NE_Pilot

Where is that outlined in the Constitution? Where does it grant the Supreme Court the ability to INTERPRET and LIMIT the Constitution.

SonicFlyer

So you think that might makes right, that violence is the answer?

METO Guido

Nice try. It’s a preamble, by your own admission.
A preamble is an introductory and expressionary statement in a document that explains the document's purpose and underlying philosophy. When applied to the opening paragraphs of a statute, it may recite historical facts pertinent to the subject of the statute. It is distinct from the long title or enacting formula of a law.
law: the introductory part of a statute or deed, stating its purpose, aims, and justification.

One masterful line which give the document it's first breath of legal life. Interpreting it faithfully requires context councilor.

METO Guido

Look at this way. Statehood is to a territory what becoming a made man is to a gangster. Once made, many things can happen. But one of them won't be getting out.

NE_Pilot

And yet the Preamble does not nullify the 10th Amendment, nor prevent the Union from being dissolved. So the power of secession still is a power of the State.

METO Guido

Promised not to bother you further but this appears an invitation? Brown v. Board '54 set the hierarchy of interpretive power as you are certainly aware. That current disputes are refueling attempts to reconsider that decision and others like it should surprise neither of us. Another precedential ruling for this gen to honor or break with.

NE_Pilot

I do not understand the point you are making, that is not intended as a knock on you. Brown v Board relied on the 14th Amendment which was passed after the Civil War, so would not be relevant to the secession of the Confederacy.

As for the interpretive power of the Supreme Court, I would argue that it has none and is not granted one in the Constitution. No court can interpret the Constitution as that would make the court a de facto legislature and void the Constitution of meaning. I am aware that it is currently that way, but my point is that the Court throughout history has overstepped its constitutional bounds and amassed power unto itself that is not granted by the Constitution.

METO Guido

We're knocking ideas, not each other I take it. States don't get to secede. The Constitution is not a meaningless rag for rebel legislatures to wipe their feet on. They tried & failed, knee deep in blood. Do you have anything worth protecting? Then someone out there will try to take it from you, given the opportunity. This is what the framers understood. But it's a living document. Which, like puff the magic dragon, returns to darkness if no one still believes in it.

SonicFlyer

No, incorrect. Nowhere in the document is the word "interpret" used. SCOTUS is not allowed to arbitrarily change the meaning of the document.

NE_Pilot

I would argue it is not a living document, it does have a process to amend it but that is not through the judicial branch. It cannot be changed unless it is amended. I agree that if no one believes in it then it returns to darkness, but my point is that no one believes in it. Each branch of government has overstepped its bounds with the help of the other branches and without going through the process of amending.

I would also argue that this process, if not began then greatly accelerated after the end of the Civil War. The passage of the 14th Amendment is highly suspect in its constitutionality.

Further, leaving aside what I believe to be the constitutionality of secession I would argue that it is philosophically correct and in keeping with the concept of liberty. If a state is free to enter into the compact of the Union then the opposite is true as well and a state is free to leave. If there are irreconcilable differences then a split is preferable to violent conflict. The Confederate states could have initiated a violent overthrow of the elected government, however they instead choose to leave. It was the Union’s refusal to allow them to leave that led to the bloody conflict.