Posted on 02/09/2011 3:42:15 PM PST by central_va
Wrong. If not covered in the constitution it is covered by the 10th amendment. Read up on your Constitution please and quit trying to make the supremacy clause into the elastic clause.
Oops. The above was meant for rockrr.
Nice pics.
Not for nothing, but I would say you're violating forum rules. I would call this a personal attack. Not enough to make me throw a flag, but at a minimum unseemly.
My views are what they are, but I haven't insulted anyone, and all my ideas have been centered squarely on substance, whether you agree with it or not.
The rest of your screed is appeal to authority, and moral innuendo. It speaks for itself, and reflects on you.
Anyway, I just hope we can chew the fat without making it personal. I'd like to get the chance to present my views to you, and get your take on it. Maybe at some point we can approach it from that standpoint. I'd appreciate it.
As far as I know he’s still the President.
The American theory is that sovereignty rests with the people and not the states. The first three words of our Constitution ("We the people") reflect that philosophy. "We the people" did not create the government of the United States to serve as a handmaiden of the individual states. The theory that we did comes from the same chapter of the same history book that teaches that many of the slaves came to America as volunteers.
Any imagined ambiguity about the relationship between the people of the United States and their national government evaporated in 1865. Anyone who wishes to overthrow the government of the United States shouldn't waste their time dreaming up useless legal theories.
OK. Check me out. I TOTALLY AND COMPLETELY AGREE.
I have basically two points...or maybe one point and one question:
Point: The government created by the Constitution is HOSTILE to the right you just proclaimed.
Question: Why continue to pose a losing argument--and justifiably so--and maintain that the Constitution is on your side? Look at the Antifederalist essays on my profile page. Look at the transcript from Patrick Henry's June 5, 1788 speech. And see if it doesn't make more sense to conclude that the error was made in 1787-88.
It's an awful thing to contemplate, I guess. But I'm past the point of no return myself. I'll never turn back. It's etched into my understanding of America.
In other words, instead of arguing that you were free to go, without getting hassled. Why not just say you’d had enough of the national goverment and told em to pound sand, and when push came to shove, you backed it up with lead, but came up on the short end. THAT’s reality. And the next time you or I try to get out from under them it’ll be the same.
In other words, instead of arguing that you were free to go, without getting hassled. Why not just say you’d had enough of the national goverment and told em to pound sand, and when push came to shove, you backed it up with lead, but came up on the short end. THAT’s reality. And the next time you or I try to get out from under them it’ll be the same.
You are correct. The states, or the people, gave it all up in 1788, when they ratified the Constitution. The Constitution was created specifically to centralize and concentrate power away from the states. That was the whole point. The national system the CSA asserts is the one that we had BEFORE the Constitution.
Look at the first three articles of the Articles of Confederation:
Article I. The Stile of this Confederacy shall be "The United States of America."
Is there any mention of a confederacy in the Constitution? No. Because it isn't a confederacy. It's a consolidated republic.
Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.
As old Lord Buckley might say, "There's the kicker." EXPRESSLY delegated. That ensures to the highest possible degree a STRICT construction of powers. And that word was intentionally omitted. A draft of the 10th amendment contained this language and was shot down. What we got, then was IMPLIED POWERS. Already in practice during the Washington administration, with his signature.(First Bank of the US)
Article III. The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever.
Any language about a league of frienship in the Constitution? Of course not. Because the Constitution reduced the states to mere subordinate parts. It centralized and concentrated power in Washington DC (after having squatted in New York and Philadelphia.)
In my opinion, we should abandon the idea of the mega-republic, and go back to the drawing board on creating a league of states.
Well, alright. Allow me to reiterate. Here we sit some 220 plus years since our founding and founding documents. I’ll concede the point they aren’t perfect, which is never achievable anyway. Your apparent desire to trash our Constitution aside, what do you suggest we do today, in 2011? The only caveats; it must be realistic and doable; that is, viable in the current political and social environment we find ourselves in. Here’s your chance again dude, so, go for it.
As for what to actually do in the here and now, my expectations are reasonably low. We do the best we can. We fight back at the national government as much as possible. We try our best to hold the GOP accountable. But it's a two front war for us. We're trying to keep the GOP accountable on the right, while at the same time counting on them to defend us from the left. Not pretty.
Anyway, I'm pragmatic. I say do the best you can in the primaries. Do the best you can in the general. As for my thoughts about the deeper reality, it's just for the sake of it. The intelligentsia is completely asleep. On all sides. We're probably a good hundred years away from any possibility of people starting to seriously consider what I'm suggesting. The scary thing is if we collapse, the right is completely unprepared to make good use of the opportunity. At best we'll repeat the mistakes of 1787.
And by the way, thanks for tamping it down a bit.
Good Article, its a real tragedy that theses principles and promises are now so dead to those who would instead clam the absolute and self-defined of a dictator. Tyrants is what you would call them for they weld power that is illegitimate.
While it is obvious that we must find a way to restore our liberty, and overthrow this tyrant the question of how is the one that has long plagued us.
Perhaps little could come to dispute that there are 2 critical elements to our solution:
1: Education.
2: Strategy.
In education the path seems all to clear, we must spread theses natural truths.
In strategy we must recognize that at some point this may come down to a simple contest of raw force. If that be the case then we must see to it that The Federal Government is disarmed and incapable of opposing the States, so that should anther tyrant like Lincoln show up he should prove unable to act without the willing aid of other States.
Then and only then will our education be necessarily helpful cause then and only then will the self-interest and political demands of the people be able to refuses to aid in the subjugation of their bothers and resist such subjugation of their own.
That is right, we must accept the fact that sooner or later we are going to end up with leaders in Washington that ignore the will of the people.(yes I know what a shocker. )
In such times our only recourse will be the defenses we have in our states, and the perhaps corrupt interest of our state leaders to protect their power from federal usperation.
I understand there is a legal principle which essentially states that anyone not staking out and defending their right to a claim could potentially relinquish that claim. Can we relinquish a God given right by not defending it when and if the feral government encroaches??? I DON'T know the legal answer to that but you can rest assured the Dims and the ABA have some thoughts. But I digress...
We're probably a good hundred years away from any possibility of people starting to seriously consider what I'm suggesting.
You'll forgive me but I haven't seen what you're suggesting.
Just a short reply before work. Please read the original draft.They only adopted the current version because they didn't know what States would ratify.
WE the People of the States of New-Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New-York, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North-Carolina, South-Carolina, and Georgia, do ordain, declare and establish the following Constitution for the Government of Ourselves and our Posterity.
Daniel Webster, argued that the Constitution was ratified by “We the people” acting as “one people.” He was corrected:
James Madison to Daniel Webster
It is fortunate when disputed theories, can be decided by undisputed facts. And here the undisputed fact is, that the Constitution was made by the people, but as embodied into the several States, who were parties to it; and therefore made by the States in their highest authoritative capacity.
But wait, here is that same Daniel Webster in 1851:
"If the South were to violate any part of the Constitution intentionally and systematically, and persist in so doing, year after year, and no remedy could be had, would the North be any longer bound by the rest of it? And if the North were deliberately, habitually, and of fixed purpose to disregard one part of it, would the South be bound any longer to observe its other obligations? I have not hesitated to say, and I repeat, that if the Northern States refuse, willfully and deliberately, to carry into effect that part of the Constitution which respects the restoration of fugitive slaves, and Congress provide no remedy, the South would no longer be bound to observe the compact. A bargain cannot be broken on one side and still bind the other side.
Black's Law Dictionary, Revised Fourth Edition, 1968, p. 1176
“A national government is a government of the people of a single state or nation, united as a community by what is termed the “social compact,’ and possessing complete and perfect supremacy over persons and things, so far as they can be made the lawful objects of civil government. A federal government is distinguished from a national government by its being the government of a community of independent and sovereign states, united by compact."
Federalist #39
Were the people regarded in this transaction as forming one nation, the will of the majority of the whole people of the United States would bind the minority, in the same manner as the majority in each State must bind the minority; and the will of the majority must be determined either by a comparison of the individual votes, or by considering the will of the majority of the States as evidence of the will of a majority of the people of the United States. Neither of these rules have been adopted. Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a federal, and not a national constitution.
Even Judge Smith of the Wisconsin Supreme Court understood this to be fact. Remember their nullification of the federal fugitive slave law?
"...an officer of the United States, armed with process to arrest a fugitive from service, is clothed with entire immunity from state authority; to commit whatever crime or outrage against the laws of the state; that their own high prerogative writ of habeas corpus shall be annulled, their authority defied, their officers resisted, the process of their own courts contemned, their territory invaded by federal force, the houses of their citizens searched, the sanctuary or their homes invaded, their streets and public places made the scenes of tumultuous and armed violence, and state sovereignty succumb–paralyzed and aghast–before the process of an officer unknown to the constitution and irresponsible to its sanctions. At least, such shall not become the degradation of Wisconsin, without meeting as stern remonstrance and resistance as I may be able to interpose, so long as her people impose upon me the duty of guarding their rights and liberties, and maintaining the dignity and sovereignty of their state."
I'll respond later in more detail after work.
Your lack of comprehension is easily explained. Freedom, and the concept of a REAL republic, is hard for a fascist like you to understand.
The Constitution can't maintain the freedom of people that don't deserve it. Look in the mirror.
IMHO You really have no business on this web site.
These secession threads really bring the venom out if the statists....
Lincoln was never our President, he was “those peoples” President only.
A simple question....
If the founders of the CSA were so enamored with the US constitution, and states rights why did they have to write entirely different documents for their “nation” and its Sovereign states? Why didn’t they just change one word in it United to Confederate?
I mean other than to include slavery into their Constitutions...
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.