Look up Noumenon here. Read his stuff.
Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.
Posted on 10/20/2009 4:00:41 PM PDT by jessduntno
On November 23, 1863, Ulysses S. Grant ordered George Thomas and his Army of the Cumberland to take Orchard Knob in preparation for the battle of Missionary Ridge. As Thomas' men advanced, the Confederate skirmishers fell back after a heavy engagement.
Two days later Grant, Thomas and General Gordon Grainger were standing on the knob watching the battle of Missionary Ridge. From this vantage point they watched as the Army of the Cumberland routed Bragg's Army of Tennessee in what some scholars believe was the South's last chance for victory in the Civil War.
Thomas needed a place to bury his dead and established a small cemetery near the position at Orchard Knob. He personally supervised the burial of the Union soldiers who died at Chattanooga. When asked by a chaplain if he wanted them buried by state as they had done at Gettysburg he replied, "No, No, mix them all up. I'm sick of state's rights."
(Excerpt) Read more at ngeorgia.com ...
The words jumped off the page. I do not think I have ever seen the expression so strongly presented in print. This was mentioned in a brief passage in Burns' less than thought provoking series, but it did not have the impact it does when you are able to clearly think about the civil war and the driving forces. Besides raising the argument about root causes of the war, which I am NOT trying to do, I was stuck by how violent the battles were, how gruesome the battlefield was afterward (Lee and his train out of Gettysburg just a few months earlier was said to have been more than 12 miles long with just the wounded) and how dedicated to the causes both sides were.
Will we be faced with the same issues of States Rights and will we have the same passions again? Federal Usurpation of 1908, by Franklin Pierce, seems to me to be written months ago, not years. As do the words "I'm sick of state's rights."
http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/pierce/index.html
From the preface;
"But let there be no change by usurpation, for this, though it may in one instance be the instrument of good, is the ordinary weapon by which free governments are destroyed." - Washington
What a load.
States’ rights is a misnomer. States don’t have rights. What the states in the Union were supposed to have were ‘reserved powers.’ Of course, you can hardly find a conservative or liberal today willing to return to the actual reserved powers of the states. If ever there was a lost cause, that would be it.
“What a load.”
Insightful. Thanks.
“Of course, you can hardly find a conservative or liberal today willing to return to the actual reserved powers of the states.”
How so? Do you mean the people or the pols?
The problem is that too many people are too stupid to know the difference between 10th amendment rights and the idiotic idea of secession.
The same with the liberals who were trying to secede when Bush was president.
Baker argued that the states were the source of the current unpleasantness and should have been abolished by the Constitution at the very beginning. He argued that once the war ended, Lincoln should pursue constitutional amendments abolishing the states, the Senate, and then consolidate the country into a handful of military districts that would be ruled from Washington.
Lincoln laughed and later labeled Baker as a "Jacobin", a large faction of the Republican Party in Congress that morphed into the Radical Republicans after the war and Lincoln's death.
Had Baker lived, he would have been the most radical of Radical Republicans, but he died at Ball's Bluff as a result of a botched retreat.
Such sentiments were common at the end of the War Between the States, and the old soldier's comment in the article was not out of line with the opinion of many in the country.
“The problem is that too many people are too stupid to know the difference between 10th amendment rights and the idiotic idea of secession.”
Who was talking about secession? As the Feds extend their powers, are there ways to stop them from usurping all of our rights?
I mean both. Plenty of examples. Federal tort reform is supported by most conservatives I know of. It’s a federal intrusion into state power—state civil courts are not in the feds jurisdiction. Federal drug policy—controlled substance act—is another example. Commerce clause run amok with the approval of most conservatives, including most of those in power and on the supreme court. socons looking for federal marriage amendment...yeah, technically it’d be “constitutional” if it passed, but it’s totally inappropriate for the fed gov to get involved.
10th amendment is as toothless as a meth addict. And again, it is about reserved powers, not rights. But the idea of federal powers that are “few and defined” has long since been decimated by centuries of commerce clause, necessary and proper clause, general welfare clause jurisprudence. The 10th amndment, in short, is worthless.
“Such sentiments were common at the end of the War Between the States, and the old soldier’s comment in the article was not out of line with the opinion of many in the country.”
Understood, but as it is argued relentlessly, the war was not about states rights. Why say that, then? But that is a digression.
More to the point, what happens as watch rights being stripped from us? This is not the odd library book scan or overseas phone taps that the libs were concerned about, not some minor inconvenience, this is the federalization of our economy and our economic freedoms for generations to come that we are looking at, no less a lifestyle change (not addressing for good or ill, I am talking about the massive change) that the south faced?
The first things states need to do is start refusing federal money. When they take that money all they’re doing is selling their semi autonomy.
How many times have states accepted federal guidelines they didn’t want because they didn’t want uncle sugar daddy to cut them off?
Can’t really blame the feds for something the states have done to themselves.
“The 10th amndment, in short, is worthless.”
I think I get what you are saying, but I am referring to the actual (not imaginary) federal takeover of our entire system and the resultant individual ability to look forward to any kind of economic, free market (to the extent it is) and personal freedoms. The tenth amendment can not be the only answer. If it is, the commerce clause abuses, etc, aside, there is a real and present danger to the system that needs to be shocked, not waited out.
Exactly. Until the states stop whoring themselves out it’s pointless to discuss this. The one’s crying the loudest (Southern states) are the worst offenders.
“Until the states stop whoring themselves out it’s pointless to discuss this.”
Which “this” are you referring to? The Federal expansion is not going to be cured by the rehash of something that might or might not be in place now - I was talking about the future steps to take...before we are so sick of it that we are ready to dump all the dead meat into an unmarked grave and say goodnight? Or are you saying we are already there?
If D.C. takes a billion dollars OUT of your state, you have to come (hat in hand) and get back as much of it as possible, even in wasteful pork barrel spending - for the economic good of your state.
Just as our government likes nothing better than crippling taxes and regulations, such that an industry must come to them (hat in hand) and get tax ‘exemptions’ and such - just to be able to economically compete.
The power to tax is the power to destroy.
If the 10th amendment is worthless - as you contend - what say you about the rest of the Constitution?
Like the Ten Commandments, the Bill of Rights is not open to discussion, modification or choosing one or two. The Ten Commandments ARE not the Ten Suggestions: likewise, The Bill of Rights is not the Bill of Choices.
The Constitution may be beaten and abused by the nobility who live off the sweat of our labors; but, it is no less fighting for than it was at its inception. It is up to each and every freedom-loving American to restore it to its proper place. If not now, when? If not here, then in another place more worthy.
I don’t have a lot of room to talk about what states are the worst offenders since I’m a Michigander.
Seat belt laws were a big fight here in Michigan because Clinton was pushing “normalization” and waving a wad of cash around. In the end, we just laid back and gave daddy what he wanted.
We’re on the same side, bro, and I agree with what you are saying but there is a BIG problem. The vast majority of Americans are brainwashed, oblivious, or too stupid to understand what is happening to the last bastion of freedom on Earth. I really don’t know how to correct that.
To see where we're going, it would be helpful to understand how we got to where we are today. There is a masterly book on the subject, States' Rights and the Union, by Forrest McDonald, that is brilliantly and cogently written. FReepers who want to weigh in on this subject need to read this book. I refer to it constantly, and it would be well worth your time.
We were a lot better off when the states budgeted their own money and gave the feds what the states decided to send.
Thanks. I’ll look for it.
Look up Noumenon here. Read his stuff.
THIS book is a plea for the sacredness of the Constitution of the United States. I do not mean by this that I consider our Constitution, framed a hundred and twenty years ago, well suited to the needs of our existing government. Its rigid provisions, its system of checks and balances, are an obstacle to popular government, and they should be radically changed by amendment, but never by construction or usurpation. This book was suggested by the President's speech at Harrisburg in 1906, in which he declared that the power of the Federal Government should be increased "through executive action . . . and through judicial interpretation and construction of law." A little later, at the Pennsylvania Society in New York, Mr. Root, the head of the Cabinet and the close friend of the President, declared that if the people desire it "sooner or later constructions of the Constitution . . . will be found" to vest additional power in the National Government. Hitherto governmental usurpation generally has advanced by silent and gradual attacks upon constitutional safeguards. Never before in human history, I believe, has the head of a constitutional government who had sworn to protect, preserve, and defend its fundamental provisions publicly advised their subversion "through executive action and through judicial interpretation." In recent days every abuse on the part of corporations engaged in interstate commerce has been eagerly grasped by the President as the reason for an encroachment upon constitutional guarantees, while every opposition to such encroachment has been seized as a reason for a stronger national government to put down opposition. Unless the people are stirred to a recognition of the danger of such usurpations, they will never be checked.
As I've pointed out previously, IMHO the Roosevelt presidency marks the best historical point in time for the beginning of the destruction of the Constitutional Republic.
Only the limited mass communications in those days, a fake war, and WWI prevented a second revolution....(also IMHO)
As a result, Roosevelt, Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Bush, Klintoon, and O have run amok through our freedoms & liberties.
So much for the myth of the ballot box!
You say the Bill of Rights is not open for discussion? I disagree. I'll tell you what I think.
I think the first amendment phrase "respecting an establishment of religion" is unnecessarily vague, and has led to mischief.
I think the second amendment would have been better without the introductory clause. It is superfluous justification, and again, leads to confusion and mischief. If the right of the people to bear arms is absolute, they should have said so without qualification.
I think the fourth amendment phrase "unreasonable searches and seizures" is conspicuously vague and troublesome, as a review of federal court jurisprudence regarding that phrase will confirm.
Amendment 9 is conpletely impotent, and has proven to offer no resistance whatsoever to federal expansion of power. On the contrary, the most noteworthy application of the 9th amendment has probably been as a key ingredient in the eminating penumbras of Roe v Wade. It was actually used as a tool for expanding federal power, not reducing it.
The 10th amendment doesn't even have the 9ths ignominous record to brag about. It's completely useless, and has never restrained the federal government in any measurable way.
As for the Constitution, the entire preamble should be ditched. It does nothing to promote the idea that the federal government is limited. It's grandiose and unnecessary. The "necessary and proper clause" is a trouble maker. And let's not forget "the everything clause", also known as the interstate commerce clause.
The Constitution is a decent blueprint. But it's full of errors, too. I don't bow to it. It may beat everything else, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be better.
If you knew anything about the Constitution, you would know that it was written in the language of the day, the King's English if you will. It was NOT written for the bastardized version of English we speak today, with all of its PC garbage and hip-hop culture. That said, if one has problems understanding the plain English of the day, the Federalist Papers are vital documents. You might call them the “Constitution for Dummies” book.
Tinkering with the meaning of the Constitution will have unintended consequences. Who is to say what you think is plain and simple is considered archaic language by your grandchildren?
Returning to my Ten Commandment analogy, the words have withstood thousands of years without anything better. So too should the Constitution. A most poignant example of this is the original Star Trek show “Omega Glory”. Watch the ending, at least.
Great discussion, good points.
Perhaps we could sum it up by saying that the first Ten Amendments have been roughly as effective in restraining Federal Power as the Ten Commandments have been in restraining sin? ;-)
Here's the sad truth of the matter: if the American people want, in their hearts of hearts, ever growing Federal Power, control, "security," "economic justice," etc., etc., then in the long run, no words written on paper will long delay them from getting it.
Dare we say it? If the Constitution is our "bible," and the Bill of Rights our "Ten Commandments," then who does that make us, and what will be the pattern of our history?
Yes, probably stretching a metaphor waaaaaaaaaaaay too far... ;-)
That's a very funny line, sadly it is also very apropos. I don't you don't mind if I start using it regularly.
Actually, the Federalist papers are worthless without reading the ANTIfederalist papers, whose arguments absolutely destroy the moony optimism of the Federalists.
Where did I do that? If we're going to have a conversation, you're going to have to leave the strawmen at home.
And my granchildren would be wise to correct any such linguistic problems, rather than sit idly by and suffer the consequences. Some of the problems with the Constitution are indeed issues where the language was clearly understood at the time but has since been twisted, e.g., the interstate commerce clause. But some of it was simply unnecessary grandiosity and verbosity, like the preamble. And some of the problems are structural, like the federal judiciary. Either way, the problems should be corrected. The commerce clause should be ditched, and replaced with something more precise. It's a loophole that a galaxy can fit through with ease. The second amendment should be fixed--the first clause about militia should be stricken. etc. There's an amendment process for a reason. If the framers were around today, I daresay they'd be anxious to go back to the drawing board.
Be my guest. But on second thought -- don't most of us feel at least a little guilty if we break, oh, say, the Tenth Commandment? By contrast, do any liberals ever feel remorse about violating, oh, say, the tenth amendment?
So you can't really compare Commandments with amendments, except in the sense that the Commandments are at the core of our personal values, the amendments our political values.
“The first things states need to do is start refusing federal money.”
How can they when the federal government takes the money from the citizens of the States leaving the States little to take themselves.
I would not say it is worthless, just gutted. That in fact may be true at this point in time, but what happens when States like Oklahoma, pass state laws in direct opposition of Federal government wishes?
If anything the 10th amendment movement will be a bulwark against an overreaching federal government to keep them in check.
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.