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

Skip to comments.

Confederate Flag Clothing Causes Controversy
WSBTV.com ^ | 10-6-2006 | WSBTV

Posted on 10/10/2006 5:08:28 AM PDT by Colonel Kangaroo

The principal at a Fayette County middle school has banned all clothing with the confederate flag emblem...

(Excerpt) Read more at wsbtv.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; US: Georgia
KEYWORDS: cbf; confederate; crossofsaintandrew; dixie; education; saintandrewscross; schools; segregation; southernheritage
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 321-340341-360361-380 ... 521-535 next last
To: Non-Sequitur
They enjoyed all the privileges that the other states created them enjoyed. No more and no less. ... What benefits did they lose?

You claimed the later states didn't have the right to secede because they were created by Congress. If the original 13 states have the right to secede (which they certainly did under the Tenth Amendment, your disagreement notwithstanding), then the Tenth Amendment also applies to the later states.

Are you arguing that the Tenth Amendment doesn't apply to later states because they were creatures of the Federal Government and didn't have any powers to retain? Novel theory that. What else did the original states lose under your implication theory? (As you can tell, I don't buy your theory.)

Being able to peaceably secede from a government that you no longer wish to be associated with is a benefit of the Tenth Amendment. Some would probably even say that being free from having to associate with Yankees is a benefit in itself, present company excluded. However, in the future, we'll probably be able to avoid Yankees only by going to restaurants that serve only grits. Yum.

341 posted on 10/16/2006 10:25:23 PM PDT by rustbucket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 336 | View Replies]

To: rustbucket
You claimed the later states didn't have the right to secede because they were created by Congress. If the original 13 states have the right to secede (which they certainly did under the Tenth Amendment, your disagreement notwithstanding), then the Tenth Amendment also applies to the later states.

Incorrect. Unlike many around here I have never said that states did not have the right to secede, and I would ask you to point out where you think I did. What I have always said, and have never wavered from, is that states do not have the right to secede unilaterally. Such a power is denied them by the Constitution, including the 10th Amendment, and that is where the southern rebellion fell afoul of the law. The Constitution applies to all states, not just the seceding ones, and protects the rights and interests of all states, not just the seceding ones. And this fact was recognized by the Supreme Court in their Texas v White decision.

The fact that southern supporters believe that the Constitution only applies to states wanting to leave is something I can never understand.

342 posted on 10/17/2006 3:45:35 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 341 | View Replies]

To: stand watie
in other words, you admit that you try to convince everyone that you are an expert on everything

Well, when compared to you it does seem that way sometimes.

343 posted on 10/17/2006 3:46:27 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 339 | View Replies]

To: rustbucket
There is a clause in Article V of the Constitution that deals with a state's representation in the Senate. It can't be taken from them without their consent (Radical Republicans, notwithstanding), so they can't be kicked out.

If they are expelled then they aren't a state anymore, are they? The Constitution does not apply and they aren't entitled to representation. So show me where the Constitution forbids that.

344 posted on 10/17/2006 3:47:59 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 335 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Incorrect. Unlike many around here I have never said that states did not have the right to secede, and I would ask you to point out where you think I did.

We have argued about your unilateral theory before and never convinced each other. You insert unwritten restrictions into the Constitution, and I don't.

345 posted on 10/17/2006 6:04:11 AM PDT by rustbucket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 342 | View Replies]

To: rustbucket
You insert unwritten restrictions into the Constitution, and I don't.

No, I recognize implied restrictions and you don't. I believe that both sides of the secession issue have rights that need to be respected and you don't. But you're right, we'll never convince the other.

346 posted on 10/17/2006 6:11:06 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 345 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
If they are expelled then they aren't a state anymore, are they? The Constitution does not apply and they aren't entitled to representation. So show me where the Constitution forbids that.

You have a short term memory problem, don't you? We just went over this uptread. Any action to expel a state violates Article V because that act simultaneously deprives the state of representation and thus violates the Constitution.

I suspect that membership in the Senate was protected in the Constitution because the Senate was an expression of state sovereignty. As John Lansing of New York said in the ratification debates:

I believe it was undoubtedly the intention of the framers of this Constitution to make the lower house the proper, peculiar representative of the interests of the people; the Senate, of the sovereignty of the states.

347 posted on 10/17/2006 6:43:15 AM PDT by rustbucket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 344 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
obviously there's no SELF-importance in your family. you have it ALL.

free dixie,sw

348 posted on 10/17/2006 8:50:36 AM PDT by stand watie ("Resistance to tyrants is OBEDIENCE to God." - T. Jefferson, 1804)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 343 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
there are NO "implied restrictions" on the STATES in the Constitution. only restrictions on the FEDERAL govt.

the founders of this republic FEARED centralized control from Philadelphia/Washington WITH REASON.

some of the most beautiful words in the Constitution are: "Congress shall make NO law"!

free dixie,sw

349 posted on 10/17/2006 8:53:46 AM PDT by stand watie ("Resistance to tyrants is OBEDIENCE to God." - T. Jefferson, 1804)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 346 | View Replies]

To: stand watie
the 2000 census is 98% accurate for LEGAL residents.

So on one hand you cite census statistics for the illegal populations in this "Aztlan" fantasy of yours, then on the other hand admit that they don't know what they're talking about. Interesting.

350 posted on 10/17/2006 8:58:46 AM PDT by Bubba Ho-Tep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 340 | View Replies]

To: Bubba Ho-Tep
the census folks, THEMSELVES, say that their estimate of 12-14 MILLION illegals are just that = an ESTIMATE!

it's nothing more complicated than that.

sadly, for the "nativists" & "unionists", Azatlan is anything BUT a fantasy.

prepare to have a Hispanic,solidly Roman Catholic, Spanish-speaking, nation to the west/southwest, within a generation (unless of course, you think a CIVIL WAR that would NEEDLESSLY slaughter MILLIONS of people is a good idea. btw, one of the former (now permanently BANNED!) members of the "DAMNyankee coven oif fools, lunatics, south-HATERS, bigots & at least ONE outright RACIST" said he would HAPPILY kill "every damned immigrant in the west. every damn one!" to keep the states out there IN the union.)

free dixie,sw

351 posted on 10/17/2006 9:20:34 AM PDT by stand watie ("Resistance to tyrants is OBEDIENCE to God." - T. Jefferson, 1804)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 350 | View Replies]

To: stand watie
there are NO "implied restrictions" on the STATES in the Constitution. only restrictions on the FEDERAL govt.

Sure there are. Read the 10th Amendment. The powers "prohibited by it to the States" part of the 10th Amendment.

352 posted on 10/17/2006 9:46:29 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 349 | View Replies]

To: stand watie
the census folks, THEMSELVES, say that their estimate of 12-14 MILLION illegals are just that = an ESTIMATE!

So, are census bureau estimates valuable or worthless? It's hard to keep track with you. It appears that the census is worthless when it contradicts you, but valuable when it confirms you. That seems awfully convenient.

353 posted on 10/17/2006 9:51:00 AM PDT by Bubba Ho-Tep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 351 | View Replies]

To: rustbucket
You have a short term memory problem, don't you? We just went over this uptread. Any action to expel a state violates Article V because that act simultaneously deprives the state of representation and thus violates the Constitution.

Yes and whenever someone points out that Article I forbids states from entering into treaties or confederations with other states without Congressional approval you all scratch your heads and say, "Golly gee whiz, if a state secedes it isn't bound by the Constitution anymore." Well, if a state is expelled then they aren't in the Union anymore, not bound by the Constitution, and not protected by it. You all are constantly quoting the 10th Amendment saying that the right to unilaterally secede is granted to the states because it is not denied by the Constitution. Well, show me where the Constitution says the states cannot join together and expel a state if they choose to do so.

354 posted on 10/17/2006 9:53:22 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 347 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
those are NOT "implied restrictions". rather they are POSITIVE restrictions on the central government, which the states INTENDED!

certain POWERS were specifically CEDED to the central government by the STATES (which can be "taken back" by the states, too!!)and it was INTENDED that the federal government could/WOULD do NOTHING MORE than that limited amount of things.

NOTE: i suspect there would have been a LOT less POWERS ceded, had the states recognized how powerful, INTRUSIVE & "NOSEY" the fed would become!

free dixie,sw

355 posted on 10/17/2006 9:54:11 AM PDT by stand watie ("Resistance to tyrants is OBEDIENCE to God." - T. Jefferson, 1804)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 352 | View Replies]

To: Bubba Ho-Tep
pardon me, but you are either clueLESS or as evasive as N-S.

care for a "do over" before you become yet another laughingstock on FR???

free dixie,sw

356 posted on 10/17/2006 9:55:32 AM PDT by stand watie ("Resistance to tyrants is OBEDIENCE to God." - T. Jefferson, 1804)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 353 | View Replies]

To: Bubba Ho-Tep; All
I would like to take a moment and welcome Mr./Ms. Bubba Ho-Tep to the ranks of the Union supporters. Anyone who can come up with a screen name as cool as that AND which annoys stand watie is all right with me.

Don't let stand get to you. Somewhere in Dixie his village is wondering where he's gotten to.

357 posted on 10/17/2006 9:56:25 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 353 | View Replies]

To: stand watie
certain POWERS were specifically CEDED to the central government by the STATES (which can be "taken back" by the states, too!!)and it was INTENDED that the federal government could/WOULD do NOTHING MORE than that limited amount of things

And which one of those POWERS specifically authorizes the federal government to have branch of the military called a U.S. Air Force?

358 posted on 10/17/2006 9:58:33 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 355 | View Replies]

To: stand watie
care for a "do over" before you become yet another laughingstock on FR???

Nah. You appear to have laughingstock covered.

359 posted on 10/17/2006 10:04:18 AM PDT by Bubba Ho-Tep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 356 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
show me where the Constitution says the states cannot join together and expel a state if they choose to do so.

Article V. Psst.... We've been here before.

360 posted on 10/17/2006 10:23:31 AM PDT by rustbucket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 354 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 321-340341-360361-380 ... 521-535 next last

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.

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