William Seward criticizes the pro-slavery policies of the Democratic Party

Grand Old Partisan ^ | October 25, 2010 | Michael Zak

[Idabilly]

"Among the enumerated powers, we do not find that of establishing a bank or creating a corporation. But there is no phrase in the instrument which, like the Articles of Confederation, excludes incidental or implied powers and which requires that everything granted shall be expressly and minutely described. Even the 10th Amendment, which was framed for the purpose of quieting the excessive jealousies which had been excited, omits the word "expressly," and declares only that the powers "not delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people," thus leaving the question whether the particular power which may become the subject of contest has been delegated to the one Government, or prohibited to the other, to depend on a fair construction of the whole instrument. The men who drew and adopted this amendment had experienced the embarrassments resulting from the insertion of this word in the Articles of Confederation, and probably omitted it to avoid those embarrassments. A Constitution, to contain an accurate detail of all the subdivisions of which its great powers will admit, and of all the means by which they may be carried into execution, would partake of the prolixity of a legal code, and could scarcely be embraced by the human mind. It would probably never be understood by the public. Its nature, therefore, requires that only its great outlines should be marked, its important objects designated, and the minor ingredients which compose those objects be deduced from the nature of the objects themselves. That this idea was entertained by the framers of the American Constitution is not only to be inferred from the nature of the instrument, but from the language. Why else were some of the limitations found in the 9th section of the 1st article introduced? It is also in some degree warranted by their having omitted to use any restrictive term which might prevent its receiving a fair and just interpretation. In considering this question, then, we must never forget that it is a Constitution we are expounding." -- Chief Justice Marshall, McCulloch v Maryland

We're off to the races with Non-Sequitur, and his arsenal of implied, living document quotes. It won't be long now before he'll start bragging about how successful his secular humanists meeting was.

Here is that bait and switch that we refer to. During Virginia's ratification convention John Marshall was a delegate, who later became Chief Justice Marshall. Mr. Marshall had said something completely different. Here it is:

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. To me it appears, then, unquestionable that the state governments can call forth the militia, in case the Constitution should be adopted, in the same manner as they could have done before its adoption. Gentlemen have said that the states cannot defend themselves without an application to Congress, because Congress can interpose! Does not every man feel a refutation of the argument in his own breast? I will show that there could not be a combination, between those who formed the Constitution, to take away this power. All the restraints intended to be laid on the state governments (besides where an exclusive power is expressly given to Congress) are contained in the 10th section of the 1st article.

Let me edit this Darth Vader quote for you:

I've been waiting for you, Non-Sequitur. We meet again, at last. The circle is now complete. When I first joined Free Republic, I was but the learner; now *I* am the master. :)

[Hoodat]

Commish: Game, set, match. The internet leaves quite a trail, don’t she?

[Hoodat]

Funny that, West Virginia seceded from Virginia, recognized by the USA as legit

Yeah, great point. I guess that debunks NS's whole Article 4 argument. btw, Virginians still to this day celebrate the fact that W.V. is no longer part of the Commonwealth.

[Non-Sequitur]

Wonder what King George III would have thought about the colonies entering into a compact like that?

What difference would it make what he thought?

Why would the colonies confederate to hurl off British monarchical rule and having done just that, give up their hard fought sovereignty to a Federal Construct?

Maybe because under their new form of government they had a say in how they were governed, while under the monarchy they did not? Or that under the new form of government they had a say in who their leaders were, while under the monarchy they did not? That they would chart their own destiny, while under the monarch they didn't have a say? You don't suppose ol' George might have seen those as pluses for his former colonies?

[jessduntno]

“THANKSGIVING DAY 2001 WHERE WAS NS? FIGHTING THE CIVIL WAR and berating Southerners...”

Sad. Sick. Disturbing.

[southernsunshine]

Similar but Davis didn't look like he got beat with an ugly stick.

LOL! He didn't just get beat w/an ugly stick, he got hammered w/it!

[southernsunshine]

Funny that, West Virginia seceded from Virginia, recognized by the USA as legit but Virginia's was not. The more I think about what happen the more the BS meter goes haywire.

Now remember, cva, we've been told that it was all legal b/c of congressional approval. What a crock!

[Ditto]

Now remember, cva, we've been told that it was all legal b/c of congressional approval. What a crock!

You might think it is a crock, but they followed the exact letter of the Constitution in doing so.

[Non-Sequitur]

Yeah, I heard you the first time you made that baseless claim. Again, can you please cite where it says this in the Constitution?

Check my reply 104.

Still no mention of prohibition against secession.

But clearly defining that the power to admit a state and to approve any changes in its status once admitted is a power reserved to the United States. Implied in that is the power to approve them leaving altogether.

It is delegated to Congress as well as the respective State legislatures.

Admission, no. Changes of status yes. But clearly a state legislature cannot vote to split the state on their own; the approval of the other states is needed as expressed through a vote in Congress. Two states cannot vote to combine without the OK of Congress. States cannot change their border by a fraction of an inch without consent of Congress. Leaving the Union, by implication, requires the same.

Did Congress pass a bill which prohibited secession?

None is needed. And such a bill could well be unconstitutional. What you do not understand is that I agree with you that secession is permitted under the Constitution, if done properly. And that is with the consent of the other states. Leaving the Union should be no harder than admission to the Union was.

"Others" would back up their claim by citing where it actually says that in the Constitution. Clearly, you are not up to the task.

You would include James Madison in that category, I see? No lack of ego on your part is there?

That's really nice. But unfortunately, I cannot find these words by Marshall stated anywhere in the US Constitution.

Can you point to me the words of the Constitution that authorizes NASA, the U.S. Air Force, or the Department of Veteran's Affairs?

Virginia was still a part of the United States when Fort Sumter was fired upon.

But had joined the rebellion by the time federal troops headed for Bull Run. You are aware that Sumter was in April and Bull Run was in July, aren't you?

The 'choosers' of war were the ones who invaded the Commonwealth of Virginia. Virginia had committed no act of aggression whatsoever against the Union.

Check your timeline: April 1861 - attack on Sumter, May 1861 - Virginia joins the confederacy, July 1861 - First Bull Run. The confederacy initiated hosilities in April, Virginia joined the rebellion in May, federal troops fought the rebels at Bull Run in July. July 21 to be exact. Having joined the rebellion on what would eventually be the losing side, Virginia had no cause for complaint when the war came to them.

[Non-Sequitur]

This ordinance shall take effect and be an act of this day, when ratified by a majority of the voter of the people of this State cast at a poll to be taken thereon on the fourth Thursday in May next, in pursuance of a schedule hereafter to be enacted.

The "fourth Thursday in May next" was May 23rd. Yet Virginia was admitted to the confederacy on April 17th. I guess they really didn't care what those voters thought, did they?

[cowboyway]

CHRISTMAS DAY, CHRISTMAS EVE OF 2003, WHERE WAS NS? FIGHTING THE CIVIL WAR ON FR and berating Southerners... HOW PATHETIC IS THAT?

Cowboyway unpacks his crystal ball and sees the following:

CHRISTMAS DAY, CHRISTMAS EVE OF 2010, WHERE IS NS? FIGHTING THE CIVIL WAR ON FR and berating Southerners... HOW PATHETIC...

CHRISTMAS DAY, CHRISTMAS EVE OF 2011, WHERE IS NS? FIGHTING THE CIVIL WAR ON FR and berating Southerners... HOW PATHETIC...

CHRISTMAS DAY, CHRISTMAS EVE OF 2012, WHERE IS NS? FIGHTING THE CIVIL WAR ON FR and berating Southerners... HOW PATHETIC...

CHRISTMAS DAY, CHRISTMAS EVE OF 2013, WHERE IS NS? FIGHTING THE CIVIL WAR ON FR and berating Southerners... HOW PATHETIC...

CHRISTMAS DAY, CHRISTMAS EVE OF 2014, WHERE IS NS? FIGHTING THE CIVIL WAR ON FR and berating Southerners... HOW PATHETIC...

CHRISTMAS DAY, CHRISTMAS EVE OF 2015, WHERE IS NS? FIGHTING THE CIVIL WAR ON FR and berating Southerners... HOW PATHETIC...

[southernsunshine]

You might think it is a crock, but they followed the exact letter of the Constitution in doing so.

Uhm, exactly where was the Virginia legislatures approval?

[Non-Sequitur]

When he does that he defames me, my wife, my parents, siblings, my wife’s family, our ancestors, our children. He defames any Southerner on FR. What a miserable person he or she is.

OK, you say that you're not to be sure of my gender - despite claims to have pictures of me - and yet you call me 'dearie'? You claim indignation that I a would post on a holiday, but you carefully cut and past all of my posts into your archives to display at will? You send FReepmails filled with the worst kind of slurs, yet go running to the mods when I post your comments, edited for polite company. And I'm the miserable one in this picture?

[southernsunshine]

We're off to the races with Non-Sequitur, and his arsenal of implied, living document quotes.

Living document quotes......as best I can tell the Constitution has sprouted wings and flown off.

Great post, IB:)

[southernsunshine]

Leaving the Union should be no harder than admission to the Union was.

Then you're saying it would have taken The Lone Star State 10 years to get out?

[rockrr]

Lost Cause Losers only follow the Constitution when it furthers their agenda...

[Non-Sequitur]

Then you're saying it would have taken The Lone Star State 10 years to get out?

No, and how you could somehow come to that conclusion escapes me.

[Non-Sequitur]

We're off to the races with Non-Sequitur, and his arsenal of implied, living document quotes.

No race, you can chase your own tail.

I've been waiting for you, Non-Sequitur. We meet again, at last. The circle is now complete. When I first joined Free Republic, I was but the learner; now *I* am the master.

Darth Vader. Appropriate for Lost Causers but be careful - Vader dies in the end.

[Non-Sequitur]

Lost Cause Losers only follow the Constitution when it furthers their agenda...

Or when they're looking for something to wipe their tuchus with.

[Non-Sequitur]

Uhm, exactly where was the Virginia legislatures approval?

The Restored Government of Virginia, established by Unionists in convention in the city of Wheeling in June 1861 and which was recognized by Congress as the legitimate government of Virginia, voted to partition in May 1862.