Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site x.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!ucbvax!ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!harvard!think!mit-eddie!cybvax0!frog!x!wjr From: wjr@x.UUCP (Bill Richard) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Sometimes I (don't) agree with Don Black Message-ID: <818@x.UUCP> Date: Wed, 23-Oct-85 19:52:51 EDT Article-I.D.: x.818 Posted: Wed Oct 23 19:52:51 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 26-Oct-85 07:46:48 EDT References: <774@x.UUCP> <244@3comvax.UUCP> Reply-To: wjr@x.UUCP (STella Calvert) Distribution: net Organization: Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA Lines: 53 In article <244@3comvax.UUCP> michaelm@3comvax.UUCP (Michael McNeil) writes: > However, the non-signatory >states were under no compulsion to join the Union -- in fact they >could not be compelled to since at the time they were independent >states. All of the original holdout states eventually, over the >next two years, did approve the Constitution and join the United >States, with the State of Rhode Island being the final laggard. I'm sorry I phrased that so it seemed I was arguing that the other states were drafted into the Union -- and sorrier still my sources on the disinformation campaign used to bring the holdouts into line are buried in a storage locker. But until then, OK -- states were not forced to join, they were propagandized. >The states joined for a number of reasons, commercial, political, >and social. Many people feared a future as small, Balkanized >states. Americans had recently freed themselves from European >domination, and many wondered if small independent states could >continue to fend off the imperial powers. And many, including signers of the Declaration, feared King Washington as much as the other George. > In acceding to the U.S. >Constitution, the states also acceded to the Constitutional >provision which declares it to be the "supreme law of the land." >Now, once having agreed that the U.S. Constitution -- and its >institutions such as the Congress -- are the "supreme law of the >land," where do the signatory states get the idea that they can >unilaterally withdraw? Don't get me wrong, I believe that states >can legally withdraw from the Union -- but it seems clear that >the Congress must acquiesce. The Confederate States did not get >Congress's approval before attempting to dismantle the Union! I don't know where those states got the idea they could withdraw unilaterally -- but it might have been from Thomas Jefferson. "When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another...." I won't quote the whole thing, but TJ argued that there are rights that cannot be superceded by any government. And if that argument was sufficient for the first revolution, it would seem sufficient for any other. STella Calvert Every man and every woman is a star. Guest on: ...!decvax!frog!wjr Life: Baltimore!AnnArbor!Smyrna!!SantaCruz!Berkeley!AnnArbor!Taxachussetts Future: ... (!L5!TheBelt!InterstellarSpace)