Stare Decisis is not a usurpation but has been a part of our English common law and our legal system from prior to the adoption of the US Constitution, the same as judicial review.
I do believe in a natural right to rebellion. It is what the founding fathers did in our revolution. However, they were under no delusion that what they had legal authority under the British system and expected to be hanged if it failed.
Yes, I agree the Lincoln quote you posted. However, there is one big caveat in that quote that I have bolded and underlined for you.
Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable - a most sacred right - a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world.
Abraham Lincoln
Now just because you have a natural right doesn't mean you will use it for a good purpose. People can rebel for good or bad reasons and we, as moral creatures, can look at the reasons they rebelled and decide for ourselves if it was for a good cause or not.
Your wrong. The constitution was adopted by all the people and no subset of the people can break it. The Supreme Court ruled on this as early as 1821.
“The people made the constitution, and the people can unmake it. It is the creature of their will, and lives only by their will. But this supreme and irresistible power to make or to unmake, resides only in the whole body of the people; not in any sub-division of them. The attempt of any of the parts to exercise it is usurpation, and ought to be repelled by those to whom the people have delegated their power of repelling it.” [19 U.S. 264] 1821
James Madison, the father of the constitution, did say that. He also said this in a letter to Alexander Hamilton.
From James Madison to Alexander Hamilton
N. York Sunday Evening [20 July 1788]
My Dear Sir
Yours of yesterday is this instant come to hand & I have but a few minutes to answer it. I am sorry that your situation obliges you to listen to propositions of the nature you describe. My opinion is that a reservation of a right to withdraw if amendments be not decided on under the form of the Constitution within a certain time, is a conditional ratification, that it does not make N. York a member of the New Union, and consequently that she could not be received on that plan. Compacts must be reciprocal, this principle would not in such a case be preserved. The Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever. It has been so adopted by the other States. An adoption for a limited time would be as defective as an adoption of some of the articles only. In short any condition whatever must viciate the ratification. What the New Congress by virtue of the power to admit new States, may be able & disposed to do in such case, I do not enquire as I suppose that is not the material point at present. I have not a moment to add more than my fervent wishes for your success & happiness.
James Madison
All implied powers belong to the states and the people. The powers authorized by the Constitution to the general government are few and defined.
*****************
>>OIFVeteran wrote: "Stare Decisis is not a usurpation but has been a part of our English common law and our legal system from prior to the adoption of the US Constitution, the same as judicial review."
Our Constitution is not common law. Stare Decisis is another way of saying, "The Supreme Court is the Constitution," which is the same as saying, "The Constitution is a Living Constitution!"
I am reminded of the time Chief Justice Rehnquist whined about the majority of the court voting against him by watering down the oppressive RICO statute. Believe it or not, Rehnquist supported his minority opinion to the press by stating, "This law was not TOO unconstitutional!" There was also the time Souter claimed a law was unconstitutional, but he was supporting it anyway for "Labor Peace!"
Yes, both "justices" ignored the Constitution, and admitted it. If that is not an example of a high crime and misdemeanor, nothing is; and if such arrogant men in powerful positions are not completely and totally bound by the chains of the Constitution, there is no constitution. Yet nothing was done to them by the Congress, and few people are even aware of their crimes.
As a strict constructionist, I am continuously reminded of George Washington's warning against usurpation:
"If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed." [George Washington, "Farewell Address." 1796]
But that carries little weight if the people do not know what is and is not a usurpation. Tyrants tend to rewrite history to support their power grabs; and the eloquent ones, like the trial lawyer Lincoln, can make their power grabs seem lawful and just. A perfect example is the Gettysburg Address, which is loaded with historical lies and myths.
*****************
>>OIFVeteran wrote: "I do believe in a natural right to rebellion. It is what the founding fathers did in our revolution. However, they were under no delusion that what they had legal authority under the British system and expected to be hanged if it failed."
The Founding Fathers seceded from the British nation; but they had to go to war to make it successful since they had no lawful power to secede. For that reason, the states gave themselves, via their Constitution, the power to secede from the union they – the states – created. For that reason, Lincoln could prevent the secession only via usurpation. His actions against the seceding states made Lincoln a rebel, and a traitor.
*****************
>>OIFVeteran wrote: "Yes, I agree the Lincoln quote you posted. However, there is one big caveat in that quote that I have bolded and underlined for you. >>OIFVeteran quoting LIncoln: "Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable - a most sacred right - a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Abraham Lincoln."
Are you claiming Lincoln spoke out of both sides of his mouth? Of course he did. He was, after all, a ruthless trial lawyer.
*****************
>>OIFVeteran wrote: "Now just because you have a natural right doesn't mean you will use it for a good purpose. People can rebel for good or bad reasons and we, as moral creatures, can look at the reasons they rebelled and decide for ourselves if it was for a good cause or not."
You are mischaracterizing secession as rebellion.
*****************
>>OIFVeteran wrote: "Your wrong. The constitution was adopted by all the people and no subset of the people can break it. The Supreme Court ruled on this as early as 1821. >>OIFVeteran quoting the Supreme Court: "The people made the constitution, and the people can unmake it. It is the creature of their will, and lives only by their will. But this supreme and irresistible power to make or to unmake, resides only in the whole body of the people; not in any sub-division of them. The attempt of any of the parts to exercise it is usurpation, and ought to be repelled by those to whom the people have delegated their power of repelling it.” [19 U.S. 264] 1821"
That was another attempted usurpation of power by the Marshall Court. The Constitution gives the courts no power to redefine original intent. We must go back to the debates to determine intent, as Jefferson explained:
"On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." [To Justice William Johnson, 1823, Monticello, June 12, 1823, in Thomas Jefferson, "The Writings of Thomas Jefferson Vol 15." Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1903, p.449]
*****************
>>OIFVeteran wrote: "James Madison, the father of the constitution, did say that. He also said this in a letter to Alexander Hamilton. >>OIFVeteran quoting Madison: "From James Madison to Alexander Hamilton N. York Sunday Evening [20 July 1788] >>My Dear Sir >>"Yours of yesterday is this instant come to hand & I have but a few minutes to answer it. I am sorry that your situation obliges you to listen to propositions of the nature you describe. My opinion is that a reservation of a right to withdraw if amendments be not decided on under the form of the Constitution within a certain time, is a conditional ratification, that it does not make N. York a member of the New Union, and consequently that she could not be received on that plan. Compacts must be reciprocal, this principle would not in such a case be preserved. The Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever. It has been so adopted by the other States. An adoption for a limited time would be as defective as an adoption of some of the articles only. In short any condition whatever must viciate the ratification. What the New Congress by virtue of the power to admit new States, may be able & disposed to do in such case, I do not enquire as I suppose that is not the material point at present. I have not a moment to add more than my fervent wishes for your success & happiness. >>James Madison
That conversation had nothing to do with the retained power of secession. The ratification conventions of the states of both Madison (Virginia) and Hamilton (New York) included clauses declaring the right of their states to secede, as did Rhode Island. This is Hamilton at the New York convention speaking of the right to secede:
"[T]o 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." [Alexander Hamilton at the Debates in the Convention of the State of New York, June 17, 1788, in Jonathan Elliot, "The Debates in the Several State Conventions Vol II." 1888, pp.232-233]
Of course, Hamilton never dreamed a snake as evil as Abraham Lincoln would raise his ugly head in American politics.
In any case, the conditional ratifications of those three states, which clarified the retained power of secession by the states, were accepted, and the Constitution was adopted.
Absent the retained power of secession by the states, tyrants, like Lincoln, could lawfully do as they please. But since that power was retained, and not specifically forfeited to the general government, Lincoln committed treason against the United States by making war against it.
Mr. Kalamata