Posted on 04/24/2005 6:08:20 PM PDT by CHARLITE
Southern heritage buffs vow to use the Virginia gubernatorial election as a platform for designating April as Confederate History and Heritage Month.
The four candidates have differing views on the Confederacy, an issue that has been debated for years in the commonwealth.
"We're not just a few people making a lot of noise," said Brag Bowling, a spokesman for the Sons of Confederate Veterans, the oldest hereditary organization for male descendents of Confederate soldiers. "This is not a racial thing; it is good for Virginia. We're going to keep pushing this until we get it."
Each candidate recently shared his thoughts on what Mr. Bowling called a "litmus test for all politicians." Lt. Gov. Timothy M. Kaine would not support a Confederate History and Heritage Month. Former state Attorney General Jerry W. Kilgore would support something that recognizes everyone who lived during the Civil War.
Sen. H. Russell Potts Jr. and Warrenton Mayor George B. Fitch would support a Confederate History and Heritage Month. Many past Virginia governors honored the Civil War or the Confederacy.
In 1990, former Gov. L. Douglas Wilder, the nation's first black governor, a Democrat and a grandson of slaves, issued a proclamation praising both sides of the war and remembering "those who sacrificed in this great struggle."
Former Govs. George Allen and James S. Gilmore III, both Republicans, issued Confederate History Month proclamations. In 2000, Mr. Gilmore replaced that proclamation with one commemorating both sides of the Civil War -- a move that enraged the Sons of Confederate Veterans.
Gov. Mark Warner, a Democrat, has refused to issue a gubernatorial decree on either side of the Civil War.
Mr. Kaine, another Democrat, would decline to issue a Confederate History and Heritage Month proclamation if he is elected governor, said his campaign spokeswoman, Delacey Skinner.
(Excerpt) Read more at insider.washingtontimes.com ...
The Legislative powers are enumerated. The Executive is changed with enforcement, so there must be a law to enforce, and the Judiciary is arbiter of Constitutional issues pertaining to states IN the union. Additionally, Amendment XI prohibits citizens of any other state from suing another state.
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.'
1) Where is a power to prevent secession DELEGATED to the United States BY the Constitution?
2) Where is the secession of the states PROHIBITED by the Constitution?
Unless you can cite a clause in either case, the power to secede remains with the states.
By implication, Article IV, Section 3 and Article I, Section 10 prevent unilateral acts of secession like those practiced by the confederate states. For the umpteenth time.
With but 13 exceptions you didn't VOLUNTARILY enter anything. You were admitted. You were allowed to join only after obtaining the approval of the majority of the existing states through a vote in Congress. Since the other states let you in, why shouldn't they be the ones to let you leave.
The simple fact is that the cause of The South would have been vindicated had Davis been given a trial and every legal mind of that time knew it.
ROTFLMAO
You know it's true.
"It was to form a more perfect union, "
The preamble is NOT law. It is a general statement. "Pretty words" if you will.
Howdy!
Glad to see another shining mind out there.
Well, let's see. You have a list of infinite IMPLIED powers - I guess that's why the convention spents months ENUMERATING the specific powers eh? That's why the Supremacy clause limits federal supremacy to those items PURSUANT to the enumerated powers in the Constitution.
On the other hand, to ensure that the federal government and supporters didn't pull a fast one, the Bill of Rights was added to clarify the limitations of the federal government. It also contained a preamble which stated, '[t]he 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'.
To that end, both the Tenth Amendment [noted above post], and the Ninth ['The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people'] specifically - not implicitly - reserve ALL undelegated/non-prohibited powers to the people and the states.
For the umpteenth time.
The power to secede no more resides with a state then the power of ejecting a state resides with a majority of states.
Since secession is not in the Constitution, it is not Constitutional.
But forming compacts with other states is forbidden under the Constitution.
I know you think it's true.
Article V: 'no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.'
Since secession is not in the Constitution, it is not Constitutional.
Just what part of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments DON'T you understand? I'd be ashamed to be publicly stating such.
But forming compacts with other states is forbidden under the Constitution.
A state not IN the union is not under such restriction.
Why did Thad Stevens not get his treason trials for the "rebels"? I think you know...though you are far too craven to admit it...
Article IV, Section 3
No, I believe that states that it cannont happen without consent of Congress and the legislatures concerned.
Looking at the records, I can't find a case where the Congress DENIED the secessions.
And I believe Article I applies to states WITHIN the Union.
None of the Southern States that joined the CSA were part of the USA at the time. They did not impose one State as being "subject" to another.
Where does it say that the Constitution is limited to only the enumerated powers? The Supreme Court recognized the existence of implied powers, identified through a reading of the Constitution as a whole, almost 200 years ago.
To that end, both the Tenth Amendment [noted above post], and the Ninth ['The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people'] specifically - not implicitly - reserve ALL undelegated/non-prohibited powers to the people and the states.
Where is that limitation? Where does it say that only those powers specifically identified in the Constitution are granted to the government or denied the states? Where does it deny the concept or the existence of imlied powers?
Sure I know. Chief Justice Chase made it clear that should Davis appeal his treason conviction, that he would overturn in on 5th Amendment grounds. The 14th Amendment applied punishment for the leaders of the southern rebellion. Chief Justice Chase's opinion was that another conviction and sentence would violate double jeopardy protections.
"Since secession is not in the Constitution, it is not Constitutional. "
Well gee, I guess that means smoking cigarettes is not Constitutional then.
As is sex with your spouse.
And eating. Mus'nt eat! It's not in the Constitution!
So Chase provided Davis a means of appealing to lower charges... and THEN the law was inacted against double-jeopardy...
Sounds to me like they wanted to get him for SOMETHING and they knew they didn't have a real case.
No, words that mean something.
Ofcourse for the Confederates words do mean nothing, only power does.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Lincoln came into office after some of the Southern states had seceded and joined together. " And this has WHAT to do with the laws regarding secession?
It has to do with the fact that the states had already formed a compact by the time Lincoln had become President, so were in violation of the Constitution.
If anything, this blasts the opinion that the South left "so it can spread slavery" out of the water.
?
do you retract this statement? Or leave it as testament to your (incomplete) thoughts on the subject?
What statement?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Firing on a U.S. fort made it an Insurrection. " Leaving an active fort in a soverign power is seen as an agressive act.
SC was not, had never been and never will be a sovereign power.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Well, secession isn't legal, SC isn't another country and the fort had every right to be there. " You are yet to prove this assertion.
No, SC had no legal right to leave the Union and hence, was a state in rebellion.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "That wasn't their land, that was American land" Oh, so the Government owns the land, eh? Not the people on it, but the Fed. The Almighty Fed!
Since I assume you are in America, thus the state you are in is considered America.
Let me tell you something: it is THAT kind of thought that keeps me proud of my home, and that it isn't Yankee.
and hereing you makes me proud to be an American
Bigger government is what we fight. It's why we're conservative. Stating that the Fed has say over a state in a matter between the State and the Fed (as opposed to the federation of the states) Is stripping the ability of our States to make their own decisions.
The States limit the federal government in their roles of Congress and the Senate.
The idea of State rights is anti-freedom since Calhoun (its founder) was against the Declaration of Independence, which is the key document of this nation.
There was nothing noble or freedom loving about the Confederacy.
That whole "10th Amendment" seems to elude you.
No, I do not see anywhere it states that a state can secede, nor that a state can be ejected.
If they had wanted to say that they would have.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "It is not there against anyone's will, it has a right and duty to be there. " Funny, I don't recall "rights" being something guaranteed to the Federal Government.
Sure they are, that was what the Constitution was about, giving certain powers to the Federal government which the states could not take away.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "No, Federal property is US property, which means all the States own it, not just the state it is in." It is owned by the several States (that was left by South Carolina) and not within the bounds of US soil (Quartering) Thus making it (the fort) an agressive act.
LOL!
Yea, with it's guns pointed out to sea!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "That transition occured after the South lost the war, not in 1860." Funny, I thought a cornerstone of your arguement was that the South was under immediate threat of losing it's slaves. Now that we know they weren't I guess that means your arguement is abandoned.
No, the South was never in immediate threat of losing it's slaves.
It was going to lose the right of expanding the cancer of slavery.
Good to hear!
Good to hear what?
It is good to hear that Lincoln was elected and ended the power of the slave states once and for all.
I know you long for the good old days, but they are gone-get over it!
No power was ever given to any state to leave the Union or for any state to be ejected from the Union.
For your argument to be correct, you would have to deny the second assertion-so can the states now turn around and eject any state they like-based on the 10th amendment?
Agreed, and that is the position that I have always taken. Secession is not prevented by the Constitution, unilateral secession is. And the southern states taken their case to Congress, there is no reason why Congress could not have voted to approve their acts of secession. But at least then all the interests of all the affected parties would have been addressed. Issues that may have caused conflict could have been negotiated prior to the separation. And the actual division could be peaceful.
None of the Southern States that joined the CSA were part of the USA at the time. They did not impose one State as being "subject" to another.
Once common feature of the restrictions in Article I, Section 10 is that they are all actions which, if taken unilaterally, could have a negative impact on the interests and wellbeing of other states. That's why Congressional approval is required. States leaving unilaterally, appropriating government property, repudiating the debt built up by the nation while they were a part, cutting off access from the sea via the Mississippi, all had a negative impact on the other states. So on those grounds as well their secession should have been approved by the other states.
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.