Posted on 07/18/2006 12:49:14 PM PDT by aomagrat
Define what you mean by 'reexports'.
Any conclusions about tariffs collected and their inter-year relationships will have to be developed after the data is corrected for per cent increases due to the Morrill Tariff.
Which would be hard to do without a breakdown of imports since the Morrill tariff impacted different sectors to different degrees.
But even if you go to the trouble, it is not going to support your contention that point of collection of tariffs is evidence of consumption.
Why wouldn't it?
As has been said many times before, the south had every natural right to rebel and the north had every constitutional right to suppress that rebellion. Especially after the south started the shooting. The social contract expressed in the Constitution was broken and the south could no longer claim its protections by their own disavowal of it.
Not only are you a damn Yankee, you're still out wandering around in your wheat field looking for TOTO! It's no wonder you don't have a clue about how the Founders viewed States rights vs the Fed.
Holy Cow! A Wizard of Oz joke! That's the first one of those I've ever heard! Must have taken you three freakin' weeks to come up with that one. You are quite the comedian, aren't you?
It's no wonder you don't have a clue about how the Founders viewed States rights vs the Fed.
And you do? ROTFLMAO!
I don't know why you're laughing. You are a perfect example of what I'm talking about. No evidence from your postings that you hold Conservative views. In fact, reading through some of your posts on FR, an arguement could easily be made that you hold liberal views. Just say the word and I'll present the case against you.
[You] And neither act was unconstitutional just because you said it was.
You're quite correct, that neither act was unconstitutional just because I say they were......they're unconstitutional on their own merits.
But I take it you deny the merits, and you won't listen to anything but your own voice on this subject, so what's the point of discussing it? Your intransigent stand on ancient propaganda and old wrongs condemns you, but that's your business and the reader's. The unreadiness of Nevada for statehood, with only a few thousand miners and drygoods merchants in the whole territory, is manifest and needs no further comment from me. The issue of West Virginia's bastardy is settled, there was no "legislature" among the cabal you name, and no faction, party, or group that was capable of acting for the State of Virginia other than the State of Virginia, whose lawfully elected legislature still met in order in Richmond.
You cannot partition a State without its consent, and nobody but the State itself can be party to any such consent. The fictitious "consent" Lincoln manufactured for his unconstitutional political purposes was a fraud, and you simply impeach yourself when you countenance it.
You may dislike Edmund Ruffin all you like, I don't care. But that calumny won't stick. He saw combat in the Civil War, and that makes him nobody's "chickenhawk".
Your blind hatred is showing again.
No, they weren't. Their actions were sovereign actions of the People, tantamount to ratification of the Constitution itself, or to its repealer. When you are sovereign, you may change your government for another more pleasing, and they did.
So, who do you think was sovereign instead of the People? You've never answered that question, as many times as I've asked it.
Who owns America, Non-Sequitur? Who is invested with the right and power to tell the People, "no, you may not," and "do as I say"?
And who is the judge of those merits? You again.
But I take it you deny the merits, and you won't listen to anything but your own voice on this subject, so what's the point of discussing it?
What has there been that had been worth listening to? You claim Nevada's admission was unconstitutional because of population, but can't point to a clause in the Constitution that supports it. You claim West Virginia's admission was unconstitutional and offer a lot of opinions, countered by opinions submitted by me in rebuttle, but the long a short is that the Supreme Court recognized the legality of West Virginia's admission in 1871. So you're right. What is the point of discussing it?
From a safe distance.
No, they tried. They launched their rebellion in an attempt to change their government, and they got their head handed to them. And have then spent the last 140 years complaining about it.
So, who do you think was sovereign instead of the People? You've never answered that question, as many times as I've asked it.
I do believe the people are sovereign. All the people, North and South, the people of the United States. I don't belive that the states are sovereign over the people, I don't believe that the Southern people were more sovereign than those in the North, and I don't believe that only the South had rights that deserved to be protected.
One, there was no rebellion. The Queen of England cannot "rebel" against herself, cannot offend her own majesty.
Against whom, in America, would the sovereign People "rebel" by taking down their Government and substituting another? Get together with Non-Sequitur and let me know, who do the People have to check with before changing their Government, or their laws?
Two, once the Southern States left the Union, the North had no further claims against them save for compensation concerning federal properties and the sharing out and settlement of federal assets and debts.
The North had no claims on the Southerners' allegiance or obedience after secession.
The power to suppress insurrection does not extend to a seceding or seceded State: by definition, the seceding State's People have acted at the supraconstitutional or sovereign level, and the fact that it is the People acting, and not some lesser combination or faction, changes everything. An act of a drunken mob can be insurrectionary. A secession of the People of a State cannot, because secession is sovereign and therefore clothed with legality and the People's power, whereas the insurrectionary mob is not protected by that supralegal, supragovernmental legality.
Especially after the south started the shooting.
They were within their rights to terminate by force the exercise of alien power on their soil. Just as Ohio's Militia would have been within its rights to throw a body of Canadian, French, or Confederate troops off its soil.
The social contract expressed in the Constitution was broken and the south could no longer claim its protections by their own disavowal of it.
I'd have to think about that statement a little more. Of course, the Southern States were no longer in the Union, so on its face your statement looks to be true. The laws of war, and not the Constitution, would have governed, if the United States decided on waging war against its new neighbor.
[You, flashing ugly again] From a safe distance.
Serving an artillery piece at Bull Run is "a safe distance"?
Now THERE'S a case of the pot calling the kettle black. The hatred you display towards Lincoln and the Union is almost pathological.
We've been over this, too.
There is no unitary, lumpen People. The individual States made up the Union, ratifying the Constitution each according to its own People's lights.
The People are the States, and vice versa. Don't confuse state governments with the States, in an attempt to blur the issues.
I think you know perfectly well what these terms are and what they mean, and you know I'm using them properly -- the supporting documentary material's been produced and discussed until Hell won't have it. You are clinging to the fiction that Lincoln copped off old Daniel Webster, who cobbled it up to deny -- wrongly -- that a State has the right to leave the Union. It's all lies.
As long as I'm a politician in the majority, nobody can leave the Union because I'm going to fleece everybody in the room, nobody gets to leave, no exceptions.
But that isn't the constitutional and historical experience of the American polity.
Not at all. What Lincoln and his party did, is what they did. It indicates to me that we have a lot of homework to do, to unwind the abuses that have accumulated since then, to correct the historic mistakes and devolve again to the People and the municipalities closest to them the powers and responsibilities that the "permanent ruling class" have arrogated and accumulated since Lincoln's antipopular revolution, arrogations and usurpations that are institutionalized in the federal bureaucracy.
There's a thread currently running on FR about Swiss gun laws and the differences between Swiss and American society. One of the major conclusions of the discussion article is that the decentralization of Swiss government is one of the great strengths of the Swiss polity which simultaneously fortifies the public virtues of the people and the political virtues of the overall government. As William F. Buckley once pointed out, it's easy to embarrass the average Swiss citizen by asking him to name the last five presidents of the Swiss confederation. The reason for that is that the Swiss government, because of the modesty of its powers compared to those reposed in the localities, does not attract the kind of diseased personalities ours does, who wish to write their names on history in blood, guts, or -- in Bill Clinton's case -- semen.
We had something going before Lincoln, that we would do well to try to resuscitate in the American political experiment. Even if that means encouraging a lot of helicopter money and pigs at trough to pack up their stuff and get the hell off our continent.
That's not Lincoln hatred, my purblind, political-machine-power-mad interlocutor. It's just Jefferson's vision for a happy and free country, where men bear arms and women bear babies, and people don't spend a lot of time and money on flub-dubs, bribes, Guccis, and limousine service.
No, the People of the United States ratified the Constitution, not Virginia or New York, or any other arbitrary political entity. It says so right in the Preamble.
You are clinging to the fiction that Lincoln copped off old Daniel Webster, who cobbled it up to deny -- wrongly -- that a State has the right to leave the Union. It's all lies
And that is complete bullshit. What I am denying is that a state, any state, can leave without the consent of all parties in the bargin. The state laving impacts the wellbeing of the states remaining. I happen to believe that they should have a say in the matter. In your world they have no say, and no protections under the Constitution. Only the leaving states have any rights. The ones remaining have none.
As long as I'm a politician in the majority, nobody can leave the Union because I'm going to fleece everybody in the room, nobody gets to leave, no exceptions
I find that believable given your positions. In your view the states may leave and walk away from any obligations, any responsiblilty, and take any action that they choose regardless of the impact it may have on the remaining states. So long as you're a politician I find it way that you would be willing to screw the states six ways from Sunday, so long as those states are Northern ones.
[You, denying the billboards of history] No, the People of the United States ratified the Constitution, not Virginia or New York, or any other arbitrary political entity.
There is no unitary, lumpen People. One colony, one State. One State, one People -- each one granted sovereignty and recognition as a stand-alone entity. You've seen all the quotes; you're just being recalcitrant now, because of what's on the table. I'd love to play bourre' with you: I've never owned a house in Illinois before.
It says so right in the Preamble.
Preamble, shmee-amble. The Preamble isn't binding, it's descriptive. Where the rubber meets the road is in the body of the Constitution, and in its Articles of Amendment.
You cling to the Preamble because it alone, of the articles of the Constitution, preserves the language that Hamilton intended for the whole document, of a statist document instituting a centralized national government with total power -- run by him, and people he agreed with. He didn't get it, but the convention didn't go back and change the language of the Preamble to parse with what they'd written, which was a constitution of a limited, federal republic whose States remained sovereign and retained important undelegated powers intact.
You want it all in your pocket, is your problem. You should scratch that itch and run for Chicago alderman someday. Maybe they'll let you be in charge of beating up visitors they don't like.
Yeah? Well, the next time the U.S. abrogates a treaty its chief executive has signed, like, oh, Kyoto, say, try suing the United States Government to demand compliance, on grounds that the other signatories hadn't given the United States permission to withdraw. See what happens.
The state laving impacts the wellbeing of the states remaining.
That happens a lot, when sovereignty is involved. The imperial Russian government still owes some American estates a lot of money. Heard about any collections lately?
I happen to believe that they should have a say in the matter.
Operative word, "believe". You would be incorrect, however.
As I pointed out above, the States retained rights and powers of sovereignty when they ratified the Constitution, and you cannot produce any clause of the Constitution that abrogates them. The exercise of rights and powers shows why they are called that quite precisely because other parties that may be affected by the exercise have no right or power to interfere, suspend, or block the exercise of same.
The States retain certain rights and powers even as members of the Union: Ohio's supreme court adjudicated an eminent-domain case the other day, coming to a resolution diametrically opposed to Associate Justice Souter's opinion last year on the same subject; but Ohio's case was brought under Ohio's constitution, and so that case is not subject to federal review. This would be true even though the Ohio court had reached a conclusion inimical to the interests of an out-of-state development company whose management might have expected Ohio to follow Souter's reasoning to Souter's holding. The out-of-state developers couldn't now sue Ohio for holding without regard to the effect on the out-of-state developers' interest. Neither could their home state, despite a possible loss of tax revenue, in-state wages, etc., which might ensue from the Ohio court's decision.
I was employing a rhetorical device -- can't remember the name of it. I was describing the position of the Republican politicians and Northern industrialists who were absolutely determined to make their pile at the expense of the agrarian 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.