Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: 4CJ
Secondly, as Justices Thomas, Scalia, Kennedy and Rehnquist noted in US Term Limits, Inc., et al. v Thorton et al. noted above, there is no provision for the people en masse of the "United" States (plural) to act - ever.

Chief Justice Marshall disagrees with that opinion.

243 posted on 03/08/2006 5:42:36 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 240 | View Replies ]


To: Non-Sequitur
Chief Justice Marshall disagrees with that opinion.

Can you point to any constitutional action ever taken by the people en massee? Who did they vote for? Who ratified for another state? Can the "people" decide who are the electors for Florida? Can the "people" declare that queers can be legally married in Idaho, or vote on their representatives?

The definition of a CONFEDERATE REPUBLIC seems simply to be "an assemblage of societies,'' or an association of two or more states into one state. The extent, modifications, and objects of the federal authority are mere matters of discretion. So long as the separate organization of the members be not abolished; so long as it exists, by a constitutional necessity, for local purposes; though it should be in perfect subordination to the general authority of the union, it would still be, in fact and in theory, an association of states, or a confederacy. The proposed Constitution, so far from implying an abolition of the State governments, makes them constituent parts of the national sovereignty, by allowing them a direct representation in the Senate, and leaves in their possession certain exclusive and very important portions of sovereign power. This fully corresponds, in every rational import of the terms, with the idea of a federal government.
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 9, "The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection"
If the people were one mass, the states would have been abolished. They weren't.

P.S. Can you name/describe the great war/revolution that occurred to overthrow the Articles - if one occurred. I've seen numerous posters allege that the right of revolution means that the state could raise up military force to alter it's form of government.

261 posted on 03/09/2006 7:28:14 AM PST by 4CJ (Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito, qua tua te fortuna sinet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 243 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson