Virginia County secretly removes Confederate flag from official seal

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

[Rebeleye]

The removal of the Confederate flag from Amherst County's official seal has upset Southern heritage groups, who contend residents weren't told of the change. County officials acknowledge the image was quietly removed in August 2004 to avoid an uproar.

[Gianni]

Nonsense. In your babbling you overlook the fact that the United States was recognized by other sovereign nations while the confederacy was not,

And now you're back to France and Spain creating the US from thin air. Good luck with that.

[Non-Sequitur]

And now you're back to France and Spain creating the US from thin air. Good luck with that.

Which is different from the US being created by King George how?

[justshutupandtakeit]

In over half a dozen of the Federalist Papers Hamilton shows how a federation of sovereign states always ended in disaster. This was one of the prime reasons that the Constitution was written and ratified. It is absurd to pretend that the surrender of sovereignty (in theory as well as fact) could be obviated by the Tenth amendment. It would have defeated the entire purpose of the Constitution and is, therefore, utterly impossible and contradictory.

All ratifying the Tenth amendment knew that it referred ONLY to "local and particular" matters NOTHING "national". And, Yes, Madison did "appease the States" with the Tenth since they were worried about disruption of the their internal sovereign powers by the National government. That worry was removed by the Tenth amendment.

Changing the national government structure was in NO way secession. The Union remained just as perpetual only its FORM was changed. This has been pointed out repeatedly and conveniently ignored every time.

Federal, National, General are all interchangeable terms for the government which was SOVEREIGN. Almost all the attributes of TRUE sovereignty rested with the National government. Madison goes through a careful analysis in the Federalist of the new form which was a mixture of National, federal and points out the false usage of the terms National and "consolidated" against the Constitution. This has ALSO been pointed out repeatedly and repeatedly you folks keep pretending that we do not have a National government. This can only be dishonesty.

The American People were called BY CONGRESS to convention in states. States were EXPLICITLY prevented from making the decision to ratify the Constitution. And they have NO power to change it.

Madison's letter to Hamilton where he told the latter that "The Constitution requires an adoption IN TOTO and FOREVER....ANY condition whatever must vitiate the ratification." is in his collected letters. John C. Millier and others reference it as well in their writings on Hamilton. This has also been REPEATEDLY pointed out. Not only am I not lying but found the fact that Madison had to buck up Hamilton to be fascinating since the latter was on the verge of surrendering the point of conditional ratification which would have meant secession would have been legal. But it shows that M was at least as Nationalistic as H in 1788.

The justices were referring to the period before the Constitution as the time of secession not after.

Secession is the OPPOSITE of a strong Union to strengthen which was the ENTIRE reason the Constitution was written as the Federalist shows over and over. Example after example is referenced to show the impossibility of sovereign states maintaining their sovereignty within a Union strong enough to survive. Hamilton's conclusion in FP 20 nails down this issue with finality "The important truth, which it unequivocally pronounces in the present case, is that a sovereignty over sovereigns, a government over governments, a legislation for communities, as contra-distinguished from individuals, as it is a solecism in theory, so in practice it is subversive of the order and ends of civil polity, by substituting VIOLENCE in place of LAW, or the destructive COERCION of the SWORD in place of the mild and salutary COERCION of the MAGISTRACY." (Hamilton's emphasis)

By federal law and power reaching out to individuals within the states rather than work only through the states the pretensions of state sovereignty are utterly destroyed.

So you believe by changing the word I used INSURRECTION to "rebellion" allows you to refute what I said? LoL. But that pathetic piece of perfidy falls flat on its face since Insurrection and Rebellion are synonyms as a glace at the Thesaurus shows.

Your claim that the use of federal force against a state is also not supportable from the facts and the federalist when the WHOLE record is examined. And it is irrelevant in any case since there is NOT ONE WORD at the Convention or in the Constitution forbidding the President from responding to attacks upon federal forces and installations. For the President NOT to do so would be a violation of his oath.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Only if it is not a cheap parody would I have any interest.
Writing songs to support a LIE is difficult.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Note that Mr. Page considered Rhode Island still to be a "sister state" not a foreign nation.

[justshutupandtakeit]

the quote should have said "the pretended Confederate States of America" but it was clear that the wording was to prevent grandpa from rejoining the enemy of the Union.

[Gianni]

Which is different from the US being created by King George how?

Because King George was the legitimate authority over the states prior to independence. It was the American states that demanded independence from King George and subsequently won it by warring against him. The treaty of Paris, in turn, recognizes a negotiated peace with thirteen independent states.

Now you insisted that they won independence as a country and then point to a series of events in which the states acted in unison. I have asked a simple question, which act made them a country and not a collection of states? Did they know?

In response you've skirted the issue to the point where none of acts taken on the part of the states mattered, but the acts of Spain and France.

[Gianni]

It cannot be a secret to the gentlemen in this House, that, notwithstanding the ratification of this system of Government by eleven of the thirteen United States, in some cases unanimously, in others by large majorities; yet still there is a great number of our constituents who are dissatisfied with it; among whom are many respectable for their talents and patriotism, and respectable for the jealousy they have for their liberty, which, though mistaken in its object, is honorable in its motive. There is a great body of the people falling under this description, who at present feel much inclined to join their support to the cause of Federalism, if they were satisfied on this one point. We ought not to disregard their inclination, but, on principles of amity and moderation, conform to their wishes and expressly declare the great rights of mankind secured under this constitution. The acceptance which our fellow-citizens show under the Government, calls upon us for a like return of moderation. But perhaps there is a stronger motive than this for our going into a consideration of the subject. It is to provide those securities for liberty which are required by a part of the community: I allude in a particular manner to those two States that have not thought fit to throw themselves into the bosom of the Confederacy. It is a desirable thing, on our part as well as theirs, that a re-union should take place as soon as possible. I have no doubt, if we proceed to take those steps which would be prudent and requisite at this juncture, that in a short time we should see that disposition prevailing in those States which have not come in, that we have seen prevailing in those States which have embraced the constitution.

James Madison - introduction of the bill of rights to the Congress

Note that Mr. Page considered Rhode Island still to be a "sister state" not a foreign nation.

Note that Mr Madison did not.

The amendments which have occurred to me, proper to be recommended by Congress to the State Legislatures, are these:

First, That there be prefixed to the constitution a declaration, that all power is originally rested in, and consequently derived from, the people.

That Government is instituted and ought to be exercised for the benefit of the people; which consists in the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the right of acquiring and using property, and generally of pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

That the people have an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform or change their Government, whenever it be found adverse or inadequate to the purposes of its institution.

Proposed Amendments to the Constitution - James Madison

Hmmm.... what do you suppose that means?

The exceptions here or elsewhere in the constitution, made in favor of particular rights, shall not be so construed as to diminish the just importance of other rights retained by the people, or as to enlarge the powers delegated by the constitution; but either as actual limitations of such powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution.

[...]

It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow, by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard urged against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.

[...]

I find, from looking into the amendments proposed by the State conventions, that several are particularly anxious that it should be declared in the constitution, that the powers not therein delegated should be reserved to the several States. Perhaps words which may define this more precisely than the whole of the instrument now does, may be considered as superflous. I admit they may be deemed unnecessary: but there can be no harm in making such a declaration, if gentlemen will allow that the fact is as stated. I am sure I understand it so, and do therefore propose it. [Gianni note: Where is all that talk about 'local power'?]

James Madison - introduction of the Bill of Rights

[Non-Sequitur]

Because King George was the legitimate authority over the states prior to independence. It was the American states that demanded independence from King George and subsequently won it by warring against him. The treaty of Paris, in turn, recognizes a negotiated peace with thirteen independent states.

Then we're back to logical outcome of this odd train of thought. Since the federal government had legitimate authority over the southern states then there was no way they could become a sovereign nation until Lincoln said so. How lame is that?

[justshutupandtakeit]

Madison understood as did all the others that the situation with Rhode Island and North Carolina was an anomaly which would be straightened out. He did not think of them as foreign states. Though I am not sure what point you believe you were addressing through that quote.

Madison, like all the Founders, believed that the People could change their governments. Who claims otherwise? He did NOT believe that factions within states or regions could change the shape of the Union through unconstitutional means. He did not believe that forces of the United States could be attacked without response.

One can claim a belief in a "right" of secession only be completely ignoring the Federalist while placing all faith in an interpretation of the 10th amendment which is completely at odds with the views of Hamilton, Washington, Madison, Marshall and all other significant interpreters of the Constitution. I have quoted quote after quote IN CONTEXT from Hamilton and Madison which utterly demolish any idea that sufficient state sovereignty remained after ratification to authorize secession.

[justshutupandtakeit]

These folks refuse to accept the fact that the United States was a nation much less a sovereign nation and that the American people even existed. They cling to the pretense that the Constitution was a contract between the States (while ignoring the legal meaning of such) while utterly ignoring the FACT that it was DESIGNED to personally operate upon individual citizens. It was SPECIFICALLY designed that way to destroy any illusions of state sovereignty.

They must ignore 99% of history and grasp at such absurdities as a treaty naming the states is proof that there was no nation called the United States of America. When it should be obvious that the naming of those states was merely a means of identifying the territories so as to protect English and French imperial claims on the North American continent. And it was a subtle means of undermining the concept of the USA as a Nation.

In similiar fashion they are prone to inflating the importance of dated grammatic construction and case into major issues rather than examples of archaic ways of expression. No triviality is too trivial to have them grasping desperately at it in support of an invalid claim.

[RouxStir]

Slavery was legal in the US when the stars 'n' bars was first used...so do we ban the US flag?

[Gianni]

Then we're back to logical outcome of this odd train of thought. Since the federal government had legitimate authority over the southern states then there was no way they could become a sovereign nation until Lincoln said so. How lame is that?

I think that's the right question to be asking, at least.

[Gianni]

Madison understood as did all the others that the situation with Rhode Island and North Carolina was an anomaly which would be straightened out. He did not think of them as foreign states. Though I am not sure what point you believe you were addressing through that quote.

No. Quote Madison and "all the others" saying that the situation with Rhode Island was an anomaly which would be straightened out.

I allude in a particular manner to those two States that have not thought fit to throw themselves into the bosom of the Confederacy. It is a desirable thing, on our part as well as theirs, that a re-union should take place as soon as possible. I have no doubt, if we proceed to take those steps which would be prudent and requisite at this juncture, that in a short time we should see that disposition prevailing in those States which have not come in, that we have seen prevailing in those States which have embraced the constitution.

It is clear: Rhode Island was not in the union. Nobody claimed otherwise and, in fact, people were calling for an embargo. Your metaphysical union, detectable only by it's normative aura, did not exist, nor predate the constitution.

One can claim a belief in a "right" of secession only be completely ignoring the Federalist while placing all faith in an interpretation of the 10th amendment which is completely at odds with the views of Hamilton, Washington, Madison, Marshall and all other significant interpreters of the Constitution.

The only significant interpreters of the constitution were those that ratified it. They had this to say:

WE the Delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly, and now met in Convention, having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention, and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us, to decide thereon, DO in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will: that therefore no right of any denomination, can be cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified, by the Congress, by the Senate or House of Representatives acting in any capacity, by the President or any department or officer of the United States, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes: and that among other essential rights, the liberty of conscience and of the press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified by any authority of the United States.

With these impressions, with a solemn appeal to the searcher of hearts for the purity of our intentions, and under the conviction, that, whatsoever imperfections may exist in the Constitution, ought rather to be examined in the mode prescribed therein, than to bring the Union into danger by a delay, with a hope of obtaining amendments previous to the ratification:

We the said Delegates, in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, do by these presents assent to, and ratify the Constitution recommended on the seventeenth day of September, one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven, by the Foederal Convention for the Government of the United States; hereby announcing to all those whom it may concern, that the said Constitution is binding upon the said People, according to an authentic copy hereto annexed, in the words following:

[Gianni]

These folks refuse to accept the fact that the United States was a nation much less a sovereign nation and that the American people even existed. They cling to the pretense that the Constitution was a contract between the States (while ignoring the legal meaning of such) while utterly ignoring the FACT that it was DESIGNED to personally operate upon individual citizens. It was SPECIFICALLY designed that way to destroy any illusions of state sovereignty.

They must ignore 99% of history and grasp at such absurdities as a treaty naming the states is proof that there was no nation called the United States of America. When it should be obvious that the naming of those states was merely a means of identifying the territories so as to protect English and French imperial claims on the North American continent. And it was a subtle means of undermining the concept of the USA as a Nation.

In similiar fashion they are prone to inflating the importance of dated grammatic construction and case into major issues rather than examples of archaic ways of expression. No triviality is too trivial to have them grasping desperately at it in support of an invalid claim.

Pure crap. So much so that scientists should use this as the standard by which all other crap is measured. I have contacted the International Bureau of Weights and Measures on your behalf.

Three paragraphs, and not a single thing you said was true. Not even close enough to pass as truth to the uneducated. You've been spinning too long, and lost your bearings.

[justshutupandtakeit]

There is no need to quote anyone anymore than has been done as regards their opinion about Rhode Island neither the state authorities nor the feds believed any separation was anything but temporary the only points of controversy were the degrees of pressure willing to be used to hurry ratification. Nothing n the Articles gave federal authorities any power to operate within the states except through the agency of the state. It was precisely this which was to be changed in the new Constitution in order to cement the Union.

You folks keep quoting that ratification document without understanding what is said "powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the PEOPLE of the UNITED STATES may be resumed by THEM (the People of the United states)..." There was no state sovereignty which could contradict or overrule the Constitution left after its ratification even in theory (as there was under the Articles). State power was ENTIRELY limited to SOME law within its borders no more. In any case Virginia's ratification document did not claim secession was constitutional nor did ANY of the others.

Hamilton and Madison devote Federalists 15 through 22 to showing how the period of "Sovereign over Sovereigns" or "Government over governments" was OVER with ratification. It NEVER worked. The Union was to be made incapable of dissolution by tying the individual citizen to it. No longer was federal power to be exercised solely through state aegis. I defy you to read those and claim there is any sovereignty left to the states sufficient to unilaterally break the bonds of Union.

[justshutupandtakeit]

You cannot refute the fact that the Colonists thought of themselves as loyal subjects almost up til the War started.

Nor that Britain and France had every incentive to try and break the Union.

Nor that you hang your case on grammatic trivialities which must stand against massive contrary evidence.

[Gianni]

Nor that you hang your case on grammatic trivialities which must stand against massive contrary evidence.

Trivialities? Do you know anything about the law?

I have quoted document after document, person after person, all denying that what you assert is true. So ironclad is the evidence against you that Daniel Farber wrote a 256 page book attempting to prove your point, and the best he could come up with was a strong idea of union, undocumented, existing only in a metaphysical state, detectable only by it's normative aura, with a super-legal potency.

Of course, the best he could do wrt Lincoln's Constitution was to say that his actions were not legal in the strict sense, but justified within the framework of that super-legal entity which nobody can find reference to.

In a way, it's very sad. To try so hard, and come up so short.

[justshutupandtakeit]

The case against your argument that there was no nation and only a contract between the states was clearly laid out in an irrefutable fashion by Madison and Hamilton in the Federalist. You cannot read 16 through 23 without having to admit there was no state sovereignty left sufficient to destroy the Union. If you are honest that is.

Lincoln's actions against those attacking the United States need no defense. It is clearly laid out in the Constitution that insurrection can be put down. It is also extensively discussed in the Federalist how the need for force against insurrection within and even between states is provided for within the Constitution. Hamilton even foresees a possible split which would lead inevitably to war.

You cannot address the statement that the new government was NO LONGER a sovereignty over sovereignties. States were no longer fully sovereign (even in theory) over their own territory being restricted to making only SOME laws affecting their citizens.

It is clear from the bogus arguments and misleading quotes you use that you do not understand the Constitution's effect upon state sovereignty. Reread the Federalist.

[Gianni]

It is clearly laid out in the Constitution that insurrection can be put down.

Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.

Which state legislature petitioned king Lincoln to march an army into their state again? Tired whiskeypapa referrals to repealed laws won't save you from this one.

It is clear from the bogus arguments and misleading quotes you use that you do not understand the Constitution's effect upon state sovereignty. Reread the Federalist.

And it is clear that my arguments are as near ironclad as they need to be. The Federalist was never ratified, nor could it have been. The Federalist helps to provide insight, but does trumps neither the constitution nor the ratification documents that put it into effect.

So is this the best you can do? I have to admit, for someone backing up and resting on claims of bogus arguments and misleading quotes, you certainly have failed to show how the context modifies anything I've posted. It would be a monumental task, to be sure, one that Farber couldn't come close to in 260 pages. You're left playing the violin on the deck of a sinking ship, while Farber dances around the issue with references to unseeable power reminiscent of mideval discussions about the Holy Trinity.

None of it exists, but in your head.

FARBER'S WISDOM

In the American context, sovereignty often seems to function as an al­most metaphysical concept -- some secret essence of legal potency that cannot be detected directly, but only as a kind of normative aura. One hotly debated question, for example, is whether the populations of the various states existed (or still exist) as separate entities acting together as a con­glomeration, or rather as a single entity acting through the agency of multi­ple subgroups. This is reminiscent of medieval disputes about the nature of the Trinity. It is not in any real sense a question of fact or even one of law.

SOURCE: Lincoln's Constitution, Daniel Farber, 2003, p. 29

-----------------------------------------

Ideas about sovereignty may also color the understanding of particular constitutional issues. Thus, while it may not be useful to ask who really had sovereignty in 1776 or 1789, it is potentially useful to ask who was believed to have sovereignty then.

SOURCE: Lincoln's Constitution, Daniel Farber, 2003, p. 30

------------------------------------------

A contract between the peoples of the separate states might well be termed a compact. The critical question was whether a national social compact arose at some point, bind­ing all Americans together into one people, or whether the only real social compacts were at the state level, with those political societies then forming a second-level compact. The "compact theory" of sovereignty refers to this second-level compact, which is considered to have a less fundamental status than the social compacts establishing each state. If this all seems rather aridly metaphysical, that's because it is.

SOURCE: Lincoln's Constitution, Daniel Farber, 2003, p. 32

---------------------------

Because of its virtually metaphysical nature, it is hard to answer the the­oretical question of whether the state peoples wholly retained their sepa­rate identity, or whether adoption of the Constitution signified the existence of unified "People of the United States." To the extent that the Framers had any shared understanding on this point, which is itself some­what dubious, they probably leaned toward the view that ratification signified the emergence of a national People. On the whole, however, the best conclusion seems to be Madison's -- that the United States was unique and could not be considered either a consolidated nation or a compact of sovereign states.

SOURCE: Lincoln's Constitution, Daniel Farber, 2003, pp. 82-83

------------------------------

Still, it would be a mistake to view the Framers as purely nationalistic. During ratification, the most direct discussion of the source of the Consti­tution's legitimacy was in Federalist 39. Inquiring into the formation of the new Constitution, Madison explained that ratification takes place by the authority of the people -- "not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they re­spectively belong." Madison went on to call ratification a "federal and not a national act," that is, "the act of the people, as forming so many independent States, not as forming one aggregate nation." This passage seems at odds with Lincoln's theory, but leaves open the possibility that ratification resulted in the creation of a unified American people.

SOURCE: Lincoln's Constitution, Daniel Farber, 2003, p. 38

And this was a man defending Lincoln.