Posted on 07/23/2013 8:18:43 AM PDT by Bon of Babble
Rush Limbaugh would have sided with the confederacy during the Civil War, according to MSNBC analyst Dorian Warren.
Warren, a Columbia professor and fellow at the progressive Roosevelt Institute, explained that Limbaugh “represents the Confederacy. He would have been on that side that went to war around the question of slavery.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
Hood took his army away from the front of Sherman, refusing to defend the south from Sherman.
This was after Hood burned Atlanta.
What ever Hood was doing, it wasn’t defending southern homes.
He didn’t rewrite it. He didn’t add a single line, he didn’t delete a single line.
He ruled that the law was constitutional under the taxing power. That is the same justification given when the SCOTUS approved Social Security as a tax.
That means that as a tax, it can be repealed with a mere 50% vote in house and senate (with presidential approval), rather than requiring the 60 votes for cloture in the Senate.
Show us the text ...Roberts didn't rewrite anything.
The Morrill tariff would never have passed both houses of congress if the Southern states had remained in the Union. It only passed after secession and the Southern states withdrew their representives from congress.
Please tell us some more of your supposed bullet points. I can't find any of them in the list of reasons the Confederates gave.
The government argued it was not a tax in front of this court....
It is also important to note that southern men were conscripted. They had been required to join their state’s militia. As members of the militia they were required to go on slave partrols, for the benefit of the wealthy that owned slaves. The states were required to provide soldiers to the Confederate armies, and they sent their soldiers as a conscript mass.
Some soldiers, after being wounded, were sent home, where they were again conscripted into the state militia, and again provided, while on convalescent leave, to the Confederacy to fulfill the quota of soldiers. Those poor souls, after their convalescent leave was up would have been serving in one unit while listed as a deserter in another, by the pretended authority of their state government.
The pretended confederacy was about enslavement of blacks, but also about enslavement of whites to support the institution of slavery, as well as by slave catchers whose business was kidnapping followed as necessary by bribery of judges to create papers that made people slaves. By contrast, rich white slave owners, if they owned enough slaves, got a deferment from conscription.
And they were overruled.
Check out Samuel Russell, for one. And one Chinese Hong member Howqua. This is just one name, many others in coastal NE.
You have it wrong, FRiend. And prior to that the good boston ships were in the slave trade up to their necks. It paid much better than whaling. Human trade from the get go. A little less /s OK?
Lol, twisted logic for sure. The case was defended as a non-tax because that’s what the democratic senate, house & president crafted it as. Roberts CHANGED that on the bench. If Roberts ruled on the actual case in front of him, that the government defended itself. he would have ruled with the other 4 judges on the case.
The abolition of slavery was not a serious issue in 1860 -- no reasonable person thought at the time it was even possible to do so and all recognized that the Constitution allowed slavery.
But the expansion of slavery into the territories was the major, and in fact the only issue in the election of 1860 and it was again acknowledged that the Federal government did have the Constitutional authority to forbid it.
Expansion not a new issue then. The issue of expansion had caused division, and even calls for secession all the way back to The Missouri Compromise of 1820 and again with Compromise of 1850.
With the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act followed by the Dred Scott decision in the 1850s, the sides were basically drawn in stone, and there was no longer any room for compromise. The Southern states demanded unlimited expansion of slavery and the North opposed any further expansion.
Lincoln ran of a 'Free Soil" platform and his only real promise was to stop the further expansion of slavery.
Do the math on that. There were 15 slave states at the time that could have ended slavery in their states any time they wished, but didn't do so. So its a good assumption that none of those states would have supported an amendment to the Constitution to end slavery in the United states.
With 15 states opposing such an amendment, it would require 60 states supporting the amendment to gain a 3/4 majority. Last I checked, we didn't have 75 states then and still don't today. The amendment process was an impossibility.
Can you point me to that clause in the constitution?
It does not say you must go to war to stop them
See Article II, Section 3 of the US Constitution. Also see Section 2 of the Militia Act of 1792.
The case was defended as a non-tax because the Anti-Injunction Act (of 1867) limits standing, forbids going to court against a tax that you have not paid.
The bill said it was not a tax, so they ruled it was not a tax for the purposes of the anti injunction act, so the court would review it.
When review of the law took place, the law was found was a permissible exercise of the taxing power, no part of it was struck down.
There is a higher standard for bills that are only theoretically bad (not yet enacted) than there is for bills that have a definite damaged party.
You may recall in the three days of oral arguments, there was an attorney hired by the court to present the argument that it was a tax, and therefore could not be reviewed by the court under the anti injuntion act. Since the government wanted it to not be a tax, they wouldn’t present that argument, and another party was hired to present it.
Further, the slave power also demanded that their rights to slaves extended to the northern states.
Previous cases had held that state officials of free states did not have to cooperate with slave catchers in the pursuit of accused run away slaves. Federal marshalls had that authority.
Dredd Scott decision expanded that, to deny any right an accused slave or person of African ancestry had to any consideration at any time. Dredd Scott was not a run away slave. He was knowingly taken to free territory and to free states by his putative master.
The issue before this court, in this case, was the only thing Roberts should have ruled on. What was put before the court, the actual case, was indeed a non-tax issue. It should have been tossed away. Looks like Roberts was going to do just that, and then changed his mind. The other 4 conservative judges ruled properly on this issue, not Roberts.
I’ll stick with the 4 conservative judges, not Roberts & the 4 liberal judges on the way this case came down.
Maybe you should listen to your hero and take his advice:
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.
Abraham Lincoln
And....The fact that Roberts found the arguement that the mandate is not a tax for the purpose of the anti-Injunction Act, but is a tax for constitutional purposes is absurd. The 4 consevatives on the court turned their back on Roberts for good reason. Are you really trying to defend Roberts on this ? It’s obvious what tricks Roberts pulled in allowing Obmacare to stand.
“But it was Lincoln's sworn duty as President of the United States to preserve the Union and millions of people agreed with him, and were willing to fight and die to do so.”
Pure BS.
The Federal government is the Agent of the States. There is NOWHERE in any oath of political office that says “ I am sworn to do whatever is in my power to preserve the Union”. The oath only says “... to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution...”, NOT the Union. The Union is the object of the states NOT the Federal Governments. Never have I heard of any such constitutional authorization granting the President power to preserve the union. Where can I find it... WHERE! Please point it out to me. I just can’t seem to find it in the Constitution.
“The Constitution ALLOWS for States to secede
Can you point me to that clause in the constitution?
It does not say you must go to war to stop them
See Article II, Section 3 of the US Constitution. Also see Section 2 of the Militia Act of 1792. “
WTF??
The Militia Act of 1792 has absolutely NOTHING to do with succession! And if those who wrote it had that intention then why isn’t it expressly and pointedly made in the ACT? Mmmmm? Gee wiz...
Because the ACT has to do with enforcing compliance with The Laws of the United States! As long as I remain in the club I have to comply with the rules. Like a trailer park HOA... as long as I remain in the association I have to comply with the rules and dues or get fined, a lean put on my property, threatened, harassed by HOA officers, etc. One morning I decide no more of this BS, succeed (quit), and take me and my trailer out. So do you think the president of the HOA is going to hold a special HOA session, pass resolutions that declare war on me and my trailer in order to force my membership? Same difference.... There are no Laws of the United States that denies to any member of the union succession. The General Government has no authority or power to deny state succession since they are the agent of the states. The union is the states object to maintain NOT the federal governments. Therefore succession is the right of every member state to exercise freely... to LEAVE the union for ANY reason because the state JOINED the Union by VOLUNTARY ACT. And guess what? The Union STILL stands with the remaining states. Lincoln had NO AUTHORITY to preserve any part of the union. His job was to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution that the remaining Northern States were still members of. Lincoln WAS NO LONGER responsible for the succeeded states! All he was authorized to do was wave bye-bye and say... “See Yah!”. What Lincoln did next was treasonous to his oath and to the constitution. He imposed his personal will upon FREE and SOVERIGN NATION STATES and its people! He acted as an invading enemy into sovereign nation states, made war upon them and dissolved their sovereignty in order to keep and force a union that was not his to keep, preserve or impose! The legislatures of the northern states were just as culpable in supporting what Lincoln wanted and did by authorizing and funding a war to force and enslave sovereign nation states into a SHAM-union those states did not want or desire.
Lincoln was acting in the capacity of a rogue tyrant and criminal by not honoring his oath of office which was to support and defend the Constitution of the United States NOT make war and conquer those states that no longer wanted to be part of that union!
Do you get it ??? ... the general government is to support and defend the Constitution on behalf of those who belong to the Union! Not those who do not belong or have succeeded(quit) the club.
So does the United States have the authority to pick a sovereign nation-state who’s not part of the union or doesn’t want to be... and decide to conquer it and make it join?
Of course not! Then how in the F**K did Lincoln think he had authority to conquer a state or states that succeeded, QUIT the union. He didn’t... he went ROGUE! SAME DIFFERENCE!
Sorry Ditto, you haven’t a clue what you’re talking about and I will not waste my fingers typing in great lengths to educate you. But I will give you this to chew on.
Start by reading the Federalist Papers, The Constitution and The Constitution Convention notes from the Debates of 1787.
The proposed Constitution was a Federal compact between the states and its authorized General Government. Not the people. The people were members of sovereign states with their own constitutions.
The states are sovereign and are bound together as a union of separate nation states by VOLUNTARY ACT. The Federal Government exists to preserve and protect the sovereignty of the states and their governments and CANNOT interfere with state affairs or its people! The Federal Government exists by authority of the States and continues ONLY at the discretion of the states!
The convention distrusted State Legislatures to the task of ratification due to their self-interests that may be impeded by the new compact, thus holding up or even attempt to amend the compact which might hold up ratification for months or years as they argue. The convention clearly understood that most state legislatures were creatures of their own state constitutions without higher authority then their creators, the people. Authority of the state legislatures were derived from the people and that none of the states Constitutions authorized the ratification of a proposed state compact, a United States.
Thus THE PEOPLE were given the task/authority to ratify the new constitution on behalf of the state and its legislature so that there would be no doubt that the ratification was derived from the authority of the people and reflects the basis of a free government.
On August 6, 1787, John Rutledge, delegate from South Carolina, presented the draft to the Convention. It read:
“We the people of the states of New-Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New-York, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North-Carolina, South-Carolina, and Georgia, do ordain, declare and establish the following constitution for the government of ourselves and our posterity.”
The phrase which every American has come to know and rely upon, as expressing the aspirations of people everywhere, is the work of Gouverneur Morris. When he set about the work with the Committee on Style, the opening phrase was:
“We the people of the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts ….”
Morris changed it to:
“We the People of the United States….”
Thus with a stroke of his pen, Gouverneur Morris changed the nature of the entity being created in Philadelphia from a group of governments organizing together into a single nation, the United States of America. WRONG!
The change by Gouverneur Morris was purely styling, and had absolutely NOTHING to do with changing the nature of the compact. The US Constitution created a Federal Compact of a union of sovereign states NOT A NATIONAL compact of consolidated states!
"... the Constitution is to be founded on the assent and ratification of the people of America, given by deputies elected for the special purpose; but, on the other, that this assent and ratification is to be given by the people, not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong. It is to be the assent and ratification of the several States, derived from the supreme authority in each State, the authority of the people themselves. The act, therefore, establishing the Constitution, will not be a national, but a federal act... Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own VOLUNTARY ACT. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a federal, and not a national constitution. " (Madison, fp39)
The government of the United States is NOT a National or "popular" government, but a "Federal" one.
Monday, July 23
IN CONVENTION
...
Resol: 19.6 "referring the new Constitution to Assemblies to be chosen by the people for the express purpose of ratifying it" was next taken into consideration.
Mr. ELSEWORTH moved that it be referred to the Legislatures of the States for ratification. Mr. PATTERSON 2ded. the motion.
Col. MASON considered a reference of the plan to the authority of the people as one of the most important and essential of the Resolutions. The Legislatures have no power to ratify it. They are the mere creatures of the State Constitutions, and can not be greater than their creators. And he knew of no power in any of the Constitutions, he knew there was no power in some of them, that could be competent to this object. Whither then must we resort? To the people with whom all power remains that has not been given up in the Constitutions derived from them. It was of great moment he observed that this doctrine should be cherished as the basis of free Government. Another strong reason was that admitting the Legislatures to have a competent authority, it would be wrong to refer the plan to them, because succeeding Legislatures having equal authority could undo the acts of their predecessors; and the National Govt. would stand in each State on the weak and tottering foundation of an Act of Assembly. There was a remaining consideration of some weight. In some of the States the Govts. were not derived from the clear & undisputed authority of the people. This was the case in Virginia Some of the best & wisest citizens considered the Constitution as established by an assumed authority. A National Constitution derived from such a source would be exposed to the severest criticisms.
Mr. RANDOLPH. One idea has pervaded all our proceedings, to wit, that opposition as well from the States as from individuals, will be made to the System to be proposed. Will it not then be highly imprudent, to furnish any unnecessary pretext by the mode of ratifying it. Added to other objections agst. a ratification by Legislative authority only, it may be remarked that there have been instances in which the authority of the Common law has been set up in particular States agst. that of the Confederation which has had no higher sanction than Legislative ratification. Whose opposition will be most likely to be excited agst. the System? That of the local demagogues who will be degraded by it from the importance they now hold. These will spare no efforts to impede that progress in the popular mind which will be necessary to the adoption of the plan, and which every member will find to have taken place in his own, if he will compare his present opinions with those brought with him into the Convention. It is of great importance therefore that the consideration of this subject should be transferred from the Legislatures where this class of men, have their full influence to a field in which their efforts can be less mischievous. It is moreover worthy of consideration that some of the States are averse to any change in their Constitution, and will not take the requisite steps, unless expressly called upon to refer the question to the people.
...
Mr. GHORUM was agst. referring the plan to the Legislatures.
1. Men chosen by the people for the particular purpose, will discuss the subject more candidly than members of the Legislature who are to lose the power which is to be given up to the Genl. Govt.
2. Some of the Legislatures are composed of several branches. It will consequently be more difficult in these cases to get the plan through the Legislatures, than thro' a Convention.
3. in the States many of the ablest men are excluded from the Legislatures, but may be elected into a Convention. Among these may be ranked many of the Clergy who are generally friends to good Government. Their services were found to be valuable in the formation & establishment of the Constitution of Massachts.
4. the Legislatures will be interrupted with a variety of little business, by artfully pressing which, designing men will find means to delay from year to year, if not to frustrate altogether, the national system.
5. If the last art: of the Confederation is to be pursued the unanimous concurrence of the States will be necessary. But will any one say, that all the States are to suffer themselves to be ruined, if Rho. Island should persist in her opposition to general measures. Some other States might also tread in her steps. The present advantage which N. York seems to be so much attached to, of taxing her neighbours by the regulation of her trade, makes it very probable, that she will be of the number. It would therefore deserve serious consideration whether provision ought not to be made for giving effect to the System without waiting for the unanimous concurrence of the States.
Mr. ELSEWORTH. If there be any Legislatures who should find themselves incompetent to the ratification, he should be content to let them advise with their constituents and pursue such a mode as wd. be competent. He thought more was to be expected from the Legislatures than from the people. The prevailing wish of the people in the Eastern States is to get rid of the public debt; and the idea of strengthening the Natl. Govt. carries with it that of strengthening the public debt. It was said by Col. Mason
1. that the Legislatures have no authority in this case.
2. that their successors having equal authority could rescind their acts.
As to the 2d. point he could not admit it to be well founded. An Act to which the States by their Legislatures, make themselves parties, becomes a compact from which no one of the parties can recede of itself. As to the 1st. point, he observed that a new sett of ideas seemed to have crept in since the articles of Confederation were established. Conventions of the people, or with power derived expressly from the people, were not then thought of. The Legislatures were considered as competent. Their ratification has been acquiesced in without complaint. To whom have Congs. applied on subsequent occasions for further powers? To the Legislatures; not to the people. The fact is that we exist at present, and we need not enquire how, as a federal Society, united by a charter one article of which is that alterations therein may be made by the Legislative authority of the States. It has been said that if the confederation is to be observed, the States must unanimously concur in the proposed innovations. He would answer that if such were the urgency & necessity of our situation as to warrant a new compact among a part of the States, founded on the consent of the people; the same pleas would be equally valid in favor of a partial compact, founded on the consent of the Legislatures.
Mr. WILLIAMSON thought the Resoln.: [19 9] so expressed as that it might be submitted either to the Legislatures or to Conventions recommended by the Legislatures. He observed that some Legislatures were evidently unauthorized to ratify the system. He thought too that Conventions were to be preferred as more likely to be composed of the ablest men in the States.
Mr. Govr. MORRIS considered the inference of Mr. Elseworth from the plea of necessity as applied to the establishment of a new System on ye. consent of the people of a part of the States, in favor of a like establishment. on the consent of a part of the Legislatures as a non sequitur. If the Confederation is to be pursued no alteration can be made without the unanimous consent of the Legislatures: Legislative alterations not conformable to the federal compact, would clearly not be valid. The Judges would consider them as null & void. Whereas in case of an appeal to the people of the U. S., the supreme authority, the federal compact may be altered by a majority of them; in like manner as the Constitution of a particular State may be altered by a majority of the people of the State. The amendmt. moved by Mr. Elseworth erroneously supposes that we are proceeding on the basis of the Confederation. This Convention is unknown to the Confederation.
Mr. KING thought with Mr. Elseworth that the Legislatures had a competent authority, the acquiescence of the people of America in the Confederation, being equivalent to a formal ratification by the people. He thought with Mr. E-also that the plea of necessity was as valid in the one case as in the other. At the same time he preferred a reference to the authority of the people expressly delegated to Conventions, as the most certain means of obviating all disputes & doubts concerning the legitimacy of the new Constitution; as well as the most likely means of drawing forth the best men in the States to decide on it. He remarked that among other objections made in the State of N. York to granting powers to Congs. one had been that such powers as would operate within the State,11 could not be reconciled to the Constitution; and therefore were not grantible by the Legislative authority. He considered it as of some consequence also to get rid of the scruples which some members of the State Legislatures might derive from their oaths to support & maintain the existing Constitutions.
Mr. MADISON thought it clear that the Legislatures were incompetent to the proposed changes. These changes would make essential inroads on the State Constitutions, and it would be a novel & dangerous doctrine that a Legislature could change the constitution under which it held its existence. There might indeed be some Constitutions within the Union, which had given a power to the Legislature to concur in alterations of the federal Compact. But there were certainly some which had not; and in the case of these, a ratification must of necessity be obtained from the people. He considered the difference between a system founded on the Legislatures only, and one founded on the people, to be the true difference between a league or treaty, and a Constitution. The former in point of moral obligation might be as inviolable as the latter. In point of political operation, there were two important distinctions in favor of the latter. 1. A law violating a treaty ratified by a pre-existing law, might be respected by the Judges as a law, though an unwise or perfidious one. A law violating a constitution established by the people themselves would be considered by the Judges as null & void.
2. The doctrine laid down by the law of Nations in the case of treaties is that a breach of any one article by any of the parties, frees the other parties from their engagements. In the case of a union of people under one Constitution, the nature of the pact has always been understood to exclude such an interpretation. Comparing the two modes in point of expediency he thought all the considerations which recommended this Convention in preference to Congress for proposing the reform were in favor of State Conventions in preference to the Legislatures for examining and adopting it.
That is what you bring to a reading of the Constitution -- "The Federal government is the Agent of the States." -- not something you've found in the document, and it's not something everyone brings to a reading of the document.
What others found in the Constitution was 1) the Supremacy clause which "establishes the U.S. Constitution, federal statutes, and U.S. Treaties as "the supreme law of the land," ... if Congress is acting in pursuit of its constitutionally authorized powers. Federal laws are valid and are supreme, so long as those laws were adopted in pursuance of—that is, consistent with—the Constitution" [Wikipedia] 2) the means of states being admitted to the union, which would presumably indicate the way for states to be "de-admitted" from the union, and 3) the president's oath of office with its pledge to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
So if constitutionally valid laws are the law of the land, and if Congress needs to have a say in letting states into or out of the union, and if the president is sworn to execute and uphold the laws, that adds up to a presidential promise to preserve the Constitution, the laws, the country, and the union.
Now of course, there are also some assumptions involved in that explanation that not everyone would share. I assume that when you form a constitution that reserves certain rights to the states, the right to tear up the constitution and dissolve all of its bonds and all of your obligations isn't one of those reserved rights. To think that comes close to being crazy in my understanding. To give yourself an out of abrogating all federal laws by yourself on the spot for any reason or none is to make the Constitution an mere scrap of paper. But not everyone makes the same assumptions or comes to the same conclusions as I do.
My point here is that people come to the Constitution with different assumptions that give them different understandings and interpretations of the Constitution. If you are going to do successful real world politics in such situations you probably don't want to just say, "my reading is the right one and the only possible right one and scr*w the rest of you."
If your mind is working and you are focused on goals or results, you'll try to involve others in coming to some kind of solution or resolution. That solution may very well be a parting of the ways, but if you don't involve the opposite side in coming to that result -- if you just declare on your own that the Constitution and laws no longer apply to you -- the result will probably be trouble. What was needed in 1860 wasn't to impose some reading of the Constitution as the only valid one, but to come to a resolution that people who interpreted the Constitution differently would agree upon.
"Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own VOLUNTARY ACT. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a federal, and not a national constitution." (Madison, fp39)
The government of the United States is NOT a National or "popular" government, but a "Federal" one.
No. Read further. Madison is laying out the extent to which the new government will be federal and the extent to which it will be national -- federal in these ways, and national in those ways.
What he's saying here is that each state is free to join the union separately and its choice doesn't bind others to do the same. He's not saying that the states have the right to leave whenever they want for whatever reason they want. If you look at Madison's letters of the 1830s you can see that he was no fan of unilateral secession.
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.