Posted on 06/14/2004 5:16:34 AM PDT by Theodore R.
We still are united, despite what Dan Rather, CNN and John Kerry say..
Sobran is right.
bumping for later
Dixie Ping!
we lost our states Rights, and a wonderful federalist system was born, just what the founding fathers wanted to avoid.
I want to know what it would take to secede from a state, or how to form our own county.
bttt
Then some of the southern counties could have "seceded" from West Virginia ...
... and then some of the northern townships of the "seceded" counties ...
... until, finally, Roger Snodgrass seceded from the secessionist seceded counties and formed his own country, including all four acres of the bottomland down by the river.
I have not heard too reference to individual counties (or parts of counties) seceding from a state, but one in AL did -- Winston Co. -- during the Civil War. And Lincoln did not take exception to that secession, as I recall.
Sobran is not even close to being right.
If the southern state Delegates to the Constitutional Convention wanted the right to secede - they should have put it in the Constitution.
Gee, they just laid to rest the last Civil War widow 139 years after the last bullet was fired; maybe Sobran can lay it to rest, too, some day.
Perhaps but the leftists of the world would just LOOOOOVE the United States to be broken up. In fact among the EU elites they look at the united states as if it was literally still nationstates united, even in this day and age. They can't figure out how their parlimentary central government can't take federal control of the members.
I believe the founding fathers have always envisioned the Republic. Consider how the Feds speak for all with ONE unifying voice. There is no california ambasador in Saudi arabia. There is no Michigan currency.
Does anyone remember what the USSR did to America in the old miniseries AmeriKa? Broke the states up. A john kerry wet dream if republicans gain vetoproof control.
More specifically, the 10th amendment was invalidated by the 14th amendment.
(Proposed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868)
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;
Up to this point, the federal Congress had no legislative jurisdiction within the boundaries of a sovereign state except as described in Art I, Section 8, Cl 17 (the purchase of state land by the federal Congress with the state's permission) and Art VI, Section 2 (laws enacted to implement the terms of a treaty then become the law of the land).
Even Art I, Section 8, Cl 3 (the commerce clasue) had not been judicially "expanded" at the time immediately following the end of the war of northern aggression against the sounthern states (that happened in 1942)granting legislative jurisdiction to the federal congress within the boundaries of a sovereign state.
Senator Stevens said it:"NANCY IS ONE OF THE FINEST FIRST LADIES THESE UNITED STATES HAVE EVER KNOWN." at Reagan's eulogy
Oh, I agree that none did .. except for the northern counties of Virginia becoming West Virginia. And I'm not saying that there is not a certain amount of hypocrisy on the part of the Northern States. However, where does the right to "secede" end. If carried to its logical conclusion, there is no end, meaning that any county, township, city, or conglomeration of families could secede from whatever larger area grouping they belonged to, becoming "independent" countries.
You made THE salient point. Thanks.
Article VI, Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
FACT of the matter is that Mr. Snodgrass, like everyone of us, lost his individual rights to Lincoln's concept of union.
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.