Posted on 11/13/2006 9:25:11 PM PST by freedomdefender
Well actually, no. The Militia Act 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."
In fact, when determining when the president can call up troops no legislature other than Congess is mentioned anywhere in any of the Militia acts.
White was tainted. Federal justification was the order of the day.
-----
Something is not 'legally a non-issue' just because you say it is.
Cognitive dysfunction... Story said it was illegal to judge something after the fact.
-----
Produce a court decision prior to 1869 that said unilateral secession was constitutional and you win your case.
You honestly don't get it.
The States created the federal government. The 13 States that ratified the contract were states when they did so.
Every state there after wasn't created, it was admitted, which is something I've already shown you.
A State, in applying for 'statehood' weren't asking to BE a State, they were asking the federal government to recognize them AS a State.
It was something that they already were.
-----
Post a court decision where they said unilateral secession was a right reserved to the states by the Constituiton then you win the arguement.
May I direct your attention to these-
Article the eleventh [Amendment IX]
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Article the twelfth [Amendment X]
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people
Those powers NOT granted are reserved. You have to show me where the federal government does have the power, not where the States retained it.
Thanks for playing. /s
He wasn't.
The States were sovereign in their own borders. Read it again.
In most cases, yes. The Constitution gives the states pretty much a free reign within their own borders, and so long as they comply with the restrictions the Constitution places on them. But when their actions impact the interests of the other states, or when they are unable or unwilling to enforce the laws of the United States, then the Constitution gives the federal government the right to step in and enforce the Constituiton and the laws made under it. And that is what Washington, and Lincoln, did.
No, the most that you can say is that the southern states acted in good faith, believing that secession was legal. However, when the issue actually came before the USSC, they found otherwise. That isn't the same as saying that it was legal until the court said it wasn't.
Now, can't I in good conscience reject it, which I do. Why? Because returning to Lee's quote. The Union could be dissolved by 1) consent or 2) revolution.
But the southern states didn't have consent, and the general southern argument is that their actions weren't revolution/rebellion (since that would permit it to be legally suppressed). What we have instead are states seceding without consent and crying foul when their action is then treated as rebellion.
Glad to hear that. Let me show original intent of some of the Framers.
To the efficacy and permanency of your Union, a government for the whole is indispensable. No alliance, however strict, between the parts can be an adequate substitute; they must inevitably experience the infractions and interruptions which all alliances in all times have experienced. Sensible of this momentous truth, you have improved upon your first essay, by the adoption of a constitution of government better calculated than your former for an intimate union, and for the efficacious management of your common concerns. This government, the offspring of our own choice, uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true liberty. The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government.
George Washington, President, Constitutional Convention---------------------------------------------------------
I return my thanks for the copy of your late very powerful Speech in the Senate of the United S. It crushes "nullification" and must hasten the abandonment of "Secession." But this dodges the blow by confounding the claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression. The former answers itself, being a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged. The latter is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy.
James Madison, "Father" of the Constitution.
BTW. What about that Cotton Tariff?
Sorry but I'm a big believer in the rule of law and not necessarily the rule of force. The rebellion was solved when the last confederate soldier surrendered and was allowed to go home. The underlying legality of the southern acts of secession was settled until the Supreme Court had its say. It's the same with Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus in 1861. One can argue that one until the cows come home but since the matter has never been addressed by the full Supreme Court then whether or not a president can suspend habeas corpus is still an open issue.
That is your thesis. I can respect that. Your conclusion is well thought out, vigorously argued, and substantiated with strong arguments. Now, can't I in good conscience reject it, which I do. Why? Because returning to Lee's quote. The Union could be dissolved by 1) consent or 2) revolution.
And as I've stated before I agree with Lee's statement. I've also made it clear that the south chose revolution to acheive their aims, and tried to cloak it in an undeserved veil of legality by saying unilateral secession was permitted under the Constituiton.
Many Southern supporters have offered up ample proof.
I am sorry but that is not true. I'm not slipping or sliding or dodging anything, just holding you all to the same standards you apply to secession. In keeping with the grand southron arguement that the Constitution does not forbid secession please show me where the Constitution forbids expulsion. I'm still waiting.
Yeah I probably should have stayed out of that one. But don't you find it at all amusing that so many of those great southern songs listed were written by Yankees? If I started a thread of 100 great Northern songs and filled it with the works of Elvis Presley or Roy Clark or Jimmy Buffett wouldn't you have a field day with that? And rightly so?
Yeah, yeah, yeah, we're back to "the decisionw as tainted because I think it was". I'm not sure how we're going to get over that one.
A State, in applying for 'statehood' weren't asking to BE a State, they were asking the federal government to recognize them AS a State.
And when the federal government said "No, we don't recognize you as a state," then what? What was their status?
Those powers NOT granted are reserved. You have to show me where the federal government does have the power, not where the States retained it.
And I've shown in the past where the power to approve secession is implied in all the powers that Congress has to admit states and control their actions once allowed to join the Union. The fact that you disagree with that position means nothing. The fact that the Supreme Court held to that very same position means everything.
Thanks for playing.
Wouldn't miss it for the world.
What of these words: When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
The list was long and so was the South's list against the North. Do you think George the III agreed? Do you think Louis XVI agreed? Do you think Czar Nicholas agreed? Do you think that Gandhi sought consent?
Lee wasn't saying first consent and if denied then revolution. He was saying the Union could dissolved by 1) consent or 2) by revolution.
Did they see it as revolution? I can't answer for everyone in 1861, but I will end with the words of Thomas Jackson: (Saying good bye to the Stonewall Brigade due to promotion to 2nd Corps)
Throughout the broad extent of the country through which you have marched by your respect for the rights and property of others you have always shown you are soldiers, not only to defend but able and willing both to defend and protect.
You've already won a brilliant reputation throughout the Army of the whole Confederacy. And I trust in the future by your deeds in the field and by the assistance of the same kind Providence who has favored our cause you will win more victories and add luster to the reputation you now enjoy. You already gained a proud position in the future history of this our second war of independence.
I shall look with anxiety to your future movements and I trust whenever I shall hear of the First Brigade on the field of battle it will be of still nobler deeds achieved and higher reputation won.
In the Army of the Shenandoah,you were the First Brigade. In the Army of the Potomac, you were the First Brigade. In the 2nd Corps of this Army, you are the First Brigade. You are the First Brigade in the affections of your general. And I hope by your future deeds and bearing you will be handed down to posterity as the First Brigade in this, our second war of independence.
Sorry, I have no wish to to rehash the civil war.
LOL!
You're just as bad as you friend in the selective editing department.
It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those intrusted with its administration to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism.... If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield.
If you'll read the entire thing, he was admonishing government to keep its place, more than he was telling the people they MUST blindly obey the government.
BTW, that wasn't from the Constitutional Convention, it was from his Farewell Address in 1796.
-----
James Madison, "Father" of the Constitution.
I've been through that one with NS.
Look it up.
-----
What about that Cotton Tariff?
What about it? I've already told you I had misspoke and meant another subject entirely, yet you nag at that as if it had some meaning.
I believe I have posted that it was revolution against a perceived tyrant. (Of course the tyrant does not believe that of himself)
There are two sides to revolution. Those doing the revolting and those being revolted against. There is not going to be any agreement. You can talk about mutual this and mutal that, but I in revolt, so quite frankly, I don't care. If I win, I win my freedom. And if I lose, well, we all saw how gracious you were in victory. LOL! That's the inherent nature and danger of revolution.
Now, I really have to get back to work. See you on another thread.
Okay, now we're getting somewhere.
And 'implied' power cannot negate an EXPRESSED right.
To do so would nullify the purpose for the expression in the first place.
Those powers NOT given to the general government are retained to the States.
-----
According to you, the Founders could have written:
We hereby create the United States
and gone home!
-------
If that were the case, why were the State Constitutions retained?
If the States all became servants of the mighty federal government, what was the need for them?
So where was the Federal Government "outside of it's place?"
BTW. I know it's from the Farewell Address, but I posted it because you said that original intent is all that matters in interperting the Constitution, and it would seem logical that the President of the Constitutional Convention (who BTW had to deal with talk of secession and open rebellion during his own administration) would know a thing or two about original intent.
Nor would any rational person believe that of Lincoln. A tyrant is an absolute ruler, unrestrained by law or constitution. Lincoln operated within the Constitution, answered to the U.S. electorate in two free an Constitutional elections, as well as to Congress, and had his actions subject to review by the Supreme Court. Hardly the definition of a tyrant.
Those doing the revolting and those being revolted against.
And I agree that the Southern actions were pretty revolting.
Hey, I'm not disagreeing. Southern actions were a rebellion.
a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
But other Lost Causers tell us that the declarations of the causes of the four states that showed a "decent respect to the opinions of mankind" are meaningless in interpreting their motives.
Lee wasn't saying first consent and if denied then revolution. He was saying the Union could dissolved by 1) consent or 2) by revolution.
Fine. Just don't come back crying about your rights being violated when you choose revolution and it fails, because revolution means that you've rejected EVERYTHING--not just the restrictions of the existing government but it's protections as well, and intend to start over from scratch.
I'm confused now.
Here's what you said
Oh, please. South Carolina petitioned the federal government 25 years before on the subject of unfair tariffs on cotton and prior to sending their Declaration of Causes.
Are you saying they didn't petition congress, or they petitioned them on something else other than cotton?
It does not. The 10th Amendment reads, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The power to approve any change in the status of a state, from admission to secession, is a power delegated to the United States. The fact that some of that is implied is meaningless because the Supreme Court recognized the existence of implied powers in the McCullouch v. Maryland case, and makes no distiction in validity between expressed and implied powers.
To do so would nullify the purpose for the expression in the first place. Those powers NOT given to the general government are retained to the States.
"Among the enumerated powers, we do not find that of establishing a bank or creating a corporation. But there is no phrase in the instrument which, like the Articles of Confederation, excludes incidental or implied powers and which requires that everything granted shall be expressly and minutely described. Even the 10th Amendment, which was framed for the purpose of quieting the excessive jealousies which had been excited, omits the word "expressly," and declares only that the powers "not delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people," thus leaving the question whether the particular power which may become the subject of contest has been delegated to the one Government, or prohibited to the other, to depend on a fair construction of the whole instrument. The men who drew and adopted this amendment had experienced the embarrassments resulting from the insertion of this word in the Articles of Confederation, and probably omitted it to avoid those embarrassments. A Constitution, to contain an accurate detail of all the subdivisions of which its great powers will admit, and of all the means by which they may be carried into execution, would partake of the prolixity of a legal code, and could scarcely be embraced by the human mind. It would probably never be understood by the public. Its nature, therefore, requires that only its great outlines should be marked, its important objects designated, and the minor ingredients which compose those objects be deduced from the nature of the objects themselves. That this idea was entertained by the framers of the American Constitution is not only to be inferred from the nature of the instrument, but from the language. Why else were some of the limitations found in the 9th section of the 1st article introduced? It is also in some degree warranted by their having omitted to use any restrictive term which might prevent its receiving a fair and just interpretation. In considering this question, then, we must never forget that it is a Constitution we are expounding." -- Chief Justice Marshall, 1819
2) But other Lost Causers tell us that the declarations of the causes of the four states that showed a "decent respect to the opinions of mankind" are meaningless in interpreting their motives.
Why, cause you don't agree? I don't care that you don't agree. Didn't seek or need your permission to revolt.
3)Fine. Just don't come back crying about your rights being violated when you choose revolution and it fails, because revolution means that you've rejected EVERYTHING--not just the restrictions of the existing government but it's protections as well, and intend to start over from scratch.
Think I said that in my post or the next one down. The inherent danger of revoltuion is I might lose. And guess what, the South paid dearly. The inherent good in revolution is I might win and gain my freedom.
I don't see the contempt for our forefathers on these threads that you seem to have for those in the South. They are guilty of the same crime and the charges you bring against the South could easily be laid at the feet of Washington, et al. What is the difference? You approved of them.
Now, quite frankly, this topic has been worn out. I get it. I get your point of view. I understand where you're coming from. I disagree with you. Hopefully, you can be bubba ho-tep enough to realize that not everybody agrees with you about this subject.
No, the power is to admit, not control.
Controlling a State after its point of admission is against Article 4 Section 4 The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,
I've already posted Rawle, who specifically says a state could leave.
§ 1819. It may not be amiss further to observe, (in the language of another commentator,) that every pretext for intermeddling with the domestic concerns of any state, under colour of protecting it against domestic violence, is taken away by that part of the provision, which renders an application from the legislature, or executive authority of the state endangered necessary to be made to the general government, before its interference can be at all proper.
Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution
-----
Tell me NS, if an acquaintance should come to your house and you invite him in, and after a while he decides to leave, do you have the legal authority to make him stay against his will?
-----
Chief Justice Marshall, 1819
Marshall was speaking about whether or not a national bank was constitutional. Of course it was. The federal government was instituted with the monies from the several states, they had to have some way to deal with it.
Although, among the enumerated powers of government, we do not find the word bank, or incorporation, we find the great powers to lay and collect taxes; to borrow money; to regulate commerce; to declare and conduct a war; and to raise and support armies and navies. The sword and the purse, all the external relations, and no inconsiderable portion of the industry of the nation, are entrusted to its government. It can never be pretended that these vast powers draw after them others of inferior importance, merely because they are inferior.
Marshall also said:
We admit, as all must admit, that the powers of the government are limited, and that its limits are not to be transcended. But we think the sound construction of the constitution must allow to the national legislature that discretion, with respect to the means by which the powers it confers are to be carried into execution, which will enable that body to perform the high duties assigned to it, in the manner most beneficial to the people. Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional
He says to stay within the Constitution. The same thing I've been saying all along.
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.