Posted on 03/10/2010 6:35:02 PM PST by Idabilly
Ah there's no bullshit artist quite like a Southron bullshit artist. Your squawk "Sovereignty" would trump the rule of law and the rights of ownership? South Carolina says, "It's mine" and presto-changeo it becomes their's, is that how it works? What a time saver! So we really didn't need a treaty for the Panama canal after all. All Panama really had to do was say "Sovereignty" and the U.S. would have had to get out on the double. Sure wasted their time with the Senate and all, didn't they? And if Cuba tomorrow pointed to Gitmo and said "Sovereignty! Get out!" you'd head down there to help with the packing, wouldn't you? Sure would cause a stir, what with all the A-rabs held there and all. But hey, sovereignty trumps all. Lentulusgracchus says so.
The US apparently liked the concept enough to make it into a law: Link
Hardly. Sumter was not the property of the confederacy so they couldn't exercise control over it.
Not according to the Confederate Constitution which was the law in place in the seceded states. US law did not apply, but you know that.
ROTFLMAO!!! Nothing could be further from the truth...except maybe some of your other posts. State governors have to certify domestic violence before requesting federal assistance in quelling it. That's what Article IV is about. Article I says nothing about requiring governors to request assistance before Congress takes steps to suppress insurrections. And none is needed - Washington established that precedent in 1794.
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa00.htm
The inclusion of the titles makes it much easier to navigate.
Again, private property. And during war time. We're talking about your claim that eminent domain is used to seize property owned by foreign governments in time of peace. What are some examples of that?
Not according to the Confederate Constitution which was the law in place in the seceded states. US law did not apply, but you know that.
Neither did any confederate law, which didn't apply to the territory of another sovereign nation. But then the rule of law was of little interest and less importance to the Davis regime was it?
They were.
They were in a new Constitution.
They were the only ones who thought so. Turns out they were incorrect.
__________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ Here we are,the good part... _____
Attn._NonSequitur
It has been observed, to coerce the states is one of the maddest projects that was ever devised. A failure of compliance will never be confined to a single state This being the case, can we suppose it wise to hazard a civil war? Suppose Massachusetts, or any large state, should refuse, and Congress should attempt to compel them, would they not have influence to procure assistance, especially from those states which are in the same situation as themselves? What picture does this idea present to our view? A complying state at war with a non-complying state; Congress marching the troops of one state into the bosom of another; this state collecting auxiliaries, and forming, perhaps, a majority against its federal head. Here is a nation at war with itself. Can any reasonable man be well disposed towards a government which makes war and carnage the only means of supporting itself — a government that can exist only by the sword? Every such war must involve the innocent with the guilty. This single consideration should be sufficient to dispose every peaceable citizen against such a government.
But can we believe that one state will ever suffer itself to be used as an instrument of coercion? The thing is a dream; it is impossible. Mr. HAMILTON didn't foresee the hostile takeover by Dishonest Abe.
Or that nasty ol' George Washington, who was marching troops all over Pennsylvania in 1794. You must really be down on him.
ROTFLMAO!!! Nothing could be further from the truth...
Read the damned Constitution, Liar.
As for your counterexample, it isn't "counter": When Pres. Washingon met with his Cabinet to consider the Whiskey Rebellion, the Governor of Pennsylvania was in the room -- contrary to your assertion that the untroubled, sui generis, absolute and omnipotent USG can rain down shock troops on the citizenry whenever they feel like it.
http://www.ttb.gov/public_info/whisky_rebellion.shtml
You've been injecting too much Vitamin F lately, fascist.
Seems that in the USC sections cited in footnotes 2 and 3 at your link, USG claims precisely the powers over alien property -- including that of alien governments -- that South Carolina claimed over the federal installations within its borders in 1860, after separation.
And they did offer compensation to the United States, which Lincoln brushed aside in his "war surge".
Appeal to force, and teleology. Invalid forms of argument.
I would highly recommend you do the same.
When Pres. Washingon met with his Cabinet to consider the Whiskey Rebellion, the Governor of Pennsylvania was in the room -- contrary to your assertion that the untroubled, sui generis, absolute and omnipotent USG can rain down shock troops on the citizenry whenever they feel like it.
Try reading Washington's proclamation and point out to me where he says he's acting at the request of the governor?. Or needed the governor's permission? Or mentions the governor of Pennsylvania at all? Where did the Militia Act, Washington's authority for calling up the militia, say that the president had to wait for a state to request assistance first in the case of insurrection? The answer to all of those is 'nowhere'.
Liar...fascist
Bullshit and name calling are all you seem to be good for. Some things never change.
Two 1940's laws? That's your support? Heck, you can go to the Confiscation Acts passed by Congress in 1861 and 1862 if you're looking for precedent. But none of those laws were in effect in the confederacy in 1861, were they? Not, as I mentioned earlier, that the rule of law was on any interest in the confederacy. Not in 1861. Not ever.
No they didn't.
No, matter of fact. Nobody recognized the confederate regime as a legitimate government or the confederacy as a sovereign nation.
War mongering Kansas red-leg, Non-sense: “No they didn't.”
South Carolina was seeking peaceful negotiations,dork.
Rustbucket has already posted this and SEVERAL other proof positives.. This was to Buchanan.
Sir: — We have the honor to transmit to you a copy of the full powers from the Convention of the people of South Carolina, under which we are “authorized and empowered to treat with the Government of the United States for the delivery of the forts, magazines, light-houses, and other real estate with their appurtenances, within the limits of South Carolina, and also for an apportionment for the public debt and for a division of all the property held by the Government of the United States, of which South Carolina was recently a member, and generally to negotiate as to all other measures proper to be made and adopted in the existing relation of the parties, and for the continuance of peace and amity between this Commonwealth and the Government at Washington.”
Eminent domain has been characterized as a gentler form of expropriation. Wikipedia lists examples of various national laws:
Eminent domain (United States, Canada), compulsory purchase (United Kingdom, New Zealand, Ireland), resumption/compulsory acquisition (Australia) or expropriation (South Africa and Canada's common law systems) is the inherent power of the state to seize a citizen's private property, expropriate property, or seize a citizen's rights in property with due monetary compensation, but without the owner's consent. The property is taken either for government use or by delegation to third parties who will devote it to public or civic use or, in some cases, economic development. The most common uses of property taken by eminent domain are for public utilities, highways, and railroads[citation needed], however it may also be taken for reasons of public safety, such as in the case of Centralia, Pennsylvania. ...
"Nationalize" is a synonym for "expropriate." See Link.
You asked for a recent example. Here's a 1974 case of the property of one foreign government being nationalized by a different foreign government. AGIP is or was a state-owned Italian oil company. Its interests in the Congo were nationalized by the Congolese government. See Link.
One only has to follow the history of offers to pay for debt repudiated and property stolen to see how the whole suggestion that they wanted to negotiate with Lincoln is absolute nonsense. You posted the letter from South Carolina, and maybe they really did want to step up and do the right thing and pay for it all. But then the confederates took over and the watering-down began. We start with the provisional confederate constitution adopted on February 8th. That contained a clause in article 6 that read: "The Government hereby instituted shall take immediate steps for the settlement of all matters between the States forming it, and their other late confederates of the United States in relation to the public property and public debt at the time of their withdrawal from them; these States hereby declaring it to be their wish and earnest desire to adjust everything pertaining to the common property, common liability, and common obligations of that Union, upon the principles of right, justice, equity, and good faith." Well and good, in keeping with the spirit of the original South Carolina document. But when it came time to put that clause into effect, the confederate congress watered it down for the first time. Suddenly the "settlement of all matters between the States forming it, and their other late confederates of the United States in relation to the public property and public debt at the time of their withdrawal" became "settlement of all questions of disagreement..." No more talk about payment for property stolen or debt repudiated. But hey, something like that could certainly qualify as one of the "questions of disagreement" so maybe there was a chance after all. But then two weeks after that Davis wrote his letter to Lincoln and now "settlement of all questions of disagreement" becomes "agree, treat, consult, and negotiate of and concerning all matters and subjects interesting to both nations". Where did the offer to pay go? What happened to the settlement of debt? Gone with the wind, that's where. "Settlement" becomes a vague offer to talk about it. "Questions of disagreement" is now "matters and subjects interesting to both nations". So I guess that if paying for stolen property wasn't a matter of interest to the confederacy then it wasn't on the table, was it? If the confederacy didn't find the question of debt responsibility interesting then that wasn't open for discussion. Suddenly we've gone from a specific interest in compensating the U.S. for their actions to not mentioning them at all. The offer is gone.
And then three weeks later, when the final confederate constitution is sent for ratification, all mention of settlement is completely erased from it. So in just over a month the Davis regime goes from seeming to accept responsibility for compensating the victims of their secession to ignoring it altogether. By Lincoln's inauguration there is no intent to pay for anything. No reason for the delegation to Washington except to deliver the Davis ultimatum. And nothing else.
Wonderful. In all those cases it's still talking about private property. We are talking about one nation in time of peace using eminent domain to announce that it was taking the property belonging to another nation, which is what the letter from the South Carolina AG claimed it was doing. So where does the legal right to do that come from?
You asked for a recent example. Here's a 1974 case of the property of one foreign government being nationalized by a different foreign government. AGIP is or was a state-owned Italian oil company. Its interests in the Congo were nationalized by the Congolese government.
Putting the confederate regime under Jefferson Davis on a par with Libya, Iran, and the Congo is probably appropriate. On the other hand could also be seen as libel towards those three countries as well.
“If I were the site host, I’d throw you off the boards for...”
If I were the site host I’d suspend the majority of you for incivility that says more about the accuser than the accused, doesn’t contribute to an argument and reflects badly on the forum.
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.