Posted on 09/09/2019 9:42:11 AM PDT by NKP_Vet
Nah. It was a stretch and a ridiculous one at that.
Hence the funding for an army and a navy.
Great...but this explains why your air force analogy is such a dismal failure.
But remember, your claim is that only powers explicitly granted to Congress are allowed. Nowhere does the Constitution explicitly allow for an air force. Or an air traffic control system or an interstate highway system or a Food and Drug Administration or any of the other agencies we all depend on and which exist because of implied powers. The Constitution says that Congress will provide for the national defense. Implied in that is the power to create any armed forces branch needed to accomplish that. But in your world the Air Force cannot be legal because the Constitution does not explicitly allow for it.
Still trying with this pathetic argument? The constitution specifically empowers the federal government to provide for the national defense. As it so happens, the interstate highway system was built under the aegis of national defense. Your mischaracterization of what I said is laughable.
Sure it does. The power to admit states and to approve any change in their status are powers reserved to Congress by the Constitution. Implied in that is the power to approve leaving as well.
No it doesn't. Nowhere is it even implied that the federal government has any power to prevent a state from leaving. Had any state thought that they never would have ratified the constitution. 3 states including the 2 biggest and most influential ones expressly reserved the right to unilateral secession at the time that they ratified the constitution.
All that truth directly refutes your BS notions that the federal government has any power not specifically mentioned in the constitution. You have it backwards. Each state is its own sovereign community. It can decide for itself to leave just as an individual can leave a private club without requiring the permission of others. For there to be a power of the other members to expel a member against that member's will however, that would need to be stated in the bylaws.
No, they were right. Oh, and it was not a rebellion. It was sovereign states exercising their right to self determination just as the colonies before them had done.
LOL! Sovereign is defined as possessing supreme or ultimate power. Yet the Constitution lists action after action that states are forbidden to do. Rufus King pretty well summed it up: "The states were not “sovereigns” in the sense contended for by some. They did not possess the peculiar features of sovereignty,—they could not make war, nor peace, nor alliances, nor treaties. Considering them as political beings, they were dumb, for they could not speak to any foreign sovereign whatever. They were deaf, for they could not hear any propositions from such sovereign. They had not even the organs or faculties of defence or offence, for they could not of themselves raise troops, or equip vessels, for war.... If the states, therefore, retained some portion of their sovereignty [after declaring independence], they had certainly divested themselves of essential portions of it."
Correct but only partly so. A sovereign entity not only possesses supreme power, it derives its power from no other source.....ie it claims power in its own name. That is what the states are. The fact that they DELEGATED (ie what a superior does with a subordinate) SOME of their sovereign powers to the federal government they created in no way, shape or form means that they delegated all their powers and it especially does not mean that they agreed to bind themselves forever. In fact, they EXPRESSLY did not.
They sent their heavily armed flotilla into South Carolina's territorial waters. Invasion.
The letter is dated July 20, 1788. New York ratified the Constitution on July 26.
Great. Did he say it publicly? What matters is not one man's opinion. What matters in contract formation is what the parties agreed to at the time. He was not one of the parties. The states were the parties to the contract.
They can't reserve a right that's not allowed to them.
But they can reserve a right that is allowed to them. Since they had ALL the rights, it is up to them which of their rights they choose to DELEGATE to their SUBORDINATE, the newly created federal government. Nobody at the time said that this was in any way inconsistent with the constitution.
You keep forgetting that Revolutionary War thing, don't you? Have you not heard of it?,/i>
You keep forgetting the justification they used for their actions.....the entire intellectual basis upon which that war of secession from the British Empire was fought.
Yeah but fortunately they tend to lose. Like the South did.
Having more men and more guns means you have more men and more guns. It does not mean you're right.
Its inconsistent. ie "self determination matters....except for these people who I don't like."
The difference is intent. Union POW camps in the South were in a bad condition because the whole region was in a bad condition due to shortages of food and medicine. Confederate POW camps were in a bad condition because of deliberate intent. The North - thanks largely to having an established navy - did not have shortages of food and medical supplies.
Then tell me where an air force is explicitly allowed by the Constitution.
Still trying with this pathetic argument?
Asks the master of pathetic arguments.
The constitution specifically empowers the federal government to provide for the national defense.
Which is why it explicitly allows for the funding of an army and a navy. But that's it.
As it so happens, the interstate highway system was built under the aegis of national defense. Your mischaracterization of what I said is laughable.
As it happens, no it wasn't. Economic, public, and safety reasons were given as well as possible defense use. And it wasn't funded by the Department of Defense. Unconstitutional. All of it. Or so you would have us believe.
Nowhere is it even implied that the federal government has any power to prevent a state from leaving.
Implied is the power to approve any change of a state's status, including leaving.
The Supreme Court has shown the fallacy of that argument over and over again.
For there to be a power of the other members to expel a member against that member's will however, that would need to be stated in the bylaws.
Why? If it is not a power prohibited to the states by the Constitution then isn't it a power reserved to the states? Isn't that what the 10th Amendment says? You claim that as reason why states can leave unilaterally, yet you refuse to see that as a reason why states could expel another state against its will. Never mind the "freedom of association" crap you keep spouting. You want your cake and to eat it too. Can't be done.
Oh, yes it was.
It was sovereign states exercising their right to self determination just as the colonies before them had done.
Through a rebellion, as the colonies before them had done. Except the colonies before them won their rebellion and the southern states did not.
A sovereign entity not only possesses supreme power, it derives its power from no other source.....ie it claims power in its own name.
So say, for the sake of argument, that is correct. Possessing supreme power would mean no other authority above you. Yet the states could not conduct foreign relations, raise troops, coin money, adopt a form of government other than that permitted it, tax items coming into it, declare war, or create its own money. For an entity supposed possessing "supreme power" there were an awful lot of things prohibited to it. In fact, what supremacy the states had seemed to end at their own border.
The fact that they DELEGATED (ie what a superior does with a subordinate) SOME of their sovereign powers...
I don't know too many superiors who delegate powers to an underling which leaves them with none of the powers a sovereign state is supposed to have and allows the underling to tell them what they may or may not do to the extent you claim. Realistically, other than your mythical power to withdraw at will, what sovereign powers did the state not to their supposed underling?
They never made it into South Carolina's territorial waters. Invaded what?
Great. Did he say it publicly?
Yes. Over beers one night.
What matters is not one man's opinion. What matters in contract formation is what the parties agreed to at the time. He was not one of the parties. The states were the parties to the contract.
The states agreed to abide by the Constitution. Just because they mistakenly thought they could withdraw at will doesn't change that.
Since they had ALL the rights, it is up to them which of their rights they choose to DELEGATE to their SUBORDINATE, the newly created federal government.
One of which was the power to approve any change in a state's status, by implication including leaving altogether.
Having more men and more guns means you have more men and more guns. It does not mean you're right.
Great Britain had more men and guns.
“The difference is intent.”
There was intent on both sides. Confederate General Winder (Commander of the POW camp system) stated he had killed more Yankee’s that 20 Regiments of General Lee’s Army. He issued the order to Wirz, that if the Union Army got within seven miles of Andersonville, he was to “open up with grapeshot (on the prisoners)without reference to the situation beyond these lines of defense”
Having said that, Yes the supply situation in the South was abysmal, and the ability to move supplies where needed was even worse. In the North is was much more a matter of indifference and hostility to plight of the prisoners.
But in fact, the Richmond Government created the prisoner situation by refusing to treat captured USCTs
as prisoners of war. Instead they intended to treat captured blacks as escaped slaves, and captured white officers leading those troops as slave insurrectionists.
From that point in July 1863, no more prisoners were exchanged.
“The North - thanks largely to having an established navy - did not have shortages of food and medical supplies”
The North didn’t have to rely on it’s Navy for food or medical supplies. Remember Northern agriculture grew food, Southern agriculture grew cotton & tobacco, neither of which are edible. In 1860, 90% of the flour sold in the South came from Northern sources.
The U.S. Navy did have a large roll in stopping food and medicine from entering the Confederacy.
Crap. The Confederacy had the transport to get the prisoners to the prison camps but not the transport to get food to them? Give me a break! The horrendous conditions in the Confederate prison camps were the result of the same kind of incompetence and neglect that led to the horrendous conditions in Union prison camps.
The vast majority of prisoners marched to the camps. By 1864,the Confederate States were having real food shortages.
But you are correct in that the conditions in the prison camps (North and South) were the results of indifference and incompetence. Neither the United States Government or the Confederates States really gave a damned about the prisoners in their custody.
So they marched from Virginia and Tennessee to southern Georgia? Really?
By 1864,the Confederate States were having real food shortages.
One of the few things the Confederacy wasn't short on was food. Otherwise Grant couldn't have lived off the land on his way to Vicksburg or Sherman on his way to the sea.
But you are correct in that the conditions in the prison camps (North and South) were the results of indifference and incompetence. Neither the United States Government or the Confederates States really gave a damned about the prisoners in their custody.
We agree on that.
After Sept 1864 no prisoner trains were going to Andersonville, they had to pass through Atlanta. There were prisons in Alabama, Virginia, South Carolina, North Carolina
and Georgia.
Yes there were food problems in the Confederacy in the last 18 months of the war. Food riots in several Southern towns and cities. A barrel of flour in Richmond cost over $100 in late 1864. The rural areas of the South could produce substance. Getting it to the cities of the South was the real problem.
The link below is an interesting article on hunger in the Confederacy.
http://andrewfsmith.com/wp-content/themes/wooden-mannequin/pdf/HungerArticle.pdf
National defense is explicitly allowed. Being deliberately obtuse again I see.
Asks the master of pathetic arguments.
That's clearly you.
Which is why it explicitly allows for the funding of an army and a navy. But that's it.
No it doesn't. It says to provide for the national defense
As it happens, no it wasn't. Economic, public, and safety reasons were given as well as possible defense use. And it wasn't funded by the Department of Defense. Unconstitutional. All of it. Or so you would have us believe.
As it happens, yes it was. You're just wrong. Again. The Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways
No its not.
Implied is the power to approve any change of a state's status, including leaving.
No its not. Explicit was the state's reservation of their right to unilateral secession.
No it hasn't. The SCOTUS - a branch of the federal government - has rolled over and agreed to the rest of the federal government usurping power it was never granted under the constitution. Say, for that matter, what provision of the constitution grants the SCOTUS the power of judicial review? Cite it for us.
Why? If it is not a power prohibited to the states by the Constitution then isn't it a power reserved to the states? Isn't that what the 10th Amendment says? You claim that as reason why states can leave unilaterally, yet you refuse to see that as a reason why states could expel another state against its will. Never mind the "freedom of association" crap you keep spouting. You want your cake and to eat it too. Can't be done.
Analogy fail. These are two different acts that are fundamentally different. Each state in leaving, does not harm other states or affect their rights in any way. The other states are perfectly free to exercise their right to self determination. You propose that some states be able to prevent others from exercising their right to self determination and try to claim that is somehow the same as a state exercising its own. No, it is not.
Oh no it wasn't. The federal government had no lawful authority over them.
Through a rebellion, as the colonies before them had done. Except the colonies before them won their rebellion and the southern states did not.
The colonies were not sovereign. The states are. Huge difference.
So say, for the sake of argument, that is correct. Possessing supreme power would mean no other authority above you. Yet the states could not conduct foreign relations, raise troops, coin money, adopt a form of government other than that permitted it, tax items coming into it, declare war, or create its own money. For an entity supposed possessing "supreme power" there were an awful lot of things prohibited to it. In fact, what supremacy the states had seemed to end at their own border.
Because they DELEGATED (ie what a superior does with a subordinate) SOME of their sovereign rights/powers to the federal government. Yes, Madison specifically uses the word "DELEGATE" in the federalist papers. Furthermore, the states never agreed to bind themselves forever. They explicitly reserved the right to unilateral secession.
I don't know too many superiors who delegate powers to an underling which leaves them with none of the powers a sovereign state is supposed to have and allows the underling to tell them what they may or may not do to the extent you claim. Realistically, other than your mythical power to withdraw at will, what sovereign powers did the state not to their supposed underling?
Anybody is free to contract some of their rights to a subordinate to carry out certain functions. You obviously haven't read the federalist papers. Madison went to great lengths to say the powers of the federal government would be few and limited while the powers of the states were many and unlimited.
Yes they did. They entered South Carolina's territorial waters - and more than once.
Yes. Over beers one night.
We both know he didn't. The opinions of one man are irrelevant. What the parties actually agreed to at the time is the basis of any agreement/contract.
The states agreed to abide by the Constitution. Just because they mistakenly thought they could withdraw at will doesn't change that.
Nowhere in the constitution did they agree to surrender their right to unilateral secession. In fact, they went out of their way to make it clear that is not what they were agreeing to.
One of which was the power to approve any change in a state's status, by implication including leaving altogether.
Nope. Not by implication. The states made it quite clear that they were reserving the right to unilateral secession.
Great Britain had more men and guns.
Not with the rival super power of the day shoveling money and guns and supplies and troops at the Colonies and then lending them their navy.
The whole USCT affair was the excuse given. The federals calculated (correctly) that since they had more men to begin with, ending the parole system that had previously been in place would affect the South more. They could much less afford to lose men. The end result was pretty brutal for POWs on both sides but it was an effective tactic.
its true that not much by way of foodstuffs had to be imported by the North. There were some medical supplies that came in. The South, being an economy based on producing cash crops for exports rather than subsistence farming, had a harder time switching over to completely different crops and found it especially difficult to bring in medical supplies. Given that critical shortages of food and medicine, its no wonder that federal POWs fared badly. Note that that was not the result of a policy of deliberate malice. For Confederate POW's in the North however...there were no food or critical medical supply shortages in the North. The astronomically high death toll at what the federals' own reports accurately called "death camps" like Camp Douglas, Elmira (aka Hellmira) or Point Lookout were the result of deliberate malice.
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.