Posted on 02/07/2010 6:15:41 AM PST by wolfcreek
An unexpected feature of this year's gubernatorial race is the revival of certain political notions identified with early American history. Republican candidate Debra Medina in particular has made nullification a major aspect of her campaign, both in her two debates with U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison and Gov. Rick Perry and on her Web site, which includes, under the label "Restore Sovereignty," the message that the U.S. Constitution "divides power between the federal and state governments and ultimately reserves final authority for the people themselves. Texas must stop the over reaching federal government and nullify federal mandates in agriculture, energy, education, healthcare, industry, and any other areas D.C. is not granted authority by the Constitution."
She does not specify the mechanism by which nullification would take place, but, obviously, she appears to believe that the legal authority to nullify is unquestionable, making it only a question of political will.
(Excerpt) Read more at statesman.com ...
Another non sequitur from Non-Sequitur...
I'm just trying to follow your usual twisted logic. If the fact that the states need the permission of other states to join the Union doesn't necessarily mean that the same is required to leave - your words not mine - then that means you admit that it is possible such permission might be required. So who's responsibility is it to clear up your doubts and determine whether the approval of the other states is required?
And you don't find your argument, which can't withstand a 'Publishers Clearing House' test, "somewhat...idiotic?" Typical liberalism...
Because the test is moronic in the extreme. A state joins the Union. What are you joining when you send in your Publisher's Clearing House entry? I mean really. You couldn't come up with an analogy for the Constitution and some other group? You had to pick a totally unrelated, apples-and-oranges comparison?
Tell us again why the State of Rhode Island and the Providence Plantations was NOT a member of the union, from approximately 1788 until 1790.
Because it was a member of the Union. It was one of the United States. If it wasn't then you tell me what stripped it of that status.
By all means, please enlighten us - you bull sh!t artist...
Now, now, now don't get your mouth to foaming again.
Charming as ever, I see. And still making as little sense as always. It's always fun to see you again, Galt.
Which is Galtism for "Beats the shit out of me." But hey, if you can't answer it then you can't answer it. You're not infallible after all, regardless of what you would like us to believe.
Are you claiming - the Federal Government is sovereign?
The “people” are sovereign - The State speaks for the “people” - Therefore - the State is sovereign.
By the constitution of the United States, the solemn and original compact here referred to, being the act of the people, and by them declared to be the supreme law of the land, the legislative powers thereby granted, are vested in a congress, to consist of a senate and house of representatives. As these powers, on the one hand, are extended to certain objects, as to lay and collect taxes, duties, &c.[3] so on the other they are clearly limited and restrained; as that no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state .... nor any preference given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one state over those of another, &c.[4] These, and several others, are objects to which the power of the legislature does not extend; and should congress be so unwise as to pass an act contrary to these restrictions, the other powers of the state are not bound to obey the legislative power in the execution of their several functions, as our author expresses it: but the very reverse is their duty, being sworn to support the constitution, which unless they do in opposition to such encroachments, the constitution would indeed be at an end.[5]
Here then we must resort to a distinction which the institution and nature of our government has introduced into the western hemisphere; which, however, can only obtain in governments where power is not usurped but delegated, and where authority is a trust and not a right .... nor can it ever be truly ascertained where there is not a written constitution to resort to. A distinction, nevertheless, which certainly does exist between the indefinite and unlimited power of the people, in whom the sovereignty of these states, ultimately, substantially, and unquestionably resides, and the definite powers of the congress and state legislatures, which are severally limited to certain and determinate objects, being no more than emanations from the former, where, and where only, that legislative essence which constitutes sovereignty can be found.
http://www.constitution.org/tb/t1a.htm
No. That was an option when Texas was first joining the Union but once Texas became as state then she fell under the same restrictions as any other state. And according to Article IV, any state can split into two or three or five pieces...with consent of Congress.
Texas was not readmitted after the rebellion. Having never left the Union in the first place, readmission was not necessary.
Uh NO! States Right proponents argue that a state's right to succeed is one of those neither delegated to the federal government nor prohiibited them by the Constitution!
a strong argument can also be made that an indissoulable union was also implied in the Constitution.
Not with me it can't! The Constitution was written by learned men who said EXACTLY what they meant to say! There are no implications in it nor are there penumbra's which can be read for that matter!
They are “enslaved” to a system - they no longer want or desire? No, The “People” still have the - Right!
And the United States has helped how many ‘now’ Country's Secede? Supper is served mighty cold by you “Unionist” types.
Any agreement Texas made because of ( Intimidation and coercion ) is - void and of no force.
How's them mint julep's?
That's actually quite humorous, coming from "non sequitur"...
If the fact that the states need the permission of other states to join the Union doesn't necessarily mean that the same is required to leave - your words not mine - then that means you admit that it is possible such permission might be required.
So your argument is that it's possible "the permission of other states" was required? Or is it that "the permission of other states" was definitely required? Carre to make up your mind?
WIJG: And you don't find your argument, which can't withstand a 'Publishers Clearing House' test, "somewhat...idiotic?" Typical liberalism...
N-S: Because the test is moronic in the extreme. A state joins the Union. What are you joining when you send in your Publisher's Clearing House entry?
Actually, it's a reasonable analogy - unless, of course, you're a bull sh!t artist named after a logical fallacy...
;>)
I mean really. You couldn't come up with an analogy for the Constitution and some other group? You had to pick a totally unrelated, apples-and-oranges comparison?
My, but you do have a short memory - please reread my Post #448 (which was addressed to you. ;>). Here, let me repost it for you:
N-S: Except that 37 our of 50 states (44 out of 57 for Barack Obama) didn't join anything. They were admitted, and only with the permission of a majority of the other states as expressed through a vote in both houses of Congress. Why shouldn't leaving require the same?
WIJG: "Why shouldn't leaving require the same?" Look at only the second clause of the Constitution (I assume that you've read at least the first two) to find your answer:
Article. I. Section. 2. The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature. No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.
If your argument was correct, then Representatives would have to apply to the federal government for permission to resign, before giving up their House seats, just because the Constitution specifies requirements for their admission.
You're an idiot - or maybe just the intellectual equivalent of the 'Crotch Bomber,' as I've noted before...
There, does that help? Probably not - as noted previously, you're an idiot...
WIJG: Tell us again why the State of Rhode Island and the Providence Plantations was NOT a member of the union, from approximately 1788 until 1790.
N-S: Because it was a member of the Union. It was one of the United States. If it wasn't then you tell me what stripped it of that status.
LOL! You're quite amusing, when you're in a complete state of denial! (Which means you’re amusing 100% of the time! ;>) "It was a member of the Union," you say? Not according to James Madison:
2. What relation is to subsist between the nine or more States ratifying the Constitution, and the remaining few who do not become parties to it?
...The second question is not less delicate; and the flattering prospect of its being merely hypothetical forbids an overcurious discussion of it. It is one of those cases which must be left to provide for itself. In general, it may be observed, that although no political relation can subsist between the assenting and dissenting States, yet the moral relations will remain uncancelled. The claims of justice, both on one side and on the other, will be in force, and must be fulfilled; the rights of humanity must in all cases be duly and mutually respected; whilst considerations of a common interest, and, above all, the remembrance of the endearing scenes which are past, and the anticipation of a speedy triumph over the obstacles to reunion, will, it is hoped, not urge in vain MODERATION on one side, and PRUDENCE on the other.
Federalist No. 43
There could be no "reunion," sport, without there first having been 'disunion.' Rhode Island was NOT a member of the union, during the period specified. (Except, of course, to historical revisionists like you... ;>)
WIJG: By all means, please enlighten us - you bull sh!t artist...
N-S: Now, now, now don't get your mouth to foaming again.
And don't forget to take your meds - might help clear up your memory problem (and maybe even your 'denial of reality' problem)...
;>)
WIJG: Another non sequitur from Non-Sequitur...
N-S: Which is Galtism for "Beats the shit out of me." But hey, if you can't answer it then you can't answer it. You're not infallible after all, regardless of what you would like us to believe.
Actually, it WAS a non sequitur - and I never suggested that Rhode Island 'ceased to be a State.' In fact, during the period between the ratification of the Constitution by the first nine States, and the ratification of the Constitution by Rhode Island, Rhode Island existed as a completely independent and sovereign State - outside the federal union. That's a simple reality, that was recognized at the time (see Federalist No. 43, cited above). Of course, historical revisionists (like you ;>) make a habit of denying reality...
;>)
N-S: Charming as ever, I see. And still making as little sense as always. It's always fun to see you again, Galt.
And as I noted above, it's always amusing to watch you spew your endless stream of non sequiturs, and other illogical, revisionist tripe...
;>)
Horse feathers!!
Article VII of the Constitution stated that the Constitution would become the law of the land when the delegates of nine states had ratified the same and that the Constitution would become the law ONLY in those states so ratifying the same. In other words "we the people" of each state, acting for our own benefit, acceded to the Constitution!
No, that's par for the course when dealing with you. You can twist things in more bizarre ways than any other person I've met on this forum.
So your argument is that it's possible "the permission of other states" was required? Or is it that "the permission of other states" was definitely required? Carre to make up your mind?
No, I will state for the record that in my opinion the Constitution makes it clear that the need for permission is implied. I haven't changed at all. It is you who seems to have some doubts in your position. To put it bluntly, I say permission is needed and you seem to say it might be needed. That's progress and shows a move from your untenable earlier position.
Actually, it's a reasonable analogy - unless, of course, you're a bull sh!t artist named after a logical fallacy...
Well I'll defer to your expertise in bullshit. But can you at least answer my question? A state joins the Union. What are you joining when you send in your Publisher's Clearing House entry?
If your argument was correct, then Representatives would have to apply to the federal government for permission to resign, before giving up their House seats, just because the Constitution specifies requirements for their admission.
Why? For your claim to be correct then wouldn't the Constitution require that they show up if requires that they get permission to leave? I've read the Constitution start to finish several times and I can find the part about how long a term is and how many senators a state is entitled to and how House representation is determined but I can't find the part that says a state is required to send congressmen and senators. I find nothing that says that congressmen and senators must show up. If a state is not required to send them, or if they're not required to show up in Washington even if elected, then how can you come to the conclusion that Congressional approval is needed for them to resign?
There, does that help? Probably not - as noted previously, you're an idiot...
And that's supposed to upset me? The great and powerful Galt has called me an idiot? Am I supposed to go "Oh woe is me" and wring my hands in sadness? Is that what you're expecting? Well, sorry to disappoint.
Not according to James Madison:...
Ok, Madison is talking about the relations between states, not the relationship between ratifying states and former states. Nowhere in that quote does Madison say the state is removed from the Union. Nowhere does he say the bond is broken. Nowhere does he refer to them as 'former states'. Instead he says that the moral relationship continues, just not a political one. Which makes sense. If Rhode Island continued to send representatives to Congress in Philadelphia under the Articles of Confederation then nothing prevented that. They would not doubt be lonely and not accomplish anything but there was nothing that prevented it. There was a political disconnect but that did not dissolve the United States or break all the bonds between the 13 states. Nothing in the Constitution said that it did
There could be no "reunion," sport, without there first having been 'disunion.' Rhode Island was NOT a member of the union, during the period specified. (Except, of course, to historical revisionists like you... ;>)
Ok then let's cut to the chase. If Rhode Island was expelled from the United States, if it was "NOT a member of the Union" as you claim, then wouldn't they have to be admitted under the provisions in Article IV? After all, according to you the split was total, in the same manner as Vermont which went their own way after the Revolution. Yet Vermont was admitted through a vote in Congress and Rhode Island merely ratified the Constitution, in the same manner as the other 12 states. How could that be possible, if they weren't part of the United States anymore? Can you explain that?
And don't forget to take your meds - might help clear up your memory problem (and maybe even your 'denial of reality' problem)...
Your attempts at insults are getting more and more predictable. You need some new material.
You mean under the Articles of Confederation I presume? If so you are correct and those Articles DID contain the word "Perpetual" so exactly how did delegates assembled in Philadelphia for the purpose of proposing AMENDMENTS to those articles act to form what would be an entirely NEW government when ratified by nine states and the Constitution of which I might add does NOT mention the word "perpetual".
The United States didn't end when the Constitution was ratified.
So those states who did not ratify the NEW Constitution were still operating under the Articles of Confederation even though the were expressly excluded from being a part of the NEW federal government until they ratified the Constitution?
Or is it that all thirteen of those states which were a party to the Articles of Confederation are operating under BOTH the rules of that perpetual union AND the New Constitution?
WOW!!!
You note a lot of things. And I want to assure you that I treat them all with the same respect I accord any your posts.
[n-s]: Ok, Madison is talking about the relations between states, not the relationship between ratifying states and former states. Nowhere in that quote does Madison say the state is removed from the Union. Nowhere does he say the bond is broken. Nowhere does he refer to them as 'former states'. Instead he says that the moral relationship continues, just not a political one. Which makes sense. If Rhode Island continued to send representatives to Congress in Philadelphia under the Articles of Confederation then nothing prevented that. They would not doubt be lonely and not accomplish anything but there was nothing that prevented it. There was a political disconnect but that did not dissolve the United States or break all the bonds between the 13 states. Nothing in the Constitution said that it did
George Washington and the US Congress addressed the issue. Here's George Washington in Congress on August 22, 1789:
The President of the United States came into the Senate Chamber, attended by General Knox, and laid before the Senate the following state of facts, with the questions thereto annexed, for their advice and consent:
... "As the Cherokees reside principally within the territory claimed by North Carolina, and as that State is not a member of the present Union, it may be doubted whether any efficient measures in favor of the Cherokees could be immediately adopted by the general government ..."
From Congress on September 12, 1789:
And be it further enacted, That all rum, loaf sugar, and chocolate, manufactured or made in the states of North Carolina, or Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, and imported or brought into the United States, shall be deemed and taken to be subject to the like duties, as goods of the like kinds, imported from any foreign state, kingdom, or country are made subject to.
With the consent of Congress, of course. On February 17, 1787 legislation was passed that said that "...in the opinion of Congress, it is expedient that, on the second Monday in May next, a convention of delegates, who shall have been appointed by the several states, be held at Philadelphia, for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation, and reporting to Congress and the several legislatures such alterations and provisions therein as shall, when agreed to in Congress, and confirmed by the states, render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of government and the preservation of the Union."
The delegates met, in what we now refer to as the Constitutional Convention. They reported their alterations and provisions to Congress, as required. Congress agreed and sent the document to the states for ratification. And the rest is history. And perfectly legal and in accordance with the Articles of Confederation.
Now why the term 'perpetual' was removed is not surprising. It was no doubt for the same reason why the Constitution did not include the word 'expressly' when referring to powers granted to Congress or why unanimous consent was no longer needed to approve. The terms were too limiting. There is no reason why a state cannot leave the Union and some powers are implied through a whole reading of the Constitution and the need for 100% approval guaranteed gridlock.
So those states who did not ratify the NEW Constitution were still operating under the Articles of Confederation even though the were expressly excluded from being a part of the NEW federal government until they ratified the Constitution?
Yes, though I imagine the Congress was pretty lonely with only Rhode Island and, for a while, North Carolina showing up.
Or is it that all thirteen of those states which were a party to the Articles of Confederation are operating under BOTH the rules of that perpetual union AND the New Constitution?
Well that's ridiculous.
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.