Posted on 02/28/2008 10:39:14 AM PST by cowboyway
The controversial stars and bars of the Confederate Flag could soon find their way to Florida license plates. State Rep. Don Brown, R-DeFuniak Springs, has worked with the Sons of Confederate Veterans to sponsor a bill that would allow the group to create a non-profit license plate that bears the Dixie flag. The tag would cost roughly $25 from the Department of Motor Vehicles. SCV Executive Director Ben Sewell said his organization has been successful in the past at getting the license plates in numerous states and feels they’ve met the requirements in the state of Florida to acquire the tag. “The laws have been relatively even for non-profit organizations,” he said. “In Tennessee we’ve been able to do a lot of things with the money such as sponsoring museums that preserve historical flags.” According to the group’s estimates, the process for the acquiring the tag in Florida has cost nearly $200,000 and taken three years to be adopted into a bill. Florida SCV Division Adjunct John Adams said he thinks the bill has a pretty good chance of passing and commends Rep. Brown for stepping up to the plate for them. “There was a lot of uproar over the MLK and right to live tags,” he said. “In the end, people didn’t care because it didn’t cost anyone a dime. These tags will raise revenue for our organization and spread awareness.” But not everyone feels these tags will be beneficial. “We respect Representative Brown, but we think he is wrong on this,” said Northwest Florida National Advancement of Colored People Director Sabu Williams. “We will fight and do anything to stop this from getting state sponsored. That includes putting some boots (protest) in front of his office.” Sabu said he understands the meaning to certain individuals and believes the flag has its place, but does not agree the state should have anything to do with it. “Why ask the state to sponsor something that we know causes pain?” he said. “I just don’t understand it.” Rep. Brown has previously sponsored a bill that would name part of Highway 90 Dr. Martin Luther King Dr and said his decision to support the tag is something he thinks “is right.”. Rep. Clay Ford, R-Pensacola, said he agrees with Brown’s intentions. “Many license plates depict heritage, environmental causes, professions, and achievements,” he said. “In fairness, I believe any group that meets the requirements of the statute should be allowed to participate in its benefits. Government should treat every group the same. Representative Don Brown has been a good House member for his district.” Although the bill is on the table, it still has a long way to go before it is put into legislation. “We’re not going to let it happen,” said Williams. “Rep. Brown does not want this fight.”
ROTFLMAO
Please do not put words in Madison's mouth. He was opposed to the whole concept of unilateral secession, and I don't believe Madison every ruled that out. In his 1833 letter to William Rives he says:"The conduct of S. Carolina has called forth not only the question of nullification, but the more formidable one of secession. It is asked whether a State by resuming the sovereign form in which it entered the Union, may not of right withdraw from it at will. As this is a simple question whether a State, more than an individual, has a right to violate its engagements, it would seem that it might be safely left to answer itself. But the countenance given to the claim shows that it cannot be so lightly dismissed. The natural feelings which laudably attach the people composing a State, to its authority and importance, are at present too much excited by the unnatural feelings, with which they have been inspired against their brethren of other States, not to expose them, to the danger of being misled into erroneous views of the nature of the Union and the interest they have in it. One thing at least seems to be too clear to be questioned, that whilst a State remains within the Union it cannot withdraw its citizens from the operation of the Constitution & laws of the Union. In the event of an actual secession without the Consent of the Co States, the course to be pursued by these involves questions painful in the discussion of them. God grant that the menacing appearances, which obtruded it may not be followed by positive occurrences requiring the more painful task of deciding them?"
What could be more painful to discuss then the use of force to put down a rebelling state? Madison may have abhorred the idea of using force, but he abhorred the idea of states leaving unilaterally more.
Wildly speculating at that. Davis's government was no less intrusive, no less abusive, no less contemptuous of the rule of law or the Constitution than you claim the Lincoln government was. And Davis abused his powers in ways never imagined by Lincoln. So why should we believe that an independent confederacy would be any safer from an FBI or IRS or special interest group than the U.S. is? If anything, it should be worse.
Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable,-- most sacred right--a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government, may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much of the teritory as they inhabit.
The catch with the natural right of rebellion is that there's no obligation for the other side to bend over and take it. As Lincoln says, "such people that can, may." The south couldn't, as it turned out.
Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable,-- most sacred right--a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government, may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much of the territory as they inhabit.
- Abraham Lincoln
You also forgot the most important part of the quote, "...having the power..." The South apparently lacked that.
Bump. Judge Andrew P. Napolitano agrees with you.
I have the Georgia SCV plates on my truck. Proud to be a member.
You also forgot the most important part of the quote, "...having the power..."
Are you sure Lincoln said that? Sounds like it could have easily come from Stalin, Hitler, Saddam Hussein or any other arrogant dictator.
I return my thanks for the copy of your late very powerful Speech in the Senate of the United S. It crushes "nullification" and must hasten the abandonment of "Secession." But this dodges the blow by confounding the claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression. The former answers itself, being a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged. The latter is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy.That's from the evil dictator James Madison. You might want to study up on the natural right of rebellion and what it means.
I'll bow to your expertise on what dictators like Stalin, Hitler, Hussein, or other dictators have to say.
By that, you mean to follow a set of prescribed rules?
I was having a discussion about gun control with a co-worker and his biggest fear was confiscation. I suggested to him that any man that would let a government confiscate his guns didn't deserve them in the first place.
When government violates individual rights, through tyranny or other methods, people may legitimately rebel.
Anybody that needs a further explanation than that and who would subscribe to a set of rules with pre-conditions prior to rebellion probably didn't deserve individual rights and freedom to begin with.
Uh, no. Quite the opposite, in fact.
When government violates individual rights, through tyranny or other methods, people may legitimately rebel.
So in fact, you're the one who is demanding pre-conditions and prescribing rules, not me. As Lincoln says, "Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power..." That's all. The mere fact that you use "legitimately" proves that you don't understand the concept. "Legitimate" means lawful and as Lincoln goes on to say in the same speech, "It is a quality of revolutions not to go by old lines, or old laws; but to break up both, and make new ones."
Revolution destroys the old social contract by which government is established over men, tossing out all laws and reverting man to the state of nature, where life, as we all remember is "nasty, brutish, and short." The fact that some revolutions, like ours against Britain, didn't entail that much nastiness in great scheme of things says more about the American and British people than it does revolutions in general. Revolutions aren't automatically good things, as the French and Russian examples demonstrate. We can hope that in the end they work out for the best, but that's not a given.
Anybody ... who would subscribe to a set of rules with pre-conditions prior to rebellion probably didn't deserve individual rights and freedom to begin with.
Thus sayeth the man who has just announced a pre-condition prior to rebellion.
So tell me, was the Civil War a rebellion by the south?
How so? You said, "study up on the natural right of rebellion and what it means." This would imply that there is definition and rules.
Are you suggesting that 'rebellion' is anarchy?
"Legitimate" means lawful
Legal definition of 'legitimate' - adj., adv1) legal, proper, real. 2) referring to a child born to parents who are married. A baby born to parents who are not married is illegitimate, but can be made legitimate (legitimatized) by the subsequent marriage of the parents. 3) v. to make proper and/or legal.
When government violates individual rights, through tyranny or other methods, people may legitimately rebel.
tossing out all laws and reverting man to the state of nature, where life, as we all remember is "nasty, brutish, and short."
Constitution of the Confederate States of America March 11, 1861
Hostilities began on April 12, 1861. There appears to have been 'rules' in place when Lincoln started the War.
So tell me, was the Civil War a rebellion by the south?
It could be called 'rebellions secession'. The strict definition of 'rebellion' doesn't fit just as 'civil war' doesn't properly describe the War of northern Aggression.
But you know all this and are familiar with every argument that has been posted on a thousand of these threads. You're simply trying to start another cyber fight and impress yourself with you musings.
Personally, my tolerance level for you is about pegged out and I'm sick to the point of puking of your defeatist, cowardly attitude.
There is a definition. There are no rules. That's the definition.
Are you suggesting that 'rebellion' is anarchy?
Yes, until a new social contract is established. Like Lincoln said, "It is a quality of revolutions not to go by old lines, or old laws; but to break up both, and make new ones."
Legal definition of 'legitimate' ...
That whooshing sound is the point missing you as it flies over your head.
There appears to have been 'rules' in place when Lincoln started the War.
Which says more about Americans, north and south, than about the natural right of revolution. The fact is that southerners overthrew their government and tried to establish a new one, more to their liking, in its place. That government failed to survive, and a great deal of what followed could be termed anarchy. Had they won the rebellion, I have no doubt that they'd proudly proclaim their Revolutionary War.
Personally, my tolerance level for you is about pegged out and I'm sick to the point of puking of your defeatist, cowardly attitude.
I'm defeatist? I think the good guys won. You, on the other hand, are still cheering a horse that lost the race 140 years ago.
Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
And a coward.
You've implied time and again that you would prefer the preservation of the union even if that union evolved into a tyrannical communist union that would strip us of our freedom.
That makes you a defeatist and a coward.
This ain't a legal argument full of John Kerry nuance and Barrack Obama vapid responses. This is a moral argument, more in line with William Wallace.
The question to you is, in the face of a tyranny, are you with the rebels who will fight tyranny at the risk of death or will you cower in your basement and spout the party line in order to save your sorry ass.
Really? Find the posts where I've implied that. Only in your fever-addled imagination will you find them. On the other hand, since you seem to believe that this country has been a "tyrannical communist union" since 1865 and don't appear to have taken up arms, I'd say the coward is you.
The question to you is, in the face of a tyranny, are you with the rebels who will fight tyranny at the risk of death or will you cower in your basement and spout the party line in order to save your sorry ass.
My answer is this: I'm not going to rely on your opinion of what constitutes intolerable tyranny when the time comes to make that decision.
Here's a question back at you: If southern slaves had risen up and butchered every slaveholder in their beds, would you have supported their rebellion against tyranny?
In other words, you'll cower in you basement and chant the party line in order to save your sorry ass. That's what I thought.
Here's a question back at you: If southern slaves had risen up and butchered every slaveholder in their beds, would you have supported their rebellion against tyranny?
Not even close to the same thing. Southerners did not slip into northerners homes like thieves in the night and butcher them in their sleep.
The north will never be able to justify their aggressive military invasion of a free people seeking to form a system of governing that was more suitable to their lifestyle than the yankee lifestyle, and then the subsequent military occupation of the South, except through revisionism and lies.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.