Posted on 01/06/2005 8:00:30 AM PST by cougar_mccxxi
WELL, Whatever would all those Susie Sunshine perfect Northern ancestors who kept slaves have done with THEIR slaves? Perhaps the Southerners could have given their slaves a horse to ride North and offered the thousands of Northern sweatshop and factory workers good healthy outside work planting and picking cotton in the great outdoors instead of being locked up in Mr. Yankee Bigshot's widget factory with the painted over windows with pittance pay.
"The Constitution simply does not recognize any mechanism for action by the undifferentiated people of the Nation."
Not true if we had fully informed jurors, allowed to establish both the facts and the application of the law, in the cases before them.
Juries judging the Constitutionality of law in the case at hand would provide the mechanism for action 'by the people'.. -- [And impartial juries are guaranteed by the 6th Amendment]
Which is precisely why jury nullification is not allowed in most of our 'justice system'.
Clearly, the federal union is much less a union of the undifferentiated 'American people' than it is a union of the several States.
Why does anyone want States to have sovereign power over individuals, - over their rights to life liberty or property?
-- It's a counterintuitive puzzle.
Lincoln said and wrote a lot of things about slaves. For example: "If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong." To suggest as you have that Lincoln cared practically zero about them simply because he did not view them as equals is not surprising but inaccurate.
Walter Williams for President!!
Sure reads like that to me..
Rather, it is a declaration by a Southern legislator that the Constitution itself (Amendment X) reserved the right of secession to the States and their people...
Nothing in the 10th reserves the right to break an oath to defend our Constitution. They should have fought to preserve the Constitution in court, not to violate it by secession & war.
So, the South seceded over a thirty year old tariff and the fact that this happened within two months of the election of an anti-slavery President was just one of those loopy one in a million coincidences? Right. And Kerry won Ohio in 2004.
Well looky who showed up! And a new tag line for the new year
Please tell me a Marxist liberal took control of your keyboard and posted this.
Because the Supreme Court is always right and there is no such thing as activist judges.
Please tell me a Marxist liberal took control of your keyboard and posted this.
Please tell me why a Marxist liberal took control of your keyboard to call me a Marxist liberal for defending our Constitutional rights to life, liberty, or property.
j: Not true if we had fully informed jurors...
What on earth are you talking about – some theoretical jury composed of the entire ‘American people?’ As even Mr. Chief Justice Marshall recognized, when the people act, they act in their individual States – not as a united or “undifferentiated” national mass.
Why does anyone want States to have sovereign power over individuals, - over their rights to life liberty or property?
-- It's a counterintuitive puzzle.
You seem to be pursuing a ‘straw man’ argument. I never suggested that I “want States to have sovereign power over individuals, - over their rights to life liberty or property.”
;>)
j: Sure reads like that to me.
Be specific: what article, section and clause of the Constitution was he proposing to violate? If there was no violation of the Constitution, then there was no violation of his oath...
;>)
Nothing in the 10th reserves the right to break an oath to defend our Constitution. They should have fought to preserve the Constitution in court, not to violate it by secession & war.
Again, please be specific: what article, section and clause of the United States Constitution prohibits secession? Hmm? Absent that prohibition, or a delegation of power to prevent State secession to the federal government (feel free to quote that article, section and clause as well – if you think it exists), the 10th Amendment does indeed reserve the right of secession to the States and their people...
;>)
Really? Then you won't have any problem quoting the exact article, section and clause of the Constitution that specifically prohibits secession - will you?
Have at it, sport!
;>)
So, the South seceded over a thirty year old tariff and the fact that this happened within two months of the election of an anti-slavery President was just one of those loopy one in a million coincidences? Right.
Sorry, but I never said it was unrelated to Lincoln's election. Unlike you, however, I would not ignore documented historical fact, and claim that secession was the result of only a single cause.
;>)
And Kerry won Ohio in 2004.
Only if you treat the Constitution and the rule of law the way Mr. Lincoln's government and the Northern States did...
;>)
Happy New Year!
;>)
"The Constitution simply does not recognize any mechanism for action by the undifferentiated people of the Nation."
Not true if we had fully informed jurors, allowed to establish both the facts and the application of the law, in the cases before them.
Juries judging the Constitutionality of law in the case at hand would provide the mechanism for action 'by the people'.. -- [And impartial juries are guaranteed by the 6th Amendment]
Which is precisely why jury nullification is not allowed in most of our 'justice system'.
What on earth are you talking about – some theoretical jury composed of the entire 'American people?'
No, I'm answering the Thomas question as posted. The Constitution recognizes a mechanism for 'the people' to speak, -- through trials by jury. - Fully informed impartial juries that can nullify unconstitutional applications of law.
As even Mr. Chief Justice Marshall recognized, when the people act, they act in their individual States – not as a united or "undifferentiated" national mass.
Why does anyone want States to have sovereign power over individuals, - over their rights to life liberty or property?
You seem to be pursuing a 'straw man' argument. I never suggested that I "want States to have sovereign power over individuals, - over their rights to life liberty or property."
Suit yourself.. If you want to deny you support the 'states rights' position, it's fine with me.
Wrong. Mr. Justice Thomas referred to “undifferentiated people of the Nation.” Unless you are proposing some kind of ‘jury’ composed of approximately 300 million people, your post is both nonsensical and completely irrelevant.
Suit yourself.. If you want to deny you support the 'states rights' position, it's fine with me.
And if you want to assume, without any basis in fact, that my States rights position indicates that I "want States to have sovereign power over individuals, - over their rights to life liberty or property,” it’s fine by me. It simply indicates that you are having some trouble grasping reality...
;>)
ing
Yep, might have been.
SOURCE: Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, Allen C. Guelzo, p. 23
[F]rom 1850 until 1862, Lincoln and his wife, Mary Todd Lincoln, were embroiled in litigation in Kentucky over the settlement of the estate of Mary's father, litigation that netted the Lincolns a share in the proceeds of selling the Todd family slaves.
Kind of hard for any Joe to move to another state if he'll be hunted down and killed for it.
So tell me, what's the difference between someone named Joe and a Negro? Are either of them NOT a human being? If both ARE human beings, do they or do they not have unalienable rights? Can a state restrict an unalienable right?
Well said my friend, I'm enjoying your posts, you are so clearly defeating your opponents, that they are the only ones that don't realize it.
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.