Posted on 06/30/2003 6:03:55 PM PDT by B.O. Plenty
HTML> FreeRepublic.com "A Conservative News Forum"
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.
It's time to part company
One political question we have to answer is whether George W. Bush or Albert Gore shall be president, and just which party will control the House of Representatives and the Senate. But I'd suggest that there's a far more important long-run question we must answer: If one group of people prefers government control and management of people's lives, and another prefers liberty and a desire to be left alone, should they be required to fight, antagonize one another, and risk bloodshed and loss of life in order to impose their preferences, or should they be able to peaceably part company and go their separate ways?
Like a marriage that has gone bad, I believe there are enough irreconcilable differences between those who want to control and those want to be left alone that divorce is the only peaceable alternative. Just as in a marriage, where vows are broken, our human rights protections guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution have been grossly violated by a government instituted to protect them. Americans who are responsible for and support constitutional abrogation have no intention of mending their ways.
Let's look at just some of the magnitude of the violations. Article 1, Section 8 of our Constitution enumerates the activities for which Congress is authorized to tax and spend. James Madison, the acknowledged father of the Constitution, explained it in The Federalist Papers: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce. ... The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State."
Nowhere among the enumerated powers of Congress is there authority to tax and spend for: Social Security, public education, farm subsidies, bank bailouts, food stamps and other activities that represent roughly two-thirds of the federal budget. Neither is there authority for Congress' mandates to the states and people about how they may use their land, the speed at which they can drive, whether a library has wheelchair ramps and the gallons of water used per toilet flush. A list of congressional violations of the letter and spirit of the Constitution is virtually without end.
Americans who wish to live free have two options: We can resist, fight and risk bloodshed to force America's tyrants to respect our liberties and human rights, or we can seek a peaceful resolution of our irreconcilable differences by separating. That can be done by peopling several states, say Texas and Louisiana, controlling their legislatures and then issuing a unilateral declaration of independence just as the Founders did in 1776.
You say, "Williams, nobody has to go that far, just get involved in the political process and vote for the right person." That's nonsense. Liberty shouldn't require a vote. It's a God-given or natural right.
Some independence or secessionists movements, such as our 1776 war with England and our 1861 War Between the States, have been violent, but they need not be. In 1905, Norway seceded from Sweden, Panama seceded from Columbia (1903), and West Virginia from Virginia (1863). Nonetheless, violent secession can lead to great friendships. England is probably our greatest ally and we have fought three major wars together. There is no reason why Texiana (Texas and Louisiana) couldn't peaceably secede, be an ally and have strong economic ties with United States.
The bottom line question for all of us is should we part company or continue trying to forcibly impose our wills on one another?
WorldNetDaily contributor Walter E. Williams is the John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va.
Yes we, as in we the people of Texas. And take a word of bumper sticker advice that Abe Lincoln never learned. Don't mess with Texas.
So what? If I believed G-d were a myth or something, perhaps I could see your point (though such things as "rights" in a random and meaningless universe seem rather silly). But since I actually believe the Creator of the Universe has proclaimed homosexual acts worthy of the death penalty, I'm afraid even George Washington couldn't change my position.
Let's see: Tenth amendment down, Ninth amendment down... I see a pattern here.
8th amendment: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
Well, they'll need these to enforce their anti-morality crusade if the peasants get uppity about losing their unenumerated right to determine rules locally.
[Snidely checks a box on a sheet of paper before him]
"Okay...we've got you down in the "LOON" column. Thanks for participating in our survey."
Snidely
Why is that? The Founding Fathers of this nation and their peers actually had death as the penalty in cases of 'buggery' at the state level, following old English law. Are you calling the men who founded this nation 'loons' as well? Or were they just not 'enlightened' the way we are today?
Mind you, I'm not saying bring the death penalty back for this but the Bible is quite clear what will happen to those who continue such actions.
I have no problem with the observation on Biblical injunction in itself - the Bible is fairly clear.
I have a HUGE problem with the suggestion that Biblical law should be some closely-followed source of rules for a modern, pluralistic, non-theocratic society. Especially when one says that gays should be killed simply for their sexual proclivities. That's just plain nuts.
Snidely
Not a heck of a lot near as I can tell.
I was just pointing out that the men who founded this nation believed it did deserve the death penalty and apparently was carried out more than once. And that, at least according to the moderate Republicans and left, was a non-theocratic society
However I will state I do not believe in bringing back the death penalty for such a crime. I do however believe in the laws as my state of North Carolina changed them to and required a sentence of 20-60 years for such a crime. This was in effect until just after the War.
They hate anything that takes power from themselves and distributes or delegates it. Good examples you used.
I've only been on FR for half a year, and until then I never heard much from libertarians. Now I see that they are worse than liberals, as well as mostly psychotic. (the drugs?) They equate vice with liberty. At least the regular liberals don't pretend they want liberty.
The logcial result of libertarianism is totalitarianism, after society completely breaks down in anarchy, so there woudn't be much freedom anyway. Except for the top dog.
Someone put a link to this website tonight - if you haven't seen it yet, you might like it.
http://personal.pitnet.net/primarysources/
I'm afraid what follows is rather long, but gives evidence of what the founders of this country thought about sodomy. The comments at the end are not mine; they are the original poster's.
>>>Criminal sodomy laws in effect in 1791: Connecticut: 1 Public Statute Laws of the State of Connecticut, 1808, Title LXVI, ch. 1, 2 (rev. 1672). Delaware: 1 Laws of the State of Delaware, 1797, ch. 22, 5 (passed 1719). Georgia had no criminal sodomy statute until 1816, but sodomy was a crime at common law, and the General Assembly adopted the common law of England as the law of Georgia in 1784. The First Laws of the State of Georgia, pt. 1, p. 290 (1981). Maryland had no criminal sodomy statute in 1791. Maryland's Declaration of Rights, passed in 1776, however, stated that "the inhabitants of Maryland are entitled to the common law of England," and sodomy was a crime at common law. 4 W. Swindler, Sources and Documents of United States Constitutions 372 (1975). Massachusetts: Acts and Laws passed by the General Court of Massachusetts, ch. 14, Act of Mar. 3, 1785. New Hampshire passed its first sodomy statute in 1718. Acts and Laws of New Hampshire 1680-1726, p. 141 (1978). Sodomy was a crime at common law in New Jersey at the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights. The State enacted its first criminal sodomy law five years later. Acts of the Twentieth General Assembly, Mar. 18, 1796, ch. DC, 7. New York: Laws of New York, ch. 21 (passed 1787). [478 U.S. 186, 193] At the time of ratification of the Bill of Rights, North Carolina had adopted the English statute of Henry VIII outlawing sodomy. See Collection of the Statutes of the Parliament of England in Force in the State of North-Carolina, ch. 17, p. 314 (Martin ed. 1792). Pennsylvania: Laws of the Fourteenth General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, ch. CLIV, 2 (passed 1790). Rhode Island passed its first sodomy law in 1662. The Earliest Acts and Laws of the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations 1647-1719, p. 142 (1977). South Carolina: Public Laws of the State of South Carolina, p. 49 (1790). At the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights, Virginia had no specific statute outlawing sodomy, but had adopted the English common law. 9 Hening's Laws of Virginia, ch. 5, 6, p. 127 (1821) (passed 1776).
Criminal sodomy statutes in effect in 1868: Alabama: Ala. Rev. Code 3604 (1867). Arizona (Terr.): Howell Code, ch. 10, 48 (1865). Arkansas: Ark. Stat., ch. 51, Art. IV, 5 (1858). California: 1 Cal. Gen. Laws, 1450, 48 (1865). Colorado (Terr.): Colo. Rev. Stat., ch. 22, 45, 46 (1868). Connecticut: Conn. Gen. Stat., Tit. 122, ch. 7, 124 (1866). Delaware: Del. Rev. Stat., ch. 131, 7 (1893). Florida: Fla. Rev. Stat., div. 5, 2614 (passed 1868) (1892). Georgia: Ga. Code 4286, 4287, 4290 (1867). Kingdom of Hawaii: Haw. Penal Code, ch. 13, 11 (1869). Illinois: Ill. Rev. Stat., div. 5, 49, 50 (1845). Kansas (Terr.): Kan. Stat., ch. 53, 7 (1855). Kentucky: 1 Ky. Rev. Stat., ch. 28, Art. IV, 11 (1860). Louisiana: La. Rev. Stat., Crimes and Offences, 5 (1856). Maine: Me. Rev. Stat., Tit. XII, ch. 160, 4 (1840). Maryland: 1 Md. Code, Art. 30, 201 (1860). Massachusetts: Mass. Gen. Stat., ch. 165, 18 (1860). Michigan: Mich. Rev. Stat., Tit. 30, ch. 158, 16 (1846). Minnesota: Minn. Stat., ch. 96, 13 (1859). Mississippi: Miss. Rev. Code, ch. 64, LII, Art. 238 (1857). Missouri: 1 Mo. Rev. Stat., ch. 50, Art. VIII, 7 (1856). Montana (Terr.): Mont. Acts, Resolutions, Memorials, Criminal Practice Acts, ch. IV, 44 (1866). Nebraska (Terr.): Neb. Rev. Stat., Crim. Code, ch. 4, 47 (1866). [478 U.S. 186, 194] Nevada (Terr.): Nev. Comp. Laws, 1861-1900, Crimes and Punishments, 45. New Hampshire: N. H. Laws, Act. of June 19, 1812, 5 (1815). New Jersey: N. J. Rev. Stat., Tit. 8, ch. 1, 9 (1847). New York: 3 N. Y. Rev. Stat., pt. 4, ch. 1, Tit. 5, 20 (5th ed. 1859). North Carolina: N.C. Rev. Code, ch. 34, 6 (1855). Oregon: Laws of Ore., Crimes - Against Morality, etc., ch. 7, 655 (1874). Pennsylvania: Act of Mar. 31, 1860, 32, Pub. L. 392, in 1 Digest of Statute Law of Pa. 1700-1903, p. 1011 (Purdon 1905). Rhode Island: R. I. Gen. Stat., ch. 232, 12 (1872). South Carolina: Act of 1712, in 2 Stat. at Large of S. C. 1682-1716, p. 493 (1837). Tennessee: Tenn. Code, ch. 8, Art. 1, 4843 (1858). Texas: Tex. Rev. Stat., Tit. 10, ch. 5, Art. 342 (1887) (passed 1860). Vermont: Acts and Laws of the State of Vt. (1779). Virginia: Va. Code, ch. 149, 12 (1868). West Virginia: W. Va. Code, ch. 149, 12 (1868). Wisconsin (Terr.): Wis. Stat. 14, p. 367 (1839).
"Forasmuch as there is not yet sufficient and condign punishment appointed and limited by the due course of the Laws of this Realm for the detestable and abominable Vice of Buggery committed with mankind of beast: It may therefore please the King's Highness with the assent of the Lords Spiritual and the Commons of this present parliament assembled, that it may be enacted by the authority of the same, that the same offence be from henceforth ajudged Felony and that such an order and form of process therein to be used against the offenders as in cases of felony at the Common law. And that the offenders being herof convict by verdict confession or outlawry shall suffer such pains of death and losses and penalties of their good chattels debts lands tenements and hereditaments as felons do according to the Common Laws of this Realme. And that no person offending in any such offence shall be admitted to his Clergy, And that Justices of the Peace shall have power and authority within the limits of their commissions and Jurisdictions to hear and determine the said offence, as they do in the cases of other felonies. This Act to endure till the last day. of the next Parliament" Buggery act of England 1553
Britton, i.10: "Let enquiry also be made of those who feloniously in time of peace have burnt other's corn or houses, and those who are attainted thereof shall be burnt, so that they might be punished in like manner as they have offended. The same sentence shall be passed upon sorcerers, sorceresses, renegades, sodomists, and heretics publicly convicted" English law forbidding sodomy dating back to 1300AD.
These quotes are just a few of the many that are avaliable. Now, why did these laws exist? Libertarians and other assorted liberal folk don't like any laws that protect society and prevent the moral decline of a nation's people. They are immoral people and they want to be free to be immoral. What did our founders say about this? Way back in 1815, The Pennsylvania Supreme Court decided an important case, here are excerpts from that case: This court is...invested with power to punish not only open violations of decency and morality, but also whatever secretly tends to undermine the principles of society... Whatever tends to the destruction of morality, in general, may be punishable criminally. Crimes are public offenses, not because they are perpetrated publically, but because their effect is to injure the public. Buglary, though done in secret, is a public offense; and secretly destroying fences is indictable. Hence it follows, that an offense may be punishable, if in it's nature and by it's example, it tends to the corruption or morals; although it not be committed in public. Although every immoral act, such as lying, ect... is not indictable, yet where the offense charged is destructive of morality in general...it is punishable at common law. The destruction of morality renders the power of government invalid... No man is permitted to corrupt the morals of the people, secret poision cannot be thus desseminated. Keep in mind now that the judges on this court had lived through the revolution and fought for the nation's survival. This was just a few years after the Constitution was Adopted. SO the libertarians who are going to scream that these judges didn't know what they were talking about are way off base. (They want you to think that your basic pot head knows more about the Constitution than the men who were actually there at the nation's founding.) Now why did the court take that position? Simple, a Nation without morality cannot function. A nation that loses site on principle is doomed to go the way of the Roman Empire. Every single nation that has lost sight of basic moral principles has fallen. Homosexuality is anathema to morality. The two cannot exist together. Homosexuality is unnatural (no matter how much liberals will try to convince you otherwise.) And it is immoral. It cannot be tolerated period. Homosexuality is immoral, Indecent, abhorant, and repugnant. It is a stain on our society, and must never ever be tolerated.
Mild Nitpick: Most of the territory that became West Virginia was never part of the Confederacy, and most of the parts of present-day WV that were Confederate only were because Confederate troops controlled those counties for a time during the War. The western part of the state, which had never been all that friendly with the more "Southern"-oriented eastern counties anyway, saw the writing on the wall and started plotting to secede from Virginia just before Virginia seceded from the Union. When Virginia did go Confederate, the leaders of the Western counties simply gathered together and declared themselves the legitimate Restored Government of Virginia, which President Lincoln officially recognized.
Even after this political victory, the citizens of the Restored Government had decided enough was enough (and also realized it was quite likely that the Union would win and they'd end up stuck back with the eastern half of the state again), and set about to create an entirely separate state with no connection to Virginia whatsoever. Due to the war and various political and Constitutional technicalities, it took a couple of years to accomplish, which is why West Virginia did not gain official admission to the Union until June 1863. But in no way was West(ern) Virginia ever part of the Confederacy, except where they were forced to be at gunpoint.
(The somewhat complex, sticky details are available here, if you're interested.)
I think virtually every third party says the same thing. George Wallace coined it, about "not a dime's worth of difference."
Actually, it's four, not five; there were several conditions to the "deal" that would allow Congress to easily weasel out if the matter ever were to come up; and in any case the particular clause is generally considered by legal scholars to either be no longer valid, unconstitutional or both.
Besides, every state is free to split itself up whenever it wants, however it wants, as long as the given state's legislature and Congress both agree on it. Article IV, Section 3.
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.