Posted on 11/11/2002 1:23:27 PM PST by l8pilot
Think about it Walt. If the Confederacy had cast off her allegiance to the union, to make war on "their" government would mean they were fighting themselves. If they have cast off allegiance to the US they cannot be traitors (not owing allegiance and receiving protection from the US). If still US citizens, their property is protected by the Constitution, and the government owes recompense (violation of the 5th Amendment).
The Militia Act only applies to states that are members of the Union, not foreign countries. Grier et al held the Confederacy to be a nation by virtue of application of International law.
The reason for the huge delay by Lincoln before convening Congress is contained within the Militia Act itself - "the use of militia, so to be called forth, may be continued, if necessary, until the expiration of thirty days after the commencement of the ensuing session."
Where did I say that at? The longer you hang around Walt, the more serious this condition of yours will become. Not that it is any of my concern.
Just shows how a lot of people can be so stupid to be manipulated by the the media. And in your case, willingly.
So now you condemn any and all members of the military that join in times of war? Is the only honorable service that of peactime enlistment? You impune the reputations of millions - many have rushed to join when their country needed them. Robert E. Lee wrote his sister stating "save in defence of my native state, with the sincere hope that my poor services may never be needed, I hope I may never be called on to draw my sword." Which certainly is not construed to be a desire for others to die, only that he was prepared to serve.
Apparently not.
It certainly doesn't say that.
Walt
I'm just saying that someone else has to die so you can get the combat experience you crave.
I turned 18 in 1973. I knew there was little chance of a war in the four years of my first obligation. After Carter got elected, there was even less. But in the summer of 1977, Idi Amin Dada started making some kind of noise -- I forget what-- and it looked like we might deploy, as my unit, First Battalion, Eighth Marines was the air alert battalion that month. If we went, we went. But the idea that I could get the type of experience that you apparently crave -- that is for your Playstation.
Walt
Think about it Walt.
I don't need to think about it and I don't need to prove squat to you. They were traitors because the Supreme Court -said- they were traitors.
Walt
No, he said it was --as if-- it were a nation. It was this rationale that allowed captured rebels to be treated as POW's and not just hung outright.
Justice Grier's ruling states that the president is authorized --by U.S. law-- to put down the rebellion.
He also flatly calls the secessionists enemies and traitors.
Spin your blue smoke and mirrors somewhere else.
Walt
Julius Rosenburg threw off his allegience to the US also. He was electrocuted for treason.
Walt
"BTW, I have finally come up with the killer argument against the use of the 10th Amendment to support secession. I have always believed that secession is not one of the rights "reserved" to the States because the 10th Amendment (and the 9th to boot) merely express the truism that the federal government is a government of limited powers, namely, that it is limited to the powers expressly enumerated in the Constitution. It means that whatever has not been delegated to the federal government is reserved to the States and the People.
When for example, the South attempted to secede in the 1860's, it was the same as a declaration that the U.S. Constitution no longer applied to the Confederate States. It is inconsistent to claim a right to secede under the 10th Amendment, while claiming the document no longer has any force or effect. It is the same as if one sued for breach of contract, claiming that one has enforceable rights under the contract, while also suing for rescission of the contract for failure of the other party or parties to the contract to keep their end of the bargain. A court would be bound to rule that it is inconsistent to seek both remedies at the same time; and that the plaintiff could have one remedy or the other, but not both. The same is true of claiming constitutional rights under a document that one claims no longer has any application.
But that is not the most important, or even the best argument, against claiming a constitutional right to secede. The best argument is by posing this hypothesis:
Let us assume that the Constitution was amended to explicitly exclude secession as a legal right of the States, and that the President and or Congress could act to prevent any attempt at secession. In this scenario, one could say that secession or revolution (and I use the terms interchangeably as Madison did, depending on whether the action was for cause or not) would no longer be reserved to the States or the People by the express terms of the 10th Amendment. As such, there would be no reserved right to secede.
So, would such an amendment, if ever enacted, really deprive the People or the States of the right to revolt or secede? The answer is a resounding, "No." Why? Because the right to revolt is a "self-evident" right inherent in every social compact resulting in the formation of a government. That is what the Declaration of Independence was all about. That is what Madison was talking about, as discussed above. That is what Jefferson said elsewhere in his writings. In short, the Constitution could never prohibit the right to secede, even if it were to be explicitly stated in that document.
My point is that the 10th Amendment is too slender a reed upon which to hang the right of revolution. That right exists with or without the Constitution, and with or without any affirmative declaration or prohibition against the exercise of that right in it. It is the most fundamental right of any community of People to decide for themselves their own form of government and to change it if the government is destructive to the inherent rights of man. Until it is destructive, however, the People have a duty to preserve it.
...The secession/revolution of 1861 did not hold a candle to the revolution of 1776 as a revolution for cause. Interestingly enough, the most persuasive argument against secession, as well as the most persuasive argument as to why secession was wrong, came from none other than the Vice President of the CSA, Alexander H. "Little Alex" Stephens. He answered the arguments of Mr. Toombs persuasively before the Georgia Convention when he said Georgia still had a viable alternative in (1) remaining in the Union and fighting it out in Congress; and (2) enacting its own retaliatory legislation to combat the perceived abuses of the Northern States.
In the declaration of causes for secession, the States that furnished such causes gave two basic reasons for secession: (1) that Northern STATES did not abide by their bargain in the compact; and (2) that the newly elected executive was so hostile to the interests of the South that it was inevitable that he would further intensify the hostility. The first reason was no reason to leave the Union, because it did not complain about the federal government's failure to maintain the compact, and it did not say that any petition was made to rectify the problem, much less that the federal government would do nothing to solve the problem.
The second typical ground was no ground at all, given that Mr. Lincoln had, up to the time of the declaration of secession by several of the soon-to-be Confederate States, done nothing to establish the legitimacy of the view that he was so hostile to the interests of the South that he would carry through with the acts feared by the southern conventions. His first inaugural address should, instead, have laid those fears to rest.
So, given the above analysis, with which I am sure that Walt would agree in whole or in part, I genuinely doubt that Walt would agree, as you have said, that "the secession of 1861 had the same legal basis as the revolution of 1776 . . ." Assuming that Walt would agree with even the inherent right to revolt as expounded by Madison and Jefferson, I'm sure he would agree that a legitimate secession/revolution would have to be for cause, namely intolerable oppression, or that it would not be legitimate at all. Since the Southern States did not secede for a good cause, based on intolerable oppression which could not be redressed through the existing system, the grounds for secession did not form a legal basis for revolution.
Cheers y'all."
--From a newsgroup
Walt
Just shows how a lot of people can be so stupid to be manipulated by the the media. And in your case, willingly.
Ditto made some good points regarding the start of the Gulf War and Saddam's actions.
I had forgotten that he was badly in debt to Kuwait. As Ditto pointed out, a good way to repudiate that debt was to kill the bankers or destroy the banks. If you think about it, that is what the so-called CSA attempted too.
Yes, a May, 1861 act of the congress of the so-called CSA required that --private-- debt owed to --private-- creditors be paid directly to the rebel treasury. This amount was reckoned at over $200,000,000. In the event, partiotic fervor only brought in about $8,000,000. But the point is the same. Ambassador Glaspie gave Saddam a message -- the U.S. would be concerned about a use of force. He chose to ignore it.
President Lincoln sent the south a message in his inaugural address --"this government will constitutionally maintain itself." The slave power decided to ignore that. Hopefully, Saddam will yet regret his actions as much as the secessionists came to regret theirs, and he will be thrown down as low as they were.
But there is still a lot of unlovely baggage that attaches itself to Bush I.
He was fully conversant with all the trading of arms for hostages -- he denied that at the time, and got away with it. He was found out later. You may recall that he pardoned five convicted felons just before he left office. That was part of the Iran-Contra affair.
The nub of the Iran-Contra affair, as you may recall, was that the Reagan administration was shipping weapons to Iran and using the cash to fund the Contras. That was a blatant 'contra-vention' of the Constitution. I figured Bush was lying about his knowledge of that, and that alone was enough not to vote for him.
Walt
Sure it does - "whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state". Name one state that is not a member of the union, and explain how US law is enforcable there.
Sure it does - "whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state". Name one state that is not a member of the union, and explain how US law is enforcable there.
You are playing Monty Python's Black Knight to my King Arthur again. You have no arms or legs, but don't worry, it's just a scratch.
Walt
No state has even been out of the Union for a single minute. That is so because of the "Eagle-scream of patriotic fury" in 1861 that Dr. McPhersn spoke of.
Walt
Did you enlist to play dress-up? I don't think so - you enlisted knowing that you might see action. If and when it came, you were prepared to respond. You know full well that for you to experience combant, others might die. The Colonel next door has opined that enlistments are up since 11 Sep 2001, does that mean you denigrate all those enlistees?
Sorry, I don't own a playstation.
I just wanted to get through recruit training.
I'm sorry, again, that not enough Americans were killed ala Pearl Harbor or the WTC/Pentagon during the years you might have enlisted so that you felt conditions would be favorable for you to get combat experience.
Had you said that you would have enlisted had the country needed you, you'd be home free, but what you said makes you a laughing stock.
Walt
And every decision by the US Supreme Court is perfect and unfailing? Then you support the Dred Scott decision?
Justice Grier had his own opinion about the actions of the Confederacy - but the parties in question were never tried and convicted of treason.
Grier also notes that the Supreme Court had previously held that in case of civil war "[e]ach party is therefore deemed by us a belligerent nation, having, so far as concerns us, the sovereign rights of war.'"
In the Prize Cases Grier holds that the Confederacy is considered a nation, and in his dissent in Texas v. White, he asserts that the Confederate state of Texas is not a member of the Union.
Rosenberg was tried, convicted and found guilty in a court of law.
It is inconsistent to claim a right to secede under the 10th Amendment, while claiming the document no longer has any force or effect.
--From a newsgroup,
If that's true, then Article IV and VII have no force or effect for a states' ratification of the Constition prior to their membership.
I've avoid newsgroups.
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.