Once again I have decided to dedicate a post to an in-depth reply to a comment. This time it relates to my recent post about the definition of a state. When writing this blog I always try to be factually correct, but I may make mistakes from time to time, and readers are welcome to point out any faults.
I am replying to someone called Luke, who appears to be an American citizen. The original comments are shown in blue, and I reply mainly in black text.
.
.
A State of
the United States can secede by a simple majority vote of its State legislator.
I wasn't aware of this. What is your evidence for this? Is it written into the Constitution of the USA?
That hasn't happened since our Civil War, but many elected representatives of
different States have discussed it openly and even made it an issue in their
campaigns just recently. No effort to secede from the United States since the
Civil War has been successful, mainly because it has never been popular enough
to even come to a vote.
I do not know whether or not any states have discussed leaving the Union since 1865, but I do know that the efforts of eleven states to secede in 1861 were unsuccessful because the federal government of the USA brought them back into the Union through various acts of violence and starvation.
It would be financial suicide for a State to secede from the United States. Only New York, California, and Texas might be able to survive a cut off from the federal system. Our communal taxation system makes it almost impossible for a State to succeed and be financially successful, without that federal financial help.
Again, what is your evidence for this? I expect that some people in 1776 thought that the British colonies in North America would not be able to survive outside of the British Empire. Maybe some people in 1966 felt that Bechuanaland would not be able to flourish outside of the British Empire.
Then their is the question of what happens to the federally guarded rights of an American citizen living in a State that secedes.
Presumably they would be replaced by rights guarded by the legislation of that particular state.
When some States seceded
from the United States before our Civil War, there was no federal right that
made slavery illegal, protected blacks, or even made blacks citizens.
I believe that is correct.
This is where Lincoln is rightfully accused of making unconstitutional, illegal decisions.
I'm not sure what you are referring to here, but I repeat what I said in an earlier post:
If
the states were not allowed to secede, then the citizens of those
secessionist states were still technically American citizens. The war
deprived many of them of their lives, but in most cases without the
privilege of trial by jury, which is guaranteed by the constitution.
.
.
Lincoln never took the stand that slavery was illegal, or should be
abolished. His stance was, as new States joined the United States, they would
agree to be non-slave States.
This is not true. My understanding is that Lincoln was elected on a policy that all new states of the USA would not have any slavery. However he subsequently decided - I believe it was early in 1862 - to abolish slavery throughout the USA. He also decided for political reasons to delay announcing this new policy until later that year.
Our Civil War decided the question of State's rights.
It decided that states have no right to secede.
Federal law trumps State
law. A State cannot deny the federally guaranteed rights of any individual no
matter where they (which State) lived. Once our federal Supreme Court decides a
certain issues is a protected federal right, that is the law for all States.
Same sex marriage is an example. So is integrated schools.
In short, do states have any rights at all? It seems to me that they have no rights whatever. Should they even be termed states?
A person is a United States citizen first, not just a citizen of any one State. It does not matter where in the United States one lives, to have their federal rights protected.
A big problem with this is that one man's federal right could be another man's federal wrong.
Our Constitution states any right not enumerated by the federal Constitution is left to the States to decide. That's why issues over the years fight in the Supreme Court to get federally protected status.
In other words, a lot of people in the USA do not like to see things decided by states. That is not surprising when the states are effectively powerless.
This all gets legally complicated and the federal government has sent troops into States to enforce the rights of individuals. Again, the integration of schools is a good example.
I suppose it is easy to decide any legal quibble by sending in troops. Who needs democracy when you can simply resort to violence?
I know little about the details of your form of government, but I can answer questions about our form of government.
I presume from the above that you are American. Do you accept that your form of government is founded in part at least upon violence?
I came across your blog through a random search and was intrigued by your post enough to respond.
Feel free to respond again.
The quote above in purple text is from this previous post: Mortocracy versus democracy
The only other time I have responded in depth to a comment was with this post: A reasoned approach to war
"I wasn't aware of this. What is your evidence for this? Is it written into the Constitution of the USA?"
ReplyDeleteThat is the way democracy works in America. It is not part of our federal Constitution. Residents of a territory vote if they want to become a State of the United States, or not. If they vote to become a State, that includes accepting all federal laws.
"I do not know whether or not any states have discussed leaving the Union since 1865, but I do know that the efforts of eleven states to secede in 1861 were unsuccessful because the federal government of the USA brought them back into the Union through various acts of violence and starvation."
The Governor of Texas not only discussed secession but threatened to do it while Obama was president.
Once those States seceded they were not brought back into the union until after the end of the Civil War. If by acts of violence and starvation you mean the Civil War, that is correct, otherwise that is not correct and I would enjoy seeing your evidence on that.
"Again, what is your evidence for this? I expect that some people in 1776 thought that the British colonies in North America would not be able to survive outside of the British Empire. Maybe some people in 1966 felt that Bechuanaland would not be able to flourish outside of the British Empire.
You are correct. Many of the colonies did not want to declare independence because of the fear of financial failure if they did. That was one of the big debates in the Constitutional Convention.
"Presumably they would be replaced by rights guarded by the legislation of that particular state."
Except no States had the legal protections that the U.S. Constitution did. The U.S. Constitution was far superior in its protections of individual rights than any State.
"I'm not sure what you are referring to here, but I repeat what I said in an earlier post:"
Lincoln had no right to force States to stay in the union. This is one of those decisions Lincoln made that was unconstitutional. States were (or should have been) allowed to secede by a majority vote of that State's legislators, and so they did.
"This is not true. My understanding is that Lincoln was elected on a policy that all new states of the USA would not have any slavery."
I believe I said the same thing, " His stance was, as new States joined the United States, they would agree to be non-slave States."
"It decided that states have no right to secede."
No, again Lincoln had no right to force States who voted to secede, to stay in the union.
"In short, do states have any rights at all? It seems to me that they have no rights whatever. Should they even be termed states?"
Yes States have rights, but they cannot make laws that go against the U.S. Constitution, or federal law. Example: There is no federal law that says you cannot fire someone for just being gay. Some States make it perfectly legal to fire someone for just being gay.
(cont.)
ReplyDelete"A big problem with this is that one man's federal right could be another man's federal wrong."
Wrong. The Supreme Court decides what is federal law and all States must adhere to those laws.
"In other words, a lot of people in the USA do not like to see things decided by states. That is not surprising when the states are effectively powerless."
States are not powerless. States can make law about issues not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution has an amendment process. If 2/3rds of the States vote and a majority vote of the House and the Senate (controlled by State representatives) vote to change the Constitution, then the Constitutional law is changed. Prohibition is a good example.
"I suppose it is easy to decide any legal quibble by sending in troops. Who needs democracy when you can simply resort to violence?"
Wrong, any legal quibble has already been decided by the Supreme Court. The troops are used to enforce the law the Supreme Court has decided. Again, school segregation is a good example.
"I presume from the above that you are American. Do you accept that your form of government is founded in part at least upon violence?"
Yes, I live in the State of Minnesota, USA. I was born here.
No, I do not accept that our form of government, a Democratic Republic, was founded in violence.
It's indisputable that my government has used violence and murder to attain the land and power that it has. It's also a fact that we created a slave nation. The original Constitution allowed slavery as a legal right, which is why Lincoln had no legal right to abolish slavery without going through the Constitutional process I described above.
Many things our government and our presidents have done have been unconstitutional.
FDR interned American citizens of Japanese decent during WW II. That was totally unconstitutional.
Thank you for your comments. I think right now my blog is more popular in the USA than it has ever been before.
ReplyDeleteNo problem, anytime I can help.
ReplyDelete