Posted on 07/15/2012 3:46:27 PM PDT by cap10mike
Could Texas once again become the Republic of Texas?
Without question, the Nov. 6 election will be a do-or-die, make-or-break, Rubicon-crossing event. If the presidential election goes one way, we get a “do-over.” We’ll be given the opportunity to take the first step on a long, arduous journey back to our political and economic roots. If it goes the other way, federalism and balance of power will continue to be edged out by an overreaching federal government and an imperial presidency. Socialism will have an unbreakable hold on the economy, and a centralized government, rather than a free market, will determine business’ winners and losers.
(Excerpt) Read more at bizpacreview.com ...
“Unless you are very very good with Ouija board, original intent can no longer be determined. “ - DM
“Spoken like a true liberal/socialist/totalitarian.” - Triple
Your reply:
“Rather, written by one who recognizes that the only artifacts we have use language, and we have to look at the meaning of the language used, in the context of the times in which the language was written, as such meaning can be determined.” - DM
You have me there...hmmmm wait a minute. Oh, on second thought, your reply contains some fancy words, but makes absolutely no sense - further it does not support your previous assertion that original intent can not be determined.
Are you ok, DM?
It may be a fine point, but I distinguish between intent and meaning, as do some other conservatives. Going after intent suggests that the words used may have a meaning that may have been an imperfect representation of the mental state of the writer(s), and that mental state should be the true guide to the law. By contrast, original meaning cuts off the search for the mental state different from the meaning of the words.
Original meaning implies that the constitution is more like a contract, and what ever the original parties wanted, what we got is the constitution, and that guides and restricts future judges.
Hope that helps.
That would be the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments.
The 14th Amendment is a fraud. It was "passed" contrary to the specifications in the Constitution.
You can not simply withdraw from a contract. If you could, there would be no need to have a contract, and no contract could protect a party when you pay money for a service. The party paid could then ‘simply withdraw’ from the contract.
Pretending to simply withdraw from a contract creates a controversy between the state and the federal government which would be, per the constitution, resolved with the Supreme court as original distribution.
Sorry, it was passed, and subsequently used in jurisprudence, providing a Supreme Court approval to its ratification in addition to that of the various state legislatures and the congress.
You one of them “fringe on the flag” loonies?
There were 37 States in the Union at the time, so ratification by at least 28 was necessary to make the amendment an integral part of the Constitution. Actually, only 21 States legally ratified it. Link and here. (The second also cites the absence of the joint Resolution correctly following the Constitution.)
and subsequently used in jurisprudence,
So then if Obamacare [or it's USSC decision's "reasoning"] is "subsequently used in jurisprudence" it makes Obamacare valid?
What a load.
providing a Supreme Court approval to its ratification
Seriously? You're seriously going to say that the USSC has a part in amending the Constitution?
in addition to that of the various state legislatures and the congress.
Except that if the states's legislatures didn't approve it, then that is still invalid.
You one of them “fringe on the flag” loonies?
Who said anything about a flag?
Except in this case we have one party saying "I can change at-will any portion of this contract" which is exactly what the federal government has said in its actions. Consider the 4th, 6th, and 8th amendments and how the federal judicial system has impacted how they are applied. (Or even that despicable doctrine of incorporation; wherein the constitution's words magically change to constrain who the fed want; ex: States/counties/cities and the 1st Amendment.)
Consider also, the refusal of the federal government to abide by its contractual obligations (Art IV, Sec 4 & AZ).
What then is the proper answer?
You evidently need better reading skills. I did not say that you could simply withdraw from a contract unless the other party violated the terms and conditions of said contract. The federal government has broken its end of the bargain. The other parties are no longer bound to the contract.
The “contract” also does not explicitly forbid the states from leaving said contract. Since it is not expressly forbidden, that power is reserved to the states by the beloved 10th amendment. Which, for your reading pleasure, I will post now.....
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Since the right to secede is not prohibited, the states have the full right to do so.
Usually the people who make your sort of argument end up arguing that the court does not apply to them because the fringe on the court’s flag shows it is an admiralty court, and thus as a civilian, they can’t be charged in admiralty court. That is to say your argument is frivolous.
My argument is frivolous because it "sounds like" something other people are claiming? Wow.
Are you the sort who would argue that jury nullification is illegal/illegitimate because it's not mentioned in [most] court's juror briefings?
Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials
(The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.) (This section in parentheses is modified by the 11th Amendment.)
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.
So in the event of a controversy, the state is obligated by the constitution to resolve it, not by armed force, but by presenting its case to the Supreme Court. See you in court counselor.
I read it, and it still does not expressly prohibit any state to secede. Until you can point me to that phrase or one like it, you’re wasting your time with your run around. The 10th Amendment is very firm on the matter. What is not prohibited by the Constitution is reserved to the States and to the People.
Found it yet?
Your argument is frivolous, as it is like other frivolous arguments in its frivolity.
When states are required to settle controversies in court, that means that they are required to settle controversies in court, not by pretending they don’t want to play any more. There is not a special power for “I don’t like that part of the constitution, so I will ignore it”. No such power can be reserved to any state, so long as you have a constitution.
As for the connection of the supreme court with the amendment process, the SCOTUS decides on the meaning of the texts, which texts have precedent, for amendments just as any other legal text. That is what it means to be a judge in a court room, or to be an appeals court judge, or a justice of the supreme court.
No, parties to the suit don’t get to decide what part of the law applies to them. If you have that, then you have no law at all, because, as we see here, parties or partisans will take the interpretation that favors their cause. The legal system takes that interpretation away from the parties, but leaves the parties or partisans with the opportunity to advocate their position. The Judge can select from the positions advocated, or can present his own position.
The wonderful thing is, when a court makes a decision that is not in line with a supermajority, the decision can be overridden by law or amendment, such as the 11th amendment with restored sovereign immunity to the states, or the 13th 14th, and 15th amendments.
Then please rephrase my argument; as your objection makes little sense in relation to my previous post.
When states are required to settle controversies in court, that means that they are required to settle controversies in court, not by pretending they don’t want to play any more. There is not a special power for “I don’t like that part of the constitution, so I will ignore it”. No such power can be reserved to any state, so long as you have a constitution.
Um, you do realize that that is exactly what the federal government is doing, no? (“I don’t like that part of the constitution, so I will ignore it”)
As for the connection of the supreme court with the amendment process, the SCOTUS decides on the meaning of the texts, which texts have precedent, for amendments just as any other legal text. That is what it means to be a judge in a court room, or to be an appeals court judge, or a justice of the supreme court.
That is not a part of the amendment process; that is applying the amendment. The two are totally different; that you cannot discern that casts much doubt onto the veracity of any of your assertions regarding law and jurisprudence.
No, parties to the suit don’t get to decide what part of the law applies to them. If you have that, then you have no law at all, because, as we see here, parties or partisans will take the interpretation that favors their cause.
Which is *gasp* what we see in federal courts regarding limiting government agents via 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th amendment suits.
Honestly, Kelo, Wickard, ACA and so forth show that the USSC is not immune to that power. (And if you assert Kelo as being good law I reserve the right to laugh you to derision: 'projecting' tax revenue-increases and using those imaginations as justification for filling the "public use" requirement of the 5th is simply ludicrous.)
The legal system takes that interpretation away from the parties, but leaves the parties or partisans with the opportunity to advocate their position.
Except in the case of the federal government, which sits on its own cases and tells everyone that they are under their decrees.
The wonderful thing is, when a court makes a decision that is not in line with a supermajority, the decision can be overridden by law or amendment, such as the 11th amendment with restored sovereign immunity to the states, or the 13th 14th, and 15th amendments.
"Objection, this assumes facts not in evidence."
Really? I point out evidence that the 14th is not actually valid and you use it in a description asserting your position?
A question assumes facts not in evidence if:
It presumes unproved facts to be true.
Example: "When did you stop beating your wife?" This question assumes that the person has beaten his wife.
Of course I cited the 14th Amendment as an example of the use of an amendment to correct or improve the constitution. That is because it was such, and it is such even if the crazy guy on the street asserted that because of the phase of the moon, and the color of his shoe laces that it is not valid.
I will once again point out that federal courts are not the same as the members of an agency that is directed to carry out policy. Thus the federal government is a party to the court, and the independent judiciary requires that positions be argued before it, with the representative of the government just another advocate.
The State of Texas itself said that its secession was a legal nullity. In other words, the State of Texas says it never seceded. Texas was not among the winners of the Civil War.
I'm not sure this means much to today's neo-Confederates, though.
So then that it did not garner the necessary ratifications from the states (3/4) is irrelevant?
Congressional Record:That the states are on record as being under protest due being denied guaranteed representation is irrelevant? Link
Senate, 84th Con. 1st Session., Vol. 101, pp. 7119 to 7124;
Senate, 86th Con., 2nd Session., Vol. 106, pp. 4036 to 4038;
Senate, 89th Con., 1st Session., Vol. III, pp. 10669 to 10671.
Please note that the USSC asserts that the [accusation of the] replacing of the republics ["states"] "is a political question" and not actually a matter at law, even though the Constitution guarantees a republican form of government.
A bill in equity filed by one of the United States to enjoin the Secretary of War and other officers who represent the Executive authority of the United States from carrying into execution certain acts of Congress on the ground that such execution would annul and totally abolish the existing state government of the state and establish another and different one in its place -- in other words, would overthrow and destroy the corporate existence of the state by depriving it of all the means and instrumentalities whereby its existence might and otherwise would be maintained -- calls for a judgment upon a political question, and will therefore not be entertained by this Court. -- Georgia v. Stanton
Again, you cannot simply say "because everyone says so" as a valid argument of correctness. That is as absurd as asserting that if every human were to declare God to be evil that God would suddenly become evil.
You are indeed entitled to your own opinions; you are not, however, entitled to your own facts.
Correct to the degree that some graveyards in both Maryland and Missouri hold Confederate veterans.
Indee, all the Border States (Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland plus West Virginia and Delaware) sent troops to both Confederate and Union Armies.
But here are the numbers and sources I can find:
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.