Look, in the Constitution for the following clause: "The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in a Supreme Court, which shall be the final arbiter and decider of all constitutional disputes within this Union, shall have no limits on its power but what it itself establishes, and shall be allowed to rewrite the constitution to the detriment of state sovereignty as it shall see fit." Don't see it? That's because it doesn't exist. The Supreme Court was never intended to decide such momentous measures, it was intended to settle law suits that could not be decided at state courts, not be an imperial judgeocracy governed by nine unelected oracles who can negate states rights with a strike of their mystical hammers. The States, were, in fact, intended to bee the final arbiters of what's constitutional, and were supposed to fulfil the current tyrannical function of the Supreme Court by interposing their sovreignty against unconstitutional legislation via nullification. Ever heard of the Kentucky and Virginia resolves? Look them up this instant. They were written by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, proposed to the legislatures of those two states, and passed, to declare null and void John Adams' Alien & Sedition Acts. Ever heard of the Hartford Convention of 1815? No? That's when New England nullified James Madison's military program and threatened to secede? The South Carolina nullification of the Tariff in 1832? No? Look it up. Wisconsin, in the 1850s, nullifying the Fugitive Slave Act? No? Look it up.
If you think this is an example of the STATES VOLUNTARILY SURRENDERING THEIR RIGHTS TO THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT, as I specifically and explicitly and kindly asked you to do, you are DEAD WRONG. I don't know how I could have made myself any clearer than I did...
@9CJ6CB64mos4MO
Sometimes the states don’t get a choice in this situation, secession is one of them. Even the articles of confederation didn’t expressly allow the full secession of a state at will, a legal loophole was used to reach that point, which was exploited to create the new Constitution in the first place as a result, and no matter what ancient cases have been made, the cases more recent and strong in precedent trump them, thereby making that right disagreed upon at best, and rejected unless stated directly in the constitution as a right. The Supreme Court is designed to interpret the con… Read more
@Patriot-#1776Constitution4mos4MO
Sometimes the states don’t get a choice in this situation,
Explain why they wouldn't. Explain to me why states unanimously recognised at their founding as "free and independent" sovereign republics with the mass of right to their own self-government NOT have a choice ANY matter they did not expressly delegate the federal government authority to preside over in the confederal Contract we call the Constitution? That's what I asked for.