the right to secede as it would directly contradict that perpetual nature of the Union. That is the basis of the Constitution forming a more perfect Union. A more perpetual, a more binding Union. That phrase alone in my mind builds on the Articles and reaffirms the notion that once a state is admitted to the Union, it's permanent.

The Constitution defines how the Federal Government is to be run, nothing more. The Amendments define how that Government is restricted from interfering with the People, and with the States. The States are prohibited from infriging the peoples' rights, but they are still autonomous in everything else. Federal power derives from the States, and is only as strong as they allow it to be, within the limits predetermined by the Constitution. It doesn't say they can secede? It also doesn't say they can't, and Amendment 10 still carries some weight.

The "Father of the Constitution" believed that the states had the right to secede, and that's good enough for me. But then I don't make the laws, so we'll have to see what the future holds.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

The "Father of the Constitution" believed that the states had the right to secede, and that's good enough for me. But then I don't make the laws, so we'll have to see what the future holds.

I'll concede that it certainly has been interpreted by the Supreme Court (as is their duty) to be the case that secession is unconstitutional and a right not granted to any state. The principle of stare decisis would suggest that's the way it is and will be, but like you said, who knows what the future will hold.

But whether or not the court was correct in interpreting things that way was not my original argument. It was that to say someone is wrong for claiming secession is treason and calling them a "revisionist" is ignoring the reality of the situation and is ignorant of history.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

It was that to say someone is wrong for claiming secession is treason and calling them a "revisionist" is ignoring the reality of the situation and is ignorant of history.

Good point. I don't know the answer, and I debate both sides of this one.

Of course "Revisionist" is an epithet usually thrown by someone whose opinion differs from his target, and rarely reflects any actual knowledge of history.