Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: WhiskeyPapa
The Constitution also promises that each state shall be guaranteed a republican form of government. Sort of hard to do if a state withdraws, isn't it?

Walt you make this so tedious with your misleading selective memory about what the Constitution says. The Constitution says:

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government..."

So while in the Union, they're guaranteed a republican form of government. There's no implication whatsoever in that text, that the States have to stay in the Union. In fact, the words "in this Union" imply that there may be other states, like Rhode Island did for 2 years, who may wish to remain out of the Union. Again, the Union that Washington wanted was voluntary. The union that Lincoln wanted was involuntary.

In fact, Licoln violated that very clause in Article IV when he clapped Maryland's legislature in irons. I wouldn't call that guaranteeing them a republican form of Government, but you might. Had he declared war on Maryland too? Perhaps you think a Republican form of Government can exist, minus the privilege of writ of Habeas Corpus?

This is just another example, like your statement about how Article VI makes the federal govt. "supreme", of how you mentally tailor the Constitution to suit your reconstructed view of history.

441 posted on 01/05/2002 9:41:14 AM PST by H.Akston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 363 | View Replies ]


To: H.Akston
"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government..."

So while in the Union, they're guaranteed a republican form of government.

That is not what is says.

Walt

442 posted on 01/05/2002 10:03:17 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 441 | View Replies ]

To: H.Akston
Perhaps you think a Republican form of Government can exist, minus the privilege of writ of Habeas Corpus?

When Lincoln suspended habeas corpus in 1861 it was limited to the Maryland area. He was faced with a rebellion, the safety of transportation of troops and supplies through Baltimore was in jeopardy, and Washington, D.C. was in danger of being cut off. He acted as he saw fit and, as Chief Justice William Rehnquist has reminded us, the Constitutionality or unconstitutionality of his actions have never been decided.

Fast forward a year to the south when Jefferson Davis forced a suspension of habeas corpus through the confederate congress. What was Davis afraid of? Why did he need to take this most basic right away from the southern people? His legislation was used to by local military commanders to declare martial law in southern cities miles away from the fighting. What about these abuses? If you believe that Lincoln was wrong then surely you agree that Davis was just as wrong as well, don't you?

449 posted on 01/06/2002 5:55:16 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 441 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson