Just read your note about Lincoln being right based on "we the people", not "we the states".
This is a very curious viewpoint.
"The people", en mass, did not create, nor do they modify the Constitution.
The Constitution was created when States sent representatives to the Convention; it was only effected when ratified by THE STATES--- NOT "the people" in general.
The federal government has ONLY powers delegated to it by the STATES, when they ratify an amendment.
The federal government, therefore, is not superior to the States, but only an agent of the States.
As the author clearly stated, for many, many years, States passed acts of nullification- if effect, telling the federal government to KISS OFF.
Lincoln was a tyrant. There is no other explanation for his actions. Like all tyrants, he abused his power to force a government on a large group of people who wanted liberty from that government. Just like King George, and Mao, and Stalin.
PRE'AMBLE
1. Something previous; introduction to a discourse or writing.
2. The introductory part of a statute, which states the reasons and intent of the law.
The Preamble is an introduction to, but not part of, the legal text of the Constitution.
It is merely a statement of purpose.
I do beg to differ with that construct. Our Constitution begins:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The Constitution was created when States sent representatives to the Convention; it was only effected when ratified by THE STATES--- NOT "the people" in general.
True, the state representatives, through the people, ratified a constitution that had no provision for leaving the union created except through the amendment process. South Carolina and those states that followed, violated the Constitution, paying the price, and ultimately begged to return.
The federal government has ONLY powers delegated to it by the STATES, when they ratify an amendment.
Those powers are delegated by the Constitution, not the states.
The federal government, therefore, is not superior to the States, but only an agent of the States.
To reach that strained conclusion, you will have to amend the Constitution since Article VI states:
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 in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
As the author clearly stated, for many, many years, States passed acts of nullification- if effect, telling the federal government to KISS OFF.
Indeed, the federal government before the Civil War was weak and knew it could not hold together a union whose military strength was dependent on state militias. And so it failed not only to protect the rights of its citizens as enumerated in the Bill of Rights, but ultimately to hold the union together without a bloody war. Those who supported the idea of "states' rights" (which are non-existent) were interested only in protecting the institution of slavery and moving it into the new territories. The Articles of Confederation kept the states relatively independent and able to tell the "central" government to "Kiss off". That was the reason for the convention of 1787...to create a union of states that eliminated the downsides of such independence.
You might also see this in the Constitution:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution;
Lincoln was a tyrant. There is no other explanation for his actions. Like all tyrants, he abused his power to force a government on a large group of people who wanted liberty from that government. Just like King George, and Mao, and Stalin.
Lincoln understood what you will never see. When someone makes comparisons as you did here, he adds nothing to what should be an intellectual discussion, but simply pollutes all of his arguments, some of which may otherwise have had some merit.