James Madison, Secession, & State Sovereignty
Michael T. Griffith
secede from the Articles of Confederation (AOC) without the consent of
the other states, he appealed to the *natural* right of
self-preservation and to the principle that the safety and happiness
of society were the objects to which all institutions "must be
sacrificed." Said Madison,
"The first question [how an AOC state could secede without
approval from the other states] is answered at once by recurring to
the absolute necessity of the case; to the great principle of
self-preservation; to the transcendent law of nature and of nature's
God, which declares that the safety and happiness of society are the
objects at which all political institutions aim, and to which all such
institutions must be sacrificed." (Federalist No. 43)
Now, if the natural right of self-preservation justified a state in
leaving a union that was expressly supposed to be "PERPETUAL," then
logic demands that this natural right would justify a state in leaving
the federal Union, which was *not* described as perpetual.
And the decisive point in favor of state sovereignty is that Madison
said it was only THE STATE that had the right to decide if the federal
government was being abusive toward it or if the federal government
was guilty of usurpation. This only makes sense. Otherwise, the
state is at the mercy of the tolerance and honesty of other parties.
When we consider what Madison said about separation and the nature of
the compact, we must take into account ALL of his statements. Yes, he
told Hamilton that if New York joined the Union, it had to do so "in
toto and forever" and that no state could "at pleasure" leave the
Union, but elsewhere Madison made it quite clear that these were not
absolute, unconditional statements, that there WERE conditions in
which a state could leave the Union, and that one of them was
if the state was faced with egregious federal abuses. Said Madison,
"Applying a like view of the subject to the case of the U. S. it
results, that the compact being among individuals as imbodied into
States, no State can at pleasure release itself therefrom, and set up
for itself. The compact can only be dissolved by the consent of the
other parties, OR BY USURPATIONS OR ABUSES OF POWER JUSTLY HAVING
THAT EFFECT." (James Madison to Nicholas P. Trist, 15 Feb. 1830,
emphasis added)
Notice that Madison is talking about a state that wanted to "release
itself" from the Union, and that he said this could be done by the
consent of the other states OR BY USURPATIONS OR ABUSES that were so
serious that they justified dissolution. And, as mentioned (see also
below), he also said it was THE STATE that had the right to decide if
the federal government was engaging in usurpation and abuse.
Madison's statements to Trist are entirely consistent with everything
else Madison said about states rights and the nature of the federal
government. It was Madison who said THE STATE had the right to decide
when the federal government was abusing its powers and that in such
cases THE STATE could interpose its authority over that of the federal
government's in order to protect its citizens from those abuses.
Now, are Lincoln defenders going to say that MADISON didn't understand
Article VI, Clause 2 as well? HE, the "father of the Constitution,"
clearly didn't think that VI:2 meant the only way a state could leave
the Union was if the other states agreed, and he surely didn't seem to
think that VI:2 meant that a state could never refuse to obey a
federal law. On other occasions he said unconstitutional federal laws
were usurpations and abuses of power (see Federalist No. 33), and, as
mentioned, he said EACH STATE had the right to decide when the federal
government was guilty of such wrongdoing. I quote:
"The constitution of the United States was formed by the sanction
of the states, given by each in its sovereign capacity. It adds to
the stability and dignity, as well as to the authority, of the
Constitution, that it rests upon this legitimate and solid foundation.
THE STATES, THEN, BEING THE PARTIES TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMPACT,AND
IN THEIR SOVEREIGN CAPACITY, IT FOLLOWS OF NECESSITY THAT THERE CAN BE
NO TRIBUNAL ABOVE THEIR AUTHORITY TO DECIDE. IN THE LAST RESORT,
WHETHER THE COMPACT MADE BY THEM BE VIOLATED AND CONSEQUENTLY THAT, AS
THE PARTIES TO IT, THEY MUST THEMSELVES DECIDE, IN THE LAST RESORT,
SUCH QUESTIONS AS MAY BE OF SUFFICIENT MAGNITUDE TO REQUIRE THEIR
INTERPOSITION." (The Madison Report, emphasis added)
And:
"That this Assembly [the Virginia Assembly] doth explicitly and
peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal
government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are
parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument
constituting the compact; as no further valid than they are authorized
by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a
deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not
granted by the said compact, THE STATES who are parties thereto, HAVE
THE RIGHT, AND ARE IN DUTY BOUND, TO INTERPOSE FOR ARRESTING THE
PROGRESS OF THE EVIL, AND FOR MAINTAINING WITHIN THEIR RESPECTIVE
LIMITS, THE AUTHORITIES, RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES APPERTAINING TO THEM."
(The Virginia Resolution, authored by James Madison, emphasis added)
Now, if someone wants to argue that by "dissolution" Madison was
talking about a total disintegration of the Union, about all the
states leaving the Union, and about the voiding of the Constitution
for all parties (which he clearly wasn't doing), then it's fair to ask
a question about this argument:
* If egregious federal abuses would justify the drastic event of the
total disintegration of the Union and the voiding of the Constitution
for all parties, then wouldn't such federal abuses logically justify
the far less drastic event of 11 states peacefully and democratically
separating from the Union, which would leave more than twice that
number of states in the Union, especially if the seceding states
sought peaceful political relations and extensive trade relations with
the Union and ratified a Constitution that was nearly identical to the
U.S. Constitution?
But Madison wasn't talking about the total break-up of the Union.
His wording makes clear that when he referred to dissolution, he was
referring to a state or some states leaving the Union, not to all
states leaving the Union. It's worth noting that even Ulysses S.
Grant said he believed the founding fathers probably would have wanted
to see the South go in peace rather than to see a bloody war among the
states.
Mike Griffith
Civil War website
http://ourworld.cs.com/mikegriffith1/id163.htm
http://michaelgriffith1.tripod.com/griffitharticles2.htm
MICHAEL T. GRIFFITH
Real Issues Home Page
http://ourworld.cs.com/mikegriffith1/
http://www.geocities.com/mtgriffith1/
Scribe7716
wrote:
>When James Madison discussed the conditions under which a state could
>secede from the Articles of Confederation...
Please tell us where Madison used the word "secede" in relation to the Articles
of Confederation? Please tells us how you secede from a document?
Cash
"Michael T. Griffith" <mikegr...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:3fec9655...@news.compuserve.com...
> When James Madison discussed the conditions under which a state could
> secede from the Articles of Confederation (AOC) without the consent of
> the other states, he appealed to the *natural* right of
> self-preservation and to the principle that the safety and happiness
> of society were the objects to which all institutions "must be
> sacrificed." Said Madison,
>
> "The first question [how an AOC state could secede without
> approval from the other states] is answered at once by recurring to
> the absolute necessity of the case; to the great principle of
> self-preservation; to the transcendent law of nature and of nature's
> God, which declares that the safety and happiness of society are the
> objects at which all political institutions aim, and to which all such
> institutions must be sacrificed." (Federalist No. 43)
Griffith is lying again. Madison was not talking about how a state could
secede from the AoC. Here's what he actually wrote, including the portion
Griffith very carefully excised in order to conceal what Madison was really
talking about: "Two questions of a very delicate nature present themselves
on this occasion: 1. On what principle the Confederation, which stands in
the solemn form of a compact among the States, can be superseded without the
unanimous consent of the parties to it? 2. What relation is to subsist
between the nine or more States ratifying the Constitution, and the
remaining few who do not become parties to it? The first question is
answered at once by recurring to the absolute necessity of the case; to the
great principle of self-preservation; to the transcendent law of nature and
of nature's God, which declares that the safety and happiness of society are
the objects at which all political institutions aim, and to which all such
institutions must be sacrificed."
Madison was in fact talking about how the Constitution could supercede the
AoC as the governing document of the United States. States which ratified
the Constitution did not secede from the Union under the AoC. Quite the
opposite, in fact. It was the states that failed to ratify the Constitution
who, in effect, temporarily seceded from the United States, being considered
legally out of the Union until they ratified.
>
> When we consider what Madison said about separation and the nature of
> the compact, we must take into account ALL of his statements. Yes, he
> told Hamilton that if New York joined the Union, it had to do so "in
> toto and forever" and that no state could "at pleasure" leave the
> Union, but elsewhere Madison made it quite clear that these were not
> absolute, unconditional statements, that there WERE conditions in
> which a state could leave the Union, and that one of them was
> if the state was faced with egregious federal abuses. Said Madison,
>
> "Applying a like view of the subject to the case of the U. S. it
> results, that the compact being among individuals as imbodied into
> States, no State can at pleasure release itself therefrom, and set up
> for itself. The compact can only be dissolved by the consent of the
> other parties, OR BY USURPATIONS OR ABUSES OF POWER JUSTLY HAVING
> THAT EFFECT." (James Madison to Nicholas P. Trist, 15 Feb. 1830,
> emphasis added)
>
> Notice that Madison is talking about a state that wanted to "release
> itself" from the Union, and that he said this could be done by the
> consent of the other states OR BY USURPATIONS OR ABUSES that were so
> serious that they justified dissolution. And, as mentioned (see also
> below), he also said it was THE STATE that had the right to decide if
> the federal government was engaging in usurpation and abuse.
----------------------------
Madison wasn't talking about secession when he talked about the usurpations
and abuses of power. The dissolution of the compact in response to
usurpations or abuses of power of such violence as to dissolve the compact
would dissolve the entire compact, leaving all the states in the condition
they were in prior to joining the compact.
>
> Now, are Lincoln defenders going to say that MADISON didn't understand
> Article VI, Clause 2 as well? HE, the "father of the Constitution,"
> clearly didn't think that VI:2 meant the only way a state could leave
> the Union was if the other states agreed, and he surely didn't seem to
> think that VI:2 meant that a state could never refuse to obey a
> federal law.
---------------------------
You can't make that claim with any honesty. But, of course, since you
possess no honesty, that's never stopped you before.
On other occasions he said unconstitutional federal laws
> were usurpations and abuses of power (see Federalist No. 33),
-----------------------
My copy of Federalist 33 says it was written by Hamilton, not Madison.
Griffith is making things up again.
and, as
> mentioned, he said EACH STATE had the right to decide when the federal
> government was guilty of such wrongdoing. I quote:
>
> "The constitution of the United States was formed by the sanction
> of the states, given by each in its sovereign capacity. It adds to
> the stability and dignity, as well as to the authority, of the
> Constitution, that it rests upon this legitimate and solid foundation.
> THE STATES, THEN, BEING THE PARTIES TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMPACT,AND
> IN THEIR SOVEREIGN CAPACITY, IT FOLLOWS OF NECESSITY THAT THERE CAN BE
> NO TRIBUNAL ABOVE THEIR AUTHORITY TO DECIDE. IN THE LAST RESORT,
> WHETHER THE COMPACT MADE BY THEM BE VIOLATED AND CONSEQUENTLY THAT, AS
> THE PARTIES TO IT, THEY MUST THEMSELVES DECIDE, IN THE LAST RESORT,
> SUCH QUESTIONS AS MAY BE OF SUFFICIENT MAGNITUDE TO REQUIRE THEIR
> INTERPOSITION." (The Madison Report, emphasis added)
-----------------------
Typically, in his quest to deceive, Griffith leaves out and ignores certain
key items. For example, Madison clearly says that a state can interpose
only "in the last resort." He also says, in the words following Griffith's
carefully cherrypicked section, "It does not follow, however, because the
states, as sovereign parties to their constitutional compact, must
ultimately decide whether it has been violated, that such a decision ought
to be interposed either in a hasty manner or on doubtful and inferior
occasions. Even in the case of ordinary conventions between different
nations, where, by the strict rule of interpretation, a breach of a part may
be deemed a breach of the whole,--every part being deemed a condition of
every other part, and of the whole,--it is always laid down that the breach
must be both wilful and material, to justify an application of the rule. But
in the case of an intimate and constitutional union, like that of the United
States, it is evident that the interposition of the parties, in their
sovereign capacity, can be called for by occasions only deeply and
essentially affecting the vital principles of their political system."
And Madison in no way suggests that any remedy would include unilateral
secession. Griffith's implication that he does is another dishonesty on
Griffith's part.
> Now, if someone wants to argue that by "dissolution" Madison was
> talking about a total disintegration of the Union, about all the
> states leaving the Union, and about the voiding of the Constitution
> for all parties (which he clearly wasn't doing),
----------------------
Griffith would have us believe the absurdity that a usurption which does
such violence to the constitutional compact that it dissolves the compact
only does so for one state.
then it's fair to ask
> a question about this argument:
>
> * If egregious federal abuses would justify the drastic event of the
> total disintegration of the Union and the voiding of the Constitution
> for all parties, then wouldn't such federal abuses logically justify
> the far less drastic event of 11 states peacefully and democratically
> separating from the Union, which would leave more than twice that
> number of states in the Union, especially if the seceding states
> sought peaceful political relations and extensive trade relations with
> the Union and ratified a Constitution that was nearly identical to the
> U.S. Constitution?
-------------------------
No. You propose an absurdity.
> But Madison wasn't talking about the total break-up of the Union.
> His wording makes clear that when he referred to dissolution, he was
> referring to a state or some states leaving the Union, not to all
> states leaving the Union. It's worth noting that even Ulysses S.
> Grant said he believed the founding fathers probably would have wanted
> to see the South go in peace rather than to see a bloody war among the
> states.
-------------------------
In other words, Grant, who was not a constitutional scholar, by the way,
believed the Founders would have consented. That means that such a
secession would be with consent, not unilateral.
Regards,
Cash
Gregory E. Garland
> secede from the Articles of Confederation (AOC) without the consent of
> the other states,
Bald-faced lie. You and poor wittle Chuckie should form a club.
> he appealed to the *natural* right of
> self-preservation and to the principle that the safety and happiness
> of society were the objects to which all institutions "must be
> sacrificed." Said Madison,
>
> "The first question [how an AOC state could secede without
> approval from the other states] is answered at once by recurring to
The usual meaning of [...]'s in a quotation is to indicated that
the person presenting the quote is indicating a clear and succinct
meaning for an unclear or overly long-winded passage. To no one's
suprise, Mikie has put in a deliberate lie instead. "The first
question", which he claims to be explicating, is not about how
a single state could secede from the Articles of Confederation
without approval from the other states, but is instead a question
of how to justify superceding the entire AoC by the Constitution
without requiring a unanimous vote among the states.
>
> And the decisive point in favor of state sovereignty is that Madison
> said it was only THE STATE that had the right to decide if the federal
> government was being abusive toward it or if the federal government
> was guilty of usurpation.
"Why stop at only two bald-face lies?", Mikie must have thought
to himself. Madison never said that _only_ the state had the
"right" to make such a decision. But such is the world of neo-con
pathological liars like Chuckie and Mikie.
Michael T. Griffith
Oh, come on. Just read what he said. He was talking about what
conditions could justify separating from the Articles of
Confederation. Just read what he said.
Can you people admit *anything*? Just curious.
Cash
> On 26 Dec 2003 21:53:45 GMT, scrib...@aol.com (Scribe7716) wrote:
>
> >>(Michael T. Griffith)
> >
> >wrote:
> >
> >>When James Madison discussed the conditions under which a state could
> >>secede from the Articles of Confederation...
> >
> >Please tell us where Madison used the word "secede" in relation to the
Articles
> >of Confederation? Please tells us how you secede from a document?
>
> Oh, come on. Just read what he said. He was talking about what
> conditions could justify separating from the Articles of
> Confederation. Just read what he said.
He was not. He very clearly identified that he was writing about how the
Articles of Confederation could be superseded by the Constitution as the
governing document of the Union.
> Can you people admit *anything*? Just curious.
------------------------------
Can you ever tell the truth about *anything?* Just curious.
Regards,
Cash
Michael T. Griffith
wrote:
More of your Orwellian interpretation and evasion. Madison was
plainly talking about how a state could leave the AOC. It's amazing
that you can't even admit that simple fact.
Let's read the "first question" again:
"1. On what principle the Confederation, which stands in the solemn
form of a compact among the States, can be superseded without the
unanimous consent of the parties to it?"
I agree that he was talking about the AOC being "superseded" by the
Constitution. The point is he was talking about how a state could
join a Union that would supersede the AOC, i.e., how a state could
*leave* the AOC without the consent of the other states, as required
by the AOC.
If a state ratified a constitution that superseded the AOC, then the
state would have had to *leave* the AOC. Sheesh. Can you admit
*anything*?
Why don't you just admit you were wrong about Madison's views on
states rights and the right of self-presevation, instead of engaging
in such hair-splitting sophistry and strained interpretation?
You already floated this interpretation in the Civil War Forum. I ask
you again: If federal abuses would justify the total dissolution of
the Union and the voiding of the Constitution, then how could those
abuses not justify the peaceful separation of eleven states?
>> Now, are Lincoln defenders going to say that MADISON didn't understand
>> Article VI, Clause 2 as well? HE, the "father of the Constitution,"
>> clearly didn't think that VI:2 meant the only way a state could leave
>> the Union was if the other states agreed, and he surely didn't seem to
>> think that VI:2 meant that a state could never refuse to obey a
>> federal law.
>---------------------------
>You can't make that claim with any honesty. But, of course, since you
>possess no honesty, that's never stopped you before.
In other words, anyone who disagrees with your totalitarian
interpretation of the Constitution must be dishonest.
I guess you don't want to deal with the fact that obviously Madison
didn't believe VI:2 could be taken to mean that a state couldn't leave
the Union. If he did, then it's odd that he didn't invoke that clause
when he told Trist that NY would have to ratify the Constitution "in
toto and forever." It's odd that in not a single debate on this
clause did anyone even suggest that it would prohibit a state from
revoking its ratification.
> On other occasions he said unconstitutional federal laws
>> were usurpations and abuses of power (see Federalist No. 33),
>-----------------------
>My copy of Federalist 33 says it was written by Hamilton, not Madison.
>Griffith is making things up again.
Yes, you're correct, and I erred: Hamilton did write Federalist No.
33, not Madison. This is all the more telling since Hamilton favored
a strong central government. Yet, even he said unconstitutional
federal laws were abuses of power:
"These [unconstitutional laws] will be merely acts of usurpation, and
will deserve to be treated as such." (Federalist No. 33)
Webster, Lincoln, and other consolidationists certainly didn't believe
this.
>> and, as
>> mentioned, he said EACH STATE had the right to decide when the federal
>> government was guilty of such wrongdoing. I quote:
>>
>> "The constitution of the United States was formed by the sanction
>> of the states, given by each in its sovereign capacity. It adds to
>> the stability and dignity, as well as to the authority, of the
>> Constitution, that it rests upon this legitimate and solid foundation.
>> THE STATES, THEN, BEING THE PARTIES TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMPACT,AND
>> IN THEIR SOVEREIGN CAPACITY, IT FOLLOWS OF NECESSITY THAT THERE CAN BE
>> NO TRIBUNAL ABOVE THEIR AUTHORITY TO DECIDE. IN THE LAST RESORT,
>> WHETHER THE COMPACT MADE BY THEM BE VIOLATED AND CONSEQUENTLY THAT, AS
>> THE PARTIES TO IT, THEY MUST THEMSELVES DECIDE, IN THE LAST RESORT,
>> SUCH QUESTIONS AS MAY BE OF SUFFICIENT MAGNITUDE TO REQUIRE THEIR
>> INTERPOSITION." (The Madison Report, emphasis added)
>-----------------------
>Typically, in his quest to deceive, Griffith leaves out and ignores certain
>key items. For example, Madison clearly says that a state can interpose
>only "in the last resort." He also says, in the words following Griffith's
>carefully cherrypicked section, "It does not follow, however, because the
>states, as sovereign parties to their constitutional compact, must
>ultimately decide whether it has been violated, that such a decision ought
>to be interposed either in a hasty manner or on doubtful and inferior
>occasions. . . .
You know better than this. I have told you in other dialogues that no
one's talking about a hasty decision. Interposition should be done
after all other options have been tried. You keep acting like I'm
talking about a willy-nilly, impulsive act. If for some reason you
haven't grasped that I'm *not* saying this, then hopefully now,
finally, you'll comprehend this fact.
Let it be noted that even you are citing Madison as saying that a
state, as a last resort, *could* interpose its authority over that of
the federal government.
Are you telling me that *you* believe in this principle?
Consolidationists like Webster said this principle was false and in
fact treasonous. Do you believe in this principle? Or did Madison
not understand the Constitution?
And, my goodness, what about VI:2, which you say somehow, someway
means a state can't revoke its ratification ordinance? Surely Madison
was aware of VI:2's wording, yet he said had the right to interpose
its authority if it felt the need to do so. Madison also said this
should be done as a last resort, but he made it clear that this
decision was the state's to make, and no one else's.
>And Madison in no way suggests that any remedy would include unilateral
>secession. Griffith's implication that he does is another dishonesty on
>Griffith's part.
Nonsense! Madison said a state could leave the AOC according to the
right of self-preservation and the principle that the happiness and
safety of society are more important than any political institution:
"The first question [how an AOC state could secede without approval
from the other states] is answered at once by recurring to the
absolute necessity of the case; to the great principle of
self-preservation; to the transcendent law of nature and of nature's
God, which declares that the safety and happiness of society are the
objects at which all political institutions aim, and to which all such
institutions must be sacrificed." (Federalist No. 43)
>> Now, if someone wants to argue that by "dissolution" Madison was
>> talking about a total disintegration of the Union, about all the
>> states leaving the Union, and about the voiding of the Constitution
>> for all parties (which he clearly wasn't doing),
>----------------------
>Griffith would have us believe the absurdity that a usurption which does
>such violence to the constitutional compact that it dissolves the compact
>only does so for one state.
What sophomoric logic. What if only one state or a group of states is
being abused by the federal government? What if a certain section of
the country is able to control federal policy and what if that policy
is harmful to another section but beneficial to the section that's
dictating the policy? Can you say "Tariff of Abomination"?
> then it's fair to ask
>> a question about this argument:
>>
>> * If egregious federal abuses would justify the drastic event of the
>> total disintegration of the Union and the voiding of the Constitution
>> for all parties, then wouldn't such federal abuses logically justify
>> the far less drastic event of 11 states peacefully and democratically
>> separating from the Union, which would leave more than twice that
>> number of states in the Union, especially if the seceding states
>> sought peaceful political relations and extensive trade relations with
>> the Union and ratified a Constitution that was nearly identical to the
>> U.S. Constitution?
>-------------------------
>No. You propose an absurdity.
You're ducking the question because you know your argument makes no
sense. I ask you again:
If egregious federal abuses would justify the total break-up of the
Union and the voiding of the Constitution, then wouldn't logic demand
that such abuses would justify the far less drastic event of eleven
states peacefully leaving the Union?
It is absurd for you to assume, or to pretend to assume, that
egregious federal abuses must affect all the states. That is worse
than sophomoric logic. Again, what if only certain states are the
target of the abuse? What if one section is able to shape federal
policies that help that section at the expense of another section?
>> But Madison wasn't talking about the total break-up of the Union.
>> His wording makes clear that when he referred to dissolution, he was
>> referring to a state or some states leaving the Union, not to all
>> states leaving the Union. It's worth noting that even Ulysses S.
>> Grant said he believed the founding fathers probably would have wanted
>> to see the South go in peace rather than to see a bloody war among the
>> states.
>-------------------------
>In other words, Grant, who was not a constitutional scholar, by the way,
>believed the Founders would have consented. That means that such a
>secession would be with consent, not unilateral.
LOL! My friend, did you ever take a logic class in college? Did you
ever go to college?
Now, Grant did not say that the founders would have HAD TO give their
consent. He does not say that their consent would have been REQUIRED
in order for the state that wanted to separate to do so. This is
obvious from the fact that Grant also opined that if one of the
original states had wanted to secede, that no other state would have
challenged its RIGHT to do so:
Grant also said he believed that if any of the original thirteen
states had attempted to secede from the Union under the Articles of
Confederation, their RIGHT to do so would not have been challenged.
Said Grant,
"If there had been a desire on the part of any single State to
withdraw from the compact at any time while the number of States was
limited to the original thirteen, I do not suppose there would have
been any to contest THE RIGHT, no matter how much the determination
might have been regretted." (THE PERSONAL MEMOIRS OF
ULYSSES S. GRANT, p. 130)
Does it ever occur to you that the reason you keep having to offer
strained inferences, that the reason you keep having to read miles
between the lines, is that *nobody advocated your dictatorial ideas on
independence, state sovereignty and secession*? Has that thought
crossed your mind yet?
Your ideas about states rights within a Union are dictatorial in
nature--that's why you can't find them **expressed** in the writings
of the founders. The founders didn't envision a Union that was held
together by the bayonet. If you want to find writings that echo your
ideas about independence, self-government, and the rights of states
within a Union, you should read the works of the pre-Gorbachev Soviet
leaders. They, too, believed that states should be kept in their
"Union" by force. Congratulations.
W. G. Davis
"Michael T. Griffith" <mikegr...@cs.com> wrote in message news:3fef7224...@news.compuserve.com...
TROLL SNIPPED
GET OFF THIS NEWSGROUP!
YOU ARE NOT EQUIPPED TO POST HERE.
--
W. G. Jeff Davis
je...@pa7NOSPAM9th.org
"Nothing stings so fiercely as the truth!"
--W. G. Jeff Davis
W. G. Davis
Cash
Because it's a lie.
"On what principle the Confederation, which stands in
> >the solemn form of a compact among the States, can be superseded without
the
> >unanimous consent of the parties to it?"
He is very clearly talking about how the Constitution could supersede the
Articles of Confederation as the governing document of the United States.
Griffith is obviously a pathological liar. For some reason, he simply can't
tell the truth. He sees the word "red" and insists it's "black."
Seek help, Griffith.
>
> Let's read the "first question" again:
>
> "1. On what principle the Confederation, which stands in the solemn
> form of a compact among the States, can be superseded without the
> unanimous consent of the parties to it?"
>
> I agree that he was talking about the AOC being "superseded" by the
> Constitution. The point is he was talking about how a state could
> join a Union that would supersede the AOC, i.e., how a state could
> *leave* the AOC without the consent of the other states, as required
> by the AOC.
---------------------------
Completely false. They were already in the Union. Ratifying the
Constitution would change the governing document of that union. *Not* being
one of the nine states that ratified the Constitution would result in
leaving the Union.
> If a state ratified a constitution that superseded the AOC, then the
> state would have had to *leave* the AOC. Sheesh. Can you admit
> *anything*?
---------------------------
Can't you tell the truth about anything? One does not leave a document.
The Union continues under the Constitution, which would become a new
governing document.
> >Madison wasn't talking about secession when he talked about the
usurpations
> >and abuses of power. The dissolution of the compact in response to
> >usurpations or abuses of power of such violence as to dissolve the
compact
> >would dissolve the entire compact, leaving all the states in the
condition
> >they were in prior to joining the compact.
>
> You already floated this interpretation in the Civil War Forum. I ask
> you again: If federal abuses would justify the total dissolution of
> the Union and the voiding of the Constitution, then how could those
> abuses not justify the peaceful separation of eleven states?
---------------------------
And I answer you again, that's like asking if a nuclear bomb could destroy
an entire city then why can't that same bomb be used to destroy only a city
block. If the abuses are of such a violent nature they dissolve the
compact, then they dissolve the entire compact.
>
> >> Now, are Lincoln defenders going to say that MADISON didn't understand
> >> Article VI, Clause 2 as well? HE, the "father of the Constitution,"
> >> clearly didn't think that VI:2 meant the only way a state could leave
> >> the Union was if the other states agreed, and he surely didn't seem to
> >> think that VI:2 meant that a state could never refuse to obey a
> >> federal law.
> >---------------------------
> >You can't make that claim with any honesty. But, of course, since you
> >possess no honesty, that's never stopped you before.
>
> In other words, anyone who disagrees with your totalitarian
> interpretation of the Constitution must be dishonest.
---------------------------------------
First, my view isn't totalitarian. Secondly, one who disagrees with my view
is not dishonest. You are dishonest. You claimed that Madison "clearly
didn't thing that VI:2 meant the only way a state could leave the Union was
if the other states agreed, and he surely didn't seem to think that VI:2
meant that a state could never refuse to obey a federal law." That is a
false formulation. If you want to claim Madison "clearly didn't thing that
VI:2 meant the only way a state could leave the Union was if the other
states agreed," then you need to produce a statement from him to that
effect. We're waiting.
>
> I guess you don't want to deal with the fact that obviously Madison
> didn't believe VI:2 could be taken to mean that a state couldn't leave
> the Union. If he did, then it's odd that he didn't invoke that clause
> when he told Trist that NY would have to ratify the Constitution "in
> toto and forever."
----------------------------------
Hamilton, not Trist. He said, "The Constitution requires an adoption in
toto, and for ever." [Madison to Hamilton, 20 Jul 1788] Last I saw, the
Supremacy Clause was a part of the Constitution, so you can't claim that he
"didn't believe VI:2 could be taken to mean that a state couldn't leave the
Union" based on this letter.
It's odd that in not a single debate on this
> clause did anyone even suggest that it would prohibit a state from
> revoking its ratification.
-----------------------
False. It has been discussed here several times that this was shown in the
North Carolina Ratification Convention in the debate they had over this
clause.
>
> > On other occasions he said unconstitutional federal laws
> >> were usurpations and abuses of power (see Federalist No. 33),
> >-----------------------
> >My copy of Federalist 33 says it was written by Hamilton, not Madison.
> >Griffith is making things up again.
>
> Yes, you're correct, and I erred: Hamilton did write Federalist No.
> 33, not Madison. This is all the more telling since Hamilton favored
> a strong central government. Yet, even he said unconstitutional
> federal laws were abuses of power:
>
> "These [unconstitutional laws] will be merely acts of usurpation, and
> will deserve to be treated as such." (Federalist No. 33)
>
> Webster, Lincoln, and other consolidationists certainly didn't believe
> this.
---------------------------
False. They did indeed believe that unconstitutional laws were not supreme.
---------------------
Actually, I reject your interpretation of what Madison is saying. He very
clearly says it is not a single state that has that authority, but the
states themselves. The whole, not the part. Here's the quotation from the
Virginia Resolutions: "That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily
declare, that it views the powers of the Federal Government, as resulting
from the compact, to which the states are parties, as limited by the plain
sense and intention of the instrument constituting that compact; as no
farther valid than they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that
compact; and taht in case of a deliberate, palpable and dangerous exercise
of other powers, not granted by the said compact, ****the states who are
parties thereto,**** have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose,
for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their
respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to
them."
Later, in the very same report, Madison wrote, "But a declaration that
proceedings of the Federal Government are not warranted by the constitution,
is a novelty neither among the citizens nor among the legislatures of the
states; nor are the citizens or the legislature of Virginia, singular in the
example of it.
"Nor can the declarations of either, whether affirming or denyting the
constitutionality of measures of the Federal Government; or whether made
before or after judicial decisions thereon, be deemed, in any point of view,
an assumption of the office of the judge. The declarations in such casses,
are expressions of opinion, unaccompanied with any other effect, than what
they may produce on opinion, by exciting reflection. The expositions of the
judiciary, on the other hand, are carried into immediate effect by force.
The former may lead to a change in the legislative expression of the general
will; possibly to a change in the opinion of the judiciary; the latter
enforces the general will, whilst that will and that opinion continue
unchanged.
"And if there be no impropriety in declaring the unconstitutionality of
proceedings in the Federal Government; where can be the impropriety of
communicating the declaration to other states, and inviting their
concurrence in a like declaration?" [Madison, "Report on the Alien and
Sedition Acts"]
Madison clearly is talking about the states acting together to interpose,
not a single state acting on its own to interpose. How can this happen?
See Article V of the US Constitution.
[Deleted Griffith drivel based on misreading of Madison]
> >And Madison in no way suggests that any remedy would include unilateral
> >secession. Griffith's implication that he does is another dishonesty on
> >Griffith's part.
>
> Nonsense! Madison said a state could leave the AOC according to the
> right of self-preservation and the principle that the happiness and
> safety of society are more important than any political institution:
--------------------------
Once again, he is not talking about secession. He is talking about changing
the governing document of the Union. Learn to read.
>
> >> Now, if someone wants to argue that by "dissolution" Madison was
> >> talking about a total disintegration of the Union, about all the
> >> states leaving the Union, and about the voiding of the Constitution
> >> for all parties (which he clearly wasn't doing),
> >----------------------
> >Griffith would have us believe the absurdity that a usurption which does
> >such violence to the constitutional compact that it dissolves the compact
> >only does so for one state.
>
> What sophomoric logic. What if only one state or a group of states is
> being abused by the federal government?
------------------------
According to Madison, they then appeal to the other states.
What if a certain section of
> the country is able to control federal policy and what if that policy
> is harmful to another section but beneficial to the section that's
> dictating the policy? Can you say "Tariff of Abomination"?
---------------------------
You mean the tariff that was authored, in great part, by His Satanic Majesty
John C. Calhoun and his cronies?
Madison had a great deal to say on this issue, and he was foursquare against
nullification and secession.
>
> > then it's fair to ask
> >> a question about this argument:
> >>
> >> * If egregious federal abuses would justify the drastic event of the
> >> total disintegration of the Union and the voiding of the Constitution
> >> for all parties, then wouldn't such federal abuses logically justify
> >> the far less drastic event of 11 states peacefully and democratically
> >> separating from the Union, which would leave more than twice that
> >> number of states in the Union, especially if the seceding states
> >> sought peaceful political relations and extensive trade relations with
> >> the Union and ratified a Constitution that was nearly identical to the
> >> U.S. Constitution?
> >-------------------------
> >No. You propose an absurdity.
>
> You're ducking the question because you know your argument makes no
> sense.
------------------
No, I'm ducking nothing. You are proposing an absurdity. When abuses are
of such a violent nature that they dissolve the compact, they dissolve the
entire compact. If you use a nuclear bomb to destroy an entire city you
cannot use that same bomb to only destroy one block of that city. It's an
all-or-nothing proposition.
[Delete Griffith drivel based on misreading Madison]
> >> But Madison wasn't talking about the total break-up of the Union.
> >> His wording makes clear that when he referred to dissolution, he was
> >> referring to a state or some states leaving the Union, not to all
> >> states leaving the Union. It's worth noting that even Ulysses S.
> >> Grant said he believed the founding fathers probably would have wanted
> >> to see the South go in peace rather than to see a bloody war among the
> >> states.
> >-------------------------
> >In other words, Grant, who was not a constitutional scholar, by the way,
> >believed the Founders would have consented. That means that such a
> >secession would be with consent, not unilateral.
>
>
> Now, Grant did not say that the founders would have HAD TO give their
> consent. He does not say that their consent would have been REQUIRED
> in order for the state that wanted to separate to do so. This is
> obvious from the fact that Grant also opined that if one of the
> original states had wanted to secede, that no other state would have
> challenged its RIGHT to do so:
-----------------------
I'll repeat that Grant was not a constitutional scholar, so you have to take
his opinion on this with a grain of salt. His belief is his own belief. If
you want to cite him, then cite him in his entirety. If you want to rely on
his opinion, then rely on his opinion in its entirety and recognize that he
said that such right, if it ever existed, disappeared when other states were
added to the Union.
[Deleted further Griffith drivel based on cherrypicking a portion of Grant's
writings and ignoring the rest]
Regards,
Cash
Bruce J. Weiers
> plainly talking about how a state could leave the AOC. It's amazing
> that you can't even admit that simple fact.
Cash is right and Mike is wrong. "supersede" is a homonym, not a
synonym, for "secede."
Madison is talking about how the Constitution could replace the Articles
of Confederation, when the Articles of Confederation required unanimous
consent for amendment. Clearly, the Constitution's own requirements for
ratification were not consistent with the Articles of Confederation's
requirement for unanimous consent, yet the Constitution's federal
institutions could and did replace the institutions of the Articles of
Confederation before unanimous consent had been obtained.
States ratifying the Constitution did not "secede" from the Union, or
from the Articles of Confederation. The institutions created by the
Constitution were replacing the institutions created by the Articles of
Conferation. One federal government was replacing another; one set of
institutions was "superseding" the other.
The supersession was quite orderly and regular. In fact, after the
necessary nine States had ratified in 1788, the Confederation Congress
organized the first federal elections under the Constitution. (I
believe Rhode Island and North Carolina were represented at some of the
sessions, when resolutions touching on the organizing of the new
government were discussed by the Confederation Congress, though they
tactfully abstained from voting on them. These were some of the best
attended sessions of "the United States in Congress, Assembled" in a
number of years.) The Confederation continued in existence as an
institution thru March 2, 1789, after which its records were turned over
to George Washington. The federal government under the Constitution
began its existence on March 4, 1789. Under the terms of the
Constitution, the federal government of the United States took over all
the debts and treaty obligations of the United States, which the
Confederation Congress had incurred. The federal government also took
over government of the common territory, outside the regular bounds of
any State.
The status of the States, which had not yet ratified the Constitution
was anomalous. The Constitution specified that the federal government
under the Constitution would not exercise any authority in any of the
original 13 States, until that State had ratified the Constitution.
Once the federal government under the Constitution had come into
existence, however, the institutions of the Articles of Confederation
had ceased to exist, their governmental functions, debts, and treaty
obligations having been taken over by the new federal government under
the Constitution.
The North Carolina ratification convention, which adjourned without
ratifying, anticipated the problem, and recommended to the North
Carolina legislature, that North Carolina conform itself as if it were a
State under the authority of the new U.S. government, and even collect
whatever tariff the federal government imposed, until such time as the
ratification convention could again meet and come to a decision.
Congress, anticipating North Carolina's eventual ratification, did delay
application of the tariff to goods being imported from North Carolina
into States governed by the U.S. federal government.
Congress eventually threatened to alienate Rhode Island -- to treat
Rhode Island as if it were a foreign place -- if they did not hurry up
and ratify. (There may have been some grumbling heard in neighboring
Massachusetts, where smuggling was not appreciated as it was in Rhode
Island, about Massachusetts possibly reabsorbing her three wayward
counties.) In the event, Rhode Island did ratify, and Congress did not
have to follow thru with its threat to alienate the smallest State.
And, the Articles of Confederation's requirement for unanimous consent
was satisfied, though a bit after the fact.
> Let's read the "first question" again:
>
> "1. On what principle the Confederation, which stands in the solemn
> form of a compact among the States, can be superseded without the
> unanimous consent of the parties to it?"
>
> I agree that he was talking about the AOC being "superseded" by the
> Constitution.
Whew! Mike can read.
> The point is he was talking about how a state could
> join a Union that would supersede the AOC, i.e., how a state could
> *leave* the AOC without the consent of the other states, as required
> by the AOC.
That's a tendentious interpretation, playing on the rhetoric of "Union"
in an unsupportable way. The "Union" -- if we mean by "Union" the
country known to the world as the United States of America -- was
continuing, but altering its institutions of government.
The Articles of Confederation clearly required unanimous consent for
such alteration, but the Constitution did not, and the Constitution's
provisions for ratification were followed. The exchange of institutions
would go ahead, even if as many as four States failed to ratify; the
only concession to the rights of those non-ratifying States was that the
federal government under the Constitution would not assume authority
within any of the non-ratifying States. The federal government under
the Articles of Confederation, however, would still cease to exist, and
a non-ratifying State would have no participation in the new federal
government, until it did ratify.
No "secession" or separation was contemplated by this arrangement. The
Founding Fathers did not say, "here's a free choice: join the new
federal government, or stay with old -- if we split into two countries,
so be it." They could have said that, but they did not. What the said
was, "we need a new federal government, a real federal government
desperately, and we are not going to be held to ransom by one or two or
even four States dillydallying. If at least 9 States approve, those
nine and whoever else joins them, will form the needed new government,
replacing (not seceding from) the old, and, with that government, go
forward as the one and only United States of America. Let the dilatory
then catch up."
> If a state ratified a constitution that superseded the AOC, then the
> state would have had to *leave* the AOC. Sheesh. Can you admit
> *anything*?
But, that's not what happened. The Confederation Congress continued to
function after the Constitution was ratified, and it, the Confederation
Congress, took important steps to organize the first federal elections.
The last time a Confederation Congressman showed up to ask the Secretary
of the Congress if there was a quorum was only two days before the first
U.S. Congress started to meet, in the hopes of assembling a quorum
(which did not happen some time). One set of institutions winked out of
existence just as the new set began organizing themselves.
[snip of remaining, repetitious nonsense]
Bruce J. Weiers
> On 26 Dec 2003 21:53:45 GMT, scrib...@aol.com (Scribe7716) wrote:
>
> >>(Michael T. Griffith)
> >
> >wrote:
> >
> >>When James Madison discussed the conditions under which a state
could
> >>secede from the Articles of Confederation...
> >
> >Please tell us where Madison used the word "secede" in relation to
the Articles
> >of Confederation? Please tells us how you secede from a document?
>
> Oh, come on. Just read what he said. He was talking about what
> conditions could justify separating from the Articles of
> Confederation. Just read what he said.
He was NOT talking about separating from the Articles of Confederation.
The Constitution replaced or superseded the Articles of Confederation.
No separation took place. say it slowly until the light dawns on
Marblehead.
N O S E P A R A T I O N
Michael T. Griffith
voluntarily gave up their status as independent entities is plainly
false. This is a key, if not the key, component of the anti-secession
and anti-nullification position. It's hard to understand how anyone
familiar with the facts could claim the states gave up their status as
soveriegn, independent entities, when several of the states specified
in their ratification ordinances and/or in their constitutions (1)
that they were only *delegating* certain powers to the federal
government, (2) that all powers that were not expressly delegated to
the general government would remain with the states, and (3) that the
states **reserved the right to resume the powers of government if they
felt it necessary to do so.**
Surely anyone willing to be candid will admit that when the states
reserved the right to resume "the powers of government" they were
reserving the right to resume the limited powers that they had
delegated to the federal government via the Constitution. This fact
is clear beyond dispute in these states' ratification ordinances
and/or in their constitutions.
For example, New York, in her resolutions of ratification, declared,
"That the powers of government may be resumed by the people,
whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness: that every
power, jurisdiction and right, which is not, by said Constitution,
clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the
departments of the government thereof, remains to the people of the
several States, or to their respective State Governments."
Rhode Island, in her ratification, said:
"That the powers of government may be resumed by the people
whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness."
Virginia declared, in her ratification:
"That the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived
from the people of the United States, may be resumed by them
whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury and
oppression."
Furthermore, other states made it clear that they retained every right
and power that was not "EXPRESSLY" delegated to the general government
by the Constitution:
Massachusetts:
"That it be explicitly declared that all powers not expressly
delegated by the aforesaid Constitution, are reserved to the several
States, to be by them exercised."
New Hampshire:
"That it be explicitly declared that all powers not expressly and
particularly delegated by the aforesaid Constitution, are reserved to
the several States, to be by them exercised."
Pennsylvania:
"All the rights of sovereignty, which are not by the said
Constitution expressly and plainly vested in the Congress, shall be
deemed to remain with, and shall be exercised by, the several States
in the Union, according to their respective Constitutions."
South Carolina made its reservation very clear:
"That no section or paragraph of the said Constitution warrants a
construction that the States do not retain every power not expressly
relinquished by them, and vested in the General Government of the
Union."
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say a state can't revoke its
ratification, and certainly the states said nothing to this effect in
their ratification ordinances or in their constitutions--in fact, as
we've just seen, several states expressly stipulated that they
reserved the right to resume the powers of government if they felt the
need to do so. And nowhere did the states give the federal government
the power to compel a state to remain in the Union against its will.
The Constitution doesn't even address the issue of whether or not a
state can withdraw from the Union, nor does it grant the federal
government the power to compel a state to remain in the Union against
its will. Thus, by virtue of the Tenth Amendment, as well as by the
above-quoted state stipulations, the power to withdraw from the Union
remains with the states and the federal government has no right to
force a state to remain in the Union against its will.
Historians John Garraty and Robert McCaughey point out that most of
the opposition to ratification only subsided after backers of the
Constitution agreed to add amendments that would prevent the federal
government from usurping civil liberties and states rights:
"Aside from a few doctrinaires, most were ready to give the new
government a chance if they could be convinced that it would not
destroy the states. When backers agreed to add amendments guaranteeing
the civil liberties of the people against challenge by the national
government and reserving all unmentioned power to the states, much of
the opposition disappeared." (Garraty and McCaughey, THE AMERICAN
NATION: A HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES TO 1877, New York:
Harper & Row Publishers, 1987, p. 159)
James Madison said:
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal
government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State
governments are numerous and indefinite." (Federalist No. 45)
Again, nowhere does the Constitution give the federal government the
power to compel a state to remain in the Union against its will, nor
does the Constitution **say** that a state can't leave the Union.
Furthermore, as has been noted in previous posts, both Madison and
Thomas Jefferson said:
* That the states remained sovereign, independent entities. Said
Madison,
"Do they require that, in the establishment of the Constitution,
the States should be regarded as distinct and independent sovereigns?
They are so regarded by the Constitution proposed." (Federalist No.
40)
And Jefferson:
"That the several states who formed that instrument [the
Constitution], being sovereign and independent, have the
unquestionable right to judge of its infraction; and that a
nullification, by those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts done
under colour of that instrument, is the rightful remedy." (Kentucky
Resolution)
* That the federal government possessed only "delegated" or "granted"
powers, and that all other powers remained with the states and their
respective citizens.
* That the state was the final judge as to whether or not it needed to
nullify a federal law, that the state was the final judge as to
whether or not a federal law was illegal and abusive and therefore
should be rejected by that state. Said Madison,
"The states, then, being the parties to the constitutional
compact,and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity that
there can be no tribunal above their authority to decide. In the last
resort, whether the compact made by them be violated and consequently
that, as the parties to it, they must themselves decide, in the last
resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require
their interposition." (The Madison Report, emphasis added)
And Jefferson:
"Resolved, that the several States composing the United States
of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to
their general government; but that by compact under the style and
title of a Constitution for the United States and of amendments
thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes,
delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving each
State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own
self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes
undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no
force: That to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an
integral party, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party:
That the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive
or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since
that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the
measure of its powers; but that as in all other cases of compact among
parties having no common Judge, each party has an equal right to judge
for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of
redress." (Kentucky Resolution)
How much plainer can English be? The idea that when the states joined
the Union they gave up their sovereignty and independence was a later
invention of the consolidationists, who wanted an all-powerful central
government that could be its own final judge and that could tell the
states what to do any time it felt the need to do so.
Scribe7716
wrote:
>>Please tell us where Madison used the word "secede" in relation to the
>Articles
>>of Confederation? Please tells us how you secede from a document?
>
>Oh, come on. Just read what he said. He was talking about what
>conditions could justify separating from the Articles of
>Confederation. Just read what he said.
>
Once again, >>Please tell us where Madison used the word "secede" in relation
to the
>Articles
>>of Confederation? Please tells us how you secede from a document?
>Can you people admit *anything*? Just curious.
>
No problem at all in "admitting" that you are a neoConfederate twit.
Bruce J. Weiers
> The argument that when the states "acceded" to the Constitution they
> voluntarily gave up their status as independent entities is plainly
> false. This is a key, if not the key, component of the anti-secession
> and anti-nullification position. It's hard to understand how anyone
> familiar with the facts could claim the states gave up their status as
> soveriegn, independent entities, when several of the states specified
> in their ratification ordinances and/or in their constitutions (1)
> that they were only *delegating* certain powers to the federal
> government, (2) that all powers that were not expressly delegated to
> the general government would remain with the states,
Given which powers they did "delegate" in approving the U.S.
Constitution, and which prohibitions on themselves they accepted, in
ratifying the U.S. Constitution, it is difficult to see how anyone could
see that the States did not, in ratifying the U.S. Constitution, give up
their status as sovereign, independent "entities" in <some important
respects>. Hello! Have you read the U.S. Constitution? The States
gave up their rights to coin money, to make war or peace, to make
treaties, etc., and they accepted the absolute supremacy of federal law.
> and (3) that the
> states **reserved the right to resume the powers of government if they
> felt it necessary to do so.**
I think you must have a serious reading comprehension problem, because
none of the ratifications contain such language. NONE.
Three said that "the people" reserved such a right.
None said anything about a State having such a right.
One might note in passing that the Constitution declares itself
instituted by "We, the People of the United States . . ." and when the
ratification conventions reiterated the right of the people to resume
the powers of government, then they were rightfully talking about the
same People, who were, in that instance, instituting the federal
government of the United States, to wit, "the People of the United
States". This is the only sensible interpretation.
> New York, in her resolutions of ratification, declared,
>
> "That the powers of government may be resumed by the people,
> whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness: that every
> power, jurisdiction and right, which is not, by said Constitution,
> clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the
> departments of the government thereof, remains to the people of the
> several States, or to their respective State Governments."
>
> Rhode Island, in her ratification, said:
>
> "That the powers of government may be resumed by the people
> whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness."
>
> Virginia declared, in her ratification:
>
> "That the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived
> from the people of the United States, may be resumed by them
> whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury and
> oppression."
Virginia could not be clearer: "the people of the United States" may
resume the powers of government.
Michael T. Griffith
wrote:
>>[ MTG:] and, as
>> mentioned, he said EACH STATE had the right to decide when the federal
>> government was guilty of such wrongdoing. I quote:
>>
>> "The constitution of the United States was formed by the sanction
>> of the states, given by each in its sovereign capacity. It adds to
>> the stability and dignity, as well as to the authority, of the
>> Constitution, that it rests upon this legitimate and solid foundation.
>> THE STATES, THEN, BEING THE PARTIES TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMPACT,AND
>> IN THEIR SOVEREIGN CAPACITY, IT FOLLOWS OF NECESSITY THAT THERE CAN BE
>> NO TRIBUNAL ABOVE THEIR AUTHORITY TO DECIDE. IN THE LAST RESORT,
>> WHETHER THE COMPACT MADE BY THEM BE VIOLATED AND CONSEQUENTLY THAT, AS
>> THE PARTIES TO IT, THEY MUST THEMSELVES DECIDE, IN THE LAST RESORT,
>> SUCH QUESTIONS AS MAY BE OF SUFFICIENT MAGNITUDE TO REQUIRE THEIR
>> INTERPOSITION." (The Madison Report, emphasis added)
>-----------------------
>Typically, in his quest to deceive, Griffith leaves out and ignores certain
>key items. For example, Madison clearly says that a state can interpose
>only "in the last resort."
Uh, you yourself noted, as we see above, that I had quoted Madison as
saying that interposition was a "last resort." So I did not "leave
out" or "ignore" this item.
Further, I wasn't talking about exactly *when* a state could
interpose. My focus was on the fact that a state *could* interpose.
Additionally, Madison also said that it was **up to the state** to
decide when it needed to interpose. So although Madison wisely said
interposition should only be done in egregious cases and as a last
resort, he also said that ultimately it was up to the state to decide
when a federal abuse called for this step.
> He also says, in the words following Griffith's
>carefully cherrypicked section, "It does not follow, however, because the
>states, as sovereign parties to their constitutional compact, must
>ultimately decide whether it has been violated, that such a decision ought
>to be interposed either in a hasty manner or on doubtful and inferior
>occasions. Even in the case of ordinary conventions between different
>nations, where, by the strict rule of interpretation, a breach of a part may
>be deemed a breach of the whole,--every part being deemed a condition of
>every other part, and of the whole,--it is always laid down that the breach
>must be both wilful and material, to justify an application of the rule. But
>in the case of an intimate and constitutional union, like that of the United
>States, it is evident that the interposition of the parties, in their
>sovereign capacity, can be called for by occasions only deeply and
>essentially affecting the vital principles of their political system."
This is a bunch of hot air. Nothing in this quote contradicts or
weakens my central point that Madison said a state had the right to
interpose its authority over that of the federal government and that
it was up to the state to decide when this needed to be done. All
Madison says in the above quote is that this step ought to be taken
only in a case of a genuine abuse that affects the vital principles of
the state's political system. I've said from the outset that we're
talking about "EGREGIOUS" federal abuses.
Your comments are a bunch of smoke and mirrors that do nothing to
refute my central point that Madison said a state could refuse to obey
an illegal, abusive federal law and that it was up to the state to
decide when this needed to be done.
Cash
> On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 01:58:38 GMT, "Cash" <Cas...@hawaii.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> >>[ MTG:] and, as
> >> mentioned, he said EACH STATE had the right to decide when the federal
> >> government was guilty of such wrongdoing. I quote:
> >>
> >> "The constitution of the United States was formed by the sanction
> >> of the states, given by each in its sovereign capacity. It adds to
> >> the stability and dignity, as well as to the authority, of the
> >> Constitution, that it rests upon this legitimate and solid foundation.
> >> THE STATES, THEN, BEING THE PARTIES TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMPACT,AND
> >> IN THEIR SOVEREIGN CAPACITY, IT FOLLOWS OF NECESSITY THAT THERE CAN BE
> >> NO TRIBUNAL ABOVE THEIR AUTHORITY TO DECIDE. IN THE LAST RESORT,
> >> WHETHER THE COMPACT MADE BY THEM BE VIOLATED AND CONSEQUENTLY THAT, AS
> >> THE PARTIES TO IT, THEY MUST THEMSELVES DECIDE, IN THE LAST RESORT,
> >> SUCH QUESTIONS AS MAY BE OF SUFFICIENT MAGNITUDE TO REQUIRE THEIR
> >> INTERPOSITION." (The Madison Report, emphasis added)
> >-----------------------
>
> Your comments are a bunch of smoke and mirrors that do nothing to
> refute my central point that Madison said a state could refuse to obey
> an illegal, abusive federal law and that it was up to the state to
> decide when this needed to be done.
Actually, Madison says no such thing. He is talking about "states" in
the plural. He is talking about the states acting together, as the
report in its full context shows. I previously posted a relevant
portion from later in the report that shows he expected a state that
had a complaint about the Federal government overstepping its
constitutional bounds would appeal to the other states. Together, the
states would then interpose their authority. How would they do that?
Regards,
Cash
Cash
> wrote:
>
>
> >>[ MTG:] and, as
> >> mentioned, he said EACH STATE had the right to decide when the federal
> >> government was guilty of such wrongdoing. I quote:
> >>
> >> "The constitution of the United States was formed by the sanction
> >> of the states, given by each in its sovereign capacity. It adds to
> >> the stability and dignity, as well as to the authority, of the
> >> Constitution, that it rests upon this legitimate and solid foundation.
> >> THE STATES, THEN, BEING THE PARTIES TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMPACT,AND
> >> IN THEIR SOVEREIGN CAPACITY, IT FOLLOWS OF NECESSITY THAT THERE CAN BE
> >> NO TRIBUNAL ABOVE THEIR AUTHORITY TO DECIDE. IN THE LAST RESORT,
> >> WHETHER THE COMPACT MADE BY THEM BE VIOLATED AND CONSEQUENTLY THAT, AS
> >> THE PARTIES TO IT, THEY MUST THEMSELVES DECIDE, IN THE LAST RESORT,
> >> SUCH QUESTIONS AS MAY BE OF SUFFICIENT MAGNITUDE TO REQUIRE THEIR
> >> INTERPOSITION." (The Madison Report, emphasis added)
> >-----------------------
> >Typically, in his quest to deceive, Griffith leaves out and ignores certain
> >key items. For example, Madison clearly says that a state can interpose
> >only "in the last resort."
>
> Uh, you yourself noted, as we see above, that I had quoted Madison as
> saying that interposition was a "last resort." So I did not "leave
> out" or "ignore" this item.
You didn't leave it out, but you did ignore it. You also ignore the
fact that Madison is speaking of the states in the plural. You leave
out the parts of the report that deal with a state communicating its
declaration of the unconstitutionality of a Federal act to the other
states and inviting their concurrence in order to interpose. As
Madison writes in the "Report," "The legislatures of the states have a
right also, to originate amendments to the constitution, by a
concurrence of two thirds of the whole number, in applications to
Congress for the purpose." [James Madison, "Report on the Alien and
Sedition Acts"]
>
> Further, I wasn't talking about exactly *when* a state could
> interpose. My focus was on the fact that a state *could* interpose.
----------------
A single state cannot interpose. Madison is talking about the states
as a whole interposing.
>
> Additionally, Madison also said that it was **up to the state** to
> decide when it needed to interpose. So although Madison wisely said
> interposition should only be done in egregious cases and as a last
> resort, he also said that ultimately it was up to the state to decide
> when a federal abuse called for this step.
--------------
It would be up to a single state to petition the other states to
concur, but it is up to the states as a whole to determine to
interpose.
Regards,
Cash
Bruce J. Weiers
No doubt Cash will point out the evidently subtle to you point that
Madison is speaking of the States in the plural. The doctrine of
nullification or interposition held that the states, collectively or in
concert, would interpose to nullify a federal enactment, which they
considered abusive.
The Founding Fathers, in writing the Constitution, made a number of
mistakes and critical omissions. One of the most serious was, that they
did not provide explicitly for some institutional mechanism to decide
disputes about whether the Constitution was being respected. When the
Federalists, under Adams, overstepped the Constitution's boundaries with
the Alien and Sedition Acts, those most alarmed did not know what to do
about the clear violations of the Constitution involved. Madison tried
to salvage the situation by inventing the interposition doctrine, from
which nullification was later derived. It has no basis in the
Constitution, except insofar as it conforms to the amendment process.
Amending the Constitution may work as a remedy for an unexpected outcome
or for an undesired interpretation of an ambiguous passage, but it is
not much of a remedy for a wilful violation of plain language. Adding
additional plain language to a document, whose existing plain language
is being wilfully and malevolently ignored, is not much of a remedy.
Restoring a measure of sovereign immunity to the States with the 11th
amendment and fixing the electoral college system with the 12th
amendment were no brainers. But, as a remedy for the Alien and Sedition
Acts, the amendment process really did not seem to answer. And,
"interposition" was really not such a hot idea, either, as Madison and
others soon realized. "Interposition" by any single State would run
smack up against the Supremacy Clause; interposition by two-thirds or
three-quarters of the States, in the form of amending the Constitution
would be hard to organize and would hardly answer for wilful violations
and abuses; and, finally and most importantly, the States have no
obvious enforcement mechanism available to them, short of using armed
force to oppose federal force -- a resort to potentially treasonous
violence, which could lead to anarchy.
In time, it would come to be seen that federal courts were the proper
institutional mechanism, to rule on the constitutionality of federal
laws and actions. Marshall would firmly establish in the federal
courts, the power of judicial review, beginning, ironically enough, with
Marbury v. Madison, in which he decided for Madison. Judicial review is
not explicitly provided for, in the Constitution, any more than
interposition is, but it proved to be far more practical, and, unlike
interposition or nullification, it does not run smack up against
explicit language in the Constitution, such as the Supremacy Clause.
Judicial review had a history in colonial/revolutionary jurisprudence,
which lent it a great deal of legitimacy, and the judiciary can compel
compliance with its orders in many cases, simply by the expedient of not
enforcing the law in question. The offending provisions of the Alien
and Sedition Acts would be toothless, if federal judges would not
enforce them, at trial.
W. G. Davis
W. G. Davis
Cash
----------------
Excellent rundown, Bruce.
I happened to be rereading The Federalist No. 44 today and came across
a useful tidbit. After his discussion of why all the powers of
Congress were not enumerated in the Constitution, in reference to the
necessary and proper clause, Madison then considers what would happen
if Congress were to overstep its constitutional bounds: "If it be
asked what is to be the consequence, in case the Congress shall
misconstrue this part of the Constitution, and exercise powers not
warranted by its true meaning, I answer, the same as if they should
misconstrue or enlarge any other power vested in them; as if the
general power had been reduced to particulars, and any one of these
were to be violated; the same, in short, as if the State legislatures
should violate the irrespective constitutional authorities. In the
first instance, the success of the usurpation will depend on the
executive and judiciary departments, which are to expound and give
effect to the legislative acts; and in the last resort a remedy must
be obtained from the people who can, by the election of more faithful
representatives, annul the acts of the usurpers. The truth is, that
this ultimate redress may be more confided in against unconstitutional
acts of the federal than of the State legislatures, for this plain
reason, that as every such act of the former will be an invasion of
the rights of the latter, these will be ever ready to mark the
innovation, to sound the alarm to the people, and to exert their local
influence in effecting a change of federal representatives. There
being no such intermediate body between the State legislatures and the
people interested in watching the conduct of the former, violations of
the State constitutions are more likely to remain unnoticed and
unredressed." [The Federalist No. 44]
So according to Madison in The Federalist, the "ultimate" remedy is to
elect new representatives. Now, if we were to combine this with his
report on the Alien and Sedition Acts, how are we to reconcile the
two? It would seem that the method of interposition of the various
states would be to elect new representatives to repeal the repugnant
legislation and enact new legislation to repair the damage done. This
in no way supports nullification or secession, but is merely working
within the system to correct a wrong.
Regards,
Cash
Bruce J. Weiers
"Cash" <cas...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:91a12df4.03122...@posting.google.com...
And, of course, in the event, the success of Jefferson's party in the
election of 1800 left Madison et alia very much relieved.