1. Get Gear'd Up! Enter to WIN $1000 in gear!

    Please Click Here for full details and to enter. You will need to be registered and logged in to view the details and to participate.

    Thanks and good luck to everyone

Just a Constitutional question...no offense intended.

Discussion in 'The Constitutional & RKBA Forum' started by kingnothingugm, Sep 18, 2009.

  1. kingnothingugm

    kingnothingugm Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2009
    Messages:
    284
    Location:
    FL
    Anyone have any thoughts as to the validity of West Virginia's statehood?:confused: Please refer to the Constitution- Article 4, Section 3, Clause 1.

    Please note...I intend no offense, I just think that to the letter of the Constitution...West Virginia's statehood is absolutely illegitimate.:D
  2. navis128

    navis128 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2009
    Messages:
    1,392
    Location:
    Texas
    "...without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress"

    Considering what was going on at the time, Virginia might have agreed.
  3. kingnothingugm

    kingnothingugm Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2009
    Messages:
    284
    Location:
    FL
    Actually...Virginia also challenged the validity of West Virginia's statehood in the supreme court...Virginia v West Virginia, 78 U.S. 39 (1870). Lincoln recognized their statehood immediately and congress followed quickly. Since virginia disputed it's statehood I believe that it was a direct and intentional violation of the U.S. Constitution.

    Hope noone gets upset...I like West Virginia...but facts is facts!
  4. navis128

    navis128 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2009
    Messages:
    1,392
    Location:
    Texas
    Correct me please...wasn't Lincoln dead by 1870?
  5. 22WRF

    22WRF Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    4,578
    Location:
    Pea Ridge, FL
    Isn't that "West-by-God-Virginia??????
  6. navis128

    navis128 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2009
    Messages:
    1,392
    Location:
    Texas
    I'm not a Constitutional Lawyer and only referenced some of the history books I have around, but from the sound of it, Unionists just went a head and formed a state that was admitted in 1863.

    Surely after the war and that period of annomosity, surely they took the time to clear that up.

    What a mess this could be.
  7. kingnothingugm

    kingnothingugm Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2009
    Messages:
    284
    Location:
    FL
    Lincoln recognized WV as a state before the Civil War officially started...but the Supreme Court's final ruling wasn't until 1870. Either way VA did not consent to the release of it's territories to the Union.
  8. kingnothingugm

    kingnothingugm Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2009
    Messages:
    284
    Location:
    FL
    Quick word. As I said...I mean no offense...but...each state FREELY entered into a Union. These states existed as sovereign entities before said Union was conceived. As each state entered freely and intact it seems logical that each state could also leave freely and intact. It was a voluntary agreement, after all. But for the Union, which was created by the states, to deny that state it's rightful territory is like the child punishing the parent.
  9. kingnothingugm

    kingnothingugm Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2009
    Messages:
    284
    Location:
    FL
    Also...trying to keep topic wander to a minimum...I am not trying to argue the legality of any states right to succeed(spelling?). I just want to have a friendly discussion on your opinions of the current topic. Also, Navis< I was told you might be able to help with another post I have here. Please look at General Discussion and my "oddball question"...Thanks! I do appreciate your opinion!
  10. navis128

    navis128 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2009
    Messages:
    1,392
    Location:
    Texas
    I hear ya.

    The Union also wanted to confiscate property without compensation, thus our civil war.

    I don't know if any other states have the right to suceed, but Texas retained that right somehow, and we even brag on that today.
  11. kingnothingugm

    kingnothingugm Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2009
    Messages:
    284
    Location:
    FL
    I commend Texas for the amazing foresight. Foolish of those states who didn't take similar action.

    Anyone else have an opinion on WV?
  12. USMARINE1884

    USMARINE1884 New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2009
    Messages:
    35
    It is all in the "necessary and proper clause" with the implied powers of congress. They deemed that during a civil war that any state that wanted to split and start its own state and provide its own troops for the Union was ok. Is it really well no its not but the fed gov seems to not care too much. I am surprised there is no north/south Maryland ....
  13. Alpo

    Alpo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2007
    Messages:
    11,618
    Location:
    NW Florida
    I could be totally wrong here, but think on this.

    My understanding is Virginia seceded from the Union. The area that became West (by God) Virginia said, "We ain't no damn secessionists", and seceded from Virginia.

    Now, since Virginia left first, Constitutional requirements did not apply to a piece of Virginia leaving Virginia and re-entering the Union.
  14. kingnothingugm

    kingnothingugm Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2009
    Messages:
    284
    Location:
    FL
    By violating the regulations set forth in the Constitution, I feel that the Fed forfeited it's own legitimacy. That would mean the Union itself was effectively null and void. Breach of contract? How can you leave or join something which doesn't exist? It was by force that the Union survived not because it was justified in it's actions, or legitimate. It was the schoolyard bully who forced the CSA to hand over its lunch money.
  15. Blackhawk Dave

    Blackhawk Dave Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2008
    Messages:
    741
    Location:
    Denton, TX
    The winners make the rules. The North won, they set the rules, and accepted West Virginia. End of Story. As to Texas being able to break up, that was superceded when a new constitution was required. Interesting thing is that Texas submitted a new constitution based on the US constitution, and the Feds said we couldn't do that. Give too much power to the state. Now we have that unwealdy thing that has been amended hundreds of times. However, after watching what Washington has done, I'm glad we don't have that type of constitution for the state.
Similar Threads
Forum Title Date
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum now that the DC gun ban has been ruled unconstitutional Jul 30, 2014
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum piers-morgan-constitutional-right-to-keep-and-bear-arms-without-infringement-act Jan 24, 2014
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Chicago gun sale ban unconstitutional Jan 6, 2014
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Majority of NY-SAFE Act ruled Constitutional Dec 31, 2013
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum NYPD's 'stop-and-frisk' practice unconstitutional, judge rules Aug 12, 2013

Share This Page