Posted on 12/24/2001 4:25:26 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa
Yes, to include providing for the common defense, and as Chief Justice Marshall has told us, Congress must judge for itself what measures to take when the common defense is threatened.
Think about this:
"If this doctrine had been established at an earlier day, the Union would have been dissolved in its infancy. The excise law in Pennsylvania, the embargo and non-intercourse law in the Eastern States, the carriage tax in Virginia, were all deemed unconstitutional, and were more unequal in their operation than any of the laws now complained of; but, fortunately, none of those states discovered that they had the right now claimed by South Carolina. The war into which we were forced, to support the dignity of the nation and the rights of our citizens, might have ended in defeat and disgrace, instead of victory and honor, if the states who supposed it a ruinous and unconstitutional measure had thought they possessed the right of nullifying the act by which it was declared, and denying supplies for its prosecution. Hardly and unequally as those measures bore upon several members of the Union, to the legislatures of none did this efficient and peaceable remedy, as it is called, suggest itself. The discovery of this important feature in our Constitution was reserved to the present day.
To the statesmen of South Carolina belongs the invention, and upon the citizens of that state will unfortunately fall the evils of reducing it to practice.
" --Andrew Jackson
In other words, if you try this nullification/secession crap, say hello to Uncle Billy!
Walt
Name a federal usurpation -before- 1860.
I will grant you that the necessary and proper clause could be (and maybe has been)a source of abuse by the feds. But to say that the government may not use the clause to simply maintain the national framework is beyond stretching credibility.
Walt
The cases you cite are in reference to the federal government vs state government - one a case recognizing the power to create a national bank, the second a case affirming that the state laws and constutions - when in conflict with federal laws and the US Constition - are null and void..
In McCullough v Maryland, Chief Justice Marshall also stated,
"No political dreamer was ever wild enough to think of breaking down the lines which separate the States, and of compounding the American people into one common mass. Of consequence, when they act, they act in their States."
The states, all 13 of them, created the federal government, and gave to it certain powers. The creation of this new government did not destroy the states, it was instituted primarily as a means of protection from invasion. Read the Federalist Papers, it's probably the most often cited reason for the new government. Marshall further states,
We admit, as all must admit, that the powers of the Government are limited, and that its limits are not to be transcended. But we think the sound construction of the Constitution must allow to the national legislature that discretion with respect to the means by which the powers it confers are to be carried into execution which will enable that body to perform the high duties assigned to it in the manner most beneficial to the people. Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are Constitutional.
This case is about federal power - not state powers. Also in Cohens v. Virginia, Marshall states,
"These states are constituent parts of the United States; they are members of one great empire--for some purposes sovereign, for some purposes subordinate."
In other words, to carry out the objectives of the federal government, the federal Constitution is supreme. And when state powers (not conflicting with federal) are exercised, the states are supreme.
As Chief Justice Marshall explained, "it was neither necessary nor proper to define the powers retained by the States. These powers proceed, not from the people of America, but from the people of the several States ; and remain, after the adoption of the constitution, what they were before, except so far as they may be abridged by that instrument." Sturges v. Crowninshield, 4 Wheat. 122, 193 (1819).
I am quoting justices from the past.
The people, not the states, created the federal government, and no one said otherwise until slavery was threatened.
Walt
Obviously false. The federal government is always supreme; ever hear of the supremacy clause?
Walt
Walt, John Galt did misquote the X Amendment (albeit not in a material way), but I think it is probably reckless to draw from this the conclusion that he is a "hate-filled shill for slavers."
Respectfully
D J White
"No political dreamer was ever wild enough to think of breaking down the lines which separate the States, and of compounding the American people into one common mass. Of consequence, when they act, they act in their States." Chief Justice Marshall, McCullough v Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, (1819)
"[I]t was neither necessary nor proper to define the powers retained by the States. These powers proceed, not from the people of America, but from the people of the several States; and remain, after the adoption of the constitution, what they were before, except so far as they may be abridged by that instrument."
Chief Justice Marshall, Sturges v. Crowninshield, 4 Wheat. 122, 193 (1819).In this clause they are as clearly contradistinguished by a name appropriate to themselves from foreign nations as from the several states composing the Union.
Chief Justice Marshall, Cherokee Nation v. State of Georgia, 30 US 1, (1831)"This is the authoritative language of the American people; and, if gentlemen please, of the American States."
Chief Justice Marshall, Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264, (1821)
Walt, today there are 50 states, when the Constitution was ratified there were 13. The creation of the federal government did not abolish the states. The people of every state did not vote for the Constitition - their state politicians voted on it. We live in a Constitutional republic, not a democracy. It's a case of "We the people of these United States" creating the government. Article IV refers to states powers, not those of the people. The ratification had to be performed by the states, not by the people. Amending the Constitution is to be done by the states, not the people. Read the Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalist Papers, and the Debates in the State Conventions and learn something useful. Unplug yourself from the Matrix.
The federal government is always supreme; ever hear of the supremacy clause?
"These states are constituent parts of the United States; they are members of one great empire--for some purposes sovereign, for some purposes subordinate."
Chief Justice Marshall, Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264, (1821)
Is Marshall a liar?
Walt, how do you figure? The question is, what power did the people of the several States delegate to the Federal government to coerce a State back into the Union? A way to test your hypothesis is by looking at the actions of the Federal government after the inauguration of the new Federal government under the new Constitution in 1789. What actions did the Federal government take to force NC and RI into the new Union? Or did the Founding Fathers consider them to be out of the Union until they ratified?
Respectfully,
D J White
"These states are constituent parts of the United States; they are members of one great empire--for some purposes sovereign, for some purposes subordinate." Chief Justice Marshall, Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264, (1821)
Is Marshall a liar?
Sovereign yes, but not completely sovereign.
You seem to have snipped it a bit:
"That the United States form, for many, and for most important purposes, a single nation, has not yet been denied. In war, we are one people. In making peace, we are one people. In all commercial regulations, we are one and the same people. In many other respects, the American people are one; and the government which is alone capable of controlling and managing their interests in all these respects, is the government of the Union. It is their government and in that character, they have no other. America has chosen to be, in many respects, and in many purposes, a nation; and for all these purposes, her government is complete; to all these objects it is competent. The people have declared that in the exercise of all powers given for these objects, it is supreme. It can, then, in effecting these objects, legitimately control all individuals or governments within the American territory. The constitution and laws of a state, so far as they are repugnant to the constitution and laws of of the United States are absolutely void. These states are constituent parts of the United States; they are members of one great empire--for some purposes sovereign, for some purposes subordinate."
--Chief Justice John Marshall, writing the majority opinion, Cohens v. Virginia 1821
Walt
Walt, the supremacy clause (Article VI, second paragraph) says "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or the Laws of any States to the contrary notwithstanding."
This does not say that the Federal government is supreme. It states that the Constitution shall be supreme. The Federal government is more subject to the provisions of the US Constitution than the States are (because of the IX & X Amendments).
Respectfully,
D J White
Your point holds nothing, if you're trying to blame the South for the 14th Amendment! That's like blaming the kids in Tienneman square for the Chicoms' unjust use of deadly force!
The 14th Amendment was a needless vindictive measure calculated contrived and consumated entirely by the Yankee Congress in violation of Article V. Their actions, in promulgating that illegitimate property-grabbing escape hatch from the 5th Amendment were far more treasonous than slavery was.
Thank you for pointing out another example of Walt's disregard of the Constitution. To say that the Federal Government is supreme, in spite of the clear text in Article VI, is exactly what I'd expect from such a Tory. It wouldn't be so bad if he didn't claim to be such an authority on the Constitution. Now would be a good time to remind the readership that Walt is the one who claims that Lincoln understood the Constitution better than Davis !
Actually, I am willing to address ALL of Mr. Madison’s comments. Given your complete and total unwillingness to discuss certain issues with which he was intimately involved (the secession of the ratifying States from the so-called ‘perpetual union’ formed under the Articles, and the Federalists’ palpably unconstitutional Alien and Sedition Acts), it is perfectly obvious that ‘you quote Madison when he suits you, and completely ignore him when he does not.’
In March, 1833, he wrote to William Cabell Rives as follows...
Wow – another private communication offered four decades after the fact. Just can’t abide what he said in his official government documents, such as the Report on the Virginia Resolutions, can you? You have to go fishing through his personal correspondence. Very well...
“...The words of the Constitution are explicit that the Constitution & laws of the U. S. shall be supreme over the Constitution and laws of the several States...”
And, when last I checked, the Tenth Amendment (and its blanket reservation of “powers not delegated...nor prohibited”) was still a part of “the Constitution...of the U. S.,” and not part of “the Constitution and laws of the several States.” As such, the Tenth Amendment is part of the “supreme” law of the land, and can not be “discounted” no matter how much you may wish to do so. Your arguments suggest that you consider any reservation of powers to be unconstitutional – not surprising, given your past advocacy of “almost unlimited” government power.
”Here we see the people acting as the sovereigns of the whole country...”
Actually, we see no such thing: Mr. Justice Jay was spouting mystical “crap,” as a review of The Federalist Papers and the Constitution proves beyond any shadow of a doubt. You’ve seen this before:
”...(T)he Constitution is to be founded on the...assent and ratification...given by the people, not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong... the act of the people, as forming so many independent States, not as forming one aggregate nation...”
“Get used to seeing it.” ;>)
It wasn;t until the slave holders saw their power to control the national government slipping away that the these positions were challenged.
Really? Is that why the 1803 edition of Blackstones Commentaries, the most respected legal reference in the country at the time, specifically discusses State secession? Is that why William Rawle (a noted abolitionist) discussed legal secession in his 1825 edition of A View of the Constitution? Rawle’s work was such a respected analysis of constitutional law that it was used as a text at West Point! Those slave holders sure must have wanted to get a jump on things! What was it someone said recently?
“You lied.”
“You got caught.”
;>)
Anyone who considers the whole record will not accept your skewed, prejudiced and factually incorrect position.
That obviously excludes you, given your patent unwillingness to ‘consider the whole record.’ Or shall we discuss, here and now, the secession of the ratifying States from the so-called ‘perpetual union’ formed under the Articles, and the ‘federal-judge-approved-but-entirely-unconstitutional’ Alien and Sedition Acts? Pardon me if I don’t hold my breath waiting...
Your attempts to pervert perception of these events always puts me in mind of what Jefferson said...
I am not at all surprised, given your confessed dependence upon judicial ‘opinion,’ that you failed to quote the following:
"Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction."
-Thomas Jefferson, 1803
"It is every American’s right and obligation to read and interpret the Constitution for himself."
--Thomas Jefferson
"You seem...to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy... The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal."
--Thomas Jefferson, 1820
Read ‘em and weep...
An appeal to reason will show your posts for the disinformation campaign that they are.
Does this mean are finally willing to discuss the secession of the ratifying States from the not-so-perpetual union formed under the Articles? Hmm? If not, perhaps we can discuss the de facto federal judicial approval given the outrageously unconstitutional Alien and Sedition Acts? No? What were you saying about “disinformation?”
;>)
“Many?” “Most?” Pointless generalities, of which you whole-heartedly approve simply because they issue from Mr. Justice Marshall. How touching...
“The constitution and laws of a state, so far as they are repugnant to the constitution and laws of of the United States are absolutely void.”
As I observed previously, the Tenth Amendment is part of the United States Constitution, not any State constitution. All you have done is push forward another ‘straw man’ argument.
“These states are constituent parts of the United States; they are members of one great empiure...”
Ah, yes –Mr. Justice Marshall, the unabashed advocate of ‘empire.’ For your further edification (since you repeatedly quote Mr. Justice Marshall), allow me to quote Mr. Justice Holmes (with my own clarifications in brackets ;>), who stated that he could not “separate John Marshall from the fortunate [for the advocates of empire] circumstance that the appointment of Chief Justice fell to [Mr. Unconstitutional ‘Alien & Sedition Acts’] John Adams, instead of to [Mr. ‘Declaration of Independence’ Thomas] Jefferson a month later, and so gave it to a Federalist [i.e., imperial elitist] and loose constructionist [i.e., someone who equates the written Constitution with toilet paper] to start the working [i.e., revision by select committee of government lawyers] of the Constitution...”
;>)
From a newsgroup...
(So, you quote ‘newsgroups’ but refuse to discuss factual, documented history. How impressive. Perhaps you should quote mentally unstable ‘street people’ as well: I’m sure they would support your argument whole-heartedly... ;>)
Although the preamble is not a source of power for any department of the Federal Government, 1 the Supreme Court has often referred to it as evidence of the origin, scope, and purpose of the Constitution.
Only those who refuse to discuss history, including Mr. Madison’s comments in Federalist No. 39, the original version of the Preamble (which listed the people of each State separately), the ratification documents of the States, and the final version of Article VII, would refer to the Preamble as important “evidence of the origin, scope, and purpose of the Constitution.” That obviously includes you...
“No one can doubt that this does not enlarge the powers of Congress to pass any measures which they deem useful for the common defence.”
“No one can doubt?” What a load of malarkey! It would appear that neither Mr. Justice Story nor you ever read Mr. Madison’s Report of 1800: Mr. Madison completely, inarguably, and in great detail refuted the ‘common-defense-clause-as-a-source-of-expanded-federal-power’ argument. You can find a link at my FR home page: read it. Better luck next time.
Yes, cherry picking.
Oh, very well – I admit to being more selective in my posts than you appear to be: I refuse to post anonymous nonsensical rubbish.
;>)
Will you condemn Jefferson Davis for saying the same things as Justice Story?
You are the one who quotes Mr. Davis, not I. By the way, are you quoting Davis the “traitor” (as you call him), or Davis the ‘statesman?’ The world wonders...
;>)
You've seen this before; I don't recall a single word of condemnation of Davis by you. I don't expect one now. After all, Davis was a slave holder. That gives him a free pass among confederate apologists.
Mr. Davis is relevant only to those who find no foundation for their arguments in the ratification debates, the secession of the ratifying States from so-called ‘perpetual union’ under the Articles, the ratification documents of the States, the written words of the Constitution, the preeminent legal references of the Republic’s early years, and the written words of the Founders. No wonder you depend on him...
It also says “reserved” – and rights or powers may only be “reserved” by a party to a compact. And, as Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Madison (and the ratification documents of the States, and Article VII itself) make abundantly clear, that means the people of the States.
From the moderated ACW newsgroup...
What, no ‘street people’ or Democratic Party pollsters? You're ignoring a major source of support...
;>)
Secession amounts to asserting the right to exercise prohibited powers...
More ‘circular reasoning:’ secession is prohibited because you say secession is prohibited. (You almost-unlimited-government-power types really seem to depend on it! ;>) Feel free to prove me wrong: what clause of the United States Constitution specifically prohibits secession? Hmm?
The record, and common sense shows your argument to be fatally weak.
Where, exactly, was that constitutional clause prohibiting secession? ;>)
By the way, perhaps you should contact Harvard Professor of History William E. Gienapp, who recently observed that “the proponents of secession had a strong constitutional argument, probably a stronger argument than the nationalists advanced.” Maybe if you ‘turn him on’ to your whole ‘newsgroup’ thing, he’ll revise his professional opinion...
;>)
And your habit of continually misrepresenting the languuage of the 10th amendment takes you off the field as a credible player in these discussions.
Does this mean you still won’t consider the ratification documents of the States? Or Mr. Jefferson’s and Mr. Madison’s Resolutions? Or The Federalist Papers? And that you won’t even bother to locate the term “reserved” in a legal dictionary?
Does your mother know where you are?
;>)
I am not in disagreement with Madison; you are.
You seem to have left something out: what happened to secession due to ‘intolerable oppression?’ “Cherry picking” again? Or did you just find yourself "in disagreement" with the concept?
By the way, would you care to discuss the secession of the ratifying States from not-so-perpetual union under the Articles? No? How about the federal-judge-approved-but-absolutely-unconstitutional Alien and Sedition Acts?
(Thanks for the comic relief, Walt! ;>)
A most unworthy sentiment, Walt. Or rather, one worthy of a member of the KKK. About on par with, “if you try this 'black men voting' crap, say hello to you local Klan.”
For what its worth, Jackson was speaking about nullification, not secession. This is a difference here, too .
Respectfully,
D J White
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.