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 ...
OK, then answer the question. If North Carolina and Rhode Island were not part of the Union then how did they become states without complying with the provisions for admitting new states outlined in Article IV?
Who ya gonna believe, John....these folks or Nonsensical?
(With thanks to Walter E. Williams)
Thomas Jefferson — “If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it.”
James Madison — (the father of the Constitution) cleared up what “the people” meant, saying the proposed Constitution would be subject to ratification by the people, “not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong.” In a word, states were sovereign; the federal government was a creation, an agent, a servant of the states.
Or — In Federalist Paper 45, Madison guaranteed: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.” The South seceded because of Washington’s encroachment on that vision. Today, it’s worse. Turn Madison’s vision on its head, and you have today’s America.
The key issue in the right to secession is not separating oneself from a government that prevents the “self-determination” of “peoples,” but separating oneself from a government that fails in its purpose: the protection of individual rights.
It’s quite simple, really. If you believe what Lincoln said (even if he did not believe it himself) “government of the people, by the people, for the people...” then it should be the people who decide whether to stay or go...not the government. It can’t be any more simple.
That Lincoln’s government ignored the beliefs of those who actually wrote and passed the Constitution (see above) and crushed “the people” who left their tyrannical abomination that had become the U.S., exposes Lincoln as the ultimate hypocrite.
Forcing people to be part of a “union” is not a union (at least as Lincoln himself defines it above), it is enslavement. It made southerners as much slaves to the Union as blacks were slaves to people in both the north and south.
Nonsensical says he loathes slavery while simultaneously embracing it and defending it as the preferred way of maintaining a “union”. Forced participation is NOT “by the people” nor is it a union.
All the other discussion is just so much jibber jabber. Which is why nonsensical’s name is most appropriate.
And similarly when Rhode Island ratified, nothing about admitting or territory or the country of Rhode Island. Just that the state of Rhode Island had ratified.
If they were not states then why did they merely ratify the Constitution instead of being admitted?
Just what Galt needs. Help from someone like you.
They had been members of the previous union and had had the Constitution submitted to them for ratification by the previous union. That invitation to ratify the Constitution had not been withdrawn and there were no such conditions on their ratification.
The new United States government under the Constitution wanted as many of the 13 states to join it as possible. There is no way they would have been a practical country if the last four states of the 13 to ratify (New York, Virginia, North Carolina, and Rhode Island) had barriers making it more difficult for them to join. The ratification vote was very close in three of those last four states. It was 80-79 in Virginia, 30-27 in New York, and 34-32 in Rhode Island.
By the way, the 14th state (Vermont) also ratified the Constitution.
The fact still stands, as my post above shows, that prior to their ratification the US Congress considered North Carolina and Rhode Island not to be part of the United States, i.e., goods from those two states "... were imported or brought into the United States ..." How can that be if they never were outside of the United States?
Hmmm. A second source says the Virginia vote was 89-79.
Ah.... a most appropriate response from someone who has NO rebuttal.
“What is best in life? To crush your enemies — See them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women!”
“Sure you can. It’s happened before.”
And more recently:
There is no question as to whether or when “official” nullification will happen: It has ALREADY HAPPENED. In fact, not only has it happened recently, it has been a success! Perhaps this is why the federal government hopes you will never hear about it. According to the Tenth Amendment Center:
“25 states over the past 2 years have passed resolutions and binding laws denouncing and refusing to implement the Bush-era law [REAL ID Act]..While the law is still on the books in D.C., its implementation has been “delayed” numerous times in response to this massive state resistance, and in practice, is virtually null and void.”
...for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation,..." and they went FAR beyond that charter as EVERY member of the New York delegation promptly recognized and all save Hamilton left and took no further part in the proceedings!
What they did, without authorization and in total disregard for the instructions given by the government under the Articles of Confederation, was write an entirely NEW Constitution under which all seceded from that "perpetual" union in favor of a new one! So much for "perpetual" government in America!
Your arguments are indeed ridiculous!
I’d put it this way. Every state has a God-given right to *try* to nulify unjust federal law.
Which would have to also mean that they were not out of the United States, right? Their political relationship may have been somewhat ambiguous but there was no complete severing of ties or explusion as Galt would have us believe. It that had been the case, if there was a complete severing of all bonds, then Article IV must apply.
By the way, the 14th state (Vermont) also ratified the Constitution.
Maybe. But they became a state through act of Congress.
The fact still stands, as my post above shows, that prior to their ratification the US Congress considered North Carolina and Rhode Island not to be part of the United States, i.e., goods from those two states "... were imported or brought into the United States ..." How can that be if they never were outside of the United States?
And if they were outside of the United States then how could they become states without consent of Congress per Article IV? Vermont was outside of the U.S. and they required Congressional approval. Why not Rhode Island and North Carolina? Or for that matter Virgina and New York which also ratified after the Constitution was adopted by the 9th state?
North Carolina and Rhode Island were founding members of the United States. The fact that the government changed to the Constitution from the Articles of Confederation didn't alter that. And their delay in ratifying the Constitution, while creating a political limbo, did not expel them from the United States. Now had they continued to refuse to ratify then I imagine that a final resolution would have had to have been identified. At that point then secession or expulsion might have resulted. But that point was never reached. And Rhode Island and North Carolina never ceased to be states.
My neive friend, the SCOTUS merely needs to interpret the meaning of the First and Second amendments to change how they are enforced. On several past Second Amendment legal reviews, the decisions have come down 5/4 on what constitutes "Shall Not be Infringed". To me it is pretty darn clear what the founders meant by "Shall NOT be infringed", but obviously 4 Supremes think otherwise. Change the mix by one or two, and we are in permanent tyranny!
First Walter Williams and now "Conan the Barbarian". The quality of your sources is consistent, I say that for you
Ahhhh......there it is, right on cue. The lamentation of the women.
Thanks for not letting me down.
No doubt they went beyond what Congress had expected, but based in the legislation authorizing the convention they certainly followed what the states had unanimously agreed to.
What they did, without authorization and in total disregard for the instructions given by the government under the Articles of Confederation, was write an entirely NEW Constitution under which all seceded from that "perpetual" union in favor of a new one! So much for "perpetual" government in America!
ROTFLMAO!!!! So they seceded from the United States and formed....the United States. Neat trick.
Likewise. Can "Outlaw Josey Wales" be far behind?
And she wails even louder!
LOL! I own you, bi-atch. Can you squeal like a pig, too?
ROTFLMAO!!!
I knew you could. Good job!
After the collapse of British authority in 1775 it became necessary to form new state governments and by the end of 1777 ten new state constitutions had been created. Connecticut and Rhode Island kept their colonial charters but removed all references to British sovereignty. Massachusetts waited until 1780 to adopt it's new Constitution. All of this prior to adoption to the Articles of Confederation!
The were already free and independent states prior to their becoming party to any union whatever!
The Treaty of Paris acknowledged the 13 colonies to be free, sovereign, and independent states and that the British Crown and all heirs and successors relinquished claims to the Government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same, and every part thereof.
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.