“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
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...
;>)