Countdown to Extinction: The 2016 Presidential Election

[Karl Henning]

All that Delius he listens to . . . .

[Florestan]

All that Telemann he listens to . . . .

Fixed.

[Karl Henning]

So that's why they called him "Tallahassee" Telemann!

[Jubal Slate]

Fixed.

We agree on classical music. That's all that matters.

[North Star]

0:)

God knows  0:) that Republicans know how to read selectively, if they know how to read.

[Ken B]

First thing this made me think of is, when M^cCain made his concession speech and observed that Obama was now our President, a bitter heckler defying that attempt at healing unity with, "He's not MINE!"

Echoing thousands of Bush critics. And I recall McCain chastising that heckler.

[Ken B]

You talk as if Democrats don't do the same thing.   

+1 and thank you.
The unconscious irony in this thread is incredible.

[Karl Henning]

Echoing thousands of Bush critics. And I recall McCain chastising that heckler.

I don't doubt the first point;  I just don't recall "witnessing" such an occasion.

And I, too, recall the second.

[Todd]

lus the ridiculous domestic opposition he has to endure

I always find such complaints amusing.  The US has a long history of obstruction in Congress and at the state level.  It is a proud tradition.  It started with threats of secession in the 1790s and has waxed and waned over the intervening years.  As an opponent of efficient government, I applaud many such efforts.  Nullification and secession obviously go way too far, but obstruction can be beautiful.

Just a question of degree. I can't remember the last time a Dem stood up in the State of the Union Address and shouted at the Republican President "YOU LIE!".

I believe he remained seated.  (The dastardly Republican who so offended Obama, that is.)

0:)

Such a view was relatively common among many founders, but George Washington aside, all of them succumbed to partisanship, including Adams.  (And even Washington was a Federalist; he just never had to do some of the dirty work.)

[Gurn Blanston]

I believe he remained seated.  (The dastardly Republican who so offended Obama, that is.)

Oh, in that case, no harm, no foul...

[Karl Henning]

Lie down and be counted . . . .

[Karl Henning]

Aye, none of this graceful concession rigmarole.  If you want this election, you're going to have to pry it from my cold, dead fingers!

[Todd]

What artiicle of the US Constitution formally prohibits secession?

It is not specifically prohibited, but it can be argued that Article I, Section 10 and Article VI, Section 2 prohibit secession.  In practical terms, the Civil War settled the matter.

[Todd]

I rest my case.

In practical terms, might is right. I rest my case.

Your case is feeble.  Check out Texas v. White.  Also, the language of the two sections I mentioned offer more than enough leeway in interpretation, as does the fact that the entire reason that the Constitution was created in the first place was to form a better, more stable, more permanent governing solution with a more powerful central government than what was offered under the Articles of Confederation.  Using Article VI, Section 2 and federal legislation specifically banning secession should also settle the matter, though I am not familiar with such a law.  There is no need for one.

[Todd]

What article of the US Constitution formally prohibited secession in 1861?

You have changed your question.  It is not 1861.  That is why I suggested you read Texas v White from 1869. 

In the case of the Confederacy, I think this language in the first sentence of Article I, Section 10 is pretty clear: "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation."  Jefferson Davis and his cohorts were plain old criminals.

I was initially responding to a more generic question regarding whether a single state could legally secede now.

[Todd]

What article of the US Constitution as ratified by the member states as per 1861 formally prohibited secession? Quote it word by word, please.

I already addressed this earlier, as you know. 

Now, please explain how the southern states' formation of the confederacy was not a blatant violation of Article I, Section 10. 

[Todd]

What article of the US Constitution as ratified by the member states as per 1861 formally prohibited secession? Quote it word by word, please.

An intellectually lazy rejoinder.

[Todd]

Any act of rebellion, by definition, rejects the law of the land they are rebelling against.

And the state can act to put down any act of rebellion.  That's usually what happens.

Given the powers inherent in the federal government in the Articles cited, I'm not at all convinced that the right to self-determination is as free and easy as you imply; the prohibitions listed in Article I, Section 10, and even more so the Supremacy Clause (and other clauses in Article I), were intended to ensure the central government remained more powerful than the states on certain issues, which I hasten to add is not the same thing as overwhelming coercive power.  The Constitution was not formed to create an overly powerful central state, but it was formed at least partly is response to the actual weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation.  Shays' Rebellion showed just how weak the general government was, and leaders rightly wanted something that could offer more stability.

I'm also not sure there is a double standard.  Rebelling against a hereditary monarchy is in fact and practice different than rebelling against a government formed freely by the member states, where legislation and standards both evolve over time.

Now, let's be very clear about what secession was about when South Carolina seceded in 1860.  South Carolina's argument rests heavily on Article IV of the Constitution.  You know, the Fugitive Slave Clause.  High political principles were not really involved.  It was very much about continuing on with slavery.  Yes, in 1789, states signed on to the document filled with some odious provisions.  Time passed, laws changed, judicial decisions were rendered, factors of economic production changed, and social norms changed, too.  But the document remained.  The South clung to its preferred odious provisions.  The North clung to its preferred (far less) odious provisions.  The war came, might made right (and right made right, too, I would argue), and new amendments to the Constitution were added, eliminating or altering the South's preferred odious provisions.  There will be those who use the traditional States' Rights arguments to say that the Federal Government overstepped its bounds, but no state or group of states has the right to sacrifice the territorial or political integrity of the union.  That is certainly not one of the powers granted by or envisioned for the Tenth Amendment.

Stalin said the same about the kulaks. He also starved millions of Ukrainians to death on the same account.

Hitler said the same about the Jews. He sent millions of Jews to death on the same account.

Page 10.  Godwin's Law stands.  Thank you.

[Todd]

Might is right. I rest my case.

You have made no case.

[Ken B]

Just a question of degree. I can't remember the last time a Dem stood up in the State of the Union Address and shouted at the Republican President "YOU LIE!".  If you can, please refresh my memory on that...

Well, I can remember dem congressmen telling the truth. Though maybe not during the SOTU.

But to echo/anticipate Todd, I'm all for a little blunt honesty, and a little less respect for presidents. decorum is a fine thing, but a little fit of truthful umbrage is not such a great crime.