Posted on 10/25/2010 7:28:30 AM PDT by Michael Zak
Actually the real question is if you all can break away, isn't it?
First in Wheeling and then in Alexandria.
The Restored Government of Virginia, or the Reorganized Government of Virginia,[1] was the Unionist government of Virginia during the American Civil War.
When the Second Wheeling Convention met in its first session, in June 1861, it adopted "A Declaration of the People of Virginia,"[2] which declared the state offices of Virginia vacant. The convention then elected a new governor and other officers and created the reorganized state government. President Abraham Lincoln recognized the Restored Government as the legitimate authority for the whole of Virginia,[3] and the United States Congress seated the two new U.S. Senators chosen by its legislature, and three U.S. Representatives elected in its districts. By the autumn of 1861, Confederate forces had been expelled from most of what was then northwestern Virginia, establishing for the time being the area where the Restored Government exercised de facto authority.
A movement for separate statehood had grown in the trans-Allegheny region of Virginia long before the outbreak of war. A key obstacle to separate admission to the Union was that the United States Constitution forbade the creation of new states out of existing ones without the consent of the existing state's legislature. The Restored Government asserted its authority to give such consent. The legislature that met between the two sessions of the Wheeling Convention in 1861 failed to pass a statehood bill,[4] but the second session of the convention approved it.
A popular referendum in October 1861 was called on the creation of the new "State of Kanawha" from the counties of northwestern Virginia. The voters' approval led to a constitutional convention, and another popular vote in April 1862 approving the new constitution of the now renamed "West Virginia".[5] The U.S. Congress then passed a statehood bill for West Virginia, but with the added condition that slaves be emancipated in the new state, and that certain disputed counties be excluded.[6].
I must have missed that. I admit I don't get down south very often but I would have expected to hear about it on the TV or radio or something. Damn FOX News anyway.
The Supreme Court also gave recognition of the Constitutionality of Segregation (Plessy v. Ferguson), that slaves of African descent could never be citizens (Scott v. Sandford), and that States could regulate abortion after the 24th but not before (Roe v. Wade). The Supreme Court granted recognition of the unconstitutionality of the death penalty (Furman v. Georgia), as well as the Constitutionality of the death penalty (Gregg v. Georgia).
I am more interested in what the Constitution actually says instead of what 5 or more Supreme Court Justices wished it said.
It appears that NS is a proponent of legislating from the bench.
Cover her eyes, don't let her read some of the blue avenger smut!
LOL!
Sorry Sunshine, didn't mean to interrupt. . . timing was bad.
You didn't interrupt and not bad timing. I always enjoy your posts:)
What you are actually interested in is having the Constitution mean precisely what you think it should mean, and for everyone to agree with that.
No. Unless that was your intent.
You should get out more.
I post on a lot of topics.
I believe you have it backwards. It is you that is relying on implicit meanings while I continue to rely on explicit wording. And I really don't care whether others agree or not. To reiterate, there is NO EXPLICIT PROHIBITION on secession contained in the Constitution. That is a FACT. You have been arguing for awhile now that there is an "implied" prohibition against it. In essence, you are actually interested in having the Constitution mean precisely what you think it should mean - instead of what it actually says.
That one came straight out of the DNC Playbook. If Democrats accuse you of doing something, it's because they are already doing it themselves.
Not hardly. But with all the court's flaws I prefer the Founder's vision of three branches of government over your perferred one or two.
Spot on, Cowboy!
MZ - I, very recently, was of the opinion that expounding on the history of the Democratic Party should be persued. Upon reflection I realized the error of my thinking.
First, when you go pointing fingers at someone else there are always 3 pointing right back at you. One example off the top of my head, the Republican Party Platform of 1868 contains this: Second—The guaranty by Congress of equal suffrage to all loyal men at the South was demanded by every consideration of public safety, of gratitude, and of justice, and must be maintained; while the question of suffrage in all the loyal States properly belongs to the people of those States. The statement speaks for itself.
Second, and most important, the respect due to each individual as a person is omitted once identity politics is employed. I abhor identity politics. It is based on the collective and not the individual.
How about focusing on Conservate principles?
You do understand the difference between a state's legally elected legislative body and a self appointed one, right?
Now NS, you and I both know it isn't an excuse. It's simply the truth.
Of course it is.
True. So the matter then becomes how secession is accomplished. By implication it's a matter for the states to approve. Same way they allow a state to join in the first place.
You have been arguing for awhile now that there is an "implied" prohibition against it. In essence, you are actually interested in having the Constitution mean precisely what you think it should mean - instead of what it actually says.
How about answering the question I asked earlier. Where in the Constitution does in explicitly allow for NASA, the U.S. Air Force, and the Department of Veteran's Affairs?
That one came straight out of the DNC Playbook. If Democrats accuse you of doing something, it's because they are already doing it themselves.
I'm sure you have a better knowledge of the Democrat playbook than I'll ever have.
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.