Posted on 11/28/2012 9:42:40 AM PST by Perseverando
For decades, it has been obvious that there are irreconcilable differences between Americans who want to control the lives of others and those who wish to be left alone. Which is the more peaceful solution: Americans using the brute force of government to beat liberty-minded people into submission, or simply parting company? In a marriage, where vows are ignored and broken, divorce is the most peaceful solution. Similarly, our constitutional and human rights have been increasingly violated by a government instituted to protect them. Americans who support constitutional abrogation have no intention of mending their ways.
Since Barack Obama’s re-election, hundreds of thousands of petitioners for secession have reached the White House. Some people have argued that secession is unconstitutional, but there’s absolutely nothing in the Constitution that prohibits it. What stops secession is the prospect of brute force by a mighty federal government, as witnessed by the costly War of 1861. Let’s look at the secession issue.
At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, a proposal was made to allow the federal government to suppress a seceding state. James Madison, the acknowledged father of our Constitution, rejected it, saying: “A Union of the States containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a State would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound.”
On March 2, 1861, after seven states had seceded and two days before Abraham Lincoln’s inauguration, Sen. James R. Doolittle of Wisconsin proposed a constitutional amendment that said, “No State or any part thereof, heretofore admitted or hereafter admitted into the Union, shall have the power to withdraw from the jurisdiction of the United
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Even more sophistry. I expect better out of my ten year old.
No, better for each interest to keep others in check.
There is no check on people voting themselves goodies out of the federal budget.
In the long run, we are limited by math and physics, but still more by psychology. Other countries won’t loan us money if we can’t possibly repay it. At that point the promises made by the socialists will not be kept. Something that can’t go on forever won’t.
We are already at that point and the spending is only increasing. We are simply printing money at this point. At what point do the moochers admit they were wrong? The worse it gets the more it is someone else's fault.
England has seen 2/3rds of its millionaires leave since they raised their taxes to 50% level. France will see the same thing as they move their tax level to 75%. Atlas will shrug. Pain will happen.
Pain will happen, but in many cases it means passing through extremely dark times, and there is no guarantee there is a light at the end of the tunnel or that what comes out the other side bears any relation to what went in. Rome went under and it took a thousand years before civilization returned to the same level.
There is no guarantee the sort of political liberty we enjoyed in this nation will ever happen again once its light completely goes out.
Those millionaires are like people under a tree in a rainstorm assuming they can just move to another tree when the one they are under gets saturated.
It exactly makes the point. By his logic that was perfectly fine because the majority wanted it.
The whole point to a constitution and republican form of government is that voting can amount to little more than mob rule.
Sic Semper Tyranus. Read John Locke, or, for that matter, Cicero, or perhaps even more relevant to today’s tyrants (Obama), read Hayek. Or reflect on Henry VIII, who used the stamp of the law to justify everything he did; but his legalisms do not morally justify the destruction he wrought to church and state. Nor do Lincoln’s. There is no denying that Webster was a great orator, but eloquence is not truth. The South was a very different place from the north, and tryanical laws which did not take that into account and were, thus, coercive, invited opposition, and yes, nullification, no less so than Locke’s insistence that men who love liberty have every right to dethrone any tyrant. In the massive flood of Yankee self-justification that dominates the media and hence the popular imagination on this issue, there’s no denying that among the chief spoils of any war is that the winner gets to write the history books and set the official interpretation of the war for posterity. And to challenge that biased but canonical interpretation is to be labeled an insurrectionist and to endure scorn and spite. So be it. Southerners are used to it. But, you would do well to look to the recent lamentable election of 2012 . . . I will personally “nullify” Obamacare in my own life even if it means I go to jail . . . and it just confirms what I’ve believed all along: Secession was a good idea in 1860, and it just might be a good idea today, the way things are going. As I said, read Hayek.
Nobody wanted war except the southron slavers and the bubbas that they whipped into a frenzy. Always been the case, apparently always will be.
“The Articles of Confederation and the Constitution explicitly made the Union perpetual until and unless the States ratify the secession of a State in exactly the same means by which the State secured accession to the perpetual Union”
Sure, pal. That’s written in there. Of course, you couldn’t find it or your ass with both hands.
You are entitled to your opinion, even when wrong.
Yes I am. In this case I am entirely correct. Your own words convict you.
Oddly enough, they were for enslaving a majority. There were more slaves than there were whites in the South.
Oddly enough, they were for enslaving a majority. There were more slaves than there were whites in the South for a long time. Not sure when they situation reversed itself.
When I was born in 1938 my father was working for 50¢ a day.
Some people were making nothing.
It was tongue in cheek MrChips.
I am no expert all I know is what I saw in the John Wayne movies.
Hardly. “Bubbas” are a modern creation of a South that has been thorougly Yankee-fied in the last hundred years. At least we are still red and not blue. And “Southron” is spelled “Southern,” by the way. Besides, there’s also the little fact that 97% of the Southern soldiers who fought in the war were men who had no connection whatsoever to slave-holding.
So, when the same voters show up again for the continued advancement of an unsustainable welfare state, what do you do then? We are all supposed to resign to live in a decayed society as long as 51% vote for it?
I don’t think succession is something to do now, but I am not sure we are not close to needing to part ways. We simply have irreconcilable differences with 50% of the population, and the two views are not compatible. I don’t know the solution, but as far as I am concerned all options need to be on the table if this continues.
Rather funny that you assert that the Slave power in 1860 had the right to enslave, but when the US resisted that minority attempt to enslave, the 1860 minority attempt to break the Union, the 1860 minority attempts to pretend to secession, and then complain about the minority being enslaved for being denied that right.
We need a better class of troll.
97% of the southern men who fought for the pretended confederacy were connected to slavery: They were conscripted as members of the militia to patrol for runaway slaves before the war, they were oppressed by the slave owners by having to compete with slave labor, and they were conscripted by the slave power to fight for the slave owners.
I recommend you look at the definition of “Tyrannus”.
Or course the majority is limited by the constitution, which is practically interpreted by elected representatives, and by the courts.
The courts make errors. When that happens (Dredd Scott) an amendment can correct that (13th, 14th, 15th). That gives a key roll to states. If you can’t convince enough states, then you haven’t much of an argument.
Wrong. Stop putting words in other peoples posts.
but when the US resisted that minority attempt to enslave
Wrong again. Slavery was part of US law until the 14th ammendment passed. The US did not resist slavery for nearly 80 years.
1860 minority attempt to break the Union, the 1860 minority attempts to pretend to secession, and then complain about the minority being enslaved for being denied that right.
I suggest remedial english. I have no idea what you are saying, but whatever it is it's probably wrong too.
The rejection of slavery began early, before the Constitution, when slavery was forbidden in the Northwest Territory. The importation of slaves was forbidden by federal law by 1808.
States attempted to provide minority rights against the slave power with personal liberty laws, that set conditions for state official cooperation with slave catchers. The Slave power objected, with eventually no state cooperation required. Federal marshals were required to cooperate with slave catchers under the terms of the various fugitive slave acts.
Dredd Scott decision was an aberration, not only denying the precedent of protection of law to slaves, but denying that any state could provide the protection of law to anyone of African heritage, and overturning the Missouri Compromise which made Kansas and Nebraska free territory. The Republican party began in response to the effort to extend slavery to the territories, called in some circles the “Anti-Nebraska party”.
I agree, you should take a course in remedial English. Good luck with that.
Why? I do see that I misspelled it. It should be “tyrannis”, i.e. the Dative Case “to tyrants.” And it is the official motto of the Commonwealth of Virginia, for what that is worth. If you are referring to the ancient origination as “unelected ruler” (like Obama), it also has the connotation of “despot” who acts only in accordance with his own will.
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.