Replies

It was the 1774 Brits who unilaterally & illegitimately abrogated the Massachusetts constitution of 1691 and imposed dictatorship over the colonists. The colonists were given no say, did not agree, and were therefore under no moral or legal obligations to comply with British rule.

You are seemingly not groking the nature of this "Monarchy" form of government. It's funny that you are calling it a "Constitution" when it is in fact a "Charter", and this further demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding regarding the nature of a charter, as well.

What the King hath granted, the King can taketh away. :) British law did not help them here, it pretty much recognizes that the King (and his representatives) have that right. Those troops that they attacked were the legal authority in Massachusetts. Once again, the parallels with what the confederates did is pretty d@mn close.

As Conservatives we believe that our Constitution should mean what our Founders intended it to mean, and no Founder expressed himself more clearly on this particular subject than James Madison. And no Founder ever explicitly contradicted Madison on this.

Over the last few years of studying the "natural born citizen" issue, I have come to realize that Madison had a tendency to articulate support for one idea when it suited him, and support the opposite idea when it suited him.

I give you the case of James McClure, Held in captivity in France for over a year because Madison, then President and who was acutely aware of the plight of James McClure, refused to acknowledge him as an American citizen based on the Jus Soli principle. (James McClure was born in Charleston South Carolina to an English Father.)

Madison is well known for supporting William Smith's claim to a seat in Congress based on the fact that he was born also in Charleston South Carolina. (Odd coincidence, wot? Lot of Sh*t seems to start in Charleston South Carolina) Given that William Smith was a friend of Madison and James McClure was a problem\threat for Madison, it would appear that Madison's opinion could be swayed by expediency.

Madison was well known to oppose secession. Of course he would assert that it is illegal, but then so was the US Secession from Britain.

DiogenesLamp: "You are seemingly not groking the nature of this "Monarchy" form of government.
It's funny that you are calling it a "Constitution" when it is in fact a "Charter", and this further demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding regarding the nature of a charter, as well.
What the King hath granted, the King can taketh away. :)"

Grocking? Don't you know, it's impossible to "grok" anything until after you've smoked a whole bunch of illegal sh*t!
So don't do it! ;-)

Sir, back in the good old days, back when America was still America, and we still had real education of children, I learned that what the Massachusetts colonists expected, wanted and thought they already had were the normal "rights of Englishmen", including some form of self-government, such as the Massachusetts charter of 1691 -- their form of "constitution".

In their minds that was "legitimate government", and when Parliament unilaterally abrogated it, "at pleasure", and militarily imposed a dictatorial government, Massachusetts citizens remained loyal to their original government.

Likewise in 1861, when Confederates unilaterally abrogated their Constitution, "at pleasure", and militarily seized Federal properties, Union citizens remained loyal to their original government.

DiogenesLamp: "Over the last few years of studying the "natural born citizen" issue, I have come to realize that Madison had a tendency to articulate support for one idea when it suited him, and support the opposite idea when it suited him."

Sir, please, I beg you, take my words here seriously and deep into your heart: if you disrespect our Founders, and their intentions for their Constitution, then you don't qualify for the term "conservative".
If you are not an "originalist", then you are something other than "conservative" which makes you a poser here on Free Republic.

So, I'm asking you to go deep into your own heart, and find the source for that mocking disrespect for our Founders and their Constitution, then strangle it.
Then your thinking will clarify, and you will be a welcome asset at Free Republic.

Now, let me repeat what I've posted here before: no Founder was ever expressly contradictory to the words of James Madison when he wrote:

"The compact can only be dissolved by the consent of the other parties, or by usurpations or abuses of power justly having that effect.
It will hardly be contended that there is anything in the terms or nature of the compact, authorizing a party to dissolve it at pleasure."

DiogenesLamp: "Madison was well known to oppose secession.
Of course he would assert that it is illegal, but then so was the US Secession from Britain."

Once again: colonists of Massachusetts believed that Brits had, in effect, unilaterally "seceded" from their original compact, the 1691 Charter, to which the colonists remained loyal.
Likewise, in 1861, Confederates unilaterally seceded from their original compact, the 1787 Constitution, to which Unionists remained loyal.

So the comparison is exact: between 1774 Brits and 1861 Confederates.