Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Right Wing Extremist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (9946)	6/15/2001 1:41:48 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 59480

Yes, I suppose there were states defining treason in their borders, which weakens that point..... You are inferring from silence that the right of secession was residual. I am inferring that the lack of an overt mechanism in the Constitution implies that there was no right. I do not think invoking Article 10 tips the balance, but leaves it ambiguous. I doubt that all of the states would have understood such a right, so as to take it for granted. Therefore, since it was not, to my knowledge, discussed, I take it that, at best, they avoided the topic as device, and left everyone to his own opinion, without genuine resolution.........

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (9946)	6/15/2001 2:59:55 PM
From: Gordon A. Langston	Respond to of 59480

civil-liberties.com There are a couple of resolutions here that speak to the concept of state citizenship, one by Jefferson and one by Madison. Also the income tax issue. "By metaphysical refinement, in examining our form of government, it might be correctly said that there is no such thing as a citizen of the United States. But constant usage -arising from convenience, and perhaps necessity, and dating from the formation of the Confederacy - has given substantial existence to the idea which the term conveys. A citizen of any one of the States of the Union, is held to be, and called a citizen of the United States, although technically and abstractly there is no such thing. To conceive a citizen of the United States who is not a citizen of some one of the states, is totally foreign to the idea, and inconsistent with the proper construction and common understanding of the expression as used in the constitution, which must be deduced from its various other provisions. The object then to be obtained, by the exercise of the power of naturalization, was to make citizens of the respective states." Ex parte Knowles, 5 Ca. 300, 302 (1855)