Posted on 12/24/2001 4:25:26 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa
I still don't get what the hell you question is, but I'll play along with you anyway.
“You state that the clause in question ‘has to do with amending the Constitution.’ I was wondering: did you reach that conclusion from the location of the clause in Article V...?
I reached that conclusion because that is what the clause says. That is what the heading says. I cited Article V only because that is what H.Askton claimed it showed a right to seceed. Do you deny he said that? Do you agree with him? Did I post the wrong Article V? Do you have a different version on your planet?
Now if you have a point to make, go ahead in make it and shove your condesenting libertarian attitude where the sun don't shine while you're at it.
I'll debate you anytime, but I despise playing guessing games.
Certainly. One would have a hard time suggesting that the clause in Article V applies only to the ratification of constitutional amendments, while simultaneously suggesting that the Article I clause relating to the suspension of the writ actually applies to the president, rather than Congress.
...and shove your condesenting libertarian attitude where the sun don't shine while you're at it.
I'm not a "libertarian." And neither am I an 'almost-unlimited-government-power' advocate like our friend Walt. As for "condesenting" - present something other than your opinion, and I may respond to your posts somewhat differently.
I'll debate you anytime, but I despise playing guessing games.
If I wanted to trade unsubstantiated opinion and elementary school insults, I would contact a Democrat (or #3Fan ;>). I prefer to debate the facts...
“To be sure, when the Tenth Amendment uses the phrase -the people,- it does not specify whether it is referring to the people of each State or the people of the Nation as a whole. But the latter interpretation would make the Amendment pointless...it would make no sense to speak of powers as being reserved to the undifferentiated people of the Nation as a whole, because the Constitution does not contemplate that those people will either exercise power or delegate it. The Constitution simply does not recognize any mechanism for action by the undifferentiated people of the Nation...”
Just wondering if you were going to call Justice Thomas, the Chief Justice, Justice O'Connor, and Justice Scalia 'liars:' after all, they have stated, in print (quoted above for your edification ;>), that the people referred to by the Tenth Amendment are "the people of each State." Or will you continue to proclaim your "pointless" and 'nonsensical' argument that the amendment refers to "the people of the Nation as a whole?"
The world wonders...
;>)
Exactly when did I "simultaneously' suggest anything about Article 1? I never mentioned Article I in my reply to H.Askton. I don't even see what the relevance is to his claim that Article V somehow supported the right to secede.
And if Article V does not pertain to ratification of amendments, exactly what does it pertain to, (in your all-wise and knowing opinion of course.)
BTW, I apologize for calling you condescending. After reading your last post, I find you to only be pompous.
I never stated that you did. I asked those three simple questions in an attempt to ascertain your position. You refused to answer them. Instead you suggested that “if you have a point to make, go ahead in make it.” I did so: the suspension of the writ was being discussed by others, and I presented my “point” in those terms.
What are you complaining about?
BTW, I apologize for calling you condescending. After reading your last post, I find you to only be pompous.
Actually, you called me “condesenting.”
;>)
And, after reading the posts you’ve addressed to me, I continue to find only unsubstantiated opinions and insults...
What are you complaining about?
Go back and read you posts. You didn’t present any point. You were playing 20 questions. I never talked about the writ not did I follow the discussion of the writ. You never mentioned the writ in your queeries to me. Am I supposed to read your mind as to what you wanted to talk about? You jumped all over my case for debunking H.Askton when he claimed Article V allowed secession based on the sufferage of Senators clause in Article V. I saw no discussion of the writ it that exchange or any others between he, you or I until this latest post, and I fail to see what relationship writ has with Article V.
BTW. That noted constitutional scholar (snicker, sniker) H.Askton is slicing and dicing the Constitution as we speak over here in post #701. He claimed that Article III Section 2 says that Jeff Davis would have to been tried before the Supreme Court (and found innocent) not a jury trial if he had been charged with Treason because he was a ‘State Official” or some such nonsense. I gave him a detailed rebuttal, with citations and case law in # 710 if you care to honor us with your vast and, IYO, superior intellect.
Do you have a source for that?
Yes. From his Farewell Address we have this:
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labour to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men & citizens. The mere Politican, equally with the pious man ought to respect & to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private & public felicity. Let it simply be asked where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the Oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure--reason & experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
In the above paragraph Washington defined patriotism. He also wrote this ...
The name of American, which belongs to you, in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of Patriotism, more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same Religeon, Manners, Habits & political Principles. You have in a common cause fought & triumphed together--The independence & liberty you possess are the work of joint councils, and joint efforts--of common dangers, sufferings and successes.
Now, regarding a common language (beyond the implied coverage in the previous quotes). . . First, in his address to Trenton, New Jersey, Citizens, July 20, 1796:
The assurances of your determination to pursue such a line of conduct as will, on your part, ensure the continuance of peace and prosperity to our Country, are no less pleasing to me, than the belief which you express, that your address conveys,24 "the common sentiments and common language of the Citizens of the State of New Jersey."
In his address to the Continental Congress on Feb 20, 1777, regarding the commissioning of French officers, he wrote:
Their ignorance of our language, and their inability to recruit Men, are unsurmountable obstacles to their being ingrafted into our Continental Battalions, for our Officers, who have raised their Men, and have served thro' the War, upon pay, that has hitherto not borne their Expences, would be disgusted, if Foreigners were put over their heads, and I assure you few or none of these Gentlemen look lower than Field Officer's Commissions . . . Suppose they were told, in general, that no Man could obtain a Commission, except he could raise a number of Men, in proportion to his Rank; This would effectually stop the Mouths of Common Applyers, and would leave us at liberty to make provision for Gentlemen of undoubted Military Characters and Merit, who would be very useful to us as soon as they acquired our Language. The letter was read in Congress March 12. On March 13 Congress directed the Committee of Secret Correspondence to write to the ministers and agents abroad "to discourage all gentlemen from coming to America with expectation of employment in the service, unless they are masters of our language, and have the best recommendations." On March 14 Congress passed a resolve that no commissions should be given to foreign to officers unless they were well acquainted with the English language
To the CC regarding Le Fayette, he wrote:
"His conduct with respect to them stands in a favorable point of view, having interested himself to remove their uneasiness and urged the impropriety of their making any unfavorable representations upon their arrival at home, and in all his letters has placed our affairs in the best situation he could. Besides, he is sensible, discreet in his Manner, has made great proficiency in our Language and from the disposition he discovered at the Battle of Brandy Wine, possesses a large share of bravery and Military ardor.
And again to the CC, he wrote:"
What is to be done with the foreign officers who have been commissioned and never designated to any particular command, and who cannot, without displacing others, be brought into the line? Such of them as possess a competency of military knowledge and are otherwise men of character, I have sometimes thought, if they understood enough of our language, might be employed as Assistant inspectors.
To the Count Casimir Pulaski, he wrote on 1778:
I must caution you against a fondness for introducing foreigners into the Service; their ignorance of the Language of the Country and of the genius and manners of the people, frequently occasion difficulties and disgusts which we should not run the risque of, Unless it be in favour of extraordinary Talents and good Qualities.
And, finally, the clincher, to Lafayette on Jan 10, 1778
For I love to indulge the contemplation of human nature in a progressive state of improvement and melioration; and if the idea would not be considered visionary and chimerical, I could fondly hope, that the present plan of the great Potentate of the North might, in some measure, lay the foundation for that assimilation of language, which, producing assimilation of manners and interests, which, should one day remove many of the causes of hostility from amongst mankind.
Or, maybe this is the clincher (from a 1794 letter to John Adams):
My opinion, with respect to emigration, is, that except of useful Mechanics and some particular descriptions of men or professions, there is no need of encouragement: while the policy or advantage of its taking place in a body (I mean the settling of them in a body) may be much questioned; for, by so doing, they retain the Language, habits and principles (good or bad) which they bring with them. Whereas by an intermixture with our people, they, or their descendants, get assimilated to our customs, measures and laws: in a word, soon become one people.
I am sure there are other fine examples. But, in general, as afore-mentioned, Washington desired a common language, customs, religion, and manners for our nation.
I would suggest you re-read my statement. While you are at it, try tackling my question.
And disunion.
Liberalism is disunion. It's purpose is to divide, not unite.
I'll take a wild guess but I imagine it had something to do with the fact that you couldn't buy and sell them anymore. But I'll defer to the expert. What events led up to the formation of the KKK?
“To be sure, when the Tenth Amendment uses the phrase -the people,- it does not specify whether it is referring to the people of each State or the people of the Nation as a whole. But the latter interpretation would make the Amendment pointless...it would make no sense to speak of powers as being reserved to the undifferentiated people of the Nation as a whole, because the Constitution does not contemplate that those people will either exercise power or delegate it. The Constitution simply does not recognize any mechanism for action by the undifferentiated people of the Nation...”
Just wondering if you were going to call Justice Thomas, the Chief Justice, Justice O'Connor, and Justice Scalia 'liars:' after all, they have stated, in print (quoted above for your edification ;>), that the people referred to by the Tenth Amendment are "the people of each State." Or will you continue to proclaim your "pointless" and 'nonsensical' argument that the amendment refers to "the people of the Nation as a whole?"
The world wonders...
I don't see you quoting Justice Story any more. I would surmise that this due to the fact that I quoted part of Martin v. Hunter's Lessee in which he categorically states that the people are the sovereigns of the county, and not the states.
As I said perhaps in another thread, I don't even quote Texas v White because it is post ACW. I can't imagine what this stuff from the modern court has to do with the crisis of disunion in the 19th century.
As you well know, Washington, Madison, Chief Justice Jay, Justice WIlson, Chief Justice Marshall, Andrew Jackson and many many others, including the loyal Union men who defended your right to spout this crap with their lives, saw things differently.
You are embarked on a disinformation campaign. Anyone who considers the whole record will not accept your interpretation. But, to humor, you, get back to me when Justice Scalia et al take a position that unilateral state secession is allowed under our laws.
Walt
Your comment is nonsense on its face.
Liberals may be misguided, but it's ludicrous to say they cannot or do not love this country.
But here's something from Washington:
"What stronger evidence can be given of the want of energy in our government than these disorders? If there exists not a power to check them, what security has a man of life, liberty, or property? To you, I am sure I need not add aught on this subject, the consequences of a lax or inefficient government, are too obvious to be dwelt on. Thirteen sovereignties pulling against each other, and all tugging at the federal head, will soon bring ruin to the whole; whereas a liberal, and energetic Constitution, well guarded and closely watched, to prevent encroachments, might restore us to that degree of respectability and consequence, to which we had a fair claim, and the brightest prospect of attaining..."
George Washington to James Madison November 5, 1786
Wasn't Washington being liberal when he wrote this?
I don't think Washington means the same thing when he uses the term 'liberal' that you do, but your statement above is just kneejerk reaction at its worst.
Walt
Perhaps you should go back and read the posts:
Post #364
“I believe Mr. Madison noted in The Federalist Papers that the violation of a compact by one party was grounds for the abrogation of the compact by the other parties. But perhaps we should simply refer to Mr. Jefferson’s Kentucky Resolutions, which post-date the ratification of the Constitution, and were written with full knowledge of the Constitution including the Bill of Rights...”
“Mr. Jefferson declares that each State “has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.” (Later in the Resolutions, he cites the Tenth Amendment as grounds for State action...)”
“Mr. Jefferson apparently believed that the States, as parties to the compact, were free to judge for themselves regarding "necessary and proper" means. Not so the federal government, which was a creature of the compact rather than a party to it. Perhaps we should refer to Mr. Madison’s comments regarding other constitutional clauses which have been ‘inflated’ beyond a “plain” reading of the text, and beyond the Founders intent (pardon the length of the quote – it all appeared applicable)...”
“You are certainly free to reach your own conclusions. The fact remains: the Constitution nowhere ‘plainly’ prohibits secession – but it does quite ‘plainly’ reserve all powers “not delegated...nor prohibited” to the States and their people. As for Mr. Webster, I will leave you with the following...”
Post #372
“Actually, it is not up to you (or I) to judge regarding the tolerability (or lack thereof ) of federal oppression faced by the citizens of the Southern States. As Mr. Jefferson noted...”
Etc., etc., etc...
Your suggestion that I “didn’t present any point” is obviously ludicrous. Do you bother to read the posts to which you reply?
You were playing 20 questions. I never talked about the writ not did I follow the discussion of the writ. You never mentioned the writ in your queeries to me. Am I supposed to read your mind as to what you wanted to talk about?
I did not think anything other than a rudimentary command of the English language was required to understand the following:
“You state that the clause in question ‘has to do with amending the Constitution.’ I was wondering: did you reach that conclusion from the location of the clause in Article V...? Does the location of the clause have significance? Does the clause apply exclusively to Article V concerns (constitutional amendment)?”
Simple questions – for most people.
I gave him a detailed rebuttal, with citations and case law in # 710..
Really? Perhaps you should provide “a detailed rebuttal, with citations” to one of my posts quoted above. Your unsubstantiated opinion doesn't quite measure up...
;>)
Back to your ‘straw man’ arguments? (The citations I provided were in reference to the suspension of the writ, not in reference to your erroneous and revisionist interpretation of the phrase “the people.”) Or are you stating that Mr. Lincoln could lawfully suspend the writ because “the people are the sovereigns of the count[r]y, and not the states?”
As I have stated previously, I post court rulings only for the benefit of judicial cultists such as yourself. It is extremely entertaining to watch your logical contortions and mental gymnastics, as you attempt to present some rulings as ‘the word of God,’ and others (from the same judges and the same courts ;>) as complete nonsense. Simply laughable...
I can't imagine what this stuff from the modern court has to do with the crisis of disunion in the 19th century.
(Do you have any idea how ridiculous you look? You’ve been arguing for years that only the high court may say what the Constitution means. Tell us, Walt: does the current high court somehow not qualify? Or is it only the opinions of the conservative justices that you ignore? You don’t even honor your own arguments... )
Despite your blatant hypocrisy, I am more than happy to explain why I posted "this stuff." Some time ago, I provided an interpretation of the Tenth Amendment. You called me a liar. Since you have been arguing for years that only the high court may say what the Constitution means, I provided indisputable proof that Justices Thomas, Rehnquist, O’Connor, and Scalia shared my view. I then asked if you were about to call them liars as well.
Care to answer the question? Or will you provide your usual “logical contortions and mental gymnastics” for our entertainment?
As you well know, Washington, Madison, Chief Justice Jay, Justice WIlson, Chief Justice Marshall, Andrew Jackson and many many others, including the loyal Union men who defended your right to spout this crap with their lives, saw things differently.
Yes, we have discussed the revisionist nonsense spouted by Mr. Justice Jay, Mr. Chief Justice Marshall, and others regarding the people of the “-whole-“ nation as “parties” to the constitutional compact. The words of Mr. Madison, Mr. Jefferson, and Article VII of the United States Constitution (not to mention those of Justices Thomas, Rehnquist, O’Connor, and Scalia) prove otherwise. By the way, I find your platitudes concerning my “right to spout this crap [i.e., historically verifiable fact]” rather amusing, given your previous veiled threats regarding my arrest by federal authorities, apparently for the crime of quoting the words of Thomas Jefferson.
You are embarked on a disinformation campaign. Anyone who considers the whole record will not accept your interpretation.
ROTFLMAO! Does this mean you are finally ready to discuss the secession of the ratifying States from the not-so-perpetual-union’ formed under the Articles? Not yet? How about just one State? Hmm? We'll even make it a Northern State: how about New York? No? What about Rhode Island? No again? Well, perhaps you are finally willing to discuss the ‘federal-court-approved-but-absolutely-unconstitutional’ Alien and Sedition Acts? Please? Can't do it? How about just one of the acts - the sedition act? No? Pretty Please? ;>)
You’re a ‘dyed-in-the-wool’ hypocrite, Walt – but a thoroughly amusing ‘dyed-in-the-wool’ hypocrite...
;>)
But, to humor, you, get back to me when Justice Scalia et al take a position that unilateral state secession is allowed under our laws.
Right on schedule – you prove my point for me! Thank you! May I refer you to the beginning of your own post, where you stated:
“I can't imagine what this stuff from the modern court has to do with the crisis of disunion in the 19th century...”
‘Straw man’ arguments, ‘circular’ reasoning, and blatant hypocrisy – you, my friend, are a laugh...
;>)
You replied: Your comment is nonsense on its face. Liberals may be misguided, but it's ludicrous to say they cannot or do not love this country.
Only a liberal would defend liberals in such a manner. Only a liberal would be so blind to the evils of liberalism.
You wrote: But here's something from Washington: "What stronger evidence can be given of the want of energy in our government than these disorders? If there exists not a power to check them, what security has a man of life, liberty, or property? To you, I am sure I need not add aught on this subject, the consequences of a lax or inefficient government, are too obvious to be dwelt on. Thirteen sovereignties pulling against each other, and all tugging at the federal head, will soon bring ruin to the whole; whereas a liberal, and energetic Constitution, well guarded and closely watched, to prevent encroachments, might restore us to that degree of respectability and consequence, to which we had a fair claim, and the brightest prospect of attaining..."
George Washington to James Madison November 5, 1786
Wasn't Washington being liberal when he wrote this?
No.
I don't think Washington means the same thing when he uses the term 'liberal' that you do, but your statement above is just kneejerk reaction at its worst.
Knee Jerk? LOL. Coming from a liberal that is pretty darn funny. But it makes me wonder: how on earth did you get so arrogant and so full of self-importance in a single life-time? Never mind. That is one trait of liberalism that I will never understand, nor care to.
BTW, your Washington quote was pretty lame, or, at least, un-inspiring. Maybe you should try some of his right-wing-extremist-type quotes, such as this anti-living-constitution quote: "If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed." -- George Washington, Farewell Address --
Interesting that you of all Yankee proles would post this one, daddy. Maybe your relation to the truth is like that of a moth to a flame.
By the way, I enjoy your posts immensely. Keep up the good work.
Respectfully,
D J White
Just curious.
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.