Re: Was Secession Legal? Part 10
>Wow! No wonder this country is so screwed up. Did they teach you that at university?
“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.
The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security.” Federalist Papers #45.
Also read Amendments IX and X. – Johnny Reb 1865
There are two basic types of power of attorney, “general,” and “special” (there is actually a third type, “durable,” which I will not discuss here other than to say that it is a partial exception to the rule that power of attorney is revocable at will by the party granting it). General power of attorney assigns the power in all matters whatsoever. Special power of attorney assigns it only in specified matters. What you are arguing is that the powers delegated to the federal government by the Constitution are like a special power of attorney — certainly not general power of attorney. If the Constitution is like a grant of general power of attorney, then the federal government’s powers as “agent of the states” would be unlimited, not limited.
OK so far, but if the Constitution is like a grant of special power of attorney by each state to the federal government, why can’t each state then decide for itself which powers it wishes the federal government to possess? For example, if the right of the federal government to return fugitive slaves from Pennsylvania derived, or supposedly derived, from a grant of special power of attorney to the federal government by Pennsylvania in the matter of fugitive slaves, why couldn’t Pennsylvania revoke its grant of special power of attorney to the federal government in the matter of fugitive slaves, while leaving power of attorney in place in all other matters?
This is where your power of attorney analogy breaks down — you contend that on the contrary, a state such as Pennsylvania has no right to decide, on its own, what powers its agent, the federal government has. If the whole of the Constitution can be subsumed by the model of special power of attorney (it can’t, for reasons I hope to have time address elsewhere), how is it that a state can revoke the grant of power of attorney only in all cases, but not in any one single case? – Gary Charbonneau
No Comments
No comments yet.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
