Posted on 05/13/2003 6:17:13 AM PDT by VMI70
This past weekend, my son and I went on his troop's annual father-son hike. His troop is one of many in the Robert E. Lee Council of the Boy Scouts of America, which is headquartered in Richmond, VA.
On Sunday, during the church service at the end of the hike, it was announced that the Council directors had voted to change its name from The Robert E. Lee Council, which has been in use for many decades, to something else.
This morning, the news broke on the local radio station: WRVA 1140 AM, Richmond's Morning News with Jimmy Barrett.
Why?
Because it is not sanctioned by US law. The theory is not rightly deduced or inferred. It's erroneous. Anti-republican. Anti-American.
Why?
"Plainly, the central idea of secession, is the essence of anarchy. A majority, held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations, and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people. Whoever rejects it, does, of necessity, fly to anarchy or to despotism. Unanimity is impossible; the rule of a minority, as a permanent arrangement, is wholly inadmissible; so that, rejecting the majority principle, anarchy or despotism in some form is all that is left."
A. Lincoln, 7/4/61
Walt
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.
You are the one arguing the validity of an act that vests that power wholly in the president. You are the one that is at odds with Washington, not I.
positive and complete authority in all cases which require uniformity;
How could you possibly highlight the first half of the phrase and completely ignore the second? The list that follows contains only powers clearly delegated the federal government by the constitution, not the Whiskeypapa war powers you claim exist.
Without this defensive power, every positive power that can be given on paper will be evaded or defeated.
He is talking about encroachment by the states on powers delegated by the constitution, not making a claim to unlimited and unchecked power by the federal government, as you claim.
Maybe it's time to start using the 'preview' button.
Denial of a quorum, though childish, is a valid tactic.
On the rest, I don't think we are so much at odds as it initially appeared to be. The South made an appeal to rights which, not specified by the constitution, they retained (or so they believed, and reasonably so).
Lincoln's authority to invade, however, is a bit stickier subject.
Hmmm... wonder why he included that.
In principle, it's a little worse than childish. As for this, I would make a few adjustments. I would say the slave states asserted a right they deemed to be in their own self interest, and based it as best as they could on republican principles. In my opinion, which is different from yours, I think they utterly fail to make their case, and are rightfully shunned by history. Back then, some of these folks made stuff up as they went along, run it up the flagpole, see who salutes it. Like Jefferson and his specious Kentucky Resolutions.
The british government said the same thing. IN the course of human events it sometimes becomes necessary to part ways. The war between the states was one of them. No union is permanent, they only last while they have the consent of the whole people. A large percentage (roughly half?) of the people of those Untied States chose to no longer be untited.
According to your thought process (apparently) we should all still be british citizens.
They were no longer citizens of those United States and that court had no jurisdiction over them.
Of course since the winner writes the history it all read different today but the fact is that the government lost the consent of those people and they should have be left alone.
Specious IYO - it seems unlikely to me that a people distrustful of centralized government would allow power to determine constitutionality to rest within the federal government itself.
He was fighting for his state. He swore an oath to the collective states and when his state was no longer part of the collective his oath had no more power.
Picture if our soldiers swear an oath to the UN for whatevere purpose and we leave the UN. Are our soldiers supposed to fight against us if the UN says so? I don't think so.
Why should the majority enslave the minority?
(Can't address any debt issue as I know nothing of it.)
And exactly what you are supporting by tying a state to the union when that union no longer represents them
And exactly what you are supporting by tying a state to the union when that union no longer represents them
Let me addendum this. Chattel slavery did not end with the war between the states. Only the conditions changed. Now we are all in chattel slavery to the government (apparently just the way you want it) as we do not have the freedom to leave the unnion, even if all the citizens of our state want to leave.
I refer you to James Madison's thoughts on the subject:
In forming this compound scheme of Government it was impossible to lose sight of the question, what was to be done in the event of controversies which could not fail to occur, concerning the partition line, between the powers belonging to the Federal and to the State Govts. That some provision ought to be made, was as obvious and as essential, as the task itself was difficult and delicate.That the final decision of such controversies, if left to each of the 13 now 24 members of the Union, must produce a different Constitution & different laws in the States was certain; and that such differences must be destructive of the common Govt. & of the Union itself, was equally certain. The decision of questions between the common agents of the whole & of the parts, could only proceed from the whole, that is from a collective not a separate authority of the parts.
The question then presenting itself could only relate to the least objectionable mode of providing for such occurrences, under the collective authority.
The provision immediately and ordinarily relied on, is manifestly the Supreme Court of the U. S., clothed as it is, with a Jurisdiction "in controversies to which the U. S. shall be a party;" the Court itself being so constituted as to render it independent & impartial in its decisions; [see Federalist, no. 39] whilst other and ulterior resorts would remain in the elective process, in the hands of the people themselves the joint constituents of the parties; and in the provision made by the Constitution for amending itself. All other resorts are extra & ultra constitutional, corresponding to the Ultima Ratio of nations renouncing the ordinary relations of peace.
If the Supreme Court of the U. S. be found or deemed not sufficiently independent and impartial for the trust committed to it, a better Tribunal is a desideratum: But whatever this may be, it must necessarily derive its authority from the whole not from the parts, from the States in some collective not individual capacity. And as some such Tribunal is a vital element, a sine qua non, in an efficient & permanent Govt. the Tribunal existing must be acquiesced in, until a better or more satisfactory one can be substituted.
Letter to Nicholas Trist, 15 Feb. 1830
Of interest here is his reliance on a collective body of the states. I have said before that the slavers would have been on more solid footing had they called for a Constitutional convention. I don't believe their arguments had merit. I believe they were recklessly destroying the Union without cause, but it would have been the republican means of doing things, as opposed to separate conventions.
I need to consider further whether there would be a material difference between a 'constitutional covention' and a convention to debate seccession - assuming each dwelt on the constitutionality of federal action.
Let me just clarify my point--constitional may not even be the best term for it. The key point for me would be that all states were in attendance, and all states would agree to a set of rules. But then, I go around in circles, because the states already have such a body--it's called Congress. And they have two different means of amending the Constitution. And the Scotus. Failing all of that, in extreme cases, Madison would admit the right of the states to preserve their rights.
But there we fall into that question of what is extreme and what isn't. There's no clear definition of that. IMO, the slave states fail on all counts. Heck, they had their way in Congress all the way back to 1787. They were clearly willing to secede over actions that were constitutional. Like a Presidential election. No convention would cure that. However, if they wanted to leave the Union, to me, you could have at least held some sort of convention, where all the parties are present and agree to the rules.
Again, that seems absurd, given the Congress and the other departments in existence for the purpose of collective agreement.
Agreed. It does seem that the actions of Congress would indicate the results of any convention involving all the states; perhaps that's the reason why none was called for. While certain perceived abuses by the national government would allow for recourse through the courts, questioning the tarrif power (one example) is not one of them.
Given that a nationally representative body had already weighed in on that issue, it doesn't seem unreasonable that the South would have to then appeal to the next logical means of asserting their rights.
The british government said the same thing. IN the course of human events it sometimes becomes necessary to part ways.
All well and good, but there is no provision to break the Union in U.S. law.
Walt
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.