Posted on 08/29/2011 12:27:09 PM PDT by Second Amendment First
A federal judge temporarily blocked enforcement of Alabama's new law cracking down on illegal immigration, ruling Monday that she needed more time to decide whether the law opposed by the Obama administration, church leaders and immigrant-rights groups is constitutional.
The brief order by U.S. District Judge Sharon L. Blackburn means the law won't take effect as scheduled on Thursday. The ruling was cheered by opponents who have compared the law to old Jim Crow-era statutes against racial integration.
But Blackburn didn't address whether the law is constitutional, and she could still let all or parts of the law take effect later. The judge said she will issue a longer ruling by Sept. 28.
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
The Founders tried to look the other way as regards slavery. Their only protection was to prohibit any actions against it until 1808. They pretty much believed it was on its way out. Then that Yankee invented the cotton gin and ALL OF A SUDDEN it was no longer the red-headed stepchild but a positive good.
Tattoos? LoL, I would bet that there are more tattoos in the Southland than the north. Are Lincoln Lovers kidnapping you guys and tattooing you?
Still can’t find any quotes where Hamilton wished for a king, can you? When are you going to give up on that tired and discredited LIE?
RI never seceded except in your mind.
Britain never recognized any sovereign state except as a part of the Union. Did they exchange ambassadors or open embassies in any state? No, obviously not.
Making more perfect the perpetual Union certainly would not weaken it except in your mind.
“(2) There were more dead Yankees because their soldiers and generals sucked compared to ours” That was true until an army was trained and competent generals were found. Initially the advantage was with the South because the Union was completely unprepared for a war and had not planned to fight one. It was completely surprised by the Slaver attacks on the Union. This was true of almost all our wars even the Revolutionary War. WWII shows the same tendency. But the smarter Japs, like Yamamoto, realizes that they were awakening a sleeping giant as the Slavers also learned.
Grant was never shown to be corrupt. And you can’t pretend that you are unaware of just how corrupt state legislatures had been for decades prior to the war. Look at the Yazoo land sales.
Sure Lincoln was responsible for television, radio, movies and the Internet. Since you blame every BAD thing following him on him why can’t I credit every GOOD thing following him with just as much credibility.
My historical studies in college were concentrated upon Greece and Rome, I did not even take an American history course much less one about the Wah.
My only formal education on the Wah occurred in a completely segregated high school in the deep south where my teachers were pro-slaver more or less or at least in love with the “noble” Lost Cause. I have been studying this for longer than you have been alive.
I would not talk about people “falling” for falsehoods if I were you.
Ummm, catfiiish.
Sovereign states control their own foreign policy. No state ever did that. They were sovereign over internal affairs under the Articles but they could not even pay their bills which they had agreed to do.
The clearest proof that the delegation was by the people not the states is the method the Congress demanded be followed for ratification. It demanded that state authorities be excluded from that process since legislatures were not allowed to ratify SPECIFICALLY because they could change their minds and revoke the ratification. It demanded that the American PEOPLE gathered in states ratify NOT the states as states.
The authors of the Federalist: Hamilton, Madison and Jay, never claimed secession was possible or legal.
The government could not pay the bills incurred in the fight for freedom mainly because the states welshed on their promises to pay taxes.
Do you think the soldiers owed their back pay, the farmers who had their crops confiscated for the army in exchange for promises they would be paid, the debt holders who provided the funds to fight the British were “statists”? They are the ones who were screwed by the collapse of the government under the Articles.
Other parts of the Federalist describe the government created by the Constitution as partaking of both being a “federal” government and a “national” government. It clearly was federal in keeping states in power for internal matters. It was also clearly national in monetary and economic policies, foreign relations, national security, citizenship, border control, among others.
Your selection emphasizes that the approval of the constitution was by the PEOPLE not state authority. It was the PEOPLE who formed the states, not the other way around and these people considered themselves Americans and understood that “united they stand divided they fall.” ALL the Founders believed that even Jefferson.
Better a tail-chaser than one who makes an A$$ of himself.
A falsehood can be succinct but is still a falsehood.
“...the common constitution could be modified by a mere minority of that arrogate whole” ??? It takes a minimum of 2/3s of Congress or 2/3s of the state legislatures to call for amendments to the Constitution. Then it takes 3/4s of the states to approve an amendment. That makes it a virtual certainty that it would take a majority of the people to approve a change.
What ever you say little buddy! It’s your world, I’m just hangin’ on. Good luck with the blue pill.
The members of the convention which formed the constitution, were chosen by states, and voted by states, without any regard to the number of people in each state. In short - People are, act, and talk as their State in which they belong. No people or community has ever been composed in the United States, except by the inhabitants of each state, associating distinctly from every other state, by their own separate consent.
James Madison to Daniel Webster
It is fortunate when disputed theories, can be decided by undisputed facts. And here the undisputed fact is, that the Constitution was made by the people, but as embodied into the several States, who were parties to it; and therefore made by the States in their highest authoritative capacity.
The authors of the Federalist: Hamilton, Madison and Jay, never claimed secession was possible or legal.
James Madison to Nicholas P. Trist
The compact can only be dissolved by the consent of the other parties, or by usurpations or abuses of power justly having that effect."
““...the common constitution could be modified by a mere minority of that arrogate whole” ??? It takes a minimum of 2/3s of Congress or 2/3s of the state legislatures to call for amendments to the Constitution. Then it takes 3/4s of the states to approve an amendment. That makes it a virtual certainty that it would take a majority of the people to approve a change.”
2/3rd of the federal house and Senate are not the only way to propose Amendment.
Read Article 5 of the Federal Constitution, the other method is 2/3rds of the state legislators calling for a convention.
I’ll never lead you astray, old boy.
States were always part of a Union, even before the Revolution, and their people believed they were Americans.
Was the special conventions appointed/elected to ratify the Constitution the “highest authoritative capacity” of a state? Or is the legislature? It is at least debatable. But in any case Madison says within your quote that “...the Constitution was made by the People....” They were “embodied into the several States” since any other method was pretty much impossible at that time.
I have never denied that the Union could be modified by legal means such as Congressional action or amendment. There were no usurpations or abuses of power prior to the attack on Fort Sumter which could meet Madison's requirements for dissolution.
I don’t believe you have read our friend’s posts or you would never praise his efforts. He went into this whole pretense of blaming the War on the tariff - I posted the FACT that the tariff had been declining for three decades. He went into this whole pretense of blaming Yankee traders for slavery - I posted the FACT that importation of slaves had been banned for half a century and suppressed by the Royal Navy and the US Navy. Every one of his initial claims was refuted or shown to be irrelevant yet you believe him to be knowledgeable and convincing. He LIED repeatedly about my prior statements even after being corrected. He LIES about Hamilton even after being called out over and over to quote one paragraph, one line or one word from Hamilton which could justify his claim.
Your claim was that he had documented his claim. He has not documented ONE statement. Read your initial lauding of the guy.
Your “mountain” of readily available evidence turns out to be a molehill of lies, stupidity and distortion easily dismissed by study. Sometimes it takes a lot to dismiss a cleverly constructed lie but I have the time.
Are you any kind of grad? I have attended public and private schools.
I said “It takes a minimum of 2/3s of Congress or 2/3s of the state legislatures to call for amendments to the Constitution.”
You said “Read Article 5 of the Federal Constitution, the other method is 2/3rds of the state legislators calling for a convention.”
That is not only correct but I said EXACTLY that in the quote from me you quoted.
And your comment about change by a minority is still incorrect.
I do hope that you realize that these klowns are the carrion-eaters that flock when intelligent conversation has ended. You’ll get no sense or sincere debate from them. They are good for an occasional laugh so by all means carry on ;-)
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.