Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: WhiskeyPapa
Who said that in 1860-61?

Like all liberals (er, Pseudo-Yankees), you fast forward on every discussion of the Constitution. Who said anything about 1860-1861? Clearly in 1860-1861 the issue was up for debate based upon what side of the issue you are on (and you always have a way of choosing the wrong side I might add - whether it be the immorality of terrorizing civilians as a matter of war policy, the WONA, or "Gore for President"). As hard as it is for a liberal to understand, when discussing the Constition, one has to go BACK in time to the time of the framers and their comments etc. They meant what they meant - period. Then they provided a method to change the document if we thought ourselves wiser than they. The Constitution does not prohibit secession - and the 10th Amendment reserves any rights for the States that are not implicitly stated. Just like the rights of the People, they are not GRANTED by the Constitution - instead the Government is limited by the Consitution - likewise the rights of the sovereign States are reserved for the States themselves unless otherwise agreed to in a previous article. Deo Vindice!
356 posted on 04/04/2002 9:42:39 AM PST by safisoft
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies ]


To: safisoft
As hard as it is for a liberal to understand, when discussing the Constition, one has to go BACK in time to the time of the framers and their comments etc. They meant what they meant - period.

I agree.

"What stronger evidence can be given of the want of energy in our government than these disorders? If there exists not a power to check them, what security has a man of life, liberty, or property? To you, I am sure I need not add aught on this subject, the consequences of a lax or inefficient government, are too obvious to be dwelt on. Thirteen sovereignties pulling against each other, and all tugging at the federal head, will soon bring ruin to the whole; whereas a liberal, and energetic Constitution, well guarded and closely watched, to prevent encroachments, might restore us to that degree of respectability and consequence, to which we had a fair claim, and the brightest prospect of attaining..."

George Washington to James Madison November 5, 1786,

"I do not conceive we can exist long as a nation, without having lodged somewhere a power which will pervade the whole Union in as energetic a manner, as the authority of the different state governments extends over the several states. To be fearful of vesting Congress, constituted as that body is, with ample authorities for national purposes, appears to me to be the very climax of popular absurdity and madness."

George Washington to John Jay, 15 August 1786

"In all our deliberations on this subject we kept steadily to our view, that which appears to the greatest interest of every true American, the consolidation of our Union, in which is involved our prosperity, felicity, safety, perhaps our national existance. This important consideration, seriously and deeply impressed on our minds, led each state in the Convention to be less rigid on points of inferior magnitude, than might have been otherwise expected; and thus the Constitution we present is the result of a spirit of amity, and that mutual deference and concession which the peculularity of our political situation rendered indispensible....

George Washington to the Congress 9/17/87

If you are a true American -- at least by George Washington's lights, you won't have a problem with the ultimate supremacy of the federal government.

Walt

363 posted on 04/04/2002 10:15:34 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 356 | View Replies ]

To: safisoft
Like all liberals....

Sigh. A dignified opening, to be sure.

They meant what they meant - period. Then they provided a method to change the document if we thought ourselves wiser than they.

Fine so far. Of course, it requires all sides of the argument to abide by the result, once it's decided. Secession renders that wonderful method moot, of course -- which means that all of the hard work of the Founders was in fact pointless.

And it's important to remember that the real issue was: "Let us keep people as slaves, or we'll leave." The slavery issue was nothing new: it had been threatening the Union for decades. How ironic that those manly champions of "states rights" stated their case primarily in terms of keeping people in bondage. One might almost think that they cared very little for states rights, and very much for their own riches....

The Constitution does not prohibit secession - and the 10th Amendment reserves any rights for the States that are not implicitly stated.

However, the Constitution clearly sets out the MANY constraints that the Federal Government can place on the individual states.

Take Article VI, for example, which specifically say that the laws and constitutions of the states are INFERIOR to the Constitution. A state law that declares that state to be no longer bound by the Constitution is invalid.

It is, in fact, an act of insurrection, which the Constitution explicitly empowers the Federal Government to suppress. (This leaves you to defend a weak claim that secession was not insurrection.)

Just like the rights of the People, they are not GRANTED by the Constitution - instead the Government is limited by the Consitution - likewise the rights of the sovereign States are reserved for the States themselves unless otherwise agreed to in a previous article.

Article VI, for example....?

364 posted on 04/04/2002 10:26:45 AM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 356 | View Replies ]

To: safisoft
Just like the rights of the People, they are not GRANTED by the Constitution - instead the Government is limited by the Consitution...

The laws passed in pursuance to the Constitution are also the supreme law of the land. This includes the Militia Act of 1792 as amended in 1795. That act empowers the president to ensure that the laws of the United States are duly followed in all the states.

The 10th amendment never really comes into play.

Walt

370 posted on 04/04/2002 11:03:07 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 356 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson