Consolidated Immigration Issues Thread


There’s no getting around the people who wrote the Constitution, stating this right doesn’t exist.

With neither the founders, nor the supreme court saying this, it just seem like you’re stating your own personal opinion.

Which is fine, but there’s no reason that would be convincing.


James Madison outright denied that there was a right to secede unilaterally.

That is the context, it’s why he said it.

You can’t spin that RET.

Didn’t say that; I’m saying it’d be illegal.

To me, a law break can be justified. You are the ones trying to squirm around or bend the words of the Founders, to avoid acknowledging the illegality.

If you were conservative, you would acknowledge the same as I do that illegal actions can be justified, and not avoid labeling them illegal.


So what?
At what point was Madison appointed king of the United States?
At what point did one Founder receive the authority from all others to interpret and set the boundaries of the clearly stated document that was signed by 54 others and that established this nation as a sovereign entity?

The answer is NEVER, Madison’s opinions are exactly that; one man’s opinion that may or may not hold water when compared to the actual language that was agreed upon by 55 men.

Only the Left accept the premise that any one judge or other person is sufficient authority to destroy the Rights of all, you protest when I label you that way but every time you’re cornered you revert to such arguments.

You have been asked to back up your claims in light of clearly stated language in the most authoritative standards that exist in this Union and you present crap like one person’s personal opinion.

Let me guess, next your going to quote Napolitano?


So bollocks to your “context” move.

Beyond that; no one in history sided with this viewpoint. The Founders didn’t; if you think James Madison was alone, you haven’t looked into this very far.

Does Patrick Henry ring a bell? He didn’t want the Constitution for this reason.

There were Anti-Federalists that wanted explicit language for this, and the Federalists successfully blocked them. They didn’t argue the language was “unnecessary”, they argued such a right would undermine what the Constitution was attempting to be.

At what point did the right secede unilaterally become anything but dubious?

We’re not a Confederation; it doesn’t make sense for the type of Government we constructed, and neither the Founders, nor the Supreme court in any era asserted this right existed.

Get cross all you want, the only thing you’ve offered to assert this is your opinion, and if it’s your opinion against the Founders, I have no reason to consider yours more authoritative.


Actually it was the FOUNDERS who said that “When in the course of human events…” and signed the Declaration ASSERTING that right.


Nope; that’s a revolution, and which Madison maintained as extra-Constitutional.


You know as well as I that I said you “usually” ignore the context, like your incessant comparisons to immigration policies that were tried in the pre welfare era and supported by people that Conservatives respect today.

Your context is correct occasionally but like this case with Madison it is completely irrelevant to the challenge that was made to your position.


That was the Founding document of this nation that explicitly spelled out why the people have the Right AND RESPONSIBILITY to cast off governance that hinder their God given Rights, there was no qualifier that these Rights only applied to British governments or that they would expire as soon as a government that Madison approved of had been formed.

But of course, you know all of that but since it condemns your position you pretend otherwise.


I don’t see how you invalidate Madison without invalidating yourself.

You are only offering your own opinion here. People at the Founding who thought the Constitution should allow this right, tried to alter it to reflect that, but failed.

Whatever way you look at it, no one at the time the Constitution was adopted thought this right existed.

In the time since, no one within the system has argued it exists.

So what you’re giving me, is pure academic speculation of what you want it to do.
Push it any further, you could call it outright revisionism.


And still you missed the point.

Madison said it would be illegal; but that says nothing as to whether it is right. Those aren’t the same thing RET, and the Founders themselves clearly separated the two.

To them, an unjust law enacted by an oppressive power, even one utilizing the Constitution as its modus operandi, can & should be broken.

Breaking the law, doing something illegal in the eyes of the current system, can be the right thing to do.


The only way that could be true is if I unilaterally wrote and signed the Declaration of Independence, that is the foundation of my argument and it is quite easy to verify everything I have said.

Which is why you have steadfastly tried to deflect the argument to some other standard like individual opjnions.


No they didn’t. They got what they wanted in the tenth amendment.


And yet the people who wrote & signed it said this right doesn’t exist. Madison & the Federalists, did not want what happened to the Articles to keep being repeated every 5 years, that’s why they left it out, and specifically left out language from the Articles that implied state Sovereignty that anyone could argue would allow for this.


Yes they did. The Poughkeepsie Convention.

Even after, people at the time didn’t think the 10th amendment offered this right, so right now, you’re offering revisionism.

James Madison pretty much lays that out:

Montpellier, Dec. 23, 1832.

Dr. Sir I have received yours of the 19th, inclosing some of the South Carolina papers. There are in one of them some interesting views of the doctrine of secession; one that had occurred to me, and which for the first time I have seen in print; namely that if one State can at will withdraw from the others, the others can at will withdraw from her, and turn her, nolentem, volentem, out of the union. Until of late, there is not a State that would have abhorred such a doctrine more than South Carolina, or more dreaded an application of it to herself. The same may be said of the doctrine of nullification, which she now preaches as the only faith by which the Union can be saved.

I partake of the wonder that the men you name should view secession in the light mentioned. The essential difference between a free Government and Governments not free, is that the former is founded in compact, the parties to which are mutually and equally bound by it. Neither of them therefore can have a greater fight to break off from the bargain, than the other or others have to hold them to it…

It is high time that the claim to secede at will should be put down by the public opinion; and I shall be glad to see the task commenced by one who understands the subject.

There’s no historical basis to view the 10th this way. Something even Robert E. Lee admitted to.


The Constitution did not nullify or overthrow the nation founded by the Declaration of Independence, every government seeks to secure it’s own power via force so it should not surprise anyone that this nation’s governments have tried to abandon the Principles we were founded on as well, but until this nation is abolished and replaced by another on different Principles the government is supposed to live in fear of the people and the States to the point of walking on eggshells when they decide to pass laws or regulations.

Your side has made a lot of headway in turning this nation timid and afraid of your precious government but that fear is a self imposed handicap; the people and the States still have the power and can cast of your apostate government any time they please.


What does the 10th Amendment say? What are the words written out on the paper, and ratified via the legal process? Were the opinions you are citing ratified by congress and the state legislatures, or did they ratify the 10th amendment AS WRITTEN? It says what it says, not what anyone at any point in history wanted or interpreted it to say.

You have yet to show any clause of the constitution which delegates to the United States the power to compel continued membership or which prohibits secession.

WHERE ARE THOSE CLAUSES? Until you can show them, you are arguing for the rule of men over the rule of law.


Textualism is what the words meant, at the time it was written, not just anything you want to imagine them to mean.

The Constitution is either a cold dead letter, as Madison and Hamilton stated it was, or you’re just giving the “living Constitution” theorists room to enact their piece.


C’mon, Qix; the 10th Amendment means what jurisprudence (or whatever else AS cites) says it does; not what it actually says! I mean, duh… :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:


Nope, it means what it says, as what that meant, at the time it was written.

Dead letter, as Madison said. You are not allowed to modify its meaning.


Then why do you insist on doing just that, AS?