Is the existence of the state of West Virginia unconstitutional?
I guess I don't know enough about West Virginian history enough, to understand why this question is being asked.
*cough* uh yep :)
Shhh! Don't tell anyone!
I think it was legit. Once the states seceded, even if for administrative purposes we assert they can't, for practical purposes they have. I sure wouldn't hold up a vote waiting on them.
Well, it was war.
Inter arma enim silent leges?
Matt. I don't know that much Latin.
For among [times of] arms, the laws fall mute,"
Yup. Sounds right for the Civil War
Yes, it was. But in that time period, the Constitution was already being ignored in so many other ways, so this is just one instance of many.
Just so we are on the same page, which ways was it being violated? (I'm not saying there weren't violations-there were. I'm trying to make sure if I'm missing any)
Suspension of habeas corpus & thousands imprisoned without trial, deportation of Clement Valladigham, execution of 39 Sioux Indians, censorship & closure of dissenting newspapers, imprisonment of the MD legislature...
I'm not aware of the background that led to the execution of the Sioux Indians in question, so if you could explain why that was unconstitutional, please do. However, look again at the entirely of the habeas corpus clause.
Restrictions on the 2A, censorship of telegraphs, federal takeover of the railroads. And if you believe in the right to secession, the Civil War was the biggest violation of all.
We probably do disagree on the issue of secession being constitutional
The Indians sold their land to the Feds, who never paid up. They never left their land and some rebelled. Lincoln sent the army to put down the rebellion. 300 Sioux were set to be executed, but 39 were. They never had a fair trial.
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the
Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
Article Four, Clause 1, United States Constitution
Good question! They left the south to join the north I thought.
They did. The issue is since the north did not officially recognize the legitimacy of the secession, wouldn't that mean that officially, Virginia be never left the union, therefore despite the circumstances, talking off some of its land for a new
State without its legislatures approvals violated the first clause of the fourth article of the constitution. It's ultimately not with changing at this point, but I figured I'd ask it