Posted on 02/17/2006 5:47:19 PM PST by Mobile Vulgus
I don't know how many of you get the Federalist Patriot report via email, but it is a great source of conservative news and opinion that all of you should get.
You can find their site at:
http://patriotpost.us/
Anyway, even though I support them, they sent out an email today that bashed Abe Lincoln fiercely. I was so moved to annoyance by their biased and ill thought out email that I had to write them and say how disappointed I was.
You can go to their site and see the anti-Lincoln screed that they put out to know exactly what I am replying to if you desire to do so.
Now, I know some of you freepers are primo confederate apologists so I thought this would stir debate on freerepublic!!
Now, let the fur fly as we KNOW it must...
I think it has nothing to do with Secession
i.e.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
and nowhere in the Constitution does it give the Federal Government the right to prevent a state from leaving the Union.
If it did, we would not be having this discussion. It has never been clearly laid out because it has never existed.
Ever
The first amendment is the ONLY one which specifically makes reference to restricting only the powers of the Federal government. Why would the 1st Amendment be structured the way it is if the rest of the Bill of Rights was also intended to restrict only the powers of the Federal government?
Because 'Congress shall make no law' IS in the first Amendment, it makes it clear the other Amendments are also a restriction on Congress. It is the Bill of Rights for the federal enclave of Washington D.C.
If an Amendment has anything to do with a legislative body other than Congress, it says so...just like the earlier example of the word 'State' in the 6th and 10th Amendments.
------
"Shall not be infringed" is an absolute. That means NO ONE can infringe. The Constitution is set up to limit and apportion the various powers of the government among the branches of the Federal government and the States. So, how could the phrase "shall not be infringed" NOT apply to the government in its entirety.
Because the States had the same provisions in their Constitutions as well.
Think about it..If the federal BOR was originally intended to cover the States, WHY did every state have almost exactly the same BOR? Why not just have written one and been done with it?
Because other than specifically enumerated authority of the Constitution, Congresses actual function was to serve as legislature for the federal enclave just like the state legislatures serve for the States.
------
But if the government be national with regard to the operation of its powers, it changes its aspect again when we contemplate it in relation to the extent of its powers. The idea of a national government involves in it, not only an authority over the individual citizens, but an indefinite supremacy over all persons and things, so far as they are objects of lawful government. Among a people consolidated into one nation, this supremacy is completely vested in the national legislature. Among communities united for particular purposes, it is vested partly in the general and partly in the municipal legislatures. In the former case, all local authorities are subordinate to the supreme; and may be controlled, directed, or abolished by it at pleasure. In the latter, the local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority, than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere. In this relation, then, the proposed government cannot be deemed a national one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other objects. It is true that in controversies relating to the boundary between the two jurisdictions, the tribunal which is ultimately to decide, is to be established under the general government. But this does not change the principle of the case. The decision is to be impartially made, according to the rules of the Constitution; and all the usual and most effectual precautions are taken to secure this impartiality.
-------
The indispensable necessity of complete authority at the seat of government, carries its own evidence with it. It is a power exercised by every legislature of the Union, I might say of the world, by virtue of its general supremacy. Without it, not only the public authority might be insulted and its proceedings interrupted with impunity; but a dependence of the members of the general government on the State comprehending the seat of the government, for protection in the exercise of their duty, might bring on the national councils an imputation of awe or influence, equally dishonorable to the government and dissatisfactory to the other members of the Confederacy. This consideration has the more weight, as the gradual accumulation of public improvements at the stationary residence of the government would be both too great a public pledge to be left in the hands of a single State, and would create so many obstacles to a removal of the government, as still further to abridge its necessary independence. The extent of this federal district is sufficiently circumscribed to satisfy every jealousy of an opposite nature And as it is to be appropriated to this use with the consent of the State ceding it; as the State will no doubt provide in the compact for the rights and the consent of the citizens inhabiting it; as the inhabitants will find sufficient inducements of interest to become willing parties to the cession; as they will have had their voice in the election of the government which is to exercise authority over them; as a municipal legislature for local purposes, derived from their own suffrages, will of course be allowed them; and as the authority of the legislature of the State, and of the inhabitants of the ceded part of it, to concur in the cession, will be derived from the whole people of the State in their adoption of the Constitution, every imaginable objection seems to be obviated.
Same speech, different interpretation:
You already read that but chose to ignore it.
We've got two interpretations of the same speech on this thread. You prefer one, I prefer the truthful one.
-----------------
You have every right to consult and take to heart all the crackpots and eccentrics you wish and to use the canned misinterpretations they post but don't expect to convince anyone capable of rational thought.
ROFLMELAO!
Redundant little booger, aren't you? You used almost the exact same wording on the above thread.
Yet you again have contributed nothing. No sources, no precedent, no quotes from Montesquieu, Blackstone, Jay or anyone else. Just your own pathetic ramblings with nothing to back it up.
-----------------
Well, you have your source for what you've said.
You clear have no interest in FREEDOM or TRUTH, only the affirmation of your own, erroneous beliefs.
Guess some folks are just so comfortable in their slavery they refuse to see it for what it really is, and absolutely panic when anyone tries to draw their attention to it.
Good day.
Not only is Walter Williams not a "premier" conservative mind, Walter Williams is not even a conservative. He is a libertarian. There is a big difference between conservatives and libertarians. They are not the same even if many think so since both conservatives and libertarians are opposed to the leftist "progressives" who call themselves liberals -- (a complete bastardization of a once honorable title, but that's another discussion.)
Well you've got some explaining to do. The author I excerpted from is a worshipper as well. Two Jaffites fighting over what he really meant? I don't care. He was quite clear in his intent and meaning
What unconstitutional action caused Georgia and Florida to leave the Union?
Because we have the context. The line is from Lincoln's 1848 speech decrying US aggression against Mexico, and specifically saying that the border of Texas was where they established it to be militarily. Here's the immediate context:
"If, as is probably true, Texas was exercising jurisdiction along the western bank of the Nueces, and Mexico was exercising it along the eastern bank of the Rio Grande, then neither river was the boundary; but the uninhabited country between the two, was. The extent of our teritory in that region depended, not on any treaty-fixed boundary (for no treaty had attempted it) but on revolution.
Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable,-- most sacred right--a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government, may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much of the teritory as they inhabit.
More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movement. Such minority, was precisely the case, of the tories of our own revolution. It is a quality of revolutions not to go by old lines, or old laws; but to break up both, and make new ones.
As to the country now in question, we [allegedly] bought it of France in 1803 [France did not own it, could not sell it!!], and sold it to Spain in 1819, according to the President's statements.
After this, all Mexico, including Texas, revolutionized against Spain; and still later, Texas revolutionized against Mexico. In my view, just so far as she carried her revolution, by obtaining the actual, willing or unwilling, submission of the people, so far, the country was hers, and no farther.
http://medicolegal.tripod.com/lincolnvmexwar.htm
So, Lincoln is talking about the Texas revolution, and he uses the word "revolution"or some form of it eight times in that passage. He isn't remotely speaking of the constitutionality of secession.
Greetings.
I have been seeking the final arbiter of truth for many years.
I am glad I have finally found you.
That's cool. I did not realize that Mr. Williams was a Libertarian. I enjoy his writings, but am not a regular reader of his so I guess I just never read anything where he had declared his Libertarian leanings. I suppose I should have suspected.
Thanks for pointing that out. Now I have even more regard for him than I previously did.
Thanks. I had never seen the entire passage before.
I guess we are agreed that King George was during the war neither mad nor immoderate in his means. His Government tolerated a very open anti-war movement in Parliament and the country. The newspapers published casualty lists throughtout the war in order to prove to the public that the matter should be given up. The Government quite rightly regarded our efforts as a rebellion, and in the event our goals were achieved by the force of arms. Had he succeeded, we probably would view him as favorably as today we view George Washington.
If it's a contract, it's the funniest looking contract I have ever seen. The Constitution is not a contract. It is an incorporation document that spells out the duties, structure and workings of the national government including a strong executive and superiority of national over state laws and explicitly declares that the constitutions of the states states must conform to it, not the other way around.
If you see it as a contract, you can only then be of the anti-Federalist (anti-Constitution) camp since the constitution puts itself above state constitutions which is the reason the anti-Federalists opposed adoption.
That's telling him!
By the way, thanks for the discussion on the Bill of Rights.
I guess I would find the idea of the Bill of Rights NOT applying to the States easier to accept if the Federal government was actually being run in accordance with the ideas expressed in the highlighted passages from the Federalist which you cite.
I tend to interpret our Constitution quite literally. So, since the Second Amendment doesn't actually contain the words "Congress shall make no law infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms", and instead simply says the right "shall not be infringed", I assume it applies to the entirety of our government(s).
You, at least, have provided a coherent argument to the contrary which I shall digest and consider. Thanks again.
To presume that since the right to unilateral secession exists because it is not explicitly forbidden, then you must also assume that the Federal government had a unilateral right to expel any state, even against its wishes, since that is also not explicitly forbidden.
In other words by your reading of the Constitution, the Federal Government could have "traded" Georgia to Spain or Great Britain for say Mexico or Canada, and the people of Georgia would have no say in the matter.
My sympathies. I have found Libertarians to be somewhat like campus leftists --- very long on high-minded theory and very short on common sense.
Any document of the scope of the Constitution will not be easily accessible to those who don't know what they are reading. It is merely a pretense that it is simple. Anyone wishing to understand it must study it intensely for years. My understanding is greater than most of those commenting on it here but I don't pretend to be an expert.
However, those arguing with me generally are clueless as to what it really means. "Unconstitutional" to them just means they don't like something. There are many true experts who disagree with each other. But I can assure you that you will find none on the crackpot sites the Defenders of Slaverocracy depend on to make their pathetic arguments.
"To presume that since the right to unilateral secession exists because it is not explicitly forbidden, then you must also assume that the Federal government had a unilateral right to expel any state, even against its wishes, since that is also not explicitly forbidden."
Nothing in the Constitution gives the Federal Government the power to prevent states from Seceding.
Nothing in the Constitution gives the Federal Government the power to trade ANY state to any country.
The power of the States is legally defined (as is the power of the Federal Government) in the Document called the Constitution.
You need to study it.
O_o
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.