Virginia County secretly removes Confederate flag from official seal

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.

Trivialities? Do you know anything about the law?

Obviously he does not. But he seems to be of the opinion that the states ratified the Federalist Papers.

I have quoted document after document, person after person, all denying that what you assert is true.

He ignores a plethora of documents, all LEGAL - ratifications, treaties, Supreme Court decisions, etc.

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.

The framers discussed secessions during the conventions, rejected the use of force against a state multiple times, refused to prohibit secession, rejected a national government, rejected the notion of a perpetual union, and rejected ratification en masse. Normative aura? One of those mystical penumbras like the court discovers to legalize abortion and gay marriage.

Can't help but start out with a DISTORTION can you? Of course, the issue was not INVASION but INSURRECTION so your attempted deception and dishonesty does not address anything. Plus, you tried to pass off this dishonest bullshiite earlier in the thread to the same disdain.

It is CLEAR that INSURRECTION within or between states can be put down by federal forces as per the Constitution. This is extensively discussed in the Federalist.

Federalist is the definitive explanation of the Constitution. If it says something about the Constitution (as existing in 1787) that is the final word. Virtually all constitutional decisions of the Courts begin with studying the relevant portions of the Federalist. Marshall stated that was his method and it has remained true to this day.

Putting vague, half-assed constitutional Know Nothings up against the Federalist is like putting the Shabbona Park White Sox up against the Chicago White Sox. Laughable.

There are no "ratification documents" which dispute anything in the Federalist and they add NOTHING to the knowledge of what the Constitution means. There only significance is that they said "Yes". The ways they said it are not important and don't support the insane claims of the secessionists anyway. Claiming the American People have the ultimate sovereignty in no way authorizing destruction of the Union by non-constitutional means.

I don't know what your obsession with this Faber is but it has nothing to do with me or my ideas so forget it.

The Constitution was written to remove sovereignty from the states since the theory of complete state sovereignty had been PROVEN not to work. Federalist explains why that was and what had to be done about it. This is not even disputable.

You have not addressed ANY of the relevant arguments preferring instead to beat the dead Faber horse. If you cannot address them then just admit it there is nothing more to say.

Why do you have to LIE? You know as well as anyone that Federalist is THE definitive work on the Constitution. And has nothing it being ratified.

All you guys do is selectively quote from various documents and totally distort what is within them. However, EVERY time you throw up one of these smokescreens it gets blown away by a gnat's breath.

Your last paragraph is a perfect example of the distortions, red herrings, straw men and out right LIES which make up the bulk of your arguments.

There is no penumbra as large as that of secession. But it is even worse since the idea is a DIRECT contradiction of the Union and the Constitution. This is clear from reading the Federalist.

You LIED by claiming that I seem to believe the Federalists were ratified.

It's not a lie, it's my OPINION of your position. The Federalist Papers are NOT a legal document, they were just documents written by 3 framers, extolling the virtues (to them) of the new governmental framework. The FP were written AFTER numerous states ratified, they were to calm the fears of the anti-federalists in New York State that the proposed government would DEPRIVE them of powers. The papers lay out the problems with other republics, democracies, and the previous Articles of Confederation & ~~Perpetual Union~~. The papers make it abundantly clear that the states were sovereign entities (nations), that the new union was to be comprised ONLY of the states ratifying (Rhode Island & Providence Plantations would be left in the dust heap of history), and that the new government would only possess the powers DELEGATED to it.

You confuse the excellent works you mention expertise on the Convention with the EXPLANATION of the Constitution and the arguments for adopting of the Federalist.

Let me try to make it a little bit clearer, Elliot's Debates & Farrand's Records detail the daily meetings of the congress, the nuts and bolts of what was put forth, what was debated, what was rejected, etc.

The Federalist Papers [I do have my own personal copy], are the position of 3 men, not the entire convention. Matthew, Mark and John might be fantastic books, but they are only a subset of the Bible, not the sum total of it. Similarly, the FP, ED & FR are great, but none of them were ratified. The Constitution was ratified, so only the Constitution and any ratification document forwarded by a state has legal weight.

There is no way you can legitimately claim that the FR did not destroy any argument that the states were fully sovereign. The papers from 16 through 22 EXPLICITLY refute that idea. It was PRECISELY to change from a sovereignty over sovereigns that the Constitution was written.

Theoretically (though not in reality) the states were sovereign under the Articles that was WHY the Confederation fell apart and Hamilton and Madison showed how that MUST be the result of any system of sovereignty over sovereigns. Hence removing the chimera of state sovereignty was the most important change which the Constitution achieved. Federal power was to extend directly to the individual and no longer work only through state agency as before.

There was very little theoretic opposition of any weight to the Constitution and H and M were primarily concerned with putting down the LIES of the opposition particularly LIES printed by the newspapers opposed.

Federalist is the greatest political writing since Aristotle and Plato and is the basic book for understanding the Constitution. If there is any problem which cannot be settled by starting with the Federalist I have yet to hear of it. Like any discussion of Christianity must start with understanding what is in the Bible our understanding of the Constitution starts with Federalist.

You know damn well I in no way implied or believed it was ratified.

Plus, you tried to pass off this dishonest bullshiite earlier in the thread to the same disdain.

Same disdain = "I failed to address it then, either."

It is CLEAR that INSURRECTION within or between states can be put down by federal forces as per the Constitution.

ON APPLICATION FROM THE STATE LEGISLATURE.

Which state legislature petitioned King Lincoln for a federal invasion?

Virtually all constitutional decisions of the Courts begin with studying the relevant portions of the Federalist.

Daniel Farber begain with studying the Federalist. What he came up with was that

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,

I don't know what your obsession with this Faber is but it has nothing to do with me or my ideas so forget it.

Nonsense. You have repeatedly contended that there existed an ironclad union which predated the states. Farber is one of few, if not the only, historian to take on the task of demonstrating it.

You can see how poorly he did in his task, and take comfort in the fact that he comes infinitely closer than do you.

All you guys do is selectively quote from various documents and totally distort what is within them.

Show where that was done.

On the other hand, we have you quoting irrelevent portions of the Federalist, claiming that states voted to revoke their own sovereignty. Idiotic.

Then you insist we separate your views from Farbers. They are the same. The man researched and wrote a 260 page book attempting to draw the same conclusion that you have, wouldn't a sane person accept him as an authority? So when he indicates that the difinitive portion of the federalist at best "leaves open the door for emergence of a national people" doesn't that embarass you?

Don't you second-guess your conclusions about the other, irrelevent portions of the federalist when someone who's livlihood and reputation as a legitimate author depended on it found no merit whatsoever in the portions you continue to reference?

Which state legislature petitioned king Lincoln to march an army into their state again?

Didn't need to. Article I, Section 8, Clause 15 says Congress has the power to call forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions. Congress gave the President the power to call up the militia to suppress rebellion if Congress is not in session, first in the Militia Act of 1792, renewed in 1795.

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.

Please continue. Farber went on to say "As it turns out, however, the historical record does not supply a clear answer to the later question either."

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,

And then Farber says, "Asking whethre the state populaces or the national one "really" had csovereignth in 1776 or 1789 is somewhat like asking if Lady Macbeth really had children. In both cases the available textual material supports conflicting inferences, and perhaps one set of inferences is a bit stronger than the other...Still, like Lady Macbeth's children, popular sovereignty lacks any physical existence. We might politely call it a useful fiction."

Please refer to my 1300: Tired whiskeypapa referrals to repealed laws won't save you from this one.

The militia act of 1795 required petition from the state legislature, as outlined in the Constitution. The act of 1792 was repealed by the act of 1795 - you know this, because I have posted it to you before.

Farber went on to say "As it turns out, however, the historical record does not supply a clear answer to the later question either."

And this is the rock-solid foundation of both his and your argument. Keep up the good work.

"popular sovereignty lacks any physical existence. We might politely call it a useful fiction."

And you believe this? It looks more like Farber set out to demonstrate that sovereignty not only existed, but that the federal government was the sole owner and proprietor. When the historical record was overwhelmingly set against him, he instead hung his hopes on decimating even the idea that sovereignty existed.

Of course, it did. It must have. Without it, we would have no independence, no Constitution, no government, no America. So it's not at all like asking Lady Macbeth really had children. In both cases the available textual material supports conflicting inferences, and perhaps one set of inferences is a bit stronger than the other...

Please refer to my 1300: Tired whiskeypapa referrals to repealed laws won't save you from this one.

I saw it. Bogus claims that the law had been repealed won't change wrong to right.

No it did not. As outlined in Section 2 if the laws are obstructed by forces too powerful to suppres by judicial means then the President is authorized to call out the militia. Didn't you read it?

No I actually read the book and Farber takes the exact opposite viewpoint than what you claim.

Since your error has already been pointed out I can only assume you prefer to LIE about what the Constitution says.
It ACTUALLY says the federal government has the power "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;" There is NOTHING about getting state permission or a request. That stipulation only relates to "domestic violence" when federal forces can be asked to intervene by the legislature or executive.

Madison's discussion of national vs federal concludes that the Constitution is a COMBINATION of both elements. Some aspects are purely national some purely federal and some a mixture of both.

The Union began to form with the earliest Continental Congress which DID predate the states. States often did not even have a constitution until the Union was well along in fighting the British. The Union (Congress) asked the States to write constitutions. The Union negoitiated in the name of the United States of America. The ideal of the Union was well established in the mind of the American People long before it became a concrete thing. That idea went through various forms until the constitution finalized it. Like an embryo becomes a baby after birth the Union grew through the 1770-80s but was still alive before then. You are confused because the Union was de facto before it was de jure.

It changed from a theoretical Sovereignty over Sovereigns of the Articles to a full fledged NATION in which states no longer had theoretic full sovereignty over anything except a few law writing powers. That is EXACTLY what the Federalist shows in 15-22.

Almost every quote posted by the DSs is cherry picked. Examine those above.

States did EXACTLY that and the new government was constructed on a completely different basis than the old. It had become clear to almost EVERY patriot that the states had retained too much sovereignty to allow a Union to function. Madison extensively examined this issue and concluded such a Confederation as had been tried could not work well enough to protect the states OR the Union. Argue with him they are HIS conclusions.

I have not "insisted" that you separate my views from Farber's merely expressed amazement that he obsesses you so much. However, I am NOT responsible for his views or his conclusions and I derive MY OWN conclusions from the material not from Farber. Besides it is not as though you ACCURATELY report either the reasoning or conclusions of author's concerned with explaining the Constitution or supporting the Union. Even IF he says what you claim it has nothing to do with what I find in the Federalist.

I saw it. Bogus claims that the law had been repealed won't change wrong to right.

Sec. 10. And be it further enacted, That the act, intitled "Act to provide for calling forth the militia, to execute the laws of Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions," passed the second day of May one thousand seven hundred and ninety-two, shall be, and the same is hereby repealed.

You'd know all about wrong.

No it did not. As outlined in Section 2 if the laws are obstructed by forces too powerful to suppres by judicial means then the President is authorized to call out the militia. Didn't you read it?

Section 2 allows the president to call forth the militia to assist federal marshalls.

Tell me, what warrants were being served at Manassas Junction?

That is EXACTLY what the Federalist shows in 15-22.

No time now to respond to the full nonsense, but since you've been repeating this...

and repeating this...

Tell us, what is the title of Federalist 15-22?

How's about 39? What is that titled?

I know you cannot deal with these truths and will do anything to avoid discussing them. So would I were I you considering they utterly destroy any argument claiming there was a "right" of secession.

Your inability to respond to the FACTS in my last post is also noted.

You want titles? OK 15- Insufficiency of the Present Confederation to Preserve the Union. Hamilton shows that "The great and radical vice
in the construction of the existing Confederation is in the principle of legislation for States and Governments, in their corporate or collective capacities, and as contradistinguished from the individuals of which they consist. In other words the NECESSITY to remove state sovereignty."

16- Same subject continued- Insufficiency of the present confederation to preserve the Union. Hamilton argues using the history of ancient Greece that the present system of the Articles "be styled the parent of Anarchy:"

17- Same subject continued- Insufficiency of the present confederation to preserve the Union. Hamilton argues therein that the national government will have no incentive to remove local concerns from state control and that the states can protect themselves against federal encroachment.

18- Same subject continued- the insufficiency of the present confederation to preserve the Union. Hamilton and Madison once more show the imbecility which MUST follow in a confederation based upon state sovereignty.

19- Same subject continued- the insufficiency of the present confederation to preserve the Union. Hamilton and Madison use the history of Germany, Poland and the United Provinces to show the imbecility which must follow in a confederation based upon state sovereignty.

20- Same subject continued- the insufficiency of the present confederation to preserve the Union. Hamilton and Madison use the history of the United Provinces to conclude "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 contradistinguished from individuals, as it is a solecism in theory, so in practice it is SUBVERSIVE of the order and ends of civil polity,..."

21 Other defects of the present confederation - Hamilton addresses the next most important failure of the Confederation "The next most palpable defect of the subsisting confederation, is the total want of a sanction to its laws." He also addresses others.

22- The same subject continued- Other defects of the present confederation. Hamilton addresses the inability to regulate commerce, the interference from state regulations on the Nation, equal sufferage between the states, want of judicial power. Thus, it is apparent that the PRINCIPLE concern of Hamilton and Madison was the saving of the UNION. They concluded that was impossible as long as states could claim total sovereignty.

You'd know all about wrong.

I do indeed, since I've been dealing with you for some time now.

As anyone who did even a modicum of research would know, there were several Milita Acts passed by Congress in the 1790's. The first, the Militia Act of 1792, which was signed by Washington on May 2, 1792, contained that clause. It was replaced by the Militia Act of 1795 which duplicated most of the 1792 act except for modifications to Sections 2, 4, 5 and without the expiration date in Section 10. Section 2 gave Lincoln all the authority he needed to suppress the rebellion in the recess of Congress.

Section 2 allows the president to call forth the militia to assist federal marshalls.

No, Section 2 states, "And be it further enacted, That whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act, the same being notified to the President of the United States, by an associate justice or the district judge, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia of such state to suppress such combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed. And if the militia of a state, where such combinations may happen, shall refuse, or be insufficient to suppress the same, it shall be lawful for the President, if the legislature of the United States be not in session, to call forth and employ such numbers of the militia of any other state or states most convenient thereto, as may be necessary, and the use of militia, so to be called forth, may be continued, if necessary, until the expiration of thirty days after the commencement of the ensuing session." This, combined with Article I, Section 8, Clause 15 gave Congress and the President all the authority they needed to put down the southern rebellion, warrants or no warrants. And the legality of this was upheld in Houston v Moore in 1820.

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.