Posted on 04/15/2012 5:31:13 AM PDT by mek1959
This Friday, April 13th is the birth day of Thomas Jefferson. In recognition of his birthday I thought we’d revisit the meaning of the Declaration of Independence. On the surface the meaning of the Declaration may be self-evident, but the true meaning of many of the sentences and phrases escapes most people.
The Declaration of Independence stated to the world that the thirteen colonies were separating from Great Britain. In other words the colonies were seceding from Britain. The first paragraph says “When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”
(Excerpt) Read more at foundersrevolution.net ...
----
To answer the question of your thread, the Declaration of Independence established the Natural Right the People have to rule themselves.
Lincoln was putting down an insurrection. The shooting was begun by the rebels. The War of the Rebellion ended when the rebellion ended.
Ft Sumter had never belonged to the state. It was built by the Federal Government, with stone from MA and NY, and funds from the Federal government.
I don’t hold with unlimited submission to federal government, nor do I hold with unlimited submission to the slave holding minority that made war to secure their horrific investments in slaves.
The southern states had, by ratification of the constitution or by application to join the Union, agreed to settle their disputes with the federal government or other states by legal means, with the supreme court as court of original jurisdiction. When they seized federal property, declared their pretended secession, and opened fire on federal soldiers doing their duty, they violated that agreement, and were in a state of insurrection.
Ah yes, the personal liberty laws, the horrors of which provided for jury trials, and punishment for perjury, and punishment for kidnapping.
I can see why the southern slave rapists were really offended by them. After all, once you start having trials, and not permitting perjury or kidnapping then you would be horribly oppressed.
The states delegated in Article III the authority to resolve disputes between states, or disputes with the federal government to the supreme court as original jurisdiction. When they pretended secession, seized federal property, and opened fire on US troops, they were in violation of that section, and hence in insurrection. By law, the president had authority to determine what part of states were in a state of insurrection.
And the rebels lost. Their appeal to the sword, in defiance of law, morals and custom failed.
you must admit that SC’s pretended secession occurred before Lincoln took office, and thus nothing Lincoln did could justify their pretense to secession.
Or you could just lie, but I know you wouldn’t do that.
Its the Brigadier General of the Blah, Blah Brigade.
MamaTexan, attempting to legally justify Confederate seizures of Federal properties in the months before the Confederacy's declaration of war on the United States:
"After the Declaration of Secession, the ownership of Ft Sumter did revert to the State, in accordance with the Law of Nations. [I'd also like to note this also covers the causes for a justified war]
quoting: "§ 212. To what the sovereign is bound. But, if the agreement has given nothing to the state which she did not before possess..."
First of all, if I can strip away the double negatives and restate it: none -- zero, zip, nada -- of the many Federal properties seized by secessionist forces, some even before formally declaring secession, none of those properties fell into this category of items to be retained by a state because "she did... before possess..." them.
All seized Federal properties were items which, by definition, Federal, not state, government had built, paid for and owned.
These in no way automatically became properties of Confederate states on their secession -- not even according to your alleged "Law of Nations".
That's one factor which makes the seizures unlawful -- even according to an alleged "Law of Nations".
But second and more important, since when did this particular "Law of Nations" become part and parcel of the United States Constitution?
Since when did a "Law of Nations" supersede our Founders' Original Intent?
Must stop here, out of time, will come back later...
Which is exactly right.
If the northern States disputed the definition of property in Article IV Section 2 Clause 3, the should have petitioned the federal government to have it changed.
While they had every right to alter that definition for themselves, they had NONE to do so for any other State, and property belonging to a person in another State should have been returned as such until the abolitionist States followed Constitutional procedures and had the Compact amended. That’s exactly what the Constitution says.
The South was under NO obligation to defend that which had previously been decided by ALL the States. That was supposed to be the federal government’s job.
And I'm still waiting for the listing of said seized properties that isn't from the Lincoln Museum or available only via purchase.
-----
But second and more important, since when did this particular "Law of Nations" become part and parcel of the United States Constitution?
Do you seriously think the Founders threw down less than 5000 words and expected them to restrain the government?
Since the quote from America's Blackstone, George Tucker, seemed insufficient for you, here's
I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly, that copy which I kept, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the college of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author. Your manuscript Idee sur le gouvernment et la royauté, is also well relished, and may, in time, have its effect. I thank you, likewise, for the other smaller pieces, which accompanied Vattel.
Benjamin Franklin To Charles-Guillaume-Frédéric Dumas, Philadelphia December 9, 1775.
Having given you this general idea and description of the law of nations; need I expatiate on its dignity and importance? The law of nations is the law of sovereigns. In free states, such as ours, the sovereign or supreme power resides in the people. In free states, therefore, such as ours, the law of nations is the law of the people. Let us again beware of being misled by an ambiguity, sometimes, such is the structure of language, unavoidable. When I say that, in free states, the law of nations is the law of the people; I mean not that it is a law made by the people, or by virtue of their delegated authority; as, in free states, all municipal laws are. But when I say that, in free states, the law of nations is the law of the people; I mean that, as the law of nature, in other words, as the will of nature's God, it is indispensably binding upon the people, in whom the sovereign power resides; and who are, consequently, under the most sacred obligations to exercise that power, or to delegate it to such as will exercise it, in a manner agreeable to those rules and maxims, which the law of nature prescribes to every state, for the happiness of each, and for the happiness of all.
Of the Law of Nations, James Wilson, Lectures on Law
and
There has been a difference of opinion among writers, concerning the foundations of this law. It has been considered by some as a mere system of positive institutions, founded upon consent and usage; while others have insisted that the law of nations was essentially the same as the law of nature, applied to the conduct of nations, in the character of moral persons, susceptible of obligation and laws. We are not to adopt either of these theories as exclusively true. The most useful and practical part of the law of nations is, no doubt, instituted or positive law, founded on usage, consent, and agreement. But it would be improper to separate this law entirely from natural jurisprudence, and not to consider it as deriving much of its force, and dignity, and sanction, from the same principles of right reason, and the same view of the nature and constitution of man, from which the science of morality is deduced. There is a natural and a positive law of nations. By the former, every state, in its relations with other states, is bound to conduct itself with justice, good faith, and benevolence; and this application of the law of nature has been called by Vattel, the necessary law of nations, because nations are bound by the law of nature to observe it; and it is termed by others, the internal law of nations, because it is obligatory upon them in point of conscience.
James Kent, Commentaries
Of course, the Left always misrepresents facts; never argues from a rational foundation. The reason need be no mystery. From the Jacobins, Marxists, etc., on, the Left has been--and is--at war with reality.
William Flax
Hey, that's pretty good! I think I'll remember that the next time a Lost Causer demands that someone show him the part of the US Constitution that prohibits secession....or demands the "citation from Article II of the Constitution where the people, operating through their individual States DELEGATED a power they possessed to the Executive to "preserve the Union?"
Thanks!
§ 266. 4th general maxim: what is sufficiently declared, is to be taken for true.
On every occasion when a person could and ought to have made known his intention, we assume for true against him what he has sufficiently declared. This is an incontestable principle, applied to treaties: for, if they are not a vain play of words, the contracting parties ought to express themselves in them with truth, and according to their real intentions. If the intention which is sufficiently declared were not to be taken of course as the true intention of him who speaks and enters into engagements, it would be perfectly useless to form contracts or treaties.
CHAP. XVII.Of the Interpretation of Treaties. Law of Nations
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
US Constituion Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791
• § 207. XIII. Another rule of interpretation deserves consideration in regard to the constitution. There are certain maxims, which have found their way, not only into judicial discussions, but into the business of common life, as founded in common sense, and common convenience. Thus, it is often said, that in an instrument a specification of particulars is an exclusion of generals; or the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another. Lord Bacon's remark, "that, as exception strengthens the force of a law in cases not excepted, so enumeration weakens it in cases not enumerated," has been perpetually referred to, as a fine illustration.
Justice Joseph Story on Rules of Constitutional Interpretation
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, negociation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will for the most part be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people; and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.
James Madison, Federalist #45
-----
It would be nice if you had something useful to contribute instead of flapping around like a sick chicken.
For all your squawking, I notice you STILL haven't bothering to answer the questions.
Please point out the Article and Clause of the Us Constitution that allows the federal government to prevent secessions or to 'preserve the Union'
If you can't do that, please don't waste my time with a reply.
You know the answer as well as I do. The constitution contains no express provision for emergency or crisis situations. But then it doesn’t need to. As many Lost Causers like to say, “The Constitution isn’t a suicide pact”. The government has all the posers granted to it necessary to defend its existence. See: Ex Parte Milligan
posers=powers ;-)
Then that which is not included is therefore excluded. The End.
Unless you believe the Constitution is a living document.
Then that which is not included is therefore excluded. The End.
Unless you believe the Constitution is a living document.
The end of what pray-tell?
Define “living document”.
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.