State secessions

[Smith]

So the DC gun law case should have been settled on the basis of prior precedent from the other circuits rather than what the Constitution says?

Uh.... no. As you already stated if it is "stated" (whether in the Const. or law) then it is based on legal interpretation. If it is not "stated" then precedent sets the benchmark. This is basic constitutional law.

DC has to do with legal interpretation and application of existing law. Secession is another animal.

[Marswolf]

Well, both secession and DC have to do with what the Constitution says - or doesn't say. My view is that a state may secede because nothing in the Constitution says it can't and DC can't prevent gun ownership because nothing in the constitution says that the central government or a non-state may do that.

The secession thingy is just a mental exercise. It's a dead issue except for a few flakes. The DC case has very real ramifications.

[Smith]

Well, both secession and DC have to do with what the Constitution says - or doesn't say. My view is that a state may secede because nothing in the Constitution says it can't and DC can't prevent gun ownership because nothing in the constitution says that the central government or a non-state may do that.

The secession thingy is just a mental exercise. It's a dead issue except for a few flakes. The DC case has very real ramifications.

apples and oranges my friend, or more like apples and watermelons.

Secession = precedent in absence of clear directive

DC = Constitutional interpretation of a stated "unclear":rolleyes: directive

they are not the same.

That's like arguing for prostitution on the basis that married people have sex in exchange for goods and services and is allowed.

[The Rabbi]

Well, both secession and DC have to do with what the Constitution says - or doesn't say. My view is that a state may secede because nothing in the Constitution says it can't and DC can't prevent gun ownership because nothing in the constitution says that the central government or a non-state may do that.

The secession thingy is just a mental exercise. It's a dead issue except for a few flakes. The DC case has very real ramifications.

You can't decide something based on wording not in the Constitution. You can have an interpretation of something there (2A in the DC case) but you can't interpret what isn't there.

NSNate is quite right. The historical precedents would be controlling here.

As for DC, I think the actual wording of the 2A will not be the basis of anything. Rather the history of interpretation of the 2A will be controlling.

And the secession issue is obviously not really dead because you've got these loons running around VT puking it out. Personally I think we should declare them in rebellion and after a fair and speedy trial line them up against the wall.

[Smith]

And the secession issue is obviously not really dead because you've got these loons running around VT puking it out. Personally I think we should declare them in rebellion and after a fair and speedy trial line them up against the wall.

The only reason I post in these political issues is to see Rabbi's mind at work. Thanks for getting me through another Monday, Rabbi!

[The Rabbi]

The only reason I post in these political issues is to see Rabbi's mind at work. Thanks for getting me through another Monday, Rabbi!

Thanks, Nate. I think.

Was that a compliment??

[Im Neero]

You can't decide something based on wording not in the Constitution. You can have an interpretation of something there (2A in the DC case) but you can't interpret what isn't there.

NSNate is quite right. The historical precedents would be controlling here.

As for DC, I think the actual wording of the 2A will not be the basis of anything. Rather the history of interpretation of the 2A will be controlling.

And the secession issue is obviously not really dead because you've got these loons running around VT puking it out. Personally I think we should declare them in rebellion and after a fair and speedy trial line them up against the wall.

Ah, I see to the heart of the issue now. You thought I was arguing for secession. I was merely arguing that just because no one could cite a gauranteed constitutional protection of the right that means nothing for your case. The fact that there is no mechanism for secession mentioned in the constitution doesn't mean that it's not allowed, however this...

The thing overlooked, which Rabbi pointed out, was that in absence of law precedent on previous "rulings" apply. Texas, California, New Mexico, and the South all set forth precedent in principal. Although I understand there are some differences in these examples, the principal has been upheld each and every time. In a court ruling or congressional hearing these would all set forth precedent as a major factor in a new law.

does.

As I said, the burden of proof is on one that wants to disallow a right, and Nate has provided evidence to support the lack of that right.

Let's take this out of the legal realm now. Does a state have the philosophical right to secede provided it has the means to do so forcefully? Are the reasons for that secession even relevant? Discuss.

[Marswolf]

The point is precisely that there is no word in the Constitution about a state deciding to leave the Union. If there is no word in the document that says the central government may prevent secession, then it is allowed by definition (of what a constitution is). I'm less concerned with VT loons than TN, NC and SC ones. But enough of this.

I suspect the DC case will be decided very specifically to DC with few implications for the states. If it is decided more broadly, I have a feeling I may not like the ruling based on the "living document."

[Im Neero]

By the way, I do not believe that there is a single state in our country that has a legitimate reason for seccession, nor is there one that could achieve such a goal.

[The Rabbi]

Ah, I see to the heart of the issue now. You thought I was arguing for secession. I was merely arguing that just because no one could cite a gauranteed constitutional protection of the right that means nothing for your case. The fact that there is no mechanism for secession mentioned in the constitution doesn't mean that it's not allowed, however this...

does.

As I said, the burden of proof is on one that wants to disallow a right, and Nate has provided evidence to support the lack of that right.

Let's take this out of the legal realm now. Does a state have the philosophical right to secede provided it has the means to do so forcefully? Are the reasons for that secession even relevant? Discuss.

Your posts are a jumble of meaningless words and phrases.

We are not discussing rights. A state does not have rights. The term rights is meaningless here. You could substitute the word "cockroach" and have it mean as much.

What is a "philosophical right"? If a state can secede by force why would it need a philosophical justification? What would be the point of doing so?

[Smith]

If you have the "means" to do so you have the right to do anything, philosophically speaking. Law is only good if enforceable, whether that be by voluntary or involuntary submission.

[Smith]

Thanks, Nate. I think.

Was that a compliment??

Ah, the beauty of ambiguity!

[The Rabbi]

The point is precisely that there is no word in the Constitution about a state deciding to leave the Union. If there is no word in the document that says the central government may prevent secession, then it is allowed by definition (of what a constitution is). I'm less concerned with VT loons than TN, NC and SC ones. But enough of this.

I suspect the DC case will be decided very specifically to DC with few implications for the states. If it is decided more broadly, I have a feeling I may not like the ruling based on the "living document."

If there is no mechanism provided in the Constitution then it cannot be done.

There was no rule preventing succession by cabinet officers but it wasn't done and providing for it required a constitutional amendment. You cannot argue that because the USC doesnt spell something out then it is OK. It isn't.

[Marswolf]

There is no mechanism provided in the Constitution for people to breath and eat, but they can legally do so.

The Constitution is the list of what the central government may do. It may do nothing legitimately which is not specifically allowed by the document. That was James Madison's understanding. I agree with him.

[The Rabbi]

There is no mechanism provided in the Constitution for people to breath and eat, but they can legally do so.

The Constitution is the list of what the central government may do. It may do nothing legitimately which is not specifically allowed by the document. That was James Madison's understanding. I agree with him.

Breathing and eating aren't political issues so your point is irrelevant.

The constitution is not a list of what the central gov't may do. Go back and read it. It establishes the forms, means, and methods of the Federal government, including how the central gov't will relate to the state governments. And no where mentioned is a mechanism for the states to secede. Ergo there cannot be a secession within the Constitutional framework.

[Marswolf]

I suggest instead that you read Debates In The Federal Convention of 1787 by James Madison.

[molonlabetn]

Breathing and eating aren't political issues so your point is irrelevant.

I dunno... with obeisity and global warming being such hot topics, I dare say that they are indeed political issues to some degree. The air we breathe and the food industry are certainly regulated... at least to some point... though there are not (yet) restrictions on the individual.

[Im Neero]

We are not discussing rights.

I'm sorry then, I missed the memo. Before I make any more responses perhaps you could clue me on on exactly what it is we are discussing?

[dralarms]

I'm sorry then, I missed the memo. Before I make any more responses perhaps you could clue me on on exactly what it is we are discussing?

No one knows anymore.:wall::wall::wall:

[saintsfanbrian]

Wait, Aren't we talking about

[Im Neero]

No one knows anymore.:wall::wall::wall:

Funny, I was doing that very same thing just a few minutes ago.

[Marswolf]

:wall::wall::wall:

I've been feeling that way for much of the day.

[Guest DonRickles]

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

This blatantly states that unless expressly prohibited by the Constitution the power is reserved for the states "respectively" or individually.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

This would seem to suggest that just because something is not expressly addressed does not mean it is not a right.

[The Rabbi]

I think we've plowed this ground before. You are offering an argument from silence. Also known as a fallacious argument. It ignores the difficulty of the mechanics as well as the precedents that have been amply set out.

Where's that dead horse icon again?

[Guest DonRickles]

The argument from silence is very convincing when mentioning a fact can be seen as so natural that its omission is a good reason to assume ignorance.