Replies

cowboyway from #446: "do you believe that a person or group of people must actually be damaged before they seek remedy?"

cowboyway from #449: "Is it your premise that concern over future events is not a legitimate reason to take preventative action?
In other words, do you believe that a person or group of people must actually be damaged before they seek remedy?"

Now you've restated the question three different ways, and it's still silly, but I gave you a serious answer anyway.

In a legalistic sense, a person who is not injured in some material way has no standing to sue in court for redress of possible future injuries.

But your words like "remedy" and "preventative action" are so general they could be interpreted to mean just about anything -- either legal or not.

Therefore the obvious general answer is: yes, anyone can take legal "preventative actions" to seek "remedies" to whatever "damages" they have received or fear they may receive in the future.
So your question is silly.

The more serious specific questions include: did the Deep South slave-holders take Constitutional and lawful "preventative actions" in

first declaring themselves seceded, then
provoking war by seizing dozens of Federal forts & other properties, then
starting war by firing on Federal forces in Fort Sumter, then
officially declaring war, and then
waging war in every Union state and territory adjacent to the Confederacy, plus several "second tier" states beyond those adjacent?

The obvious answer is: no.

Therefore the obvious general answer is: yes, anyone can take legal "preventative actions" to seek "remedies" to whatever "damages" they have received or fear they may receive in the future. So your question is silly.

The damage was the done by the federal government not upholding the Constitution. The remedy was secession.

You've stated repeatedly that the South seceded because of fears of what might happen in the future.

It would appear that you don't think that concerns over future events are a credible reason to take action. (If you remember from a previous post I joked that if you really believed that then you should be livid about the billions spent on the military but, you obviously didn't get the sarcasm and launched into a lecture on enumerated powers. Do you get the sarcasm now?) If you agree that the primary reason for our military is fears about what might happen in the future, then this part of your position about the South is washed out.

You've also stated that the Deep South had no reason to secede because very few slaves from the Deep South escaped. Based on this flimsy argument, people in Minnesota and Wisconsin shouldn't be concerned about border jumpers crossing into Arizona and Texas, or the Constitution not being upheld, since it hardly affects them. Right?

Answers to 1-5:
1) True
2) False
3) False
4) True
5) True, but only after being invaded