Posted on 04/14/2005 6:40:53 PM PDT by kellynla
At Ford's Theater in Washington, D.C., John Wilkes Booth, an actor and Confederate sympathizer, fatally wounds President Abraham Lincoln. The attack came only five days after Confederate General Robert E. Lee surrendered his massive army at Appomattox, effectively ending the American Civil War.
Booth, who remained in the North during the war despite his Confederate sympathies, initially plotted to capture President Lincoln and take him to Richmond, the Confederate capital. However, on March 20, 1865, the day of the planned kidnapping, the president failed to appear at the spot where Booth and his six fellow conspirators lay in wait. Two weeks later, Richmond fell to Union forces. In April, with Confederate armies near collapse across the South, Booth hatched a desperate plan to save the Confederacy.
Learning that Lincoln was to attend Laura Keene's acclaimed performance in Our American Cousin at Ford's Theater on April 14, Booth plotted the simultaneous assassination of Lincoln, Vice President Andrew Johnson, and Secretary of State William H. Seward. By murdering the president and two of his possible successors, Booth and his conspirators hoped to throw the U.S. government into a paralyzing disarray.
On the evening of April 14, conspirator Lewis T. Powell burst into Secretary of State Seward's home, seriously wounding him and three others, while George A. Atzerodt, assigned to Vice President Johnson, lost his nerve and fled. Meanwhile, just after 10 p.m., Booth entered Lincoln's private theater box unnoticed, and shot the president with a single bullet in the back of his head. Slashing an army officer who rushed at him, Booth jumped to the stage and shouted "Sic semper tyrannis! [Thus always to tyrants]--the South is avenged!" Although Booth had broken his left leg jumping from Lincoln's box, he succeeded in escaping Washington.
The president, mortally wounded, was carried to a cheap lodging house opposite Ford's Theater. About 7:22 a.m. the next morning, he died--the first U.S. president to be assassinated. Booth, pursued by the army and secret service forces, was finally cornered in a barn near Bowling Green, Virginia, and died from a possibly self-inflicted bullet wound as the barn was burned to the ground. Of the eight other persons eventually charged with the conspiracy, four were hanged and four were jailed.
You are correct, but his account was deleted at his request. Meekie pointed that out to me as well.
Article IV, Section III specifies how new States join the Union and specifies that States may not be partitioned without the consent of that State's legislature. This merely points out another of Lincoln's unconstitutional actions, the partition of Virginia. Article IV does not empower Congress to 'approve any change in their status'. You're not quoting the text because you're creating it whole cloth.
We're talking about the unconstitutional actions of the southern states, so let's leave West Virginia for another discussion shall we?
Article IV, Section III makes it clear that the approval of the other states must be obtained through a majority vote in Congress before a state can be admitted to the Union. And only that majority vote in Congress is needed. Mississippi, Alabama, Ohio, none of them existed until Congress admitted them and, in effect, created them. Once admitted, a state cannot change it's status without congressional approval. It can't split up with out Congressional approval. It can't combine with another state or states (which would have the effect of removing one or more states from the Union) with out Congressional approval. In fact, states cannot change their border a fraction of an inch without Congressional approval. Given that Congressional approval is needed for everything else, it makes much more sense to belive that by implication Congressional approval is needed for states to leave than to believe that Congressional approval is needed for every single change in status except secession.
You're not quoting the text because you're creating it whole cloth.
Likewise you can quote nothing from the Constitution explicitly permitting unilateral secession.
Wrong. Amendment X: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
You admit the Constitution does not explicitly forbid secession, therefore it is reserved to the States and the people.
Other than your apparent hatred for all things Southern you really seem to be a nice guy. Our view of the Constitution is not the same when it pertains to sovereignty and limited federal government, and I do not overlook Northern culpability in slavery, nor do I attempt to justify subversion of the Constitution by Lincoln and the yankee congress. I consider us to be like Justice Scalia and Thomas in our interpretation, the 10th means what it says, and that the federal government is limited in scope.
I know other might be glad to see you gone, but I'd prefer that you, Nolu Chan, Bushpilot and CSSFLorida were all back here. There will be no dancing on your grave by me - it's a hollow victory, the same experienced by our ancestors when they won a victory over union troops. All they asked was to be let alone, and people died needlessly when they refused them that right.
Of course, if I had my 'druthers, HenryLeeII would still be alive, Terry Schiavo would be with her family, and a bitter war would have never been waged, but such was not meant to be.
The power to create a state and, once admitted, approve changes in its status is a power reserved to the United States in Article IV, Section III and Article I, Section 10. By implication this would include leaving the Union altogether. The power to act in a unilateral manner where the interests of the other states may be impacted is a power denied the states in Article I, Section 10. By implication this would include impact that a state leaving the Union would have on the other states.
You admit the Constitution does not explicitly forbid secession, therefore it is reserved to the States and the people.
Powers do not have to be explicit to exist. The Supreme Court recognized the existence of implied powers almost 200 years ago.
Thay overlook the Preamble to the Bill of Rights:
The conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.
And were does that say only explicit powers are allowed?
Whay have a WRITTEN Constituion Justice Ginsberg?????
Article I §1: All legislative Powers herein granted ...
Article I §8:The Congress shall have Power To ... followed by a list of ENUMERATED powers, and restricted to 'make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers.'
Article I §9 places additional limits on congressional powers :
Article I §10 places limits on the states.
Article VI: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof ...
Bill of Rights Preamble: that further declaratory and restrictive clauses ...
Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people
Whay? Why all the Whays today?
In my experience with him [cr] on these and other threads, he was indeed a nice guy. It's just that a werewolf seemed to take over when he was posting to some of his opponents on these WBTS threads.
I hope you eventually come back in a more benign form, cr.
Justice Ginsburg you should be asking but Chief Justice Marshall:
"Among the enumerated powers, we do not find that of establishing a bank or creating a corporation. But there is no phrase in the instrument which, like the Articles of Confederation, excludes incidental or implied powers; and which requires that every thing granted shall be expressly and minutely described. Even the 10th amendment, which was framed for the purpose of quieting the excessive jealousies which had been excited, omits the word “expressly,” and declares only that the powers “not delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people;” thus leaving the question, whether the particular power which may become the subject of contest has been delegated to the one government, or prohibited to the other, to depend on a fair construction of the whole instrument. The men who drew and adopted this amendment had experienced the embarrassments resulting from the insertion of this word in the Articles of Confederation, and probably omitted it to avoid those embarrassments. A constitution, to contain an accurate detail of all the subdivisions of which its great powers will admit, and of all the means by which they may be carried into execution, would partake of the prolixity of the legal code, and could scarcely be embraced by the human mind. It would probably never be understood by the public. Its nature, therefore, requires, that only its great outlines should be marked, its important objects designated, and the minor ingredients which compose those objects be deduced from the nature of the objects themselves. That this idea was entertained by the framers of the American Constitution, is not only to be inferred from the nature of the instrument, but from the language. Why else were some of the limitations, found in the ninth section of the 1st article, introduced? It is also, in some degree, warranted by their having omitted to use any restrictive term which might prevent its receiving a fair and just interpretation."
Justice Marshall in 1819 was a far cry from the Justice Marshal of the Virginia debates, where he opined that the states retained all powers not delegated, and could resume those powers.
But Justice Ginsberg Marshall writes, 'Why else were some of the limitations, found in the ninth section of the 1st article, introduced?' Duh, to LIMIT federal powers. Then he REVERSES the meaning of Amendment X, which reserves ALL powers not delegated nor prohibited to the states, to reserve all powers not EXPRESSLY delegated.
You have to remember, Chief Justice John Marshall is the hero to Wlat, the worshipper of Michael Moore, and Lincolnite that despises Presidents Bush (elder and son) and Ronald W. Reagan. In fact, Wlat never voted for a single Republican President. And if Walt wasn't tied up, he would probably come back and defend John Marshall - his liberal hero.
But that isn't what it says. Nowhere is the word expressly used.
How about Cajun?
Orleanian cookery is "creole" -- French, but New World. Cajun is the country French cooking of the Acadians, with lots of New World and African contributions thrown in. Crawfish is essentially Cajun (ecrevisse in French).
Likewise, Cajun French, as a French priest listening to a Louisiana fellow named Thibodeaux talking to a French saloonkeeper told my father (this was 1944), Acadian French is essentially country French of the 17th century, the time of Louis XIV. Linguists are familiar with the linguistic conservatism of rural speakers, the more remote the better philologically speaking, and so in some respects Cajun French is 'purer' than Parisian French, which is very cosmopolitan, howbeit that it is a world language and very classicizing itself these days.
H.L. Mencken made the same point about American speech. What we tend to deride as "country" speech from the hills and hollows of Appalachia and the Ozarks is actually Elizabethan English, and it preserves a great deal of what Shakespeare sounded like when recited from the boards of the Rose Theater, before England was swept by the stage-affectation accent of an actor named Beaumont in the middle of the 18th century.
A girl from France stayed with us a few days once visiting one of our sons who had met her in Paris. We took her to a Cajun restaurant. She said the Cajun music sounded to her like old time French country music.
Marshall: 'Even the 10th amendment, which was framed for the purpose of quieting the excessive jealousies which had been excited, omits the word “expressly,” and declares only that the powers “not delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people;” thus leaving the question, whether the particular power which may become the subject of contest has been delegated to the one government, or prohibited to the other, to depend on a fair construction of the whole instrument.'
E-x-p-r-e-s-s-l-y. Expressly.
You can spell. Very good. Now point out to me where the Constitution says that Congress has only powers e-x-p-r-e-s-s-l-y granted. You can't, because it doesn't. Congress has implied powers that can be identified by a realistic reading of the Constitution. And one of those powers reserved to the United States Congress is the power to approve secession of states.
BRAVO SIERRA! The United States (i.e the federal government) has NO reserved powers, it only has delegated powers, and can only enact laws PURSUANT to those DELEGATED powers - that's why we have a WRITTEN Constitution [I can CAPTITALIZE too!]
The states have all the powers NOT DELEGATED to the federal government [please cite the express delegation of the federal government to prohibit secession], and the powers NOT PROHIBITED by the CONSTITUTION [not by congress, the President, or the Supreme Court - again cite where secession is prohibited].
So you resort to implicit powers. Too easy to refute, if the states could join/accede unilaterally, then implicitly they can secede unilaterally. No principal needs to ask their agent for permission - the agent serves at the will of the principal.
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.