Posted on 03/03/2006 11:37:56 AM PST by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailypress.com ...
I though my reply of "crap" was rather appropriate given the bilge spilled out by the two I was replying to. If you had found my original post they responded to you would have found my "profound statements". Right now I don't have time to reiterate, work calls.
Interesting though without bearing upon the question of the right of a state to secede from the Union.
Since the CSA was the antithesis of the USA one cannot love the former and the latter. Those of us who love the USA do not accept the slander of our greatest leaders or stand still for the praise of those attempting to destroy our great nation.
Cease pretending that you are a patriot.
Unfortunately for your theory the States were explicitly prevented from passing upon ratification since they were REQUIRED to establish conventions of the American people gathered by state. Legislatures were to determine how the delegates were to be selected and after that had NO power over the results.
Our Founders were sufficiently disgusted with state legislatures that they wanted to make sure none ever tried to undo the work of the Ratification Conventions with a state law. State laws cannot affect the Constitution.
"By these presents" is a mere technical term similiar to saying "We hereby show" or "as the following shows" it is not a term of authority or power.
Were I to find myself in agreement with you on these issues I should shoot myself.
every time you post, you look a bigger fool.
PITY.
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
why not head over to DU & display your ignorance, intolerence & hatred there.
free dixie,sw
Like you would know what anyone around here thinks. Even the delusionary DSers consider you an embarassment.
I note you never post anything but idiotic attempts at insults. Never anything of substance.
SADLY, more & more lunatics & DY HATERS keep arriving & thus the "war on FR, between the DY's & the rebs continues "by other means than gunfire".
YOU have the reputation around FR of being one of the WORST & most clueLESS of the coven.
what you post can be divided about equally into REVISIONIST bilge, idiotic attacks on the southland & her flag, STUPID comments about southerners loving the CSA because of slavery & other equally IGNORANT & baseLESS nonsense.
why not head over to DU. walt, #3fan, cvn76 & a host of other EX-Freepers/DAMNyankee lunatics are waiting for YOU.
free dixie,sw
For the Union perhaps. For the confederacy defense of slavery was by far the single most important reason for the rebellion from the very beginning.
An oft voiced opinion, but let me point out that with the exception of South Carolina and Georgia the 7 rebelling southern states ratified nothing. They were admitted. They were allowed to join, and only after a majority of the other states permitted them to do so through a vote in Congress. They were, in effect, created by the other states when admitted to the Union. So since they were allowed to join only with the permission of the other states then why shouldn't the other states have a say when they want to leave?
Do us a favor and quit spouting the revisionist dog crap they teach in public schools.
But by all means bring on your southron myths. They're fun to refute.
Robert Lee also had this to say about slavery, "Considering the relation of master and slave, controlled by humane laws and influenced by Christianity and an enlightened public sentiment, as the best that can exist between the white and black races while intermingled as at present in this country, I would deprecate any sudden disturbance of that relation unless it be necessary to avert a greater calamity to both. I should therefore prefer to rely upon our white population to preserve the ratio between our forces and those of the enemy, which experience has shown to be safe. But in view of the preparations of our enemies, it is our duty to provide for continued war and not for a battle or a campaign, and I fear that we cannot accomplish this without overtaxing the capacity of our white population."
Jimmy Carter's Dad was. Lots of others down Souf' who portrayed themselves as "good Democrats" were actually loose cannons in the Socialist legions.
As I said, the issue was slavery, and South Carolina started the war.
AND that the NATIONAL HQ of the KKK is in OHIO, which is NOT in dixie????
AND that there's a captured U-Boat on display in Galveston???
And that everyone Quantrill's men killed at Lawrence specifically had it coming???
And that during the Blackhawk War, Lincoln was known to the Mohawks as "Kills the Children", even though the Mohawks were 500 miles away from that war, and Lincoln didn't see any action in it???
Thanks, Watie. We learn so much accurate information from you.
No. The states were required to establish conventions of the American people gathered by state. The legislatures did determine how the people of the state were selected, but the legislature of New York could not determine whom the delegates would be for North Carolina. As the preceding case demonstrated.
Justice Thomas states,
The ratification procedure erected by Article VII makes this point clear. The Constitution took effect once it had been ratified by the people gathered in convention in nine different States. But the Constitution went into effect only "between the States so ratifying the same," Art. VII; it did not bind the people of North Carolina until they had accepted it. In Madison's words, the popular consent upon which the Constitution's authority rests was "given by the people, not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong."And again by Justice Thomas,
Justice Clarence Thomas, US Term Limits, Inc., et al. v Thorton et al. 514 US 779, 846 (1994) [internal citations omitted]
The Constitution simply does not recognize any mechanism for action by the undifferentiated people of the Nation. Thus, the amendment provision of Article V calls for amendments to be ratified not by a convention of the national people, but by conventions of the people in each State or by the state legislatures elected by those people. Likewise, the Constitution calls for Members of Congress to be chosen State by State, rather than in nationwide elections. Even the selection of the President-surely the most national of national figures-is accomplished by an electoral college made up of delegates chosen by the various States, and candidates can lose a Presidential election despite winning a majority of the votes cast in the Nation as a whole. See also Art. II, § 1, cl. 3 (providing that when no candidate secures a majority of electoral votes, the election of the President is thrown into the House of Representatives, where "the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representatives from each State having one Vote"). ... At the same time, however, the people of each State retained their separate political identities. As Chief Justice Marshall put it, "[n]o political dreamer was ever wild enough to think of breaking down the lines which separate the States, and of compounding the American people into one common mass." McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 403 (1819).
Ibid, 848-849
Our Founders were sufficiently disgusted with state legislatures that they wanted to make sure none ever tried to undo the work of the Ratification Conventions with a state law. State laws cannot affect the Constitution.
Again, no one is claiming that state law overrides the Constitution - where the Constitution has been delegated authority pursuant to an enumerated power. The Constitution requires the states to have republican governments, in which the people of that state assemble in convention as sovereigns of that state, able to amend or alter their form of government. Several states had constitutions recognizing their power to resume their delegated powers:
'We, the people of the republic of Texas, acknowledging with gratitude the grace and beneficence of God ... declare that [a]ll political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit; and they have at all times the unalienable right to alter, reform, or abolish their form of government, in such manner as they may think expedient.'
Texas Constitution, 1845.[T]he people have a right to alter the government, and to take measures necessary for their safety, prosperity, and happiness. ... the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government, and to reform, alter, or totally change the same when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it.
Massachusetts Constitution, 1790.
"By these presents" is a mere technical term similiar to saying "We hereby show" or "as the following shows" it is not a term of authority or power.
No. It a legal phrase meaning "this document". From Bouvier Law Dictionary Rev. 6th ed., (1856):
PRESENTS. This word signifies the writing then actually made and spoken of; as, these presents; know all men by these presents, to all to whom these presents shall come.It means that the state convention declared that it's ratification was made with the explicit understanding that the state could resume the powers the convention was delegating. It's not a difficult concept.
Then why does the Constitution refer to "We the People of the United States..." and not as "We the People of New York, New Hampshire, Connecticut, etc."? Why not describe it as an agreement between the states as the Articles of Confederation did? Because it was ratified by the American people and not the people of Virginia, etc.
As Chief Justice Marshall put it, "[n]o political dreamer was ever wild enough to think of breaking down the lines which separate the States, and of compounding the American people into one common mass." McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 403 (1819)
Let's look at that in context:
"In discussing this question, the counsel for the State of Maryland have deemed it of some importance, in the construction of the Constitution, to consider that instrument not as emanating from the people, but as the act of sovereign and independent States. The powers of the General Government, it has been said, are delegated by the States, who alone are truly sovereign, and must be exercised in subordination to the States, who alone possess supreme dominion."
"It would be difficult to sustain this proposition. The convention which framed the Constitution was indeed elected by the State legislatures. But the instrument, when it came from their hands, was a mere proposal, without obligation or pretensions to it. It was reported to the then existing Congress of the United States with a request that it mightbe submitted to a convention of delegates, chosen in each State by the people thereof, under the recommendation of its legislature, for their assent and ratification."
"This mode of proceeding was adopted, and by the convention, by Congress, and by the State legislatures, the instrument was submitted to the people. They acted upon it in the only manner in which they can act safely, effectively and wisely, on such a subject -- by assembling in convention. It is true, they assembled in their several States -- and where else should they have assembled? No political dreamer was ever wild enough to think of breaking down the lines which separate the States, and of compounding the American people into one common mass. Of consequence, when they act, they act in their States. But the measures they adopt do not, on that account, cease to be the measures of the people themselves, or become the measures of the State governments."
"From these conventions the Constitution derives its whole authority. The government proceeds directly from the people; is "ordained and established" in the name of the people, and is declared to be ordained, 'in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to themselves and to their posterity.' The assent of the States in their sovereign capacity is implied in calling a convention, and thus submitting that instrument to the people. But the people were at perfect liberty to accept or reject it, and their act was final. It required not the affirmance, and could not be negatived, by the State Governments. The Constitution, when thus adopted, was of complete obligation, and bound the State sovereignties."
"It has been said that the people had already surrendered all their powers to the State sovereignties, and had nothing more to give. But surely the question whether they may resume and modify the powers granted to Government does not remain to be settled in this country. Much more might the legitimacy of the General Government be doubted had it been created by the States. The powers delegated to the State sovereignties were to be exercised by themselves, not by a distinct and independent sovereignty created by themselves. To the formation of a league such as was the Confederation, the State sovereignties were certainly competent. But when, "in order to form a more perfect union," it was deemed necessary to change this alliance into an effective Government, possessing great and sovereign powers and acting directly on the people, the necessity of referring it to the people, and of deriving its powers directly from them, was felt and acknowledged by all. The Government of the Union then (whatever may be the influence of this fact on the case) is, emphatically and truly, a Government of the people. In form and in substance, it emanates from them. Its powers are granted by them, and are to be exercised directly on them, and for their benefit."
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.