Posted on 07/22/2020 3:14:43 AM PDT by Kaslin
No, its absence doesn't suggest its presence. If the constitution enumerates powers One, Two, Three, and Four, and then proceeds to delegate powers One, Two, and Four to the FedGov, that doesn't suggest that power Three "emanates from the penumbra" as well. The Ninth Amendment prevents the construence of an enumerated power to deny a power retained by The People (in keeping with the founding principle of "popular sovereignty", a concept which Lincoln denounced), and then the Tenth Amendment immediately follows up in stating that The People and their respective states retain all powers not specifically denied to them or otherwise delegated. The right to leave the union is nowhere delegated to the central government or denied to the states.
So you believe no powers are implied?
Can you point me to where it says powers must be specifically defined?
“Were you aware that it was the State of Texas that argued that the State of Texas never left the union?”
I think I did read that at some point. The court ruling confused me however; I could never figure out who was the good guy.
Thanks for filling in some of the blanks.
Your snarky comments aside, the difference between us seems to be that I believe that there are implied powers granted to the federal government and the states, and you say that every power must be specifically defined. So in that case can you please point out for me the explicit power that allows the federal government to establish the following:
U.S. Air Force
U.S. Space Force
NASA
U.S. Border Patrol
National Security Agency
FBI
Let's start with those and we can discuss others later.
“I on the other hand would be partial to Fort Eisenhower or Fort Patton.”
Both of these generals were great.
Both were strong admirers of Confederate General Robert E. Lee which means they are certain targets for mobs today.
I encourage you not to be too visible in your advocacy for Generals Eisenhower or Patton. When the mobs come for their honors it is not likely you could offer a robust defense.
Even if your moral courage remained intact, you do not have the background, training, and temperament to defend against
mob accusations the generals were bad for having respect for General Lee.
Jesus Christ, as many times as it takes you PC Revisionists to understand the South did not go to war to preserve it. Don't try to tell me they did - THEY DID NOT! The very first thing the North offered was slavery forever by express constitutional amendment. They turned it down. Hell yes I will call you a revisionist. That's exactly what you are. The North started a war for money and empire. The South was fighting for political independence for the same reasons their fathers and grandfathers had from the British Empire.
News flash idiot: Nobody questioned that.
Renaming Fort Gordon to Fort Sherman would have a nice sense of irony to it.
Actually it is not. The federal courts were only to rule over those powers delegated to the federal government by the sovereign states. Don't even try to pretend the federal government hasn't massively expanded far beyond any powers the states ever delegated to them.
They repeatedly offered to negotiate in good faith about what portion of the national debt they were to take on. Lincoln refused to meet with them to discuss it.Then it would be jointly owned with the other states, would it not? Don't they get any reimbursement?
Obviously the value of any federal property in a state as well as what portion of the national debt a state was to accept upon declaring independence would be matters to negotiate. Its not at all clear however that other states would be owed a reimbursement for any federal property nationalized by a seceding state since their taxes went to paying for all federal property too.....including that federal property that is located in other states....ie if other states are due a reimbursement for say FT. Sumter then South Carolina is owed a reimbursement for all those lighthouses and canals and forts and post offices etc etc in Massachussets, Wisconsin, Vermont, Ohio, etc. Well when you're walking away from debt and taking everything you can get your mitts on it's a great trade. For the other side, not so much.
But they weren't walking away from the debt and the other states got to keep federal property in their states paid for in part by taxes paid by South Carolinians. As with any divorce, the property and the debts will have to be divided up equitably. So you keep saying.
because its trueBut ending the marriage and dividing the community property takes a legal process and is done through negotiations on both sides. What you are describing is one spouse walking out after running up debt and taking everything they can grab. That isn't legal.
No I'm not. I'm describing the two parties sitting down and working out a deal to divide up the property and the debts equitably.
No, they didn't. And even if they had that was months after they had walked away from their responsibilities and stolen everything they could get their hands on. So even if they had, why should Lincoln or any other rational person believe they were serious?
Obviously the value of any federal property in a state as well as what portion of the national debt a state was to accept upon declaring independence would be matters to negotiate.
Wouldn't that be a matter for negotiation before they seized the property. Would you agree to a situation where I took your home and then offered to negotiate a price? And even if they had seriously wanted to pay for it, wouldn't that be an admission that seizing it was illegal in the first place?
But they weren't walking away from the debt and the other states got to keep federal property in their states paid for in part by taxes paid by South Carolinians.
But they did. What payment for debt did they make before leaving? What property did they pay for? You keep saying that they didn't walk away from or with anything and yet that is exactly what they did.
No I'm not. I'm describing the two parties sitting down and working out a deal to divide up the property and the debts equitably.
Something that did not happen when the South walked out.
These things do not overlap with the powers of the states and, with the possible exception of the FBI, there are no corresponding analogues within state governments. Your examples carry no argumentative weight in a debate about how the constitution settles an ambiguity of power if there was no ambiguity to settle. The point is that you are using a double standard which demands that advocates of states' rights cite bizarrely explicit and specific language while holding claims of federal power to absolutely no standard at all. A double standard would be fine, if the constitution supported it. In fact the constitution DOES provide a double standard, except that it reverses the burden and reserves power to the states by default. It isn't the burden of the states to cite iron-clad superlatives in the constitution, it is the burden of their detractors to find specific denials of powers.
Put yourself in the following thought experiment: Your invited to join a club with only four rules. The first rule is that following rules must be obeyed, but that subsequent rules supersede prior rules. The second rule is that the security guard at the front door has sole power to admit guests and that you must satisfy the posted stipulations for admission to pass. The third rule of the club is that guests are permitted to do anything in the clubhouse that isn't against the rules. The fourth rule is that no interpretation of the previous rules denies any guest rights which are enjoyed under a later rule.
Having met the requirement for entrance, you are allowed by the doorman to enter the club but, after having lost interest in socializing with the club's other clientele, you attempt to leave the premises. The security guard prevents your leaving and requires that you satisfy a never-ending list of demands to be granted his permission leave. You point out that the second rule only grants him the power to deny entry, but that it doesn't allow him to deny exit, but he says that that power is implied. You point out that rule three allows you to do anything that doesn't violate the rules, but he claims that leaving without his permission is against implied rules. You point out that the first rule gives the third rule higher standing over the second rule, implications and all, but he points out that the second rule follows and overrides that first rule. You point out that the fourth rule supersedes all the previous rules, and that it denies any interpretation the second rule to deny a right enjoyed under the third rule, but he claims that his second rule now abrogates the first rule's order of successive primacy and that, with his implied powers, he feels he can deny you your third-rule rights despite the fourth rule.
What do you do?
We're talking about overlap. We're talking about what powers are granted to the federal government. You say that only powers explicitly outlined in the Constitution are granted. My question was where does the Constitution explicitly give the federal government the power to establish any of those agencies?
The point is that you are using a double standard which demands that advocates of states' rights cite bizarrely explicit and specific language while holding claims of federal power to absolutely no standard at all.
On the contrary, you are the one claiming implied powers is a myth. So let's settle that one first. Is there such a thing as implied powers? And if not where does the authority to establish any of those agencies come from?
Put yourself in the following thought experiment:
Since your analogy bears no resemblance to reality I'll pass.
Yes they did. "walked away from their responsibilities?" They had no responsibilities to the states they were formerly associated with. They were independent. They didn't steal anything, they nationalized federal property within their sovereign territory as is the right of any sovereign government.Wouldn't that be a matter for negotiation before they seized the property. Would you agree to a situation where I took your home and then offered to negotiate a price? And even if they had seriously wanted to pay for it, wouldn't that be an admission that seizing it was illegal in the first place?
No. You're not sovereign. States are. Sovereigns seize property under eminent domain and work out fair market value owed as compensation all the time.But they did. What payment for debt did they make before leaving? What property did they pay for? You keep saying that they didn't walk away from or with anything and yet that is exactly what they did.
But they have the legal authority to nationalize any property within their sovereign territory. Just as with eminent domain, compensation at fair market value would be owed. On the other side of the ledger is all the federal property throughout the other states paid for in part by taxes paid by South Carolinians that those other states would be keeping. Obviously the parties should sit down and negotiate a settlement of the assets and debts. Other countries have done this....eg the Czech Republic and Slovakia....the various states of the Soviet Union, etc. Something that did not happen when the South walked out.
Because Lincoln refused to meet with the Confedeate delegation sent to negotiate in good faith for that very purpose.
Given the human rights record of the Union compared to that of the Confederacy, especially with regards to the treatment of the native people, irony is exactly what it would be. It would be like renaming a Polish train station from "Lech Walesa" to "Reinhart Heydrich" because Walesa was from the Polish national right
No responsibilities for the national debt? No responsibilities for international obligations? All things entered into when they were part of the country, and indeed when they were running it? Really?
They didn't steal anything, they nationalized federal property within their sovereign territory as is the right of any sovereign government.
Theft is the right of any sovereign country? Even if the southern states had been sovereign countries they still took things that didn't belong to them alone. Almost as if they were deliberately trying to start a conflict.
No. You're not sovereign. States are.
So you keep telling us.
But they have the legal authority to nationalize any property within their sovereign territory.
What gives them that legal authority?
Other countries have done this....eg the Czech Republic and Slovakia....the various states of the Soviet Union, etc.
Lousy example. All that was done through negotiations between both sides of the issue. The southern states didn't try that. They just walked out and stole everything.
We're talking about overlap. We're talking about what powers are granted to the federal government. You say that only powers explicitly outlined in the Constitution are granted. My question was where does the Constitution explicitly give the federal government the power to establish any of those agencies?
Your inability to follow your own argument over the course of multi-post thread is surpassed only by your inability to follow the course of your own argument across a SINGLE post. You very specifically called out examples of powers NOT exercised by states within the union and then immediately responded to my pointing that out by claiming that these are, in fact, overlapping powers. Alright, please tell me how NASA's space mission overlaps with Ohio's? While your at it, please explain how Nebraska's patrolling of the border conflicts with Border Patrol's or how Michigan's network of spy satellites compares to any agency reporting to DHS. I have to ask because casual readers would never have guessed, just by looking at your last post, that you had removed reference to all of these completely non-overlaping initiatives.
"The point is that you are using a double standard which demands that advocates of states' rights cite bizarrely explicit and specific language while holding claims of federal power to absolutely no standard at all."
On the contrary, you are the one claiming implied powers is a myth.
Customarily, one says "on the contrary" in reply to something that is, well, actually contrary. I've never once relented in denying that the constitution transfers powers of the states to the FedGov by way of implication, so I'm being perfectly consistent.
So let's settle that one first. Is there such a thing as implied powers?
According to the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, there are no powers originating with the states which are transferred to the central government by way of implication.
And if not where does the authority to establish any of those agencies come from?
What's funny is that, not only did you not give examples of powers that you think were somehow collected to the FedGov from the states through implication, you failed to even give examples of things actually denied the states. You know what, Ohio actually COULD start it's own space mission, Nebraska actually CAN patrol its own border, and Michigan really COULD launch their own satellites if they could afford it and wanted to. Did you forget your own original point?--That some supposed implied power of the central government to secede (from its self, presumably) exclusively denied the power to the states. You were so busy attempting to prove the existence of FedGovs implied powers that you only succeeded in demonstrating how the exercise of those powers by the central government fails to deny the states similar powers at all. That's hilarious.
"Put yourself in the following thought experiment:"
Since your analogy bears no resemblance to reality I'll pass.
I didn't present the problem so you could demonstrate your ability to solve it. I posted the problem to demonstrate you inability to solve it.
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.