Replies

>>OIFVeteran wrote: "Yes, exactly what I've been saying and what Justice Marshall said. Just as the constitution states also 'We the people...' It resides in all of the people not in any subset of the people, not in the states. Thank you for the quote. I will save it for use in the other civil war forums I post at."

I don't know how you squeezed that out of Pinkney's statement. Besides, an arrogant, power-hungry person like John Marshall is the last person you should be praising. Marshall was an oligarchist who believed the ultimate authority belonged in the hands of five politically-appointed lawyers on the Supreme Court -- NOT in the people. Prior to Lincoln ramming Nazi-style central planning down our throats, the Supreme Court did not have such awesome power.

Read carefully this part of Pinckney's statement again:

"The person or assembly in whom this power resides is called the sovereign or supreme power of the state."

Pinckney's statement was merely an acknowledgement of the Jeffersonian doctrine that the states were individually sovereign, and the ultimate ability to create and distribute power belonged in the Amendment process of the states (e.g, "in the people",) not in the Courts, nor in the President, nor in Congress.

Pinckney was was merely seeking ratification of document that scared the daylights out of Americans who had just fought a horrible war against a central planner -- the King. They most certainly were not going to turn their hard-fought freedom over to the control of another central planner -- not without a fight. Lincoln realized that, so he was for war.

Mr. Kalamata.

mr.k “Prior to Lincoln ramming Nazi-style central planning down our throats, the Supreme Court did not have such awesome power.

Once you play the “Nazi” card, you have lost the argument. House rules. Also, if you really believe that the SCOTUS did not have “such awesome power” pre Lincoln, I would turn your attention to Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Roger B. (The Loon) Taney. He had ruled from the bench that the blacks had not been considered as citizens at the time of the Constitution, were not then citizens, and could never be citizens. Within a couple of years all Hell broke loose. Talk about “crony capitalism” and someone being in the back pocket of The Slave Power. Look no further than the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS in 1857. Brush up on the Dred Scott Decision. It is why Taney was Lincoln’s nemesis. It is also why, after swearing in Lincoln, Taney had to sit through a tongue lashing during Abe’s First Inaugural.

In his post #597 Kalamata lights into SCOTUS Chief Justice John Marshall (from 1801 to 1835), claiming:

Kalamata to OIFVeteran: "...an arrogant, power-hungry person like John Marshall is the last person you should be praising.
Marshall was an oligarchist who believed the ultimate authority belonged in the hands of five politically-appointed lawyers on the Supreme Court -- NOT in the people.
Prior to Lincoln ramming Nazi-style central planning down our throats, the Supreme Court did not have such awesome power."

Setting aside Kalamata's use of the N-word (Nazi), let's focus on his main point: Marshall the devil.
This is extraordinarily important for everyone to grasp, because it clearly, unequivocally identifies just who our new FRiend Kalamata is.
So let's start with: who was Chief Justice Marshall?

As a young man John Marshall served in the Revolutionary War and the Virginia legislature where, in 1788, he allied with James Madison in helping ratify the new US Constitution.
After ratification, Marshall allied with Hamilton and other Federalists, was appointed to positions by both Presidents Washington and Adams, eventually as Adams' Secretary of State before confirmation as SCOTUS Chief Justice.

In short, John Marshall well qualifies as a Federalist, ally of other Federalists, pro-Constitution Founding Father.
As such Marshall's ideas & opinions help us define the term, "Founders' Original Intent", from which all truly conservative ideas develop.

And now that we know who Marshall was, we also know, exactly, who is Kalamata.
Kalamata is on the opposite side, the opposition to the 1787 Constitution, the anti-Federalists, anti-Founders who became (under President Washington) the anti-Administration faction and eventually our Jeffersonian Democrats.
Democrats, originally opposed to the Constitution have, ever since, looked for ways to confound & defeat it, most recently in the absurdly ridiculous impeachment trial of Republican President Trump.

Oh, sure, just like Kalamata, Democrats talk the talk, especially when they're out of power, hoping to weaponize the Constitution against their opponents.
But as President Jefferson was the first to illustrate, once in power, they ignore as much of the Constitution as doesn't suit them.
That's our FRiend Kalamata:

Opposing the Constitution since Day One.
Misinterpreting, confounding & confusing the Constitution from the beginning -- i.e., nullification, secession & now impeachment.
Weaponizing their own version of the Constitution against political opponents.
Ignoring the Constitution when they are in power.

Of course, Kalamata claims to be a conservative, indeed a super-conservative, a real conservative, the only true conservative in a sea of Hamiltonian central-planning "crony capitalist" sharks!
But what, exactly, does he wish to conserve?
Not the Constitution of our true Founders, like Madison, Hamilton & John Marshall, but rather the ideas of anti-Constitution, anti-Federalist anti-Founders, in short, Jeffersonian Democrats.

Kalamata on Charles Pinckney: "Pinckney was was merely seeking ratification of document that scared the daylights out of Americans who had just fought a horrible war against a central planner -- the King.
They most certainly were not going to turn their hard-fought freedom over to the control of another central planner -- not without a fight.
Lincoln realized that, so he was for war."

Well, first, the 1860 election of Lincoln had nothing to do with "central planning" and everything to do with the power-hungry corruption of Democrats, then as now.

And second, the truth is, in 1787 Americans were far more scared by their too-weak Articles of Confederation government, it's inability to deal with Shay's Rebellion, or honor our Revolutionary War debts, or standardize taxes, or make "internal improvements," etc.
Of course they wanted no king, but they did want a government more adequate for its responsibilities and so they ratified their new Constitution against opposition from Kalamata's heroes, the anti-Federalist anti-Founders, who became Democrats.