[BroJoeK #325] As Lincoln, Chase & others argued, it was colonies which created Congress, but Congress created the states.
Obviously, you have lost your mind. The Congress was created pursuant to the Constitution of 1789. The Constitution provided that, "The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the same. The States created the Constitution before there was ever a Congress.
The States were States before the Articles of Confederation, or the Congress it created, as well. Articles II and III stated:
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. 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.
BroJoeK #325:
woodpusher: "Of course, the silly nonsense of an indissoluble union of indestructible states is belied by the history of the American union which went from thirteen to eleven states, and then back to twelve and thirteen states over the course of a little more than a year. Indestructible, indissoluble union and states, the things of myth and Texas v. White.
Courts can define what the law is, but not even the U.S. Supreme Court can rewrite history. "
And so yet again we notice, first, that to woodpusher the US Supreme Court is unquestionable supreme authority whenever he agrees with it, otherwise, not so much.
Au contraire! I said the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of the law. The Supreme Court cannot change history by proclamation. It cannot retroactively create events that did not happen, nor can it erase events that did happen. Just as it cannot really change tomatoes into vegetables, even where it finds a tax on vegetables applies to tomatoes. Nix v. Hedden, 149 U.S. 304 (1893), "Tomatoes are 'vegetables,' and not 'fruit,' within the meaning of the Tariff Act of March 3, 1883, c. 121."
I suppose the Supreme Court could opine that a goblet of water became wine under some statute, and that would make the Chief Justice God. You may think so, but I do not share your opinion that the justices have god-like powers.
BroJoeK #325:
What matters is that New Hampshire became the ninth state ratification on June 21, 1788, and the old Articles of Confederation Congress immediately began to study how to implement the new Constitution.
Do tell more about how the old Articles of Confederation studied. I have never before heard of articles studying.
What matters is that the government of a new union of ELEVEN states was formed on March 4, 1789. Not thirteen, but ELEVEN. Those ELEVEN states seceded from the former union and formed a new union, leaving two States behind. How does that happen to an indestructible, indissoluble union?
Secede. withdraw formally from membership in a federal union, an alliance, or a political or religious organization: the kingdom of Belgium seceded from the Netherlands in 1830.
BroJoeK #325:
woodpusher: "And the indestructible, indissoluble state of New Hampshire became two states following the secession and successful revolution of the great state of Vermont. And Vermont was a frree and independent state when admitted as a new and entire member of the constitutional union."
Independence of "New Connecticut" from Massachusetts, New York and New Hampshire came many years before the Constitution's ratification in 1788.
But the Constitution does provide for such split-ups of states, provided all parties agree -- disunion by mutual consent.
1788 or 1789 is irrelevant. The mythical indestructible, indissoluble union, which some Radicals and Nazis purport to have created the States, is claimed to have been created in 1776 (four score and seven years ago, eight-seven years before 1863).
The constitutional government was formed in 1789 following the ratifications of ELEVEN states, and formed a new union of ELEVEN states. That is history.
Vermont most certainly did not become a free and independent republic by the mutual consent of New York. Vermont is documented as having achieved independence by successful revolution. As I stated at #321, "the Order-in-Council was nullified by successful revolution, and Vermont was admitted as an independent state with self-constituted boundaries." The Green Mountain boys, fighting and feuding and all that. When Vermont declared, defended and established its independence as a seperate republic, it not only left prior State clutches, but also was beyond the purported indestructible, indissoluble Union purportedly established in 1776.
Whenever history fails you, you just make crap up. It is an amusing habit of yours.
Come on self-proclaimed student of history. Do try to keep up.
woodpusher #322:
As the great Ronaldus Maximus said:
All of us need to be reminded that the Federal Government did not create the States; the States created the Federal Government.
Big Government autocrats, desirous of a Federalist Hamiltonian autocracy, express a less American viewpoint:
[1] What is a confederation of states? By a confederacy, we mean a group of sovereign states which come together of their own free will and, in virtue of their sovereignty, create a collective entity. In doing so, they assign selective sovereign rights to the national body that will allow it to safeguard the existence of the joint union. [2] What is the particular sacredness of a State? I speak not of that position which is given to a State in and by the Constitution of the United States, for that all of us agree to—we abide by; but that position assumed, that a State can carry with it out of the Union that which it holds in sacredness by virtue of its connection with the Union. I am speaking of that assumed right of a State, as a primary principle, that the Constitution should rule all that is less than itself, and ruin all that is bigger than itself. But, I ask, wherein does consist that right? If a State, in one instance, and a county in another, should be equal in extent of territory, and equal in the number of people, wherein is that State any better than the county?
[3] These states never possessed any previous sovereignty of their own because that would have been impossible. These states did not come together to create the Union, but it was the Union that created these so-called states.
[4] The States have their status in the Union, and they have no other legal status. If they break from this, they can only do so against law, and by revolution. The Union, and not themselves separately, procured their independence, and their liberty. By conquest, or purchase, the Union gave each of them, whatever of independence, and liberty, it has. The Union is older than any of the States; and, in fact, it created them as States.
That is a collection of some disgusting un-American bilge.
BroJoeK #325:
woodpusher referring to unidentified quotes: "That is a collection of some disgusting un-American bilge."
Obviously like other Lost Causers, our new FRiend woodpusher hates his country, hates his Constitution, hates most especially the Federalists-Whigs-Republicans who founded, wrote, ratified & formed our Constitutional government.
Who woodpusher loves, defends and remains loyal to are all those opposed to the Constitution -- 1787 anti-Federalists, 1788 anti-Washington's administration, 1792 Jeffersonian Democrats & alleged strict-constructionists, 1798 nullifiers, Randolph's Old Republicans, 1820 era slavers, 1850s' Fire Eater secessionists, 1860s' Confederate warriors against the USA, 1860s & 1870s anti-13th, 14th & 15th Amendments, 20th century segregationists, all so called states-righters.
Only a card-carrying Nazi could support such ahistoric, un-american bilge. And yet, you worship that crap. Are you a card-carrying Nazi?
You forgot to link and quote me defending your Hillary-like bucket of horribles. It seems you are made of the same stuff as your mentor, Hillary.
I prefer such real Americans as Ronald Reagan and Donald J. Trump, to the ahistoric, un-American bilge you support. You complain that the quotes are unidentified. The words express ideas like minded to your own; therefore, you not only defend and support them, you revere, lionize, idolize, venerate, glorify such words, and put the "obscure" authors of such crap on a pedestal.
woodpusher:
"The Supreme Court cannot change history by proclamation.
It cannot retroactively create events that did not happen, nor can it erase events that did happen.
Just as it cannot really change tomatoes into vegetables, even where it finds a tax on vegetables applies to tomatoes.
Nix v. Hedden, 149 U.S. 304 (1893), "Tomatoes are 'vegetables,' and not 'fruit,' within the meaning of the Tariff Act of March 3, 1883, c. 121." " Actually, in Nix v. Hedden the Supreme Court did not magically "change" anything.
The court acknowledged that tomatoes are biologically fruits, but went with the common, ordinary definitions of fruits & vegetables by which most people consider tomatoes the latter.
woodpusher: "I suppose the Supreme Court could opine that a goblet of water became wine under some statute, and that would make the Chief Justice God.
You may think so, but I do not share your opinion that the justices have god-like powers."
All your distinctions boil down to this: you consider the Supreme Court final authority on everything you agree with, of no authority regarding anything where you disagree.
woodpusher: "Do tell more about how the old Articles of Confederation studied.
I have never before heard of articles studying. "
Obviously you need new glasses, ones with no blind spots.
Here you even quoted me correctly, but then responded inappropriately:
BJK: "the old Articles of Confederation Congress immediately began to study how to implement the new Constitution. "
woodpusher:
"What matters is that the government of a new union of ELEVEN states was formed on March 4, 1789.
Not thirteen, but ELEVEN.
Those ELEVEN states seceded from the former union and formed a new union, leaving two States behind.
How does that happen to an indestructible, indissoluble union?" The short answer is: by mutual consent, fully acknowledged as totally adequate justification for any such actions at pleasure.
Indeed, on these threads we post informally about "secession" from the old Articles of Confederation, but technically, that's not what happened.
There were no secession conventions, no votes to secede, no "Declarations of Secession" or "Reasons for Secession" documents.
Instead, each state convention voted to ratify the new Constitution and then the old Articles of Confederation Congress voted to abolish itself.
So the Union itself never ceased to exist, only its form of government changed.
As for those states which delayed ratification, the Constitution did not require their validation.
Indeed, while North Carolina and Rhode Island delayed, neither state formally rejected it and neither ever declared secession from or independence of the United States of America.
woodpusher: "1788 or 1789 is irrelevant.
The mythical indestructible, indissoluble union, which some Radicals and Nazis purport to have created the States, is claimed to have been created in 1776 (four score and seven years ago, eight-seven years before 1863).
The constitutional government was formed in 1789 following the ratifications of ELEVEN states, and formed a new union of ELEVEN states.
That is history."
In 1776 Congress declared the United Colonies to be the independent united States of America.
Congress immediately began work on the United States Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union.
Over the years various forms of government have come & gone, new territories admitted as states, some states split into two or more, etc., but the Union itself has remained both perpetual and indestructible.
That is history.
On a side note, since you are apparently brand new to Free Republic, I'll give you one pass (only) for misappropriate use of the N-word -- "Nazi".
By long standing Free Republic tradition & acknowledged rule, the word "Nazi", when used outside actual historical contexts, implies:
- The user admits losing the argument and now has only insults to hurl.
- The user was educated, trained or brainwashed by politically correct liberals in how to shut down arguments when all else fails.
- The user has nothing serious going on between his ears.
- The user is not worthy of participating in Free Republic threads.
woodpusher:
"When Vermont declared, defended and established its independence as a seperate republic, it not only left prior State clutches, but also was beyond the purported indestructible, indissoluble Union purportedly established in 1776." The Articles of Confederation were called "perpetual", not "indestructible, indissoluble".
So the status of Vermont on any particular date had no effect on the perpetual Union.
The fact is at the time, state & territory boundaries were sometimes both ill-defined and fluid, but none of that changed the perpetual United States Union.
woodpusher: "Whenever history fails you, you just make crap up.
It is an amusing habit of yours.
Come on self-proclaimed student of history.
Do try to keep up."
You sound like a typical Democrat, projecting your own mental state onto others.
woodpusher: "Only a card-carrying Nazi could support such ahistoric, un-american bilge.
And yet, you worship that crap.
Are you a card-carrying Nazi? "
Now you've been warned about using the N-word inappropriately on Free Republic.
If your weak brain cannot control its innate urges to act like a woke-liberal, calling whatever you disagree with "Nazi", your welcome here will quickly expire.
woodpusher: "I prefer such real Americans as Ronald Reagan and Donald J. Trump, to the ahistoric, un-American bilge you support.
You complain that the quotes are unidentified.
The words express ideas like minded to your own; therefore, you not only defend and support them, you revere, lionize, idolize, venerate, glorify such words, and put the "obscure" authors of such crap on a pedestal."
And with such total BS words you expose your true nature as a propagandist & liar.
Apparently, there's nothing serious going on between your ears. ![]()