| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 04/13/2005 10:44:44 AM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:
Endless complaints. |
Posted on 12/31/2004 2:21:30 PM PST by Caipirabob
What's wrong about this photo? Or if you're a true-born Southerner, what's right?
While scanning through some of the up and coming movies in 2005, I ran across this intriguing title; "CSA: Confederate States of America (2005)". It's an "alternate universe" take on what would the country be like had the South won the civil war.
Stars with bars:
Suffice to say anything from Hollywood on this topic is sure to to bring about all sorts of controversial ideas and discussions. I was surprised that they are approaching such subject matter, and I'm more than a little interested.
Some things are better left dead in the past:
For myself, I was more than pleased with the homage paid to General "Stonewall" Jackson in Turner's "Gods and Generals". Like him, I should have like to believe that the South would have been compelled to end slavery out of Christian dignity rather than continue to enslave their brothers of the freedom that belong equally to all men. Obviously it didn't happen that way.
Would I fight for a South that believed in Slavery today? I have to ask first, would I know any better back then? I don't know. I honestly don't know. My pride for my South and my heritage would have most likely doomed me as it did so many others. I won't skirt the issue, in all likelyhood, slavery may have been an afterthought. Had they been the staple of what I considered property, I possibly would have already been past the point of moral struggle on the point and preparing to kill Northern invaders.
Compelling story or KKK wet dream?:
So what do I feel about this? The photo above nearly brings me to tears, as I highly respect Abraham Lincoln. I don't care if they kick me out of the South. Imagine if GW was in prayer over what to do about a seperatist leftist California. That's how I imagine Lincoln. A great man. I wonder sometimes what my family would have been like today. How many more of us would there be? Would we have held onto the property and prosperity that sustained them before the war? Would I have double the amount of family in the area? How many would I have had to cook for last week for Christmas? Would I have needed to make more "Pate De Fois Gras"?
Well, dunno about that either. Depending on what the previous for this movie are like, I may or may not see it. If they portray it as the United Confederacy of the KKK I won't be attending.
This generation of our clan speaks some 5 languages in addition to English, those being of recent immigrants to this nation. All of them are good Americans. I believe the south would have succombed to the same forces that affected the North. Immigration, war, economics and other huma forces that have changed the map of the world since history began.
Whatever. At least in this alternate universe, it's safe for me to believe that we would have grown to be the benevolent and humane South that I know it is in my heart. I can believe that slavery would have died shortly before or after that lost victory. I can believe that Southern gentlemen would have served the world as the model for behavior. In my alternate universe, it's ok that Spock has a beard. It's my alternate universe after all, it can be what I want.
At any rate, I lived up North for many years. Wonderful people and difficult people. I will always sing their praises as a land full of beautiful Italian girls, maple syrup and Birch beer. My uncle ribbed us once before we left on how we were going up North to live "with all the Yankees". Afterwards I always refered to him as royalty. He is, really. He's "King of the Rednecks". I suppose I'm his court jester.
So what do you think of this movie?
My Bicentennial Edition (intro by Ronnie, comments by CJ Burger) reads very well, thank you, and only Democrats tax me too much. Democrats and calculus and organic chemistry.
Constitutionally only Congress matters.
Oh, bull! What a perfectly absolutist thing to say! What, trying on your little jackboots this morning?
Try, "the people have to POPULATE the area" for openers -- or are you going to insist that Congress do that, too?
Did you attend school in the United States? You sound like you attended an ecole superieure over in Cheese-Eating Surrender Monkey Land. Congress this, Congress that, the Government must act, or the sun won't come up! Buncombe.
You can't admit a State without people, and they have to organize a government of some kind to apply for admission -- if they meet the requirements of statehood. But the people of the area must act, first. Sine qua non, dude, I wouldn't fool with you on that. Somebody really has to get up in the morning before Congress can majestically ordain.
Now it's true that from a practical standpoint Congress does act with the approval of the people of the territory to be made a state, but even then Congress acts when Congress wants to.
So what? The people act when the people want to, too. The Puerto Ricans are in no hurry to advance to statehood -- they keep voting it down.
I really love the way you keep trying to portray the People as sitting on Santa's knee. It's so wonderfully arrogant and demeaning. You look a perfect Democrat when you argue that way -- like the guys who are always going on about the Commerce Clause and having National Policies on everything. You make neocons look like Joe Sobran.
The people of Colorado voted statehood in 1865 but had to wait until 1876 before Congress approved it.
Okay, so they had to wait even longer than Texas. And that supports your attempt at a point, how?
You still have the example of Puerto Rico against you: Congress is not all-dispositive, all-empowered, and the almighty Master of States. It's a creature of the States, just as the entire United States Government is.
That's your favorite fallacy of Wrong Direction again -- the States make the Congress, not Congress the States, but you desperately want it the other way around, so you can beat up the South.
The provisions of the Constitution that govern the admission of new States made from the United States Territory (or anyone else's territory, as in the case of California, Texas, and Vermont -- and Puerto Rico) were not written by Congress. They were ordained by the States themselves in convention. Congress is just the checkout boy. (See, I can minimize as ridiculously as you can exaggerate!)
The States are not the Suitors of Penelope that you make them out to be, trapped in a locked room with their executioner.
There is no "implication". The States are free to leave the Union, or to abolish it -- just as they made it.
Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution imposes the restrictions on calling up the militia in response to domestic violence, that it be "on application of the Legislature, or of the Executive."
The Militia Act of 1795, Section 1, imposes this same Constitutional restriction on calling up the militia in case of Insurrection.
It is in the case of Invasion that this requirement is not imposed.
Section 2 of the Militia Act of 1795 does not concern Invasion or Insurrection. Section 2 pertains to providing assistance to the civil authorities. Wrongheaded Wlatian reading of Section 2 of the Militia Act of 1795 cannot waive the Constitutional restriction on calling up the militia in case of domestic violence.
Section 1 of the Militia Act of 1795 is Constitutional because it explicitly includes the Constitutional restriction when addressing Insurrection.
Below is an example of my providing the correct text of Section 2 of the Militia Act of 1795 to Non-Sequitur in 2003, as well as making him well aware of the Constitutional restriction on calling up the militia.
To: Non-Sequitur
[non-seq] section 2 of the Militia Acts provided that the President could call out the militia to supress insurrection and that he didn't need for the state to call for assistance Section 2 of the Militia Act of 1795
SEC. 2. That whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed, or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia of such state, or of any other state or states, as may be necessary to suppress such combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed; and the use of militia so to be called forth may be continued, if necessary, until the expiration of thirty days after the commencement of the then next session of Congress.
Could you please point out that part of Section 2 the Militia Act of 1795 which you purport provides that the President "didn't need for the state to call for assistance"?
Or do you mean that the Act did not explicitly restate the Constitutional requirement of Article 4, Sect 4, so you therefore consider the Constitutional requirement to have been waived or amended or something.
Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution says, "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."
Further, Section I of the Militia Act of 1795 pertains to insurrection:
And in case of an insurrection in any state, against the government thereof, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, on application of the legislature of such state, or of the Executive, (when the legislature cannot be convened,) to call forth such number of the militia of any other state or states, as may be applied for, as he may judge sufficient to suppress such insurrection.
237 posted on 12/23/2003 1:46:55 PM CST by nolu chan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
To: Non-Sequitur
Section 1 of the Militia Act of 1795 states:
"in case of an insurrection
in any state, against the government thereof,
it shall be lawful for the President of the United States,
on application of the legislature,
of such state or of the Executive, (when the legislature cannot be convened,) to call forth such number of the militia of any other state or states, as may be applied for, as he may judge sufficient to suppress such insurrection."
Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution says,
"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and
on Application of the Legislature,
or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."
Daniel Farber wrote a 240-page book called "Lincoln's Constitution" and the Militia Act does not get a mention due to its irrelevance. Nor have I seen where any other legal scholar who has tried to defend Lincoln has ever invoked the Militia Act. Take a hint. This irrelevant Act has not been overlooked by everyone else for the past 140 years. It is irrelevant.
The requirement for application of the legislature or executive to call forth the militia against domestic violence is Constitutional. The Militia Act of 1795 uses the precise language of the Constitution within the Act in stating that requirement. Were you able to find an Act of Congress that conflicts with the Constitutional requirement, the Act would be a nullity.
According to your process of mental masturbation:
Section 1 of the Militia Act, which explicitly deals with "insurrection," repeats the Constitutional requirement for state application, but
Section 2 of the Militia Act dealing with the courts and the marshals and obstruction of justice does not mention such application requirement, therefore the explicit Constitutional requirement pertaining to Insurrection or any domestic violence, repeated in Section 1, is waived by the silence of Section 2 which does not deal with insurrection but with something else altogether.
Read Section 1 again. Read it real slow. It is Section 1 that deals with INSURRECTION.
Section 1 of the Militia Act of 1795 states "in case of an insurrection in any state, against the government thereof, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, on application of the legislature of such state, or of the Executive, (when the legislature cannot be convened,) to call forth such number of the militia of any other state or states, as may be applied for, as he may judge sufficient to suppress such insurrection."
308 posted on 12/24/2003 11:23:04 PM CST by nolu chan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 307 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
Simple. They acquired those rights AFTER they were admitted, not before.
So once they were admitted through congressional approval, they then had the right to become a state unilaterally without Congressional approval? Am I missing something here?
Word games. You should address your concerns to the US Supreme Court, who have repeatedly denied cases where the federal congress attempted to grant statehood on a less than equal footing. The Constitution sets forth the legal method of admmission for new states outside the memebrs of the Articles of Confederation, and once a state - once a member under the Constitution - then said state possesses ALL rights and powers of the original states.
Maybe Dr. Nedow would file such a suit.
My claim is not fallacious. I simply observe that the right to secede from the Union, exercised by the Southern States, is a reserved power of the People of each State that is nowhere delegated, diminished, abrogated, disavowed, or otherwise impaired by any language anywhere in the Constitution. Indeed, its reservation is made manifest in the Tenth Amendment.
Your favorite judges made up all that other stuff on the fly, out of thin air and the aforementioned argument from ignorance, strategically applied for political ends (especially by CJ Chase). SCOTUS had no text to work with, and neither do you.
The grant of the power you desire to account for was never given. Ergo, it remained, untarnished and unalloyed, with the People of the States.
And now I gotta go -- will rejoin you later.
Your turn to type. We'll discuss later.
Nah... Bozo is getting zotted.
Then the police arrested him for mopery.
Look who's talking about word games. The Supreme Court has ruled that all states are entitled equally to the same rights and protections under the Constitution as every other state. You would have us believe that the original 13 brought with them some rights which trump the Constitution, and that these somehow get passed on to every state admitted later.
Your favorite judges made up all that other stuff on the fly, out of thin air and the aforementioned argument from ignorance, strategically applied for political ends (especially by CJ Chase). SCOTUS had no text to work with, and neither do you.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Implied powers is a concept that every court has agreed to at one time or another, from the Marshall court down to the Rehnquist court. And the fact that you disagree with Chase's findings, or any other justice's findings, is meaningless and doesn't invalidate a court decision.
The grant of the power you desire to account for was never given. Ergo, it remained, untarnished and unalloyed, with the People of the States.
By implication it was.
And where in the Constitution does it say that the people must act before Congress can admit a state?
So what? The people act when the people want to, too. The Puerto Ricans are in no hurry to advance to statehood -- they keep voting it down.
But the people of Puerto Rico can vote for statehood tomorrow. Does that make them a state?
LOL. And neener, neener back atcha'.
Real slowly ok? At the time of the Constitution there were 13 members of the existing Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. For THOSE states, they were given the opportunity to join or not join the new union which would be formed by a minimum of 9 states. See, it's not hard.
Any NEW (meaning those presently not a member of that Confederation) states that desired to join, the Constitution left it up to the new congress to draft whatever rules they liked. It's not rocket science.
For several of these NEW states (per resolutions of admission) the federal congress attempted to DENY theme (the NEW states) equal status within the new union. In other words, these new states would be second-class states so to speak.
Multiple lawsuits were filed, and the US Supreme Court REPEATEDLY (more than once) ruled that the NEW states had ALL the rights and powers of the existing states (the original states under the AoC).
The court NEVER ruled that the OLD states LOST any rights to become equals with new states. Once admitted, every new state has ALL the rights and powers of the original members.
Did the old states had the right to unilaterally secede at will before the Constitution? We're not talking about the process that formed the new Constitution, mind. I'm asking if under the Articles of Confederation the state of New York had the right to leave at any time without question and without the approval of the other states?
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.Unless you can find a prohibition against secession in that document, I rest my case.
Article 13. Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.
Sounds unusually Lincolnian. Too bad Jaffa and Krannawitter never figured that out. Instead they prefer to be walking contradictions who tout "natural law" and tyranny at the same time.
He "learned" that same information on the previous thread along with his mentor capitan. Since both are congenital liars though, they willfully "forget" inconvenient facts like those.
No, Article 13 applies to members of the confederation. Perpetual simply means 'without a stated (definite) end'. Again, there is no prohibition against secession. Each state reserved ALL powers not EXPLICITLY granted.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.