it's curious that secessionist almost assume that once states break from the union, those states that make themselves confederations will stay intact. most likely many of those states would have broken up into even smaller entities.many of them becoming highly stratified fiefdoms. paid agents of just about any hostile foreign country can not come close to the job done by the secessionists and libertarians. ironically these same right wingers consider themselves the most patriotic "god bless the us of america" truly psychotic split personalities.

"In response to some of the people who have commented about the issue of slavery, I'd like to say: Google "Lysander Spooner". He was one of the biggest PROPONENTS of abolition and also one of the biggest OPPONENTS of the Civil War. Spooner realized that if the South was allowed to secede, slavery would wither away."

In fact, and to the contrary: the Confederate Constitution was identical to the US Constitution -- EXCEPT that it included stipulations PROHIBITING ANY laws adversely affecting the institution of slavery, and any amendments to the Confederate Constitution changing those stipulations.

"The fact is, the Constitution PROTECTED slavery with the Fugitive Slave clause."

There isn't any "Fugitive Slave clause" in the Constitution, jackass. There was a Fugitive Slave ACT -- which is a STATUTE, braindead.

If the South was allowed to secede, the federal government would have had no way to force run-away slaves back with their slave owners

We hate fascism, communism, totalitarianism, socialism, marxism and atheism. They are all anti-American and so is obama and most of his cabinet. They are destroying America, we want it back.

-- rockybalboa Monday, April 20, 2009 01:00 PM PDT

You hate the First Amendment and freedom of beliefs not perfectly identical with yours. That makes you a fascist.

And a name-calling illiterate who hasn't a clue what any of those pseudo-epithets factually mean.

"Ultimately, the Constitution was/is a contract between the states to create a federal government . . . ."

No, it is not. There is a process by means of which a wannabe "state may become a member of the Union. It isn't up to the wannabe "state," it is up to the Union. The wannabe "state" first must comply with stipulations mandated by Congress. It then must petition Congress for admission to the Union. If Congress says no, tough shit for the wannabe.

That being the ACTUAL process, secession would be the exact reverse. And if Congress says no, there is no secession. (I wouldn't mind a majority of Union members voting to throw out the lunatic authoritarian illiterates which proudly boast of being Texans.)

". . . --giving it certain powers exclusively, sharing powers, and restricting it certain powers (e.g. 10th amendment, which is akin to toilet paper these days)."

The Bill of Rights was drawn from the existing state constitutions/bills of rights adopted during 1776-77, and 1780. The content of the non-tabla rasa Tenth Amendment is limited to the rights in those bullis of rights not expressly stipulated.

In addition, the Constitution also incorporates LIMITS on the STATEES, one being a PROHIBITION against states forming CONFEDERATIONS.

"Lest we forget the 1st central government of the 13 colonies was under the Articles of Confederation."

Congratulations: one assertion correct -- doubtless by accident.

"Our current constitution was largely a result of the central government under the Articles of Confederation printing too much money and being unable to pay for the war."

Actually it wasn't; it was the result of an inability to enforce the promises made by the states to the Confederation, and concern for various insurrections, most prominently Shays'.

"Essentially the states did secede from the government created under the Articles of Confederation, then a few years later formed a new central government under our current constitution and is here to this date--our "Union"."

Now you've shown your self-confabulation as preferable to the actual history. Various states called for amendment of the Articles, and delegates were elected and sent to Philadelphia for that purpose. While ther they decided instead to draft a new frame of gov't -- the Constitution.

"Indeed, early drafts of the Constitution started as "We the States" and not "We the People." It's unfortunate that people have a misconception about this."

In fact, the first draft of the Constitution began, "We the people, in order to form a more perfect Union, . . . ." That is underscored by such as the supremacy clause, and US Con. Art. I., s. 8, c. 15.

Otherwise, your fiction (I'm being polite) is irrelevant because it wasn't ratified; wasn't adopted as the law of the land. We don't substitute far-right lunatic fringe America-haters' pseudo-law gibberish for the rule of law.

I won't suggest you read the Constitution. Instead I suggest you get someone who can read read it to you.

Ron Paul and Federalism

Alex Koppelman, not Ron Paul, is wrong. Victors write history--

and law as well. Your quote from an 1869 Supreme Court Justice

basically says, "We won!" Federal government originally was

as your philosophical dictionary stated. Words don't stay still.

Now what is meant by federal government is the national

government. Ron Paul remembers the original meaning, you don't.

The left will go nowhere if it insists that all the right

is stupid.

-- Rachmiel Monday, April 20, 2009 09:07 AM PDT

You are as much a loon, and full of shit, as non-historian Paul. From the US Constritution neither you nor he has read even the first time:

US Con., Art. I, s. 8., c. 15. [The Congress shall have Power] To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute [enforce -- see "Whiskey Rebellion" and "Civil War"] the Laws of the Union, [and] suppress Insurrections [see "Whiskey Rebellion" and "Civil War"].

You have a choice: continue to self-inflict brain damage and ever-lower IQ by sucking the sweet lead on your gun barrel/s, or quit jerking-off as substitute for thought and get an education in what the US IS, not what law-illiterates such as you WANT it to be. Here's a clue:

"A system of laws, and not of men." -- John Adams.

John Adams made the point in action -- and principle: "Justice and the rule of law are to be ABOVE politics."