Posted on 05/24/2007 6:03:30 AM PDT by Rebeleye
Article I, Section 10 and Article IV, Section 3 both make it clear that Congressional approval is required for changes in a state's status. Implicit in that is approval to leave as well. Or so the Supreme Court found.
Now, your turn to pull something out of your...whatever and tell us what allows unilateral secession.
Not as greedy as the Southern states were. But that's another subject.
Is it not enough that Southerners wanted to disassociate from your ilk, without having to abandon their homeland as well? Is that really what got Lincoln's panties in a wad? that Southerners thought more of living in their own country with blacks, Mexicans and native Americans absent yankees?
Oh you could have taken your real estate with you. Although how happy you would have been with the blacks once you couldn't own them any more, or with the Indians when you couldn't expel them any more, or with the Mexicans once the confederacy tried invading them, are all open to speculation.
Davis was one of those politicians who talked one way in Washington and the North and another way at home. Maybe all politicians are more or less like that, and if their doubletalk brings good results for the country we forgive them, but Davis's duplicity had the worst possible results.
Davis showed the same duplicity and inability to admit what he was actually doing in his battles within his Democratic Party. Davis couldn't bring himself to admit that his actions were splitting the party and dooming it to defeat.
You can see the same pattern in the weeks leading up to the beginning of war. On March 6, 1861, over a month before firing on Fort Sumter, Davis and the Confederate Congress called for an army of 100,000 volunteers, a force much larger than the US Army. Was that the action of a man who wanted peace?
In his last speech in Congress in January, 1861, Davis had attacked Buchanan for not surrendering Sumter. He had months afterwards to figure out what to do if the United States refused to relinquish the fort, as he had every reason to expect that they wouldn't. And what did he come up with? Nothing, except force. Almost as if he wanted the war to solidify his government's position.
Nowhere does it say that the USSC is the law of the land.
In fact, they are not to be the most powerful branch.
“For example?”
You really should pay attention to the antics of the USSC:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-07-07-foreign-usat_x.htm
“Marshall summed it up in his Marbury v. Madison decision”
Jefferson had a somewhat different opinion of this.
“My question to you is if not the Supreme Court then who”
All three branches.
” Do away with the checks and balances altogether? “
With this all-powerful court we have and you bow to, we have no “checks and balances”.
“Let Congress and the President do what they wish because, after all, that’s how Jeff Davis wanted it?”
Why are you fine with allowing unelected lawyers to do as they wish? When there is no bound placed on their decisions - such as their unconstitutional use of foreign laws to “interpret” the Constitution and they may make up things as they go along, we have no checks and balances. We have no liberty.
Read some of Thomas and Scalia’s dissents sometime.
I think that one went over their heads...
No, it says that the Constitution is the law of the land.
In fact, they are not to be the most powerful branch
Each branch has their level of authority. Each acts as a check on the others.
You really should pay attention to the antics of the USSC...
Antics of the Supreme Court? I'm having enough trouble keeping up with the antics of you.
But if you have a problem with Justice Kennedy's decision in Lawrence v Texas, which cited dozens of U.S. precedents for each foreign reference, then you must really hate justices who issue rulings like this: "The practices of other nations, particularly other democracies, can be relevant to determining whether a practice uniform among our people is not merely an historical accident, but rather so 'implicit in the concept of ordered liberty' that it occupies a place not merely in our mores but, text permitting, in our Constitution as well. See Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325 (1937) (Cardozo, J.)." Or even worse, a justice who would dare write a decision like this: "We might also add to the list on the other side the legislatures of foreign democracies: Australia, Canada, and England, for example, all have prohibitions upon anonymous campaigning. See, e.g., Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, §328 (Australia); Canada Elections Act, R.S.C., ch. E-2, §261 (1985); Representation of the People Act, 1983, §110 (England)."
For the record the first one is from the minority decision in Thompson v. Oklahoma and the second is from the minority opinion in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission. Both were written by Justice Scalia.
Jefferson had a somewhat different opinion of this.
I'm sure he did.
All three branches.
So what, the executive decides if their actions are constitutional and the legislative decides if their actions are constitutional? How does that work?
Why are you fine with allowing unelected lawyers to do as they wish? When there is no bound placed on their decisions - such as their unconstitutional use of foreign laws to “interpret” the Constitution and they may make up things as they go along, we have no checks and balances. We have no liberty.
At the risk of repeating myself I'll repeat, something is not unconstitutional merely because you say it is. And I'll trust the justices over elected congressmen or president or you. They aren't perfect. They come to conlusions that sometimes have me shaking my head. But far more often than not they issue decisions in keeping with the founder's intent of the Constitution probably was. And they're the system we've got.
Read some of Thomas and Scalia’s dissents sometime.
Like the ones above?
Which goes to show that there was an element in the South looking for any excuse for a war.
Overruled. The South did nothing of the sort. They sent commissioners to demand the U.S. recognize confederate sovereignty. No other topic was open for dicussion. An end to secession wasn't on the table. None of Lincoln's positions were open for discussion. It was recognition or nothing. And only after the Lincoln administration had given in to demands and recognized the legality of the Southern acts of secession was there a vague offer to discuss 'subjects of interest to both countries'. So no, the south didn't propose settlement of debt. They proposed nothing but Union surrender. Had Lincoln given in to their demands then, maybe, the topic of debt and stolen property might have been discussed. Or it might not. We'll never know.
Considering they have assumed the power to do whatever they wish, that’s no longer true. The USSC is granted the power to judge limited cases under the US Constitution, not to make up their own sections of that document or use foriegn law.
“Each branch has their level of authority. Each acts as a check on the others.”
That’s not what we have here. Clearly.
“Antics of the Supreme Court? I’m having enough trouble keeping up with the antics of you. “
It’s a pity you can’t be bothered.
“But if you have a problem with Justice Kennedy’s decision in Lawrence v Texas, which cited dozens of U.S. precedents for each foreign reference, then you must really hate justices who issue rulings like this: “The practices of other nations, particularly other democracies, can be relevant to determining whether a practice uniform among our people is not merely an historical accident, but rather so ‘implicit in the concept of ordered liberty’ that it occupies a place not merely in our mores but, text permitting, in our Constitution as well. See Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325 (1937) (Cardozo, J.).” Or even worse, a justice who would dare write a decision like this: “We might also add to the list on the other side the legislatures of foreign democracies: Australia, Canada, and England, for example, all have prohibitions upon anonymous campaigning. See, e.g., Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, §328 (Australia); Canada Elections Act, R.S.C., ch. E-2, §261 (1985); Representation of the People Act, 1983, §110 (England).” “
Of course I have a problem with this.
“So what, the executive decides if their actions are constitutional and the legislative decides if their actions are constitutional? How does that work?”
Does the President take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution? If he knows a bill is unconstitutional, he is duty bound to not sign it. If the member of Congress knows a bill is unconstitutional, he has a duty to vote against it. You can’t have “checks and balances” with a single all-powerful arbiter. All three branches are supposed to act in tension, but due to their appointed nature, the USSC is supposed to have the most limited power. Considering we know have to worry who sits on that court because of their ability, thanks to both their usurpation and the surrender of the other two branches, to remake the country, this is a problem.
“At the risk of repeating myself I’ll repeat, something is not unconstitutional merely because you say it is.”
Something is not constitutional or otherwise just because the USSC says it is. If the USSC decided that the 2nd Amendment meant the State, in the person of the Federal government, and no one else had the power to arm itself. In fact, if they decided that “the people” actually meant the government in all the Bill of Rights, would that be Constitutional in your book?
“Read some of Thomas and Scalia’s dissents sometime.”
A Resolution for the Appointment of Commissioners to the Government of the United States of America
"Resolved by the Confederate States of America in Congress Assembled, That it is the sense of this Congress that a commission of three persons be appointed by the President elect, as early as may be convenient after his inauguration, and sent to the government of the United States of America, for the purpose of negotiating friendly relations between that government and the Confederate States of America, and for the settlement of all questions of disagreement between the two governments upon principles of right, justice, equity, and good faith."
Adopted February 15, 1861.
And then there was the letter Davis sent Lincoln.
"For the purpose of establishing friendly relations between the Confederate States and the United States, and reposing special trust, &c., Martin J. Crawford, John Forsyth, and A. B. Roman are appointed special commissioners of the Confederate States to the United States. I have invested them with full and all manner of power and authority for and in the name of the Confederate States to meet and confer with any person or persons duly authorized by the Government of the United States being furnished with like powers and authority, and with them to agree, treat, consult, and negotiate of and concerning all matters and subjects interesting to both nations, and to conclude and sign a treaty or treaties, convention or conventions, touching the premises, transmitting the same to the President of the Confederate States for his final ratification by and with the consent of the Congress of the Confederate States. "
In both cases the objective was clear, to obtain recognition of confederate sovereignty. Then, and only then were there vague offers to discuss other issues.
Oh, and in the documents you posted. Where was there any offer of financial settlement in them?
Nonsense. You're very entertaining.
Of course I have a problem with this.
And it's Scalia doing what you condemn Kennedy for.
Does the President take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution? If he knows a bill is unconstitutional, he is duty bound to not sign it. If the member of Congress knows a bill is unconstitutional, he has a duty to vote against it.
So in other words, something is unconstitutional because the president says it is or a congressman says it is? What if they disagree? Who's right?
Something is not constitutional or otherwise just because the USSC says it is.
Well, yeah. It is. That's how it works.
Perhaps I should finished the thought. It’s a pity you can’t be bothered to pay attention to something the conservative movement has fought for for 20 years at least.
“And it’s Scalia doing what you condemn Kennedy for.”
Did you read his side of the debate I posted?
“So in other words, something is unconstitutional because the president says it is or a congressman says it is? What if they disagree? Who’s right?”
Do you understand what “checks and balances” actually mean?
“Well, yeah. It is. That’s how it works.”
No, that’s not “how it works”. At least, not how it is intended to work. What you describe is tyranny. If the USSC, as an example, did what I suggested - redefine “we the people” in the 2nd Amendment, that would be an unconstitutional action.
Unless you’re one of those “living Constitution” people.
Apparently what it means to you is the same thing it meant to Jefferson Davis. "The true and only test is to enquire whether the law is intended and calculated to carry out the object; whether it devises and creates an instrumentality for executing the specific power granted; and if the answer be in the affirmative, the law is constitutional." So in other words, so long as the law allows you to do what you want to do, it's constitutional. Scary.
Unless you’re one of those “living Constitution” people.
You believe the Constitution means whatever you say it means, or whatever the President says it means, or whatever 535 Congressmen say it means, and you accuse me of believing in a 'living Constitution'. Amazing. In your world it can mean 537 different things.
You like making things up, don’t you?
“You believe the Constitution means whatever you say it means, or whatever the President says it means, or whatever 535 Congressmen say it means, and you accuse me of believing in a ‘living Constitution’. Amazing. In your world it can mean 537 different things.”
All branches have a duty to protect and defend the Constitution. Allowing one to assume that duty alone leads to the tyranny we have now. I find it scary that you would have no problem with the USSC defining the protection for our rights away....
What I'm saying is that I trust the Supreme Court to do so more than I do you.
Do you actually want one unelected branch of government to rule us? We are supposed to be a representative republic, not a judicial tyranny. A single federal judge can overturn the voiced will of the people - as was done for Prop 187 in CA - because it didn’t agree with that judge’s politics.
The USSC and the rest of the federal courts are supposed to be strictly limited in power for this very reason. You’re okay with this growth in their power. Conservatives are not.
I think the call for the large CSA army was in direct response to Lincoln's first inaugural speech of a few days earlier. It was widely interpreted in the South and in Democratic circles in the North that Lincoln's speech was a in effect declaration of war. See A Declaration of War?.
Here is a newspaper item dated March 5, 1861:
Latest from Montgomery
War considered Inevitable -- The Standing Army -- The War Strength
Montgomery, March 5 -- Since the receipt of the Inaugural address of Mr. Lincoln, it is universally conceded here that war between the Confederate States and the United States is inevitable. Mr. Benjamin said last night, that in his opinion, there would be a clash of Arms within thirty days.
Mr. Conrad concurred in this view of the aspect of affairs. The standing army of the Confederate States will be fixed at ten thousand men. Congress is now engaged in organizing the army. Of course, in case of hostilities, the number of men put in the field will be greater. It is calculated that the States now composing the Confederacy can place 80,000 on a movable war footing. [Source: Gazette and Sentinel, Plaquemine, Louisiana, March 9, 1861]
In such a situation, Davis would have been remiss if he did not prepare for what might happen. Here's the first part of the March 6 act that authorized Davis to call for volunteers if and when needed:
The Congress of the Confederate States of America do enact, That in order to provide speedily forces to repel invasion, maintain the rightful possession of the Confederate States of America in every portion of territory belonging to each State, and to secure the public tranquility and independence against threatened assault, the President be, and he is hereby authorized to employ the militia, military and naval forces of the Confederate States of America, and to ask for and accept the services of any number of volunteers, not exceeding one hundred thousand, who may offer their services, either as cavalry, mounted riflemen, artillery or infantry, in such proportion of these several arms as he may deem expedient, to serve for twelve months after they shall be mustered into service, unless sooner discharged.
I note that these volunteers were intended to protect against invasion, maintain possessions (no doubt including forts) within the Confederacy, and secure independence against threatened assault.
what did he [Davis] come up with? Nothing, except force. Almost as if he wanted the war to solidify his government's position.
Nothing except force is incorrect, but he may indeed have wanted to solidify his government's position by firing on the fort to precipitate the secession of border states. Lincoln probably had ulterior motives as well. Lincoln wanted to get the North solidly behind him, and provoking the South into a fight was certainly one way to do it. As I've said on these threads before, IMO Davis blundered by firing on Fort Sumter. It would have been better for the Confederacy if he had waited for a situation where Lincoln was more clearly in the wrong. (That's easy for me to say almost 150 years after the fact.)
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.