Politico:Ron Paul: ‘Secession is a deeply American principle’

[angus]

The main issue I have in general is that the legality question is besides the point.

Okay.  That's true as well.

I guess my main issue is that whenever Ron Paul says anything, even when it's true, you can bet that 47% of the posters will impugn and castigate.

[Badger]

RON PAUL TROLLS AGAIN
DEVELOPING

The Constitution is trolling?

Ther is nothing in the Constitution to allow succession. So this argument coming from Paul, a guy who bases ALL his arguments--foriegn policy, health care, ivil rights, movie reviews, sports rivalries--obstensibly on his selectively litteralist interpretation of said document, his claim here is particularly ill-suited.

The 10th Amendment explicitly says "All powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Since secession is not mentioned at all in the Constitution, it is a power relegated to the states, thereby making secession a constitutional right that each state holds.

Don't get me wrong, I do not support secession at all. I do believe it to be a constitutional right for the states to exercise.

IIRC, treason is prohibited by the constitution. Regardless, citing the 10th Amendment of the Constitution as grounds to nullify allegience to the Constitution itself seems a decidedly weak argument.

[SPC]

RON PAUL TROLLS AGAIN
DEVELOPING

The Constitution is trolling?

Ther is nothing in the Constitution to allow succession. So this argument coming from Paul, a guy who bases ALL his arguments--foriegn policy, health care, ivil rights, movie reviews, sports rivalries--obstensibly on his selectively litteralist interpretation of said document, his claim here is particularly ill-suited.

The 10th Amendment explicitly says "All powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Since secession is not mentioned at all in the Constitution, it is a power relegated to the states, thereby making secession a constitutional right that each state holds.

Don't get me wrong, I do not support secession at all. I do believe it to be a constitutional right for the states to exercise.

IIRC, treason is prohibited by the constitution. Regardless, citing the 10th Amendment of the Constitution as grounds to nullify allegience to the Constitution itself seems a decidedly weak argument.

The process of implementing the Constitution implicitly acknowledged the right of a state to unilaterally alter its relationship with the federal government, rather than only doing so through unanimous consent of the states as the Articles of Confederation specified. Accepting the constitutionality of the Constitution requires ex post facto acceptance that the states had the power to withdraw from the Articles of Confederation to ratify the Constitution. Thus, since states had the power to withdraw from the Articles of Confederation, then they reserved the power to withdraw from the Constitution, and this is explicitly confirmed by the Tenth Amendment. If, however, the power to unilaterally withdraw from the Constitution is illegal, and since the Constitution never prohibited such a power and the Tenth Amendment reserved powers not prohibited to the states, then logically such a prohibition must have existed that would prevent the states from withdrawing from the Articles of Confederation, and thus the Constitution itself is void since no state could have legally ratified it.

[Badger]

I don't believe 'withdrawal' from the Articles is the correct term, as the Constitution more superceded the Articles. Thus claiming the surplanting of the Articles, which were so grossly unworkable as they couldn't compel the states to do anything, with the Constitution which obviously could do so, is something of a strawman.

Point#2, there is nothing remotely 'explicit' in the Tenth amendment supporting succession.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

RON PAUL TROLLS AGAIN
DEVELOPING

The Constitution is trolling?

Ther is nothing in the Constitution to allow succession. So this argument coming from Paul, a guy who bases ALL his arguments--foriegn policy, health care, ivil rights, movie reviews, sports rivalries--obstensibly on his selectively litteralist interpretation of said document, his claim here is particularly ill-suited.

The 10th Amendment explicitly says "All powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Since secession is not mentioned at all in the Constitution, it is a power relegated to the states, thereby making secession a constitutional right that each state holds.

Don't get me wrong, I do not support secession at all. I do believe it to be a constitutional right for the states to exercise.

IIRC, treason is prohibited by the constitution. Regardless, citing the 10th Amendment of the Constitution as grounds to nullify allegience to the Constitution itself seems a decidedly weak argument.

Did you ever wonder why they put the 10th amendment in? Perhaps as a way for states to escape the Constitution if it is slowly mangled into a monstrosity?

[SPC]

I don't believe 'withdrawal' from the Articles is the correct term, as the Constitution more superceded the Articles. Thus claiming the surplanting of the Articles, which were so grossly unworkable as they couldn't compel the states to do anything, with the Constitution which obviously could do so, is something of a strawman.

Point#2, there is nothing remotely 'explicit' in the Tenth amendment supporting succession.

There was a process for amending the Articles of Confederation which could have been used to make a stronger central government, if that was the intention. Instead the Federalists chose to bypass the Articles using a procedure that was of dubious legality under the Articles of Confederation.

Additionally, the Constitution went into effect after 9 states ratified it, whereas there were 13 states in the Articles of Confederation. Did the Constitution "supercede" the Articles in the remaining four states prior to their ratification, or just the 9 that ratified it at the time? If the former, then doesn't that imply that states have the power to alter their relationship with the federal government without unanimous consent? If the latter, then couldn't one just as easily say that the Confederate Constitution "superceded" the Constitution of 1787?

By explicit, I meant that the Tenth Amendment explicitly states that the states reserve powers not prohibited to them by the federal government.