woodpusher:
"There is no instance in recorded American history where the whole people, as one consolidated group, voted upon and determined anything." Irrelevant.
Here's what matters:
July 4, 1776: "We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States..."
As Lincoln, Chase & others argued, it was colonies which created Congress, but Congress created the states.
Further, the 1787 Convention proposal for, in effect, unlimited states-sovereignty (the "New Jersey Plan") was quickly rejected, by vote of 7 to 3, one state divided.
What the Convention proposed instead was a mixture -- consolidated yet still federal -- government.
woodpusher: "The United States of America, the ELEVEN states that had ratified the Constitution.
ALL the people, of ALL THIRTEEN states, ratified, resulting in ELEVEN ratifications."
It's irrelevant how long it took some states to ratify.
What matters is that New Hampshire became the ninth state ratification on June 21, 1788, and the old Articles of Confederation Congress immediately began to study how to implement the new Constitution.
On September 13, 1788 the Congress of the Confederation certified that the new Constitution was duly ratified and set dates for elections and meetings of new federal government.
The old Congress voted to dissolve itself as of March 4, 1789!
There was no issue as to the legitimacy of the new Constitution by 1789, and there is none, zero, today.
The Articles were dissolved by mutual consent.
woodpusher: "Beyond all doubt, Texas v. White states the law of the land because the Supreme Court stated it.
However, in like manner, the Supreme Court has stated that tomatoes are vegetables, and subject to a vegetable tax.
The Court has also established the constitutional right of you and BroJoeK to get married."
Our brand new FRiend woodpusher is now rapidly setting a pattern of becoming overexcited to the point of needing 911 type resuscitation at the thought of a certain, ah, mouse or unnatural "marriage".
So I would suggest that, to protect his own health, we should gently guide woodpusher away from such topics.
woodpusher: "Of course, the silly nonsense of an indissoluble union of indestructible states is belied by the history of the American union which went from thirteen to eleven states, and then back to twelve and thirteen states over the course of a little more than a year.
Indestructible, indissoluble union and states, the things of myth and Texas v. White.
Courts can define what the law is, but not even the U.S. Supreme Court can rewrite history. "
And so yet again we notice, first, that to woodpusher the US Supreme Court is unquestionable supreme authority whenever he agrees with it, otherwise, not so much.
Second, as Lincoln's Secretary of Treasury, Republican Salmon Chase supported the resupply mission to Fort Sumter, but later opposed trying Jefferson Davis for treason, opposed reconstruction and even ran for President in 1868 as a Democrat!
So Chase was another... ah, complicated figure.
Third and most important, on February 21, 1787 the Congress of the Confederation itself called for a convention to revise the Articles to "render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of government and the preservation of the Union".
The new Constitution was intended to preserve the Union, and its adoption did just that.
As for "indestructible" & "indissoluble" -- every Founder understood, their Union could be dissolved or replaced by necessity (as in 1776) or by mutual consent (as in 1788).
woodpusher: "And the indestructible, indissoluble state of New Hampshire became two states following the secession and successful revolution of the great state of Vermont.
And Vermont was a frree and independent state when admitted as a new and entire member of the constitutional union."
Independence of "New Connecticut" from Massachusetts, New York and New Hampshire came many years before the Constitution's ratification in 1788.
But the Constitution does provide for such split-ups of states, provided all parties agree -- disunion by mutual consent.
woodpusher referring to unidentified quotes: "That is a collection of some disgusting un-American bilge."
Obviously like other Lost Causers, our new FRiend woodpusher hates his country, hates his Constitution, hates most especially the Federalists-Whigs-Republicans who founded, wrote, ratified & formed our Constitutional government.
Who woodpusher loves, defends and remains loyal to are all those opposed to the Constitution -- 1787 anti-Federalists, 1788 anti-Washington's administration, 1792 Jeffersonian Democrats & alleged strict-constructionists, 1798 nullifiers, Randolph's Old Republicans, 1820 era slavers, 1850s' Fire Eater secessionists, 1860s' Confederate warriors against the USA, 1860s & 1870s anti-13th, 14th & 15th Amendments, 20th century segregationists, all so called states-righters. ![]()
[BroJoeK #325] As Lincoln, Chase & others argued, it was colonies which created Congress, but Congress created the states.
Obviously, you have lost your mind. The Congress was created pursuant to the Constitution of 1789. The Constitution provided that, "The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the same. The States created the Constitution before there was ever a Congress.
The States were States before the Articles of Confederation, or the Congress it created, as well. Articles II and III stated:
II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled. III. The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever.
BroJoeK #325:
woodpusher: "Of course, the silly nonsense of an indissoluble union of indestructible states is belied by the history of the American union which went from thirteen to eleven states, and then back to twelve and thirteen states over the course of a little more than a year. Indestructible, indissoluble union and states, the things of myth and Texas v. White.
Courts can define what the law is, but not even the U.S. Supreme Court can rewrite history. "
And so yet again we notice, first, that to woodpusher the US Supreme Court is unquestionable supreme authority whenever he agrees with it, otherwise, not so much.
Au contraire! I said the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of the law. The Supreme Court cannot change history by proclamation. It cannot retroactively create events that did not happen, nor can it erase events that did happen. Just as it cannot really change tomatoes into vegetables, even where it finds a tax on vegetables applies to tomatoes. Nix v. Hedden, 149 U.S. 304 (1893), "Tomatoes are 'vegetables,' and not 'fruit,' within the meaning of the Tariff Act of March 3, 1883, c. 121."
I suppose the Supreme Court could opine that a goblet of water became wine under some statute, and that would make the Chief Justice God. You may think so, but I do not share your opinion that the justices have god-like powers.
BroJoeK #325:
What matters is that New Hampshire became the ninth state ratification on June 21, 1788, and the old Articles of Confederation Congress immediately began to study how to implement the new Constitution.
Do tell more about how the old Articles of Confederation studied. I have never before heard of articles studying.
What matters is that the government of a new union of ELEVEN states was formed on March 4, 1789. Not thirteen, but ELEVEN. Those ELEVEN states seceded from the former union and formed a new union, leaving two States behind. How does that happen to an indestructible, indissoluble union?
Secede. withdraw formally from membership in a federal union, an alliance, or a political or religious organization: the kingdom of Belgium seceded from the Netherlands in 1830.
BroJoeK #325:
woodpusher: "And the indestructible, indissoluble state of New Hampshire became two states following the secession and successful revolution of the great state of Vermont. And Vermont was a frree and independent state when admitted as a new and entire member of the constitutional union."
Independence of "New Connecticut" from Massachusetts, New York and New Hampshire came many years before the Constitution's ratification in 1788.
But the Constitution does provide for such split-ups of states, provided all parties agree -- disunion by mutual consent.
1788 or 1789 is irrelevant. The mythical indestructible, indissoluble union, which some Radicals and Nazis purport to have created the States, is claimed to have been created in 1776 (four score and seven years ago, eight-seven years before 1863).
The constitutional government was formed in 1789 following the ratifications of ELEVEN states, and formed a new union of ELEVEN states. That is history.
Vermont most certainly did not become a free and independent republic by the mutual consent of New York. Vermont is documented as having achieved independence by successful revolution. As I stated at #321, "the Order-in-Council was nullified by successful revolution, and Vermont was admitted as an independent state with self-constituted boundaries." The Green Mountain boys, fighting and feuding and all that. When Vermont declared, defended and established its independence as a seperate republic, it not only left prior State clutches, but also was beyond the purported indestructible, indissoluble Union purportedly established in 1776.
Whenever history fails you, you just make crap up. It is an amusing habit of yours.
Come on self-proclaimed student of history. Do try to keep up.
woodpusher #322:
As the great Ronaldus Maximus said:
All of us need to be reminded that the Federal Government did not create the States; the States created the Federal Government.
Big Government autocrats, desirous of a Federalist Hamiltonian autocracy, express a less American viewpoint:
[1] What is a confederation of states? By a confederacy, we mean a group of sovereign states which come together of their own free will and, in virtue of their sovereignty, create a collective entity. In doing so, they assign selective sovereign rights to the national body that will allow it to safeguard the existence of the joint union. [2] What is the particular sacredness of a State? I speak not of that position which is given to a State in and by the Constitution of the United States, for that all of us agree to—we abide by; but that position assumed, that a State can carry with it out of the Union that which it holds in sacredness by virtue of its connection with the Union. I am speaking of that assumed right of a State, as a primary principle, that the Constitution should rule all that is less than itself, and ruin all that is bigger than itself. But, I ask, wherein does consist that right? If a State, in one instance, and a county in another, should be equal in extent of territory, and equal in the number of people, wherein is that State any better than the county?
[3] These states never possessed any previous sovereignty of their own because that would have been impossible. These states did not come together to create the Union, but it was the Union that created these so-called states.
[4] The States have their status in the Union, and they have no other legal status. If they break from this, they can only do so against law, and by revolution. The Union, and not themselves separately, procured their independence, and their liberty. By conquest, or purchase, the Union gave each of them, whatever of independence, and liberty, it has. The Union is older than any of the States; and, in fact, it created them as States.
That is a collection of some disgusting un-American bilge.
BroJoeK #325:
woodpusher referring to unidentified quotes: "That is a collection of some disgusting un-American bilge."
Obviously like other Lost Causers, our new FRiend woodpusher hates his country, hates his Constitution, hates most especially the Federalists-Whigs-Republicans who founded, wrote, ratified & formed our Constitutional government.
Who woodpusher loves, defends and remains loyal to are all those opposed to the Constitution -- 1787 anti-Federalists, 1788 anti-Washington's administration, 1792 Jeffersonian Democrats & alleged strict-constructionists, 1798 nullifiers, Randolph's Old Republicans, 1820 era slavers, 1850s' Fire Eater secessionists, 1860s' Confederate warriors against the USA, 1860s & 1870s anti-13th, 14th & 15th Amendments, 20th century segregationists, all so called states-righters.
Only a card-carrying Nazi could support such ahistoric, un-american bilge. And yet, you worship that crap. Are you a card-carrying Nazi?
You forgot to link and quote me defending your Hillary-like bucket of horribles. It seems you are made of the same stuff as your mentor, Hillary.
I prefer such real Americans as Ronald Reagan and Donald J. Trump, to the ahistoric, un-American bilge you support. You complain that the quotes are unidentified. The words express ideas like minded to your own; therefore, you not only defend and support them, you revere, lionize, idolize, venerate, glorify such words, and put the "obscure" authors of such crap on a pedestal.