Our orphaned Constitution

The Washington Times ^ | 8-7-07 | Bruce Fein

[JZelle]

The U.S. Constitution has been orphaned by President Bush and Congress. The Founding Fathers would weep over the abandonment of their brilliant creation featuring checks and balances and muscular protections against government abuses.

An Aug. 2, 2007, executive order issued by Mr. Bush that blocks property of persons who present a risk of acting in a way that could undermine the sovereignty of Lebanon or its democratic processes or institutions is emblematic of the Constitution's orphanage.

The order was authorized by the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a statute that delegates vast legislative powers over national security affairs. IEEPA empowers the president to impose a financial death penalty upon persons in circumstances which he pronounces create an "unusual and extraordinary threat" to the foreign policy of the United States. Among other things, the president may block assets or void financial transactions.

The Founding Fathers would have frowned on Congress abdicating its national security powers. James Madison, father of the Constitution, worried that foreign threats would be exploited to undermine domestic liberties, especially by a president in times of war or conflict.

[LiteKeeper]

The ONLY ones who have abandoned the Constitution are the dimoRATS. They have tried to take over the position of Commander-in-Chief, Secretary of State, Director of the CIA, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.

[MosesKnows]

The Founding Fathers would weep over the abandonment of their brilliant creation

Any serious Founding Father's weeping would have begun in earnest with the ratification of the 16th and 17th amendment. These two amendments clearly ended the vision the Founding Fathers had for the Republic.

Does this observation cause you to ponder America’s future?

"The Roman Republic fell, not because of the ambition of Caesar or Augustus, but because it had already long ceased to be in any real sense a republic at all. When the sturdy Roman plebeian, who lived by his own labor, who voted without reward according to his own convictions, and who with his fellows formed in war the terrible Roman legion, had been changed into an idle creature who craved nothing in life save the gratification of a thirst for vapid excitement, who was fed by the state, and who directly or indirectly sold his vote to the highest bidder, then the end of the Republic was at hand, and nothing could save it. The laws were the same as they had been, but the people behind the laws had changed, and so the laws counted for nothing.” Teddy Roosevelt on the Fall of the Republic

[TBP]

As Dr. Walter E. Williams has pointed out, if states can’t secede, tehn the Federal government can do whatever it likes and there is ultimately no mechanism to stop them. By crushing that right by force, the War Between the States fundamentally changed the nature of our Republic into a Big Government-without-limit democracy. And that was uttery contrary to the intent of the Founders.

[Abcdefg]

I’ll see your Lincoln and raise you, Calder v. Bull (1792).

[Abcdefg]

Don't deceive yourself. Most Republicans are politicians first and do not let a little thing like a Constitution (to which they have sworn an oath to defend) stand in their way.

I did not see Bush dismantle Americorps, did you?

[LiteKeeper]

Baloney!

[Jack Hammer]

Huh...? Do we still have a constitution?

[Abcdefg]

So, you DID see Bush dismantle Slick’s unConstitutional Americorps program?

[sanchmo]

With all due respect to Dr Williams whose other views I admire and agree with greatly...

In the first half of the 19th Century, the threat of secession became a tool to blackmail and hold hostage the Republic. The Southern states used that threat for half a century to not only veto the elimination of slavery, to not only veto any gradual reduction of slavery, but to veto any discussion of not expanding slavery into new territories as well as into existing free states. The confederate states seceeded because of the result of one presidential election, after they had already enjoyed a solid decade of support from favorable administrations and the shameful Tanney supreme court.

What could a Lincoln adminstration have actrually done if secession never happened? The most drastic thing he could have possibly gotten away with was to not enforce the fugitive laws, and then get booted out of office 4 years later. And possibly resist southern calls to invade Mexico, Cuba and Venezuela for the purpose of increasing the number of slave territories. And for that the confederate states claimed (with a straight face) that they were becoming slaves themselves. Gimme a break.

The catastrophe of the Civil War happened only because of an inability of both sides to compromise and reach a gradual solution. And the fact the the south decided that keeping (no, expanding) slavery was more important than both the future of the US and more important than a constitutional election put them much more in the wrong. Much more.

[constitutionalist1]

I would advise not to be so partisan in nature. The Republicans have become just as corrupt and disregarding of the Constitution as Democrats, albeit in different ways.

[RightWhale]

the Constitutional authority for the Louisiana Purchase

The Pres, who did it on his own authority, admitted there was none. Still, it was quite a deal and made the Mississippi useful to the country.

[jas3]

Do you honestly believe that without the Civil War the South would still have slaves today?

No. But here is what I do honestly believe:

I believe that the South was just as responsible as the North - probably even more so - for the fact that the issue could never be resolved except by war. The US was trying to abolish slavery for over half a decade, but the southern slaveholders were stubbornly and brutally opposed to even the most basic limits, and in the 1840s & 1850s becoming even more militant & less willing to comprimise.

I believe that had the South succeeded in secession, the resulting 2 countries would have been incredibly weaker that a united US, and that we would never have become what we are today. The Confederacy couldn't even cooperate enough to not lose against the North (they didn't even have to win, they only had to not lose). How would they have fared against the European powers? How would they have fared against an angry Mexico?

3.8 million people died in the Civil War along with States Rights. So in your view, was it worth having 3.8 million people die, given that we both agree slaverly would have died out anyhow within a decade or so? The European powers would eventually have ened trade with the Southern States in the same fashion that they ended slavery in their own Empires and possessions.

I believe that the United States would be materially more free and would possibly still operate as a republic had the Civil War been avoided. And, of course, slavery would have died out by 1875 anyhow.

[calex59]

3.8 million people died in the Civil War along with States Rights. So in your view, was it worth having 3.8 million people die, given that we both agree slaverly would have died out anyhow within a decade or so? The European powers would eventually have ened trade with the Southern States in the same fashion that they ended slavery in their own Empires and possessions. I believe that the United States would be materially more free and would possibly still operate as a republic had the Civil War been avoided. And, of course, slavery would have died out by 1875 anyhow.

I would add this to your statement jas3, if slavery had been allowed to die out naturally, which it would have, there would not have been the rank hatred of the blacks that existed in the south after the civil war, they would have integrated into society much sooner and America would still be a republic. The north forced the south to secede by their actions, this war was the ruin, not the savior, of our Republic.

[sanchmo]

3.8 million people died in the Civil War along with States Rights.

States rights and strict constitutionalism died long before the Civil War, and the increasingly militant pro-slave forces drove more nails into its coffin than A Lincoln. A brief smattering of the most well known pro-slave controversies can show that "states rights" was only occasional lip service:
* The southern-supported and northern-opposed Louisiana purchase, which coincidentally added slave territory;
* The southern-supported and northern-opposed Mexican War (without congressional approval) and annexation of Texas (by resolution instead of treaty), which also coincidentally added slave territory;
* The southern push to invade and annex central and south american countries to create a slave-holding empire in the new world;
* The Fugitive Slave Laws which denied 4th and 5th Amendment rights to suspected or accused runaway slaves, to citizens of free states suspected or accused of harboring runaway slaves, or to officials of free states who did not enforce the law to the satisfaction of a citizen of a slave state;
* The Taney court's over-reaching Scott decision, which denied states the long-standing precendents of allowing balcks to vote, and also denied free states the right to decide if people could be considered "property" within thier borders;

The south seceeded because they had built so much central power in the name of slavery, that when one anti-slavery president was elected after decades of pro-slavery presidents, senates, houses and courts, they thought Lincoln would pull the same stunts they were pulling. Of course, the frequent newspaper stories warning of the "negroes forcibly taking away your white wives and daughters" played into it too... ironically enough.

we both agree slaverly would have died out anyhow within a decade or so?

No we don't. I agreed we wouldn't have slavery today, even without the Civil War. But even if the north was more wiling to comprimise, the militancy of the south in its drive to expand slavery would have prevented any meaningful and peaceful compromise for a long, long time. Much longer than a decade. And if the south was allowed to go its merry Confederate way, this country most likely wouldn't even be around to argue about this.

was it worth having 3.8 million people die

No. It was a needless tragedy. And I repeat that the fault lies more in southern aggression and stubborness than any northern aggression.

there would not have been the rank hatred of the blacks that existed in the south after the civil war

Reading a few newspaper articles from the time would show just how much hatred and fear existed already. You know... "the negroes will make your wives and daughters dirty and defiled concubines" type stuff. The kind of rationalization and psychological projection required of a 19th century Christian culture to justify human bondage.

[Little Ray]

Ultimately, everything is about money.

BTW: You’re wrong about the Northern industrialists. Where do you think Abolitionists got most of their money?

The Northern industrialists couldn’t compete with European goods. Part of the issue was that European manufacturing was better established than American - their goods were cheaper even after being shipped across the Atlantic; part of it was that currencies were not as fungible as they are today. Merchants couldn’t bring home pounds or francs and trade them like today; they certainly couldn’t bring home specie ir bullion - the host nation wouldn’t allow it! And ship owners certainly didn’t want their ships to return with empty holds.

In the meantime, most of the Federal Revenue came from the South (and was spent in the North!). With the South gone, Federal income would drop dramatically. However, that wasn’t all! The Confederacy planned a 10% tariff (very low) in their ports AND controlled the mouth of Mississippi. The Northerners foresaw a bankrupt Federal Government and grass growing the streets of New York and Boston.

That, more than anything was the reason for the Civil War.
Or else why did Lincoln himself say that he would have a Union with or without slavery?

[jas3]

we both agree slaverly would have died out anyhow within a decade or so?

No we don't. I agreed we wouldn't have slavery today, even without the Civil War.

I apologize for putting words in your mouth. What is your best estimate of when slavery would have ended in the South without a war?

But even if the north was more wiling to comprimise, the militancy of the south in its drive to expand slavery would have prevented any meaningful and peaceful compromise for a long, long time. Much longer than a decade. And if the south was allowed to go its merry Confederate way, this country most likely wouldn't even be around to argue about this.

If people who once populated areas that came together under a single belief system end up having children or grandchildren or allow immigrants or otherwise no longer share a single belief system, then they no longer should live under the same form of government.

Every country grows and shrinks over time.

It is quite likely that the United States will devolve into majority English and majority Spanish speaking regions within the next 50 years. Would it be worth killing 4 million people to prevent that?

To look back and state that the US would not have been around is something of an overstatement. It is probably correct that the country would not have evolved along the same historical path. Whether that would have been a better or worse path is largely unknown and largely depends upon one's perspective of American history.

jas3

[sanchmo]

OK, for the sake of argument I’ll cede that northern industrialists were anti-slavery and pro-union. Secession was still about just one thing - slavery. Specifically, it was because the south irrationally believed that Lincoln could somehow muster the power to free the slaves on his own, even though the same congress and the same supreme court that had been so favorable to slaveholder’s rights were still there. And Lincoln knew he could not muster that power, but also knew that the union could never survive states coming and going willy-nilly based on the latest political winds. In the end, it was the south’s inability to compromise that gave Lincoln the political power to end slavery.

[sanchmo]

What is your best estimate of when slavery would have ended in the South without a war?

At the pace and intensity things were escalating between 1820 and 1860, I could not even guess how or when slavery would have ended, with or without war. Even though the constitution tried to start a dialog about its end, the events around the Mexican War, the broken compromises, the Fugitive Laws, the composition of congress and the political parties, the Taney court, and the streak of presidents afraid to touch the third rail of the 19th century, all clearly put the momentuum back into slaveholder's hands. (As an aside, and not using this point at all to justofy war, but my biggest ... in light of all these advantages and political momentuum the south had, what is it about the election of Lincoln during one period of divided opposition did the south see as bad enough to warrant secession?).

To look back and state that the US would not have been around is something of an overstatement

I'll grant you that, it is an overstatement on my part. But it would have been a prefectly rational thought for any President of the US to have, and to fight for. That's why (Virginian) President Madison fought against a New Englander's secesionist movement, and why (south carolinian) President Jackson threatened to send troops to forcibly put down South Carolina's secessionist grumblings.

Yes, 4 million lives was a horrific price to pay for all this. But the scale of casualties was due more to the changing nature of warfare than to any political cause. See: Crimean War, WW1, etc.

[1035rep]

If the Democrats were not trying to get us all killed, they’d be funny to watch.

Nancy DOES think she is Commander-in-Chief.

[sanchmo]

most of the Federal Revenue came from the South (and was spent in the North!).

And the southern slaveowners' congressional representation was partially based on how many slaves they owned. Also unfair, dontcha think?

OK, it's been great having this lively debate with fellow freepers, but I have to retire for the eve. Don't worry, I'm not seceeding from this (mostly because I believe I'm winning ;^), so we can pick it up again tomorrow.

What was this thread about, anyway?