"In Order To Form A More Perfect Union..."

Toogood Reports ^ | September 7-9, 2001 | Lee R. Shelton IV

[Publius]

Before we start shooting each other, let's try ”A Convention for Proposing Amendments...as Part of This Constitution”

[sheltonmac]

Bump for your input

[sheltonmac]

Bump for your input

[sheltonmac]

Bump for your input

[sheltonmac]

Bump for your input

[sheltonmac]

Bump for your input

[sheltonmac]

Of course I can't forget to bump our favorite Yankee! ;-)

[LadyJD]

It is really very simple:

1) CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED = FREEDOM AND LIBERTY

or

2) EDICTS HANDED
DOWN FROM MONARCHY/OLIGARCHY = TYRANNY

Now this question is for Non-Sense
and all of the other statist
lackeys and serfs at Free Republic:

Are "Supreme Court decisions" 1) or 2) above?

[Arthur McGowan]

It is patently absurd to suppose that the same group of men, representing the same American People, wrote the Constitution with the intention of nullifying the assertion in the Declaration of Independence that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and that the people have the God-given right to abolish a government that becomes destructive of their rights.

Any American who is an anti-secessionist ranks among the most intellectually dishonest people on earth.

[Arthur McGowan]

It's called the "Preamble" for a reason: Namely, it delegates no powers to anybody. All powers delegated to the U.S. Government by the people are listed in the articles and amendments. The most infuriatingly dishonest abuse of the Preamble is the claim that it authorizes "welfare"! But to cite the Preamble as outlawing secession is no less dishonest.

[Publius]

Arthur, I'm not opposed in principle to secession. Secession is like a nuke. It's good to have in your arsenal because it gets you respect from those who would be your masters. But it's something you don't want to detonate unless it's really necessary.

We've had a number of secession threads going lately, and you should do a search on "Huck", "justshutupandtake it", and "WhiskeyPapa". These are people who have joined the Cult of Permanent Union and have swallowed Webster's and Lincoln's arguments uncritically. The first two are among the most obnoxious Freepers I've ever run into; to them, their opponents are traitors.

[WhiskeyPapa]

Call it secession, call it revolution, call it whatever you so desire.

Just don't call it legal under US law, because it is not, nor has it ever been.

While you're at it, point out the long train of abuses prior to 1860 by the federal government that would justify either revolution or secession.

Walt

[Teacher317]

The most infuriatingly dishonest abuse of the Preamble is the claim that it authorizes "welfare"! But to cite the Preamble as outlawing secession is no less dishonest.

Even assuming it is authorized, it says "promoting the general Welfare"... taxing people's labor and transferring the wealth to others is not "promoting", paying to specific individuals on an unequal basis is not "general", and the 18th century definition of "Welfare" is not 'a free hand out to help someone up'.

[Teacher317]

While you're at it, point out the long train of abuses prior to 1860 by the federal government that would justify either revolution or secession.

Why is this a necessary point? Was there some rule written that the tyrrany has to last longer than 141 years before secession can be "allowed"?

[Teacher317]

Oh, jeez... you're referring to the WBTS... sorry! I'm TIRED. It's Friday, you know!

[Who is George Salt?]

"I return my thanks for the copy of your late very powerful Speech in the Senate of the United S. It crushes "nullification" and must hasten the abandonment of "Secession." But this dodges the blow by confounding the claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression. The former answers itself, being a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged. The latter is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy."
-- James Madison to Daniel Webster

"Secession, like any other revolutionary act, may be morally justified by the extremity of oppression; but to call it a constitutional right, is confounding the meaning of terms, and can only be done through gross error, or to deceive those who are willing to assert a right, but would pause before they made a revolution, or incur the penalties consequent upon a failure."
-- Andrew Jackson
-- President Jackson's Proclamation Regarding Nullification

There is a reason why the slaveocracy - and their neo-confederate cheeerleaders - avoided the obvious truth that secession is indeed revolution, and the roots can be traced back to John Calhoun.

To Calhoun, preserving slavery was far more important than perserving the nation. But there was a major stumbling block he had to avoid at all costs, and it is found in the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

When you are holding more than a third of your population in perpetual, hereditary bondage, those words - and the notion of a natural right of revolution that they embody - are extremely dangerous. As Thomas Jefferson said:

"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever: that considering numbers, nature and natural means only, a revolution of the wheel of fortune, an exchange of situation is among possible events: that it may become probable by supernatural interference! The almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in such a contest. - But it is impossible to be temperate and to pursue this subject through the various considerations of policy, of morals, of history natural and civil. We must be contented to hope they will force their way into every one's mind. I think a change already perceptible, since the origin of the present revolution. The spirit of the master is abating, that of the slave rising from the dust, his condition mollifying, the way I hope preparing, under the auspices of heaven, for a total emancipation, and that this is disposed, in the order of events, to be with the consent of the masters, rather than by their extirpation."

Calhoun attempted to obviate the problem of a natural right of revolution - accessible to all MEN - by transferring it to a collective right, in the form of "State's Rights," that was accessible only to White Men.

"Sovereignty" was just as much a collective right to Calhoun as it was to Karl Marx.

"...declare that you will never take the field unless the star-spangled banner of your country shall float over you--that you will not be stigmatized when dead, and dishonored and scorned while you live, as the authors of the first attack on the Constitution of your country!-its destroyers you cannot be. You may disturb its peace-you may interrupt the course of its prosperity-you may cloud its reputation for stability- but its tranquillity will be restored, its prosperity will return, and the stain upon its national character will be transferred and remain an eternal blot on the memory of those who caused the disorder."

God Bless You, President Jackson!

[ArGee]

It is true that when the Colonies threw off the yoke of tyrrany they did not overthrow England. But after the treaty was signed, neither England nor the Colonies were the same. If even one state seceeded from the Union the remainder would not be the U.S., and neither would that state. Our strength is in our union, not in spite of it. It takes all of us working together, hashing out our differences, working through our problems, to make this nation as great as it is. If those who don't like it pick up their marbles and go home, home is not likely to remain a very good place to be.

Like it or not, we are all in this together. We sink or swim together. One day there may be two unions split by their differing social contracts, but I hope not. It would be the end of America. I don't want to see that, no matter how unhappy I may be with the America of today.

Shalom