| 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
The People is the State and vice versa. There is no amalgamated, lumpenproletariat People of the Whole United States -- we always act in our States, because we are our States. That is how we have our political identity. We are not a nation-state revolving around a centralized governmental monopole.
Not everyone.
If all the people in America were determined to abolish the Constitution, they could do it, even if their legislators didn't cooperate. The logical sequel being, that they have a power superordinating the Constitution, in order to operate on the Constitution. Otherwise, the Constitution could never be amended.
The process for amending the Constitution is clearly outlined in the document itself.
Ah, yes, the Supreme Court -- with Salmon P. Chase and four other Lincoln-appointed justices sitting up there, Chase with the presentation gavel in his hand, lovingly inscribed, "With complete confidence that you will catch our backs, A. Lincoln."
So your arguement is that only Supreme Court decisions that you agree with are valid. Where is that written down?
Well, for one thing, as I explained above, the People themselves and their superordinating power over the Constitution, which is a reserved power, by the way -- you didn't think we weren't going to talk about reserved powers, did you? -- are absolutely ultra vires, no matter what commercial disputes over frozen chickens the Court might be called on to referee among citizens of various States.
Bullshit.
There was a moment ago when you referred to them. And anyway, I disagree. There are the people of the United States, of which I am one. And that loyalty is above any local or regional affection. At least that's what George Washington said. But hey, what did he know?
"Take what they want" sounds like you're still pushing the bank-robbery imagery. Which I carefully explained it wasn't, since the South left so much more on the table.
As for access to the sea, the Great Lakes and the Erie Canal certainly provided that -- the latter paid for by everyone.
And no, I don't think the Southerners thought, "Constitution be damned" -- more like "Black Republicans be damned". They weren't going to stay where those people could hurt them -- and very sensibly so.
Keep squirming NS. I'm enjoying this.
Well, Lincoln picked the fight, and very skilfully. He needed the fight, he got the fight. Good job of starting a war.
Absolutely I would deny them that, and you are way out of line suggesting that other people should have a veto over what my State does -- no way does Louisiana get to vote in Texas elections, even if Mexico does.
These Mexican immigrants are going to run a clinic for us on the folly of your point of view.
So what? The power isn't. It's firmly in the hands of the People.
That's the singular/plural business about the word "people" again, which the Founders always constructed and used as a plural, and for which they didn't use a superplural form the way we do when we say "peoples". The German word for "people" is "Leute", and "die Leute" is always plural. But "populus" was always singular in Latin.
And anyway, I disagree. There are the people of the United States, of which I am one.
Well, we've been all over the amalgamation issue on these threads, discussing passages from The Federalist and the ratification debates, the outcome of all of which was, and still is, that the People means the People of a State, and that we always but always consult each People in each State for the big decisions like amending the Constitution or sending electors to DC to elect national officers.
And that loyalty is above any local or regional affection. At least that's what George Washington said. But hey, what did he know?
Well, he didn't know about John Brown, did he? Trying to start a race war is bad enough, but it was the Northern editorial and popular response to his attempt to reproduce a Haitian revolution in America that really tore the knickers. They were sorry Brown failed, and they wept big wet tears when he was executed. Where do you think George Washington would have been on that issue if he'd been still around in 1859?
"I would be pleased if you and your family and neighbors died horribly under a machete" kinda puts finis to the old bond of loyalty, don't you think?
The country had exceeded its supply of tolerances. It was time to go.
Easily amused, I see. But you're wise to stay out of the discussion.
When your state's actions affect my state then there is no reason why I shouldn't have a say.
These Mexican immigrants are going to run a clinic for us on the folly of your point of view.
You are the last one to be classifying someone elses views as folly.
Back to the "Davis was too stupid to see though Lincoln's plan" I see. Well regardless, Davis knew what he was doing. He just didn't expect the outcome.
As for access to the sea, the Great Lakes and the Erie Canal certainly provided that -- the latter paid for by everyone.
Which did the people in the Ohio and Mississippi valleys no good. Or can't you read a map?
On the side of the Union.
Maybe if we don't accept his sovereignty he will secede from the Union!
And what are the excuses for the other blue states?
However, since Virgina was in revolt, those who were loyal to the Union needed to be protected. Is that why Lincoln partitioned all those other States? Oh, wait -- he didn't. There goes that argument.
No, because W.Virgina was a unique case, in which they asked to be separated from their parent state.
What W.Virgina does show is the logical outcome of allowing secession as a means of dealing with political disagreements. Read the Constitution. Read The Federalist.
And so....?
I think Andrew Jackson and Lincoln read both of them.
States are the sovereign political entities that embody the People. Counties are not. A rump convention isn't a State (the Unionists in Virginia lost the secession issue by 3:1), but Lincoln interposed the U.S. Army and said it was. In so doing he violated Article IV of the Constitution himself.
And States do not have the right to vote to revolt against the Constitution.
Get it straight. The seceding States did not violate the Constitution. They withdrew from the Union and formed their own federation. Lincoln, however, did violate the Constitution -- repeatedly. And never more blatantly than when he used the Army and a political fiction to partition Virginia.
So firing on federal forts is not a violation of the Constitution?
Taking over federal installations is not a violation of the constitution?
There is no 'right'to secede in the Constitution.
Just as there is no right for the Federal gov't to throw out any state or states from the Union.
Get used to this: At some point, you're going to have to admit that Lincoln was engaged in political gamesmanship at the highest level, enabled by war and greased by the blood of the People.
No, what Lincoln did was what he was suppose to do as the President, defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic.
They sure have the what if's of history all figured out don't they?
No, actually they attempted to leave.
Historically we never had a break in the nation's history as a nation.
We had a Civil War.
But we were never two nations.
So, when do you and your neo-confederate buddies celebrate the birth of the Confederate States of America?
You know non-Sequitur was addressing the constitutionality of W.Virgina
The 'people'are ofcourse based on the consent of the governed.
And when the 'People'want to change a tyrannical gov't they always have the moral right to revolt, not to secede.
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.