Posted on 06/06/2009 2:57:37 PM PDT by Dick Bachert
>We need a leader like Sherman today — making war so hard on the enemy that they will not want to fight us for 150 years. War is hell, not a social program.
I have the beginnings of an idea... but it involves a LOT of work, and things like Constitutional law, the USC (Specifically: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00000241——000-.html & http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00000242——000-.html ), and a LOT of public support.
Basically we would use the Constitution and the above two laws (both capitally punishable) in conjunction with treason charges (also a capital offense) against Congress, the Executive branch, and the Judicial branch... even to the President, Congress, and the USSC.
—The Executive: Conspiring to- and depriving the rights of the GM & Chrysler bondholders. (Bonds have a legal-document backing them up.)
—The Judicial: One example: the marines who filed civil suits against Murtha for his slander of them, who was found by the court to be covered by a law immunizing a federal employee from civil suits while in performance of the duties of office. (The Legislature does not rule on the guilt or innocence of of war-crimes allegedly committed by our warriors; moreover, a congressman is not an employee by the mere fact that he cannot be fired.) — Also the deprivation of rights by the USSC by its refusal to hear the Chrysler/GM bondholders OR the people claiming that Barak Obama is not Constitutionally qualified as President.
—The Legislature: A specific example: Murtha and his slander of marines following their rules of engagement (and exercising their [human] right to defend themselves IN A WARZONE; as well as legitimizing the position of the enemies of the United States. (Obvious and clear treason.)
>If the USA now quits the United Nations, does Europe have a right to invade?
Very good point.
free dixie,sw
that's what sherman was.= a WAR CRIMINAL who deserved HANGING. (we hanged GEN Yamashita after WWII for doing nothing more than what sherman did.)
free dixie,sw
>in other words, you would favor having a WAR CRIMINAL that allowed (if not actively encouraged) TENS of THOUSANDS of rapes, arsons, tortures & MURDERS of unarmed civilians???
Did you read my post? I was not talking about endorsing Sherman or his tactics, but rather applying the idea of making war too costly for the enemies... and I clearly delinted that the enemies are our own governmental ‘leaders’ and the price, by our own existing laws which they have arrogantly broken and ignored, is their own deaths.
HOW sherman made "war too costly" was by COMMITTING ATROCITIES against UN-armed, defenseless civilians.
free dixie,sw
bump
>my point is that you seem to want someone like sherman to run the military. sherman was a WAR CRIMINAL.
No, I was responding to someone who held that view. Though I do indeed wish that the military, as a whole, would pursue the members of ALL THREE BRANCHES for the reasons I listed. I believe them, in general, to be traitors, frauds, conspirators, and groups of people denying the very rights of the people... they should be held to account for their actions with their very lives in the balance, IMO.
IOW, the way I would make war/politics against the People of these United States (by politicians) is by depriving them of their very lives. As I pointed out Treason is a capital offense. As are Conspiracy Against Rights AND Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law. They are already condemned by the very law in existence now.
free dixie,sw
>are you perchance “a member of the bar”??? - that sounded suspiciously like a lawyer talking.
Actually no... give me a bit more credit than that. I’m a computer programmer; it is natural to my way of thinking to place things on an even playing field... that is, the same inputs to a function SHOULD produce the same outputs; if that should fail then there is nothing that can be done, everything your receive is useless.
The same idea can and should be applied to law. Things like sex, age, political power, monetary assets and the like have no place in the decision of a verdict. If a rich man steals, then he should be called a thief; if a poor man steals then he too should be called a thief.
(Of course that last is a perfect spot to point out mercy, which REQUIRES justice to exist. Many people would not despise a thief stealing food because he was starving, yet everyone despises the frauds and embezzlers that have turned up in the corporate world recently.)
Sorry, sport, but it's your argument, not mine - you stated that the union formed under the specific written terms of the new Constitution (established between 9 States, NOT 13) was “A new government but not a new Union.” By all means please tell us, how a union between 13 States (established under the Articles of Confederation) was the same union ("not a new Union") as that established between 9 States (please see Article VII of the United States Constitution) ratifying the new compact. As I have pointed out repeatedly, nine does not equal thirteen, nor does nine equal twelve, nor does nine equal eleven, or even ten. The first nine ratifying States clearly seceded from the union formed under the Articles of Confederation, establishing a new government, and a new union, between themselves, as is more than obviously apparent from the specific written terms of the two compacts (the Articles, and the Constitution) "[A] weak arguing technique?" 'Not hardly.' I cite the specific written terms of the compacts, while you base your arguments on some imaginary 'unwritten law.'
Another weak arguing technique: insult and ridicule. Also a technique used in the pseudo Delphi process for reaching consensus (as opposed to the legitimate Delphi process). And a technique used by some in authority to show “who the boss is”.
Knock yourself out: you're still wrong. In reality, our current "boss" (Obama) is offering the same type of arguments as you do - those based on 'unwritten law,' rather than the specific written terms of the United States Constitution. Hope you enjoy the company...
remember however, things in mechanics/mathematics/engineering/physics/chemistry/etc. are generally fixed.
things in my disciplines (political science & public admin) are SELDOM, if ever, fixed as men/women change weekly/daily/hourly/constantly (for that reason, i often think that Political Science is an oxymoron.).
free dixie,sw
>point accepted.
>
>remember however, things in mechanics/mathematics/engineering/physics/chemistry/etc. are generally fixed.
But how can justice exist without a fixed, and logical, criteria for both application and execution? It honestly cannot, and this is why the relative-morality is fatally flawed; IOW, Justice is and must be objective, it is NOT subjective.
Mercy, on the other hand, is completely subjective; yet it cannot exist without justice. That is simply allowing wrong to flourish under guise of ‘mercy’ is no mercy at all! (It could be an excuse to avoid confrontation, or to risk something... but it is not mercy.)
Regarding: “is the Union continuous or did one Union end and a new Union begin with the Constitution”
I say the United States predates the Constitution, existing as a continuous Union through the establishment of the Constitution and I say so based on words of the time some of which are noted below:
The Preamble to the Constitution does not state “We the people of the United States formed by this Constitution”, it states “We the people of the United States” noting the United States as a preexisting Union.
The Virginia ratification document states: “…whatsoever imperfections may exist in the Constitution ought rather to be examined in the mode prescribed therein than to bring the Union into danger…” showing they thought the Union existed and had not been dissolved.
The Rhode Island ratification document states: “Done…in the fourteenth year of the Independence of the United States of America” showing they thought the Union was in the fourteenth year of its continuing existence, which would mean it had not been dissolved.
You say “The first nine ratifying States clearly seceded from the union formed under the Articles of Confederation, establishing a new government, and a new union, between themselves…” and you ” cite the specific written terms of the compacts” by which I believe you mean:
The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same. (Article VII of the United States Constitution.)
Every State shall abide by the determinations of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the articles of this confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the Legislatures of every State. (Article XIII, Articles of Confederation.) (Emphasis added.)
So again, to support my contention that the Union predates the “US Constitution and continued as the same Union through and after the establishment of the US Constitution, all I have to do is point to the clear words written at the time, which I have done.
And again, for you to support your contention that the pre US Constitution Union and the post US Constitution Union are not the same, you have to demonstrate the dissolution of the pre US Constitution Union and negate the clear words written at the time to which I have pointed.
You can’t point to clear words (i.e. such and such state hereby secedes or such and such states are hereby kicked out or the Union is hereby dissolved) written at the time to demonstrate the dissolution of the Pre US Constitution Union. If you could you would, since you haven’t I conclude you can’t.
What you have done instead is put forth your 9/13 argument and cite Article VII of the US Constitution and Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation as some attempt at support because the Constitutional requirement is for ratification by 2/3 of the States to implement the Constitution while the requirement in the Articles is for confirmation by every State. But the thing is, every State did confirm/ratify the Constitution. The first 2/3 ratified and waited to see if the other 1/3 would ratify and hold to the Perpetual Union, which they did. And again, regardless of the modern (I assume) 9/13 argument for dissolution of one Union and establishment of another Union, the people at the time did not recognize that to be the case as demonstrated by my citations above. And they were there.
Sorry, sport, but it's your argument, not mine –
A falsehood by your own words. You wrote of me “you stated that the union formed…was “A new government but not a new Union.” You quoted me accurately there. I did not write “political union”, you added that distinction, it’s your place to provide the enlightenment.
“…you base your arguments on some imaginary 'unwritten law.”
Another falsehood. My argument for a continuous Union at the time is based on the written words of the time as demonstrated further up this post.
Note that when I write “falsehood” I am not accusing you of lying. I think you believe it, but belief in a falsehood doesn’t make it true.
I’m not going bother refuting the rest of what I think of as falsehoods in your post.
We seem to be at loggerheads here and this has become more tedious and repetitive than interesting so I’m going to go on to other things and leave all this to the search engines and posterity.
Go ahead and take the last shot but remember, someday, somewhere, somebody besides us will read it.
Fine - let's address them one at a time.
The Preamble to the Constitution does not state “We the people of the United States formed by this Constitution”, it states “We the people of the United States” noting the United States as a preexisting Union.
Actually, you are completely misinterpreting the language. The original draft of the preamble referred to "the people of" the individual States, and listed the 13 existing States individually, one after another. The language was changed specifically because no one knew which States (if any) would ratify the new Constitution, and which would not. The Framers thus explicitly acknowledged the fact that the unanimous consent required by Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation might very well not be achieved - but that a new constitutional union (possibly excuding up to four previous member States) would nevertheless be formed if even just nine States ratified the Constitution.
The Virginia ratification document states: “…whatsoever imperfections may exist in the Constitution ought rather to be examined in the mode prescribed therein than to bring the Union into danger…” showing they thought the Union existed and had not been dissolved.
Actually, you are completely wrong again. If the Delegates of the People of Virginia had wished to suggest that "the Union existed and had not been dissolved," they would have referenced the Articles of Confederation (perhaps Article XIII), rather than the new Constitution. In fact, you are taking the passage completely out of context: the "imperfections [which] may exist in the Constitution" refer to the well recognized lack of a Bill of Rights, and "the mode prescribed [within the Constitution]" for addressing that lack was Article V (of the new Constitution, NOT Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation). The "union" referred to was therefore the proposed union being formed under the terms of the Constitution, NOT the union formed under the terms of the Articles of Confederation.
And needless to say, you continue to ignore the right of secession ("the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression"), explicitly reserved by the people of the State of Virginia in the same ratification document (and by two other States in their own ratification documents), which completely destroys your argument regarding a supposedly "perpetual union."
The Rhode Island ratification document states: “Done…in the fourteenth year of the Independence of the United States of America” showing they thought the Union was in the fourteenth year of its continuing existence, which would mean it had not been dissolved.
Wrong again - it refers to the "Independence" of the individual States from the British monarchy. This is emphasized by the actual language of Article I of the Treaty of Paris in 1783, wherein the British monarchy recognized "the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof." During the period in question, and for many decades thereafter, the United States were commonly referred to as plural - 'the United States are,' rather than 'the United States is.'
So again, to support my contention that the Union predates the “US Constitution and continued as the same Union through and after the establishment of the US Constitution, all I have to do is point to the clear words written at the time, which I have done.
"Clear," perhaps, only to you.
And again, for you to support your contention that the pre US Constitution Union and the post US Constitution Union are not the same, you have to demonstrate the dissolution of the pre US Constitution Union and negate the clear words written at the time to which I have pointed.
Nine did not equal thirteen in 1788, nor does nine equal thirteen today. During the time following the ratification of the new Constitution by the first nine States, but prior to the ratification of the same Constitution by Rhode Island, for example, you would suggest that Rhode Island was a member of the same union as the ratifying States (although not subject to the same Constitution, nor having constitutionally-elected representatives in the House or Senate). That is an illogical and historically inconsistent position at best.
You can’t point to clear words (i.e. such and such state hereby secedes or such and such states are hereby kicked out or the Union is hereby dissolved) written at the time to demonstrate the dissolution of the Pre US Constitution Union. If you could you would, since you haven’t I conclude you can’t.
Once again, nine did not equal thirteen in 1788, nor does nine equal thirteen today. Your claim that Rhode Island remained a member of the union during the period between the establishment of the new constitutional government by the first nine ratifying States, and the actual ratification of the same Constitution by the State of Rhode Island, is delusional.
The first 2/3 ratified and waited to see if the other 1/3 would ratify and hold to the Perpetual Union, which they did.
"[W]aited to see?" You are suggesting that if the last 1/3 (actually 1/4 - or in fact, even one single State) had not ratified the new Constitution, that the ratifying States would have abrogated the Constitution, and reaffirmed the Articles of Confederation, in order to preserve the supposedly "Perpetual Union." If that is historically accurate, there would have been mention of your 'Plan B' at the time - feel free to provide citations.
And again, regardless of the modern (I assume) 9/13 argument for dissolution of one Union and establishment of another Union, the people at the time did not recognize that to be the case as demonstrated by my citations above. And they were there.
The "9/13 argument" is hardly "modern" - James Madison addressed the issue in Federalist No. 43:
"The ratification of the conventions of nine States shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the States, ratifying the same." This article speaks for itself... Two questions of a very delicate nature present themselves on this occasion...
2. What relation is to subsist between the nine or more States ratifying the Constitution, and the remaining few who do not become parties to it?
...The second question is not less delicate; and the flattering prospect of its being merely hypothetical forbids an overcurious discussion of it. It is one of those cases which must be left to provide for itself. In general, it may be observed, that although no political relation can subsist between the assenting and dissenting States, yet the moral relations will remain uncancelled. The claims of justice, both on one side and on the other, will be in force, and must be fulfilled; the rights of humanity must in all cases be duly and mutually respected; whilst considerations of a common interest, and, above all, the remembrance of the endearing scenes which are past, and the anticipation of a speedy triumph over the obstacles to reunion, will, it is hoped, not urge in vain MODERATION on one side, and PRUDENCE on the other.
One can not anticipate "a speedy triumph over the obstacles to reunion," without the existence of disunion. Nine does not equal thirteen - and your "perpetual union" is a figment of your imagination.
A falsehood by your own words. You wrote of me “you stated that the union formed…was “A new government but not a new Union.” You quoted me accurately there. I did not write “political union”, you added that distinction, it’s your place to provide the enlightenment.
Actually, if you can provide an historical example of a "new government" established between individual ratifying States, in the form of a federal constitutional union, that was not also a "political union," perhaps you can enlighten us...
WIJG: “…you base your arguments on some imaginary 'unwritten law.”
KK: Another falsehood. My argument for a continuous Union at the time is based on the written words of the time as demonstrated further up this post.
Note that when I write “falsehood” I am not accusing you of lying. I think you believe it, but belief in a falsehood doesn’t make it true.
Actually, your "argument for a continuous Union at the time is" NOT "based on the written words of the time," as I demonstrated further up this post.
Nine does not equal thirteen; and Mr. Madison would never have referred to "obstacles to reunion" if the union was perpetual. Your "belief in a falsehood [perpetual union] doesn’t make it true."
I’m not going [to] bother refuting the rest of what I think of as falsehoods in your post.
Fine...
Go ahead and take the last shot but remember, someday, somewhere, somebody besides us will read it.
I expect nothing less...
The future inhabitants of [both] the Atlantic and Mississippi states will be our sons. We think we see their happiness in their union, and we wish it. Events may prove otherwise; and if they see their interest in separating why should we take sides? God bless them both, and keep them in union if it be for their good, but separate them if it be better. – Thomas Jefferson
“The indissoluble link of union between the people of the several states of this confederated nation is, after all, not in the right but in the heart. If the day should ever come (may Heaven avert it!) when the affections of the people of these States shall be alienated from each other; when the fraternal spirit shall give way to cold indifference, or collision of interests shall fester into hatred, the bands of political associations will not long hold together parties no longer attracted by the magnetism of conciliated interests and kindly sympathies; and far better will it be for the people of the disunited states to part in friendship from each other, than to be held together by constraint.” - John Q. Adams
Thank you...
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.