Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: WhiskeyPapa; Maelstrom
Now, Chisholm caused quite an uproar in 1793. The 11th emandment (sic) was added: and And the states' response? Nil.

The 11th, which prevented an individual from suing a state, was added in response to Chisholm v. Georgia. That's what the states wanted reinforced, and that's why there was no response.

Regarding the decision, the state of Georgia also prohibited any and all state officers from complying with the decision - any official so doing would be executed immediately, without the benefit of attending clergy.

1,187 posted on 11/22/2002 3:01:51 PM PST by 4CJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1175 | View Replies ]


To: 4ConservativeJustices
Now, Chisholm caused quite an uproar in 1793. The 11th emandment (sic) was added: and And the states' response?

Nil.

The 11th, which prevented an individual from suing a state, was added in response to Chisholm v. Georgia. That's what the states wanted reinforced, and that's why there was no response.

The Justices, In Chisholm, say that sovereign powers were transferred to the federal government, that for the purposes of Union, Georgia is -not- a sovereign state. The 11th amendment says nothing about any of this. No one had any question or cavil about these statements.

It was for another generation to lie about the nature of the compact, and later generations to wallow in that lie.

Walt

1,189 posted on 11/23/2002 3:06:16 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1187 | View Replies ]

To: 4ConservativeJustices
Regarding the decision, the state of Georgia also prohibited any and all state officers from complying with the decision - any official so doing would be executed immediately, without the benefit of attending clergy.

You are making Georgia a laughingstock here. Where are you getting that from?

Of course you know that Justice Story threatened to hold Virginia state justices in contempt in 1816, and they backed down. Everyone who has barked treason at the United States has backed down.

Walt

1,191 posted on 11/23/2002 3:15:41 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1187 | View Replies ]

To: 4ConservativeJustices
You do see what has happened here?

Walt has you arguing against the "intent" of the Constitution from his belief that it's "intent" was always tyrannical in nature.

Neither "intent" nor the written words of the Constitution can be interpreted as tyrannical except through the twisted vision of lawyering the document into a tool of destruction.
1,194 posted on 11/23/2002 7:54:26 AM PST by Maelstrom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1187 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson