Posted on 08/16/2013 7:59:53 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
Lincoln's "actions were unconstitutional and he knew it," writes Napolitano, for "the rights of the states to secede from the Union . . . [are] clearly implicit in the Constitution, since it was the states that ratified the Constitution . . ." Lincoln's view "was a far departure from the approach of Thomas Jefferson, who recognized states' rights above those of the Union." Judge Napolitano also reminds his readers that the issue of using force to keep a state in the union was in fact debated -- and rejected -- at the Constitutional Convention as part of the "Virginia Plan."
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
If there was no Southern United States, there would be no conservatism whatsover in American politics.
"Whoever would understand in his heart the meaning of America will find it in the life of Abraham Lincoln." - Ronald Reagan, in his first inaurural address (1981)
But, then, Reagan never got to hear Judge Napolitano on TV. Maybe Judge Napolitano could have changed his mind. ;-)
You saying it doesn't make it true.
Try reading some of my post and you might learn something.
I read your post. It's an unsupported claim and a link to the declaration put out by the Watie faction of the Cherokees that I've seen before.
You're a funny, funny man.
Why would you say something as stupid as that. Why do you insult the intelligence of everyone here? Is neo-slavery coming to the USA something you spend time thinking about? Are you really afraid it may be re-instituted in the USA? Do you think that is what some on this thread actually want? Do you really think these things?
If so you may be a paranoid schizophrenic. Whacko.
Says the man from the Blue State.
LOL!!!! Just when I think you've reached the depths of idiocy you go and out-do yourself. I can name at least 8 states who are far more conservative than the average southern state but have also been conservative for far longer.
Perhaps, perhaps not, but if you look at the electoral map, it is obvious Lincoln's election was a dividing point. If nothing else, it underscores the division inherent in the different states/regions.
Actually look at the state legislature, VA is very conservative. But it is trending blue in the US Senate. Repeal the 17th amendment and bingo - 2 Republican Senators form VA(RINOS? maybe). 2 US ‘D’ senators does not reflect reality at all in VA....
Ok, you are on record as bashing the South’s conservatism. A little advice, this is a NON-SEQUITUR.
You forgot the part about going for Obama in the last two elections.
Perhaps VA is lost. How sad, but you must be absolutely gleeful. I own property in TX, so I may end there again. The VA county I live in has one of the best run Tea Parties in the USA....
No, I'm on record as disagreeing with the idiotic claim that the South is the bedrock of conservatism in the U.S. There are far more conservative areas. Areas that have been conservative far longer. And which were voting Republican when the South was still solidly Democrat. Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Utah. All are far more conservative than Blue States like Virginia and Florida, and even recently Red states like Arkansas and Louisiana and Tennessee. Sorry if the truth hurts, but facts are facts.
Facts are facts. I'm sorry that you equate someone pointing out the obvious with 'being gleeful'. Just don't pretend you're something you're not and we'll be fine.
I own property in TX, so I may end there again.
Hope you make it while Texas is still Red. Better hurry.
The VA county I live in has one of the best run Tea Parties in the USA....
(*sigh*) I'm sure you can go to counties in Illinois and Massachusetts and Pennsylvania and California where the Tea Party is well established too. That doesn't change the fact that all those states went for Obama.
Texas is a big place, what region is this property in?
Of course there could be a legal secession. There just hasn’t been one yet.
Nearly anything can be done by constitutional amendment:normally 2/3rds of each house of congress and 3/4s of the state legislatures.
It could perhaps even be done by simple legislation. 50% of each house plus one vote, and signature of each president.
It could also practically be accomplish by litigation, with the supreme court resolving a controversy between the state and the federal government as original jurisdiction.
Rebellion is an illegal process, but after a successful rebellion legality could be restored by a treaty: Signature of the President and 2/3rds of the Senate. Here is a question: Would a state bound on secession have its representative counted towards the 2/3rds in the Senate? Would a large plurality of the states able to pull off a successful rebellion, perhaps be so large that 2/3rds of the Senate was not possible without them so no treaty could be ratified?
So that would make the south in favor of the liberal income tax rather than the conservative tariff.
The dividing point came earlier, when the Whig party died, and a Republican became Speaker of the House.
Madison believed that in order to permit even one state to secede, it would be necessary for the Union to be dissolved. To do that, he believed that all parties to the Union would have to agree to that secession. In other words, unanimous consent would be required.
Lincoln's position was that three-fourths of the states would have to agree to dissolve the Union and permit secession. His logic stemmed from his understanding of what the instrument of dissolution would be. He viewed it as a constitutional amendment that would consist of two parts. The first section would dissolve the Union, and the second section would reform the Union with those states that wished to remain. This amendment could come from an Amendments Convention, or via the usual congressional route. Ratification of three-fourths of the states by state legislatures or state ratifying conventions (as decided by Congress) would permit this amendment to be added to the Constitution and then executed.
This is why Lincoln asked the seceding states to send their representatives back to Congress. If secession was going to be accomplished, he wanted it done by the book.
I see you've been introduced ;-)
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.