Posted on 09/13/2012 9:17:37 AM PDT by Impala64ssa
NEW YORK (AP) — Singer-songwriter Bob Dylan says the stigma of slavery ruined America and he doubts the country can get rid of the shame because it was “founded on the backs of slaves.” The veteran musician tells Rolling Stone that in America “people (are) at each other’s throats just because they are of a different color,” adding that “it will hold any nation back.” He also says blacks know that some whites “didn’t want to give up slavery.” The 71-year-old Mr. Dylan said, “If slavery had been given up in a more peaceful way, America would be far ahead today.” When asked if President Obama was helping to shift a change, Mr. Dylan says: “I don’t have any opinion on that. You have to change your heart if you want to change.” The magazine’s new issue hits newsstands Friday.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Not surprised you needed to give yourself a primer on sovereignty, and yet you still get it wrong. While it is technically true that a Federalist wrote the Bill of Rights, you and I both know that James Madison did not agree with nor desire a Bill of Rights. It was Thomas Jefferson who pushed for and got the BOR included. Certainly you are not going to try and argue that Jefferson was a federalist when the Constitution was written. That pig won’t fly.
Think about it. There is no need for the 10th if you were a federalist. Without the BOR the federal government WAS supreme. That’s precisely WHY a BOR was demanded by ANTI-Federalist and why Federalist Hamilton did NOT want the BOR. States that did not want to give up their sovereignty refused to join UNTIL the sovereignty was guaranteed. All the pretzel twisting non-logic in the world won’t change the facts.
The same argument made for the 2nd Amendment applies here. The BOR is a definition of rights for PEOPLE, NOT militias and NOT Federal governments. The PEOPLE (in militias) have the right to bear arms the PEOPLE (in the states) are sovereign, just as it says...”The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution (not right to sovereignty was delegated to the US), nor prohibited by it to the States (sovereignty was NOT prohibited to the states), are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Get that? The PEOPLE!!! Unless you lived in the South after 1865 which is when you had no rights and became slaves to the Union.
The following affirmation of my assertion comes from this web site: Read more: http://www.revolutionary-war-and-beyond.com/10th-amendment.html#ixzz26T2gs4Tr
I suggest you read the documentation after the following. It should be very enlightening.
On June 8, James Madison proposed a list of about twenty amendments, which he had carefully chosen from the list of amendments submitted by the STATES. One of these was, of course, what became the 10th Amendment. The Congress voted to accept twelve of these amendments on September 25. They passed them on to the states and with Virginia’s vote for ratification, ten of these twelve amendments became law on December 15, 1791. These first ten amendments are today known as the Bill of Rights.
It is indeed quite clear. Notice that nowhere does it say anything about sovereignty not being permitted. If what you said was true, it would have been written exactly opposite from what it was.
Allow me to demonstrate.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
My bad. In the second graph my mind wandered I said Hamilton instead of Madison.
Then there’s this:
statement by James Madison from The Federalist, No. 45:
“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 former will be exercised principally on EXTERNAL objects, as war, peace negotiation, and foreign commerce;... The powers reserved to the several states will EXTEND TO ALL the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the LIVES, LIBERTIES AND PROPERTIES OF THE PEOPLE, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the state.”
The primer was for your benefit. You have no coherent concept of what sovereignty is, as your post goes on to show.
Certainly you are not going to try and argue that Jefferson was a federalist when the Constitution was written.
Jefferson was not a Federalist. Allow me to quote him verbatim:
You say that I have been dished up to you as an anti-Federalist, and ask me if it be just. My opinion was never worthy enough of notice to merit citing; but since you ask it I will tell it you. I am not a Federalist, because I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all. Therefore I protest to you I am not of the party of Federalists. But I am much farther from that than of the Anti-Federalists.
This is why your view of sovereignty is incoherent:
You wrote
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution (not right to sovereignty was delegated to the US)
There is no such thing as a "right to sovereignty" in a constitutional republic. Sovereignty consists in a set of powers, not a right. Only persons have rights. Governments have no rights, they have powers.
Under the United States Constitution, all of the powers associated with sovereignty in the common law tradition are specifically delegated to the United States.
How can an individual state be a sovereign if it has no power to declare a state of war? To conclude a treaty? To regulate the goods trading in and out of its ports and cities? To regulate the value of money?
Sovereignty isn't an empty word: it means something in the real world. And an entity that by law is not entitled to exercise the above powers is not a sovereign government.
“The primer was for your benefit. You have no coherent concept of what sovereignty is, as your post goes on to show.”
And yet, you fail to address any of the points I made demonstrating that the Constitution absolutely was NOT a document designed to usurp sovereignty but a compact outlining how sovereign states could remain sovereign while working together. Even children understand this, which explains why you ignore it.
You are the Vizzini to my Inigo Montoya: “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
“Jefferson was not a Federalist. Allow me to quote him verbatim:”
LOL! Thanks for proving me right. Wasn’t necessary. I already knew that. (You sure you know which side of the argument you are taking? Hint: Me saying that Jefferson was not a federalist is NOT the same as saying he was an anti-federalist. Didn’t want to leave you in a confused state.)
Well. All I can do provide the facts. I can’t force comprehension. You’ll just have to continue on as you are.
Thanks for the entertaining exchange, though.
Interesting dodge, but a dodge nonetheless.
I have told you exactly what I mean when I use the word "sovereignty."
What is your definition of the word? What makes an entity sovereign?
Reconstruction was WORSE than slavery.
Because it happened to your people and not to somebody else?
Read a freakin book.
You first, preferably one written after 1960 or so.
It would have been a dodge...if that’s all I had said.
Again...comprehension.
Actually, I’ve never challenged the definition, but your conclusion. The states maintained sovereignty by joining the union exactly the same way European countries joining the European UNION are still sovereign. Now you either have to try to argue that England, France, etc no longer have sovereignty or engage some nonsensical twisted logic that OUR union was different....or do the right thing and admit you’re wrong.
Again...comprehension.
Again...totally devoid of facts, documentation or common sense. You’re not helping you’re significant other here.
You made the claim that the North made slaves out of Southerners after the Civil War. Then you said Reconstruction was worse than slavery.
It's up to you to come up with something resembling facts to support your claims. And you haven't yet. When you do, if you do, if you can, people will respond to you.
Until then all you've provided is wild assertions and insults -- the sort of stuff that doesn't deserve a thoughtful response. Come up with some facts if you want a response. And review the apostrophe rules while you're at it.
Did he say anything about Republicans vs Democrats?
All the commentors on this thread should read the article first. You'll find that the interviewer very persistently tried to get Dylan to endorse or approve of Obama. Dylan persistently refused. His comments were not political, they were sociological.
ya stepped over the line pal. take that back.
nobody can, which is why they had to lip sinc.
uh...right. Suggest you go back and re-read all the posts, then try addressing the numerous points and facts provided that you’ve apparently missed.
THEN perhaps we can have a discussion.
Comprehension.
Princess Bride? Really?! OK Buttercup ;-)
I don't think so. Life isn't that long, and I've got other things to do.
Awwww.. is that your pet name for x?
Interesting. Your failure to mount a rebuttal is “washed away” by simply saying I’ve not said anything worth rebutting...a plethora of facts and points notwithstanding. The EXACT technique used by libtards. Sure you don’t belong at DU? I guess I would do the same if I had no debate skills.
Whatever. You were mildly entertaining at first, now you’re just annoying. Get back to me when after you’ve developed your debate skills a lot more.
No Buttercup, that is my pet name for you ;-)
Sorry. I don’t swing that way. Suggest you stick with the gays.
Buh bye.
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.