Free Republic

arrogantsob:The Continental Congress preceded the states

Ohioan:The Founders never intended to interfere with those--hence the absolute absence of any functional delegation to Congress of powers to engage in social engineering. Even John Marshall, a strong advocate for Federal Powers, recognized that control over Health, Safety & Morals (the Police Powers) were left to the States.

Virginia ratification convention:

Mr. John Marshall asked if gentlemen were serious when they asserted that, if the state governments had power to interfere with the militia, it was by implication. If they were, he asked the committee whether the least attention would not show that they were mistaken. The state governments did not derive their powers from the general government; but each government derived its powers from the people, and each was to act according to the powers given it. Would any gentleman deny this? He demanded if powers not given were retained by implication. Could any man say so? Could any man say that this power was not retained by the states, as they had not given it away? For, says he, does not a power remain till it is given away? The state legislatures had power to command and govern their militia before, and have it still, undeniably, unless there be something in this Constitution that takes it away.

For Continental purposes Congress may call forth the militia,--as to suppress insurrections and repel invasions. But the power given to the states by the people is not taken away; for the Constitution does not say so. In the Confederation Congress had this power; but the state legislatures had it also. The power of legislating given them within the ten miles square is exclusive of the states, because it is expressed to be exclusive. The truth is, that when power is given to the general legislature, if it was in the state legislature before, both shall exercise it; unless there be an incompatibility in the exercise by one to that by the other, or negative words precluding the state governments from it. But there are no negative words here. It rests, therefore, with the states.

The “Father of the Constitution”, James Madison, wrote to Alexander Hamilton describing the nature of the Union formed by that constitution as “once in the Union always in the Union”. There was NO “conditional ratification” which could be revoked.

The State in question:

That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness; that every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the departments of the government thereof, remains to the people of the several states, or to their respective state governments, to whom they may have granted the same; and that those clauses in the said Constitution, which declare that Congress shall not have or exercise certain powers, do not imply that Congress is entitled to any powers not given by the said Constitution; but such clauses are to be construed either as exceptions to certain specified powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution. ( New York ratification ordinance, July 26, 1788)

Here is the Mr. Madison that you've tossed aside:

Letter from James Madison to Daniel Webster, March 15, 1833:

It is fortunate when disputed theories, can be decided by undisputed facts. And here the undisputed fact is, that the Constitution was made by the people, but as embodied into the several States, who were parties to it; and therefore made by the States in their highest authoritative capacity.

James Madison to Nicholas P. Trist, February 15, 1830:

The compact can only be dissolved by the consent of the other parties, or by usurpations or abuses of power justly having that effect.

31st of May, 1787

The use of force against a state would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound

8th of June, 1787

Any government for the United States formed on the supposed practicability of using force against the unconstitutional proceedings of the states would prove as visionary and fallacious as the government of Congress

-----------------------------------------------

I had written to Mr. Madison, as I had before informed you, and had stated to him some general ideas for consideration and consultation when we should meet. I thought something essentially necessary to be said, in order to avoid the inference of acquiescence; that a resolution or declaration should be passed, 1. answering the reasonings of such of the States as have ventured into the field of reason, and that of the committee of Congress, taking some notice, too, of those States who have either not answered at all, or answered without reasoning. 2. Making firm protestation against the precedent and principle, and reserving the right to make this palpable violation of the federal compact the ground of doing in future whatever we might now rightfully do, should repetitions of these and other violations of the compact render it expedient. 3. Expressing in affectionate and conciliatory language our warm attachment to union with our sister States, and to the instrument and principles by which we are united; that we are willing to sacrifice to this every thing but the rights of self-government in those important points which we have never yielded, and in which alone we see liberty, safety, and happiness; that not at all disposed to make every measure of error or of wrong, a cause of scission, we are willing to look on with indulgence, and to wait with patience, till those passions and delusions shall have passed over, which the federal government have artfully excited to cover its own abuses and conceal its designs, fully confident that the good sense of the American people, and their attachment to those very rights which we are now vindicating, will, before it shall be too late, rally with us round the true principles of our federal compact. This was only meant to give a general idea of the complexion and topics of such an instrument. Mr. M. who came, as had been proposed, does not concur in the reservation proposed above; and from this I recede readily, not only in deference to his judgment, but because, as we should never think of separation but for repeated and enormous violations, so these, when they occur, will be cause enough of themselves. - Thomas Jefferson

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5cEhtge_BE

Or have you already rebelled?

How can I/my State have some sort of rebellion? Since all authority the federal government has is in trust. We are the sovereign authority - it is they that have rebelled against us.

It goes like this: The United States vs The several States. The very government the States created for their mutual benefit has turned against them. It now has become a rouge government fully equipped with( it is a "tax" ) rubber stamping supreme court.

Have you fired on any forts?

Are you behind the fort walls?

Didja build a gate on the Idaho state line to keep out the riffraff?

Good idea! How is Seattle, btw ?

C’mon idabooby - what’s your plan for the grand rebellion?

Just go ahead and reelect that POS and see.

"Where resort can be had to no tribunal superior to the authority of the parties, the parties themselves must be the rightful judges in the last resort, whether the bargain made has been pursued or violated. The Constitution of the United States was formed by the sanction of the States, given by each in its sovereign capacity. The States then, being parties to the constitutional compact and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity that there can be no tribunal above their authority to decide, in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated, and consequently that, as the parties to it, they must themselves decide, in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition."

Amen!!

there are those who think secession is OK in the rhetoric sense, I doubt that few would subject themselves and their families to that sort of foolish misery.

And staying loyal to the Union would bring freedom and prosperity?

You'd rather willingly except servitude than fight for your God given rights? I'd rather my family live free from governmental interference - knowing that freedom is never free. This Country was built around several premises – Individual Liberty, personal responsibility, etc. Just look how far have we come. Foolish misery you say.

Without freedom we have nothing..

Appears that you're stuck behind enemy lines. I would gladly trade some of these transplants for your family. Prisoner exchange?

Appears that you're stuck behind enemy lines. I would gladly trade some of these transplants for your family. Prisoner exchange?

I was defending the South against CoadToad’s characterization of Southerner’s as immoral.

Personal views on slavery and State secession can be viewed separately. None of my family owned slaves but they all fought for the South just the same. Do I defend slavery? Not at all. I merely defend the right of secession.

Having said that - I would/can not condemn Americans that did own slaves during that period. If we go down that path then we're no better than the liberals that rename every school with cesar chavez. Are you one of those that believe that cesar chavez best George Washington? The latter being one of those slave owning southerners

Seriously, are you calling Lazamataz a fag?

I think he was playing with you. Perhaps he thinks you're cute? We can only ponder

And you have a guy named Lazamataz who wants to "hit" a guy named Ethyl and you're calling me the fag?

So, you're in the closet and he is open about his gay tendencies?

You're gaydar must be busted because either you're a closet homo or you're pointing it in the wrong direction.

I find that many South hating bigots are either gay or commie... or both.

The irony in your use of “non sequitur” has obviously escaped you

That was a posting name for someone that supported gay rights. Your posting style is indistinguishable, if I may say so myself. Your hatred of the South and your limp wrist gave it away...

So Southerners are corrupt, thanks for clarifying the matter.

Sure you don't have one of those same sex marriages to tend to?

Was Abraham Lincoln one of these racists?

From Abraham ( the colonizer ) Lincoln:

“Why should people of your race be colonized, and where? Why should they leave this country? You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong, I need not discuss; but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think. Your race suffers very greatly, many of them, by living among us, while we suffer from your presence. If this is admitted, it affords a reason, at least, why we should be separated.”

Anyone else here foresee secession as a real possibility when the showdown of states’ rights vs. fed jurisdiction takes place in the next 10 years?

Just as soon as people understand that segments of the Country will never change. Without Freedom -- everything else is simply blind allegiance to something that no longer exist.

I'm afraid that Americans have grown tolerant of tyranny. This thing that is masquerading as President should provide enough proof. Unless we separate soon the fungus of socialism will have firmly embedded itself into every neighborhood, city, and State. Sadly, the only free about this Country these days is the ability to move about from place to place. This fungus moves around for lower taxes, better schools, less crime, etc - and within a few years they vote in what they ran from. I see it every single day.

Ping

War. We can’t muster enough candidates with principles to prevent this kind of crap. Do you REALLY think we can muster enough people to vote to secede?

I think we can in several States. War? That depends on them.

Socialist idealism has been flooding into the open hatches -- our ship is grossly leaning to the starboard side. This ship has lost buoyancy and is taking on water. It is sinking. Do we man the lifeboats and save ourselves? Do we go down with the ship?

Secession was made illegal by Abraham Lincoln

Just like Obama is making private wealth illegal ? Not only am I stuck here without Constitutional governance - I cannot enjoy the fruits of my own labor. Talk about slavery.

As I think I've mentioned before, I am not interested in begging for my rights. You can wish for total despotism to your heart's content. I will not except it. You can tell me all about Saint Lincoln and his flying carpet - I will ignore you.

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, — go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!”

------------------------------------

If might state were to attempt secession, I would work against it in every possible way.

You forget, sir, that you are a "Obamanos" and Idaho is a Conservative State. If you bless my State with one of your Union-restoring excursions you're going to find one big boot up your ass....

because I am the one obeying and want my leaders to obey the constitution. They are the secessionists

The Constitution has been on life support shortly after it was enacted. Today it was pronounced dead. Our founders would have seceded long ago. They fought one hell of a war for less.

"We must have patience and longer endurance then with our brethren while under delusion; give them time for reflection and experience of consequences; keep ourselves in a situation to profit by the chapter of accidents; and separate from our companions only when the sole alternatives left, are the dissolution of our Union with them, or submission to a government without limitation of powers. Between these two evils, when we must make a choice, there can be no hesitation." Thomas Jefferson

"When a government is founded upon the voluntary consent, and agreement of a people uniting themselves together for their common benefit, the people, or nation, collectively taken, is free, although the administration of the government should happen to be oppressive, and to a certain degree, even tyrannical; since it is in the power of the people to alter, or abolish it, whenever they shall think proper; and to institute such new government as may seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. But if the government be founded in fear, constraint, or force, although the administration should happen to be mild, the people, being deprived of the sovereignty, are reduced to a state of civil slavery. Should the administration, in this case, become tyrannical, they are without redress. Submission, punishment, or a successful revolt, are the only alternatives. http://www.constitution.org/tb/t1b.htm