Virginia County secretly removes Confederate flag from official seal

The Daily Press, Hampton Roads, VA ^ | March 2, 2006 | Associated Press

[Non-Sequitur]

If it didn't exist, how was it admitted?

The same process that created it in the first place.

[YourAdHere]

Bo and Luke won't be happy about this!

[Gianni]

So which banned freeper are you? I haven't seen some of this stuff in years... keep it coming, though.

The desire for a General Government which we call a "National" Government arose as early as The Albany Plan of Union in 1754 submitted by the colonies to the King. That desire grew althrough the rest of that century. American was a beloved and almost universally our people considered themselves "Americans".

The notion for a unified government in the American colonies was not originated by Americans, but by the English. You've gone from suggesting that Americans were unified in rebellion against the crown to speculation that the English made them that way. So now in takeitland, the English, by mere suggestion, created a national government in America, composed of Americans.

The American response, the Albany plan for Union, does not contain the word Americans.

Anywhere.

It is only after the Southern slaveowners degenerated from those who knew it was an Evil to those who praised it as a Good that the pernicious and false doctrine of state sovereignty grew to Traitorous proportions and unleashed the insanity of war upon the Nation.

Pure & simply false. When the revolution was won, the Treaty of Paris recognized 13 independent and sovereign states. This was the mode of operation that continued through the Articles of Confederation, which you would like to paint as something more than a treaty, but holds no real legal status above that, at least none that is not detectable only by it's super-legal normative aura. The Constitution revised said articles. In what should make Hamiltonians such as yourself hang your head, they were ultimately granted only limited powers, and Hamilton himself essentially admitted defeat in creation of a National government when he agreed to accept the ratification of New York and Virginia, which both explicitly spelled out the unspoken terms of the pact.

Let me repeat that for the 9.6E100th time: Hamilton and Madison agreed that there was nothing in the ratification documents that was not an inherent to the pact itself, that the agreement did not revoke the right to resume the power of self-government. You would like to interpret the Constitution in light of some super-legal, metaphysical normative aura, as Farber does, but the black and white is as plain as can be, and there is no room for misinterpretation.

WE the Delegates of the People of the State of New York, duly elected and Met in Convention, having maturely considered the Constitution for the United States of America, agreed to on the seventeenth day of September, in the year One thousand Seven hundred and Eighty seven, by the Convention then assembled at Philadelphia in the Common-wealth of Pennsylvania (a Copy whereof precedes these presents) and having also seriously and deliberately considered the present situation of the United States, Do declare and make known.

That all Power is originally vested in and consequently derived from the People, and that Government is instituted by them for their common Interest Protection and Security.

That the enjoyment of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness are essential rights which every Government ought to respect and preserve.

That the Powers of Government may be reassumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness; that every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the departments of the Government thereof, remains to the People of the several States, or to their respective State Governments to whom they may have granted the same; And that those Clauses in the said Constitution, which declare, that Congress shall not have or exercise certain Powers, do not imply that Congress is entitled to any Powers not given by the said Constitution; but such Clauses are to be construed either as exceptions to certain specified Powers, or as inserted merely for greater Caution.

That is what Hamilton was pushing. That later men took advantage of their power is no great victory, as you would have others believe.

[Gianni]

Maybe you should read 1180 by takeit, he insists that the inhabitants created it, just as was the case with the original 13.

[Non-Sequitur]

Maybe you should read 1180 by takeit, he insists that the inhabitants created it, just as was the case with the original 13.

That's not what he's saying at all.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Anyone inclined to believe your LIE can easily check my history. I have never been banned or even suspended but for an hour.

The Albany plan was from the 12 colonies then existing and called for a General government over the whole. It was written by Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Hutchinson who were Americans. Your red herring of a "unified" government and the rest of the non-responsive fantasy do not change that. And of course your claim that the War was not won by a National resistance is too foolish to even bother with. Americans was what the colonists called themselves for at least a decade prior to the outbreak of War.

The Treaty recognized the NATION called the United States of America. Identifying the states which composed that NATION did not change the fact that it was a NATION which had negotiated the treaty. Desperation to find any support for the abomination of secession grasps as the slenderest of threads to hang on but this one would not hold up a gnat's nuts.

It is a flat out LIE that the NY or Virginia ratifications stipulated ANYTHING allowing secession or that Hamilton was defeated in NY. His VICTORY over the Clintonians was manifest and TOTAL wherein the pernicious "conditional" ratification (a right of secession) was EXPLICITLY rejected.

Nor is your description of Hamilton's view of the Constitution correct. He would have NEVER supported secession particularly one initiated by open warfare upon the United States. What kind of fool would believe that a man anxious to invade Pennsylvania because it tarred and feathered federal tax collectors is going to just shrug his shoulders when US military installations are ATTACKED in an armed insurrection?

It matters not how many times you trot out the LIE that there was ANY right to leave the Union, Madison's words explicitly deny that state "sovereignty" extended any further than its borders and that the Constitution was predicated upon renouncing of ANY idea of states with FULL sovereignty. He also demonstrates that such a thing had NEVER existed in the history of the United States.

Every time you trot out such stupid LIES they will be countered. I have posted Madison's own words without any comprehension on the part of those determined to lie for the Traitorous cause of secession.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Your quote from the NY convention in no way implies the State of NY has ANY ability or right to resume a sovereignty which it NEVER had.

The Theoretic description of all power flowing from the people does not mean any State has the right to contravene the instrument of that People, the Constitution. It only means that the American people can resume the power to change the document or get rid of it. This certainly gives NO state the right to fire on American troops.

The description of the state's retention of some sovereignty within the state is seperated from the description of the People's right to change their government. The first part of the sentence speaks of the "People" (the American people) while the second specifies the "...People of the several states..."

And the silly claim that because the non-existent right of secession is not expressly forbidden it is allowed is as ludicrous as the claim that because the power to enforce borders is not expressly affirmed it is forbidden.

[4CJ]

Your quote from the NY convention in no way implies the State of NY has ANY ability or right to resume a sovereignty which it NEVER had.

Bravo Sierra and John Brown! From the Articles of Confederation, '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.'

Each state - independent of all others, retained its sovereignty not expressly delegated. The remainder was DELEGATED (meaning the state possessed it previously). It's simple math: 99%^sovereign + 1%^sovereign = 100%^sovereign.

[Gianni]

He said exactly what I did, and what you're arguing with:

Alabama was admitted on petition from the people.

[Non-Sequitur]

Alabama was admitted on petition from the people.

And if Congress had ignored the petition of the people then was Alabama a state? Colorado and Nebraska and Kansas are three examples where the people petitioned for statehood, created Constitutions, the whole nine yards and Congress refused to admit them. So where they states? Of course not. They were territories until Congress created them as states.

[Gianni]

The Treaty recognized the NATION called the United States of America.

I've posted it to you at least twice on this thread, and I know that I've posted it to you on other threads as well.

The treaty recognized thirteen sovereign states. Your repeated posting to the contrary has gone beyond amusement into severe annoyance. You're more like a chihuahua with a firm grip on the hem of my pants than someone capable of sustaining an argument.

Article 1

His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof.

Identifying the states which composed that NATION did not change the fact that it was a NATION which had negotiated the treaty.

And using capital letters does not make that statement any more true or less rediculous than it has been over and over, my little taco-bell dog friend. The treaty was approved by the states unamimously via their representatives in the Continental Congress, but neither his Brittanic Majesty nor the CC did not pretend that they had the power to coerce the states or bargain away the spoils of war, which is why the treaty repeatedly petitions the CC to request of the states for reinstatement of property and freedom to move among the several states.

Article 5 It is agreed that Congress shall earnestly recommend it to the legislatures of the respective states to provide for the restitution of all estates, rights, and properties, which have been confiscated belonging to real British subjects; and also of the estates, rights, and properties of persons resident in districts in the possession on his Majesty's arms and who have not borne arms against the said United States. And that persons of any other decription shall have free liberty to go to any part or parts of any of the thirteen United States and therein to remain twelve months unmolested in their endeavors to obtain the restitution of such of their estates, rights, and properties as may have been confiscated; and that Congress shall also earnestly recommend to the several states a reconsideration and revision of all acts or laws regarding the premises, so as to render the said laws or acts perfectly consistent not only with justice and equity but with that spirit of conciliation which on the return of the blessings of peace should universally prevail. And that Congress shall also earnestly recommend to the several states that the estates, rights, and properties, of such last mentioned persons shall be restored to them, they refunding to any persons who may be now in possession the bona fide price (where any has been given) which such persons may have paid on purchasing any of the said lands, rights, or properties since the confiscation. And it is agreed that all persons who have any interest in confiscated lands, either by debts, marriage settlements, or otherwise, shall meet with no lawful impediment in the prosecution of their just rights.

It is a flat out LIE that the NY or Virginia ratifications stipulated ANYTHING allowing secession or that Hamilton was defeated in NY.

All one has to do is read their ratification documents, as I posted them, and see you go into a hissy-fit of capitalization. You lost this argument long ago, I'm just hanging around to see if you implode now.

The Theoretic description of all power flowing from the people

Watch it now... you're heading down the same path you took before, where the Constitution was nothing but a hoax perpetrated by power-hungry nationalists who staged a silent coup in it's aftermath to grow federal power. Does the thing mean what it says, or only what takeit tells us?

The first part of the sentence speaks of the "People" (the American people) while the second specifies the "...People of the several states..."

You're channeling Farber again, and what you say is no less nonsense than the idea that there existed a metaphysical union with a secret legal potency detectable only by its normative aura. If, as you say, New York was able to speak for the American People, South Carolina was no less wrong to do so 80 years later.

[Gianni]

You don't seem to understand. They're not petitioning Congress for a name... they're petitioning congress for equal footing in the republic.

[Non-Sequitur]

You don't seem to understand. They're not petitioning Congress for a name... they're petitioning congress for equal footing in the republic.

No, you don't understand. They're coming, hat in hand, to the other states asking to be admitted. To, in effect, be created as a state. And the other states may, through their representatives in Congress, say no. Until Congress says yes then they have no status in the body politic. They are a territory, without elective representation unless Congress gives it's OK. They aren't in the same league as a state much less equal footing.

[Non-Sequitur]

The treaty recognized thirteen sovereign states.

Who signed the treaty? Representatives from each individual 'sovereign' state? Or representatives from the United States?

[justshutupandtakeit]

Your quote has no bearing upon the NY convention remark.

While even in the Articles of Confederation and PERPETUAL UNION the states did not maintain much REAL sovereignty it was diminished far more under the Constitution. Diminished so much that any pretense of full sovereignty was destroyed as the Union became even stronger and the Nation became far more defined. Madison destroyed the pretence of any FULL Sovereignty ever existing in the States.

The only sovereignty not delegated by the States was the small remnant which allowed it to IN SOME INSTANCES establish laws affecting its citizens. But almost every important power of government was placed in the hands of the federal government which could not be resumed through any means short of amendment. They had as much sovereignty as a county or township might have from a state. Or even less.

How does a State without control of foreign policy, judicial policy, monetary policy, trade policy, the right of confederation or treaty, the right to keep troops or found a Navy or to engage in War claim it is "sovereign" when it is obvious that it is not even close?

America came out of the Revolutionary War (the AMERICAN Revolution) as a NATION not a mere gaggle of petty states. It took some time to create the proper FORM of that Union and Nation but the intention to do just that NEVER left our Founders.

The Tenth amendment makes it clear some powers cannot be reassumed: "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."
Thus certain powers (most of the important ones) CANNOT be "reserved" to the States. ONLY the remnant of powers which were not delegated nor prohibited are reserved. ONLY undelegated and non-prohibited are left to the States.

My prior statements are affirmed and supported.

[Gianni]

No, you don't understand. They're coming, hat in hand, to the other states asking to be admitted. To, in effect, be created as a state. And the other states may, through their representatives in Congress, say no. Until Congress says yes then they have no status in the body politic. They are a territory, without elective representation unless Congress gives it's OK. They aren't in the same league as a state much less equal footing.

Right, and once admitted are on equal footing with the remainder of the states, be they any of the original 13 or not. The denial of statehood at times throughout our history reinforces what I'm saying, and certainly the admission of states in pairs prior to the war backs the notion that all shared equally in the republic.

Of course you're twisting, claiming that somehow I implied equal footing for territories, when that was never said. In addition to history being on my side, I also have the good fortune to point out your need to twist what has been said and make things up in order to attempt to further your argument. People understand that such tactics are the last ditch in a hopeless pursuit of a flawed argument, and are free to make their own determination as to who it is that's changing their story at the 11th hour.

[justshutupandtakeit]

I realize the mania you have for posting long irrelevant quotes in the belief some know nothing newbie might be impressed but for those who have knowledge about these matters they are nothing but thread clogging balderdash.

Congress approved the treaty negotiated for the UNITED States of America. Naming the states within the Union has little significance except to those who must grasp at every straw.

Apparently you labor under (yet another) delusion that the fact that Congress did not have the power to summarily change all State laws indicates that we were not a Nation. Congress STILL does not possess that power. This silliness is easily seen through since there was NO federal judicial power hence there was nothing else it could do at that time wrt the treaty provisions than "recommend" legislative changes.

NONE of the ratification documents say what you claim they say that is just a lie. The ability of the DSs to read these documents and almost without exception not understand them is astonishing.

The constitution does not say what it tells you. Your fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the reasons for writing it, and the document itself means you will never understand what it says without a fundamental recognition that we are speaking of a UNION a NATION composed of elements called states. Not a gaggle of states tenuously held together by a treaty among equals.
NY was speaking as a fragment of the American People in the first instance which does not prevent it from speaking as the people of NY in the second. The grammatical construction makes that meaning clear. And to compare a perfidious attack on United States military forces with this clear statement by the NY Convention is beyond ridiculous even stand-like.

[Gianni]

Who signed the treaty? Representatives from each individual 'sovereign' state? Or representatives from the United States?

Red Herring. Signing the treaty meant nothing until approved by the representatives of each individual 'sovereign' state.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Your delusions are overwhelming any significance in your posts. You just went through a complete misstatement of what I said and argued with NS about how your misstatement was really what I said then are forced to admit that Alabama had NO original sovereignty and is ENTIRELY a state ONLY because Congress said it could be which is what NS and I have said all along.

Then you try and make it appear that the admission of states in pairs early in our history has something to do with their "equality" to other states when all but the most numb of numb-nuts knows that the pairing was done in an attempt to balance the Free and Slave state power in the Congress. It had NOTHING to do with state "equality".

[4CJ]

The Tenth amendment makes it clear some powers cannot be reassumed: "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." Thus certain powers (most of the important ones) CANNOT be "reserved" to the States. ONLY the remnant of powers which were not delegated nor prohibited are reserved. ONLY undelegated and non-prohibited are left to the States. My prior statements are affirmed and supported.

I don't know about your education, but your reading COMPREHENSION is 0.

For example, you write, 'The Tenth amendment makes it clear some powers cannot be reassumed:' but you conclusion is a fallacy - the 10th simply delineates the proper sphere of authority - it is positively silent on PROHIBITING resumption. It states that the federal powers were DELEGATED by the states (so who is the SOVEREIGN????????).

"The powers not delegated [all unenumerated powers, note that delegated is NOT surrendered]
to the United [united - MORE than a single entity]
States [PLURAL, not singular]
by the Constitution, [the ENUMERATED powers delegated from the SOVEREIGNS - the STATES to the federal government]
NOR PROHIBITED BY IT [the ENUMERATED powers not prohibited within the Constitution]
TO THE STATES, [again, PLURAL]
are reserved to the States respectively, [once again PLURAL, the corporate powers exercised by states are reserved to states respectively (ratifying)]
or to the people [individual rights not prohibited are reserved to INDIVIDUALS]."

The sovereigns - the people within multiple states - INDIVIDUALLY - delegated powers to the federal government. ALL powers not delegated by the Constitution to the federal government, AND ALL those corporate/individual powers not prohibited to the states/individuals are retained by the states/individuals.

It's really simple.