Posted on 06/01/2006 9:07:55 AM PDT by stainlessbanner
BUT did you get the other messages about the war to FREE the south????:
1.the WAR was NOT about slavery or the preservation thereof.
2. you have been LIED TO & made a FOOL of, IF you believe the KNOWING lies out of the DY spin machine.
3.hardly ANYONE north or south "cared a damn" about the slaves or what the slaves felt. it simply was NOT "an issue of interest" to any but the relatively few slavers & a handful of abolitionists.
4. the war was ONLY because lincoln, the TYRANT & shyster lawyer, was UNWILLING to have PEACE. from his viewpoint, the war was ONLY about $$$$$$$$$$ and POLITICAL POWER. he cared NOTHING for the "plight of the slaves", period. end of story. (he said so himself!) fwiw, lincoln's own writings illustrate that he was a stone RACIST, who feared & hated "persons of colour" (especially "muddy-coloured people, like me for instance, as a mixed-blood).
free dixie,sw
Why not?
"Those powers not delegated... nor prohibited... are reserved to the states..." The Constitution need not allow anything. If it is not explicitly prohibited, it is retained.
That's OK. I enjoy a good debate. I define "a good debate" as one in which everyone sticks to the issues and nobody calls each other names. ;-)
Of course not. However, that leaves a lot of time in between. A state does not appear from nothing - it must already be some type of political entity in order to make application for statehood in the first place!
Applying for statehood is a voluntary act. In other words, a state is created by the people therein, not by Washington, D.C. Anything else would be annexation - a hallmark of empire.
And where do you find the word 'explicitly' anywhere in that amendment? Or the Constitution itself for that matter? Chief Justice Marshall stated, "But there is no phrase in the instrument [Constitution] which, like the articles of confederation, excludes incidental or implied powers; and which requires that everything 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...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 a 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."
Congressional approval is required for a state to be admitted. It is required if an existing state wants to split in two. It is required for two or more states to combine into a single state, removing one or more states from the Union in the process. Congressional approval is needed for a state to change its borders by a fraction of an inch. It does not take much imagination to realize that if the consent of Congress is needed for admission to the Union in the first place and for any subsequent changes, then by implication it should be needed for leaving the Union as well.
Explicit or not, is was not prohibited.
And if you have to resort to quoting an activist judge to make a point, it helps make mine! LOL!
In your opinion. Others, including 5 Supreme Court justices, disagree with you. You'll forgive me if I accept their opinions of the Constitution as more valid and legally binding than yours?
And if you have to resort to quoting an activist judge to make a point, it helps make mine! LOL!
All it does it reinforce the fact that you have offered not a single shred of evidence to support your claim that unilateral secession is constitutionally protected. Like it or not, agree or not, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it was not and that's the way it will remain unless the Constitution is amended or Texas v White is overturned by a future court.
Well. Thank you very much. That's exactly why Lincoln led the north to war. It wasn't about slavery. Lincoln didn't give a damn about blacks.
But indulge me this:
Let's say that the majority of the people state of Alabama wanted to allow a Christian symbol such as, the Ten Commandant's, to be displayed on state property. They know this because a state referendum passed by a landslide.
The atheist say, "This ain't right," and file a lawsuit that makes it all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States.
The Supreme Court says, "You can't do that, Alabama," and cites a precedent from a court case in New York.
The good people of Alabama say, "We don't care what the godless heathens of New York do. We're good Christian folks down here and we're going to display the Ten Commandments at every court house in the state."
Feds say, "No you ain't."
Alabamians say, "We'll secede!"
Feds say, "We'll invade."
Alabamians say, "We'll fight back."
Now I ask you, mon sequitur, is this battle over states rights or is this a Holy Crusade?
The South initiated the war when they fired on Sumter and bombarded it for 36 hours.
Now I ask you, mon sequitur, is this battle over states rights or is this a Holy Crusade?
States rights end when the actions violate the U.S. Constitution. Alabama cannot legalize slavery regardless of public opinion because the 13th Amendment forbids it. It cannot proclaim itself a hereditary kingdom with you as Prince Cowboyway I, Governor for Life, regardless of public opinion, because Article IV forbids it. It cannot place a tax on items coming in to the state from Louisiana because Article I forbids it and so on and so on. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, regardless of public opinion.
James Madison posed the question, "Who is it who cannot see that the same who would consecrate Christianity above all other religions would then have to consecrate a particular sect of Christians above all other sects?" By posting a version of the 10 Commandments followed by some religions and not by others, the state is indeed placing some religions above other in it's eyes, and is establishing one religion over another. That's why monuments like Roy's rock have been declared unconstitutional while other portrayals of the 10 Commandments as tablets with numbers are not. So no, it's not a state's rights issue, it's a Constitutional issue.
Indeed it does. And what it has to be is an organized territory--and that organization is done by authority of congress, not the people. In practice, what happens is that the United States acquires land through purchase or cession or whatever. Congress authorizes a territorial government to form with very limited powers--ultimate sovereignty at that time resides with the federal government. Eventually, and after meeting certain criteria (like population), the territory asks permission to write a state constitution and apply to join the Union. Neither is assured by the federal government, and the writing of a state constitution doesn't mean that the territory has now become a state. It becomes a state only when it is admitted to the union.
Kind of like what Parliament allowed us to have before we seceded from Britain, eh?
If you are free to ignore it, you are free.
And you have not shown any Constitutional text which prohibits it as required in the 10th Amendment!
And if, God forbid, the supreme law of the land is amended, through legal channels, to replace the president, congress and judiciary with a dictator, should we, the huddled masses, quake in our boots and live under the yoke of tyranny?
That is what I'm hearing you say.
We did not secede from England. We rebelled under the Natural Right of Rebellion. The Founding Fathers had no illusion that what they were doing was legal or that England would simply say, "You know, you're right. Go in peace." They knew they'd be hanged if the rebellion failed. It's often been said on these boards that no one begrudges the south their Natural Right to rebel. As Lincoln said in the Mexican War speech, anyone who can rebel, may. If, tomorrow, all the illegal aliens in the US rose up and tried to seize the country, that would be their natural right. Of course it would also be the natural right of everyone else to fight against them, and it would be illegal under the Constitiution. Same with the south. If you want to say that you rebelled, no argument. If you want to say that you did not, in fact, rebel, that you exercised rights guaranteed under the Constitution, I would argue otherwise.
Either that or rebel, overthrow the tyrannical government and corrupted Constitution and start again, just like we did in the Revolution.
free dixie,sw
and it will be something like that, i predict, that will change the "war of words" between the yanks/rebs and set the spark that breaks out into GUNFIRE again.
i once thought it would be the MURDER of countless MILLIONS of the UNborn. i was wrong.
free dixie,sw
Here is the decision from Texas v White The Chief Justice references the Preamble and, indirectly, Article IV.
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.