Posted on 06/09/2009 8:47:35 AM PDT by Davy Buck
Mr. Madison's irrefutable arguments in his Report on the Virginia Resolutions support sw, not the 'Living Constitution' types who post here (and others who suggest that the States essentially ratified a 'blank paper'). And your specific comment, apparently objecting to that fact, brings to mind a whole range of single digit numbers, any one of which might apply to you...
;>)
Squat2pee is only correct to the extent that the founders sought, as much as possible, clear and unambiguous meaning. He then uses this as the springboard to impute subjective values to the Constitution that it simply does not contain. His viewpoint is the only one I see here representing anything approaching ‘Living Constitution’ types.
His bombastic nature and presentation is a dead giveaway to his mental imbalance or limited cognitive skills. I’m disappointed to find that you’re no better then him. Pity - I had hoped for better.
You’re dealing with fascists who know in their heart they are wrong, but to admit it would require dumping years of brainwashing about the heroic Lincoln, and preserving the Union at all costs was right and that 11 state governments were illegitimate and rebellious to their living document, they deserved (and got) the same treatment as Nazi Germany and the Japenses Empire- no distinction. Ain’t gonna happen.
Japenses = Japanese
And you believe that the only reason the civilian ships didn't enter Charleston Harbor was because they were being forcibly prevented from doing so by the United States ships, and that it had nothing to do with the fact that Ft. Sumter was being bombarded from all directions and no ship is going to sail into that kind of crossfire. Is that about it?
If anything, from the OR citation that you offer, it looks like the Nashville is being kept out by the South Carolinians, who are lumping it with the US ships to be kept out.
the main difference between myself & MANY other FReepers is that i RIDICULE you two (& the other DAMNyankee) NITWITS/BIGOTS "to your face", while others laugh AT you "behind your back" in PMs.
free dixie,sw
IF i am at all bitter, it is from fighting with the south-HATING, SELF-righteous BIGOTS of "The DAMNyankee Coven of HATERS, fools, BIGOTS, antisemites & KNOWING LIARS". (that would make a saint bitter, much less an ordinary person like me!!)
free dixie,sw
may i remind you that NAZI Germany defeated the brave/gallant Poles in a FEW weeks in 1939.
being MIGHTY in arms, supplies & soldiers does NOT make your cause correct/just. (DAMNyankee apologists should think on that.)
free dixie,sw
laughing AT you, as most FReepers DO.
free dixie,sw
1. APOLOGIZE to everyone on FR for BEING here & writing FILTH on the forum (the FR forum is NOT the wall of a public toilet, for IDIOTS to scrawl their "witticisms" upon),
2. ADMIT that you are nothing more than an ignorant south-HATER/FOOL
&
3. RESIGN, never to return to FR.
btw, BIGOT, didn't you chide me for mentioning someone in a post w/o "pinging them"???? ( HYPOCRITE, thy name is DAMNyankee!)
laughing AT you.
free dixie,sw
I find most of your arguments easy enough to deal with. And they are not strengthened by a constant stream of insults.
Indeed, you might consider a current analogy -- which Republican leader has been the target of more left wing attacks and insults than all the others combined? Does that not suggest Governor Palin's arguments are more feared by the left than any others? Think about it before you start in with the next round of insults...
Now, let's take a closer look at your arguments:
"So, you agree with Mr. Jefferson?"
"...[T]he [federal] government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself..."
I clearly misread this quote, and failed to recognize its context. But since it contained no words like "unilateral secession" or "withdrawal from the Union" I took the quote as merely a normal expression of States Rights, such as we find in the Tenth Amendment. Of course, I have no problem with that.
But on second review, I see now what we are dealing with here -- Jefferson's draft for the Kentucky Resolution of 1798 opposing the Alien and Sedition Acts. This is a different matter altogether.
If I remember right, Jefferson was on both sides of the issue of Nullification and even secession. On the one hand he helped draft the Kentucky Resolution of 1798, supporting nullification of the Alien and Sedition Acts. On the other hand, he in no way supported either: A) efforts by Northern States, in 1804 and later, to nullify President Jefferson's Embargo Act, or B) their threats to secede.
So, as on some other issues, where Jefferson stood on Nullification depended on where he sat.
The issue itself played out over many years, seemingly put to rest by President Jackson in 1833:
"Andrew Jackson issued a proclamation against the doctrine of nullification, stating: "I consider...the power to annul a law of the United States, assumed by one State, incompatible with the existence of the Union, contradicted expressly by the letter of the Constitution, unauthorized by its spirit, inconsistent with every principle on which it was founded, and destructive of the great object for which it was formed."
"He also denied the right to secede: "The Constitution...forms a government not a league...To say that any State may at pleasure secede from the Union is to say that the United States is not a nation.""
But the biggest irony of the idea of Nullification is this: when the South seceded in 1860-61, their core reason was: that Northern states were, in effect, Nullifying and ignoring Fugitive Slave Laws. The South claimed such nullification was intolerable and so seceded.
This is enough for one post. I'll come back & deal with your other issues later...
Good luck with your trees and roof!
Actually, that was the subject of my reply to his post - with which you apparently disagreed.
As a reminder:
IF the writers of the Constitution had believed that anyone with an IQ "above average room temperature" would NOT have understood that they wrote what they MEANT, they would have made the words simpler. the Constitution SAYS what the authors meant. nothing more;nothing less.
As sw noted - "nothing more;nothing less."
He then uses this as the springboard to impute subjective values to the Constitution that it simply does not contain. His viewpoint is the only one I see here representing anything approaching ‘Living Constitution’ types.
Obviously you have not been reading the posts so kindly 'deposited' here, by x, the members of "the Non-Sequitur school of thought," and other historical revisionists.
His bombastic nature and presentation is a dead giveaway to his mental imbalance or limited cognitive skills. I’m disappointed to find that you’re no better then him.
Hey, sport, please feel free to count me as "no better then [sic]" sw, any day of the week, the month, or the year. As a gift from yours truly & sw, allow me to provide a 'current events' quote, for your personal edification:
"Anyone who takes the time actually to read the Constitution—and to peruse a few books of history so that he can understand its language as the Founding Fathers did—can come to know what the Constitution truly means. After all, the Constitution was written to be adopted and applied by farmers, yeomen, mechanics, merchants, and other common people—both in the late 1700s and thereafter throughout the ages. It contains no mysterious passages that can be deciphered only by graduates of Harvard, Yale, or other elitist law schools (which, by the way, none of the Framers attended), or by the black robes in the even smaller population of judges appointed to office because of their back-room political connections.
"Moreover, anyone who studies the history of the modern “constitutional interpretation” for which those judges and graduates are responsible will soon realize what the Constitution does not mean and could not possibly mean. For decades, the legal gurus of the Bench, the Bar, and the law schools have inundated this country with tortuous and truly tortured theories of “the general Welfare”, “regulation of Commerce”, “implied powers”, “compelling governmental interests”, “judicial supremacy”, “the unitary executive”, and so on ad nauseum—all intended to infuse, increase, and intensify power in the General Government, at the expense of the States and especially of the people."
-Dr. Edwin Vieira, Ph.D., J.D., http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin197.htm , July 20, 2009
Gosh - looks like sw is in agreement with at least some of our current legal scholars, as well as James Madison & Thomas Jefferson. You, of course, take exception.
;>)
Pity - I had hoped for better.
If you think I would trade what you "hoped for," for a single sheet of toilet paper (single ply), you would be sadly mistaken...
The only ‘historical revisionism’ I find on this thread are those contributions by the Lost Cause Losers. At times they dress it up in layered hubris - the rest, like Squat2pee merely splat it out.
At the end of the day your efforts still amount to defending the indefensible and still make you a loser.
You know what you can do with your single-ply...
Thank you.
I have already cited (IIRC) Mr. Jefferson's Declaration and Protest on the Principles of the Constitution of the United States of America, and on the Violations of them [by the federal government] of 1825, which should clarify for you his views regarding State secession (link at my FR homepage: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/jeffdec1.asp ).
As for Mr. Jackson - you completely discounted Mr. Rawle, because, in your opinion, he was not sufficiently involved in the ratification of the Constitution (see your Post 1588). Care to apply your own standard to Mr. Jackson? What was young Jackson's involvement in the process? Hmm?
Allow me to paraphrase your Post 1588:
And Mr. Jackson's role in the US Constitutional Convention of 1787 was what, exactly?
And Mr. Jackson's contribution to the Federalist Papers, or other debates of 1787 regarding ratification was what?
Sorry - but you can't have it both ways, can you?
(And, by the way, you are conflating nullification and secession, when, in fact, they are separate issues. ;>)
As for my other comments? In my judgment, I posted nothing your 'arguments' did not richly deserve...
Haven't read much real history, have you?
;>)
At the end of the day your efforts still amount to defending the indefensible and still make you a loser.
Thanks for your opinion. I'll file it with the many equally-learned pronouncements issued by Obama and Pelosi.
;>)
You know what you can do with your single-ply...
Absolutely - drape it over a 'deposit' of 'union at any cost,' the next time I see one on the sidewalk...
;>)
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.