GenSeneca
Well-Known Member
WTF does ANY of that have to do with states seceding from the Union? Not a damn thing... Which makes such statements nothing more than red herrings spoken out of ignorance.
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
Another bureaucracy created by obama
- Thread starter CHAINSAW
- Start date
WTF does ANY of that have to do with states seceding from the Union? Not a damn thing... Which makes such statements nothing more than red herrings spoken out of ignorance.
Werbung:
GenSeneca
Well-Known Member
Oh, so it was McSame (Bush III), who wanted to continue the "failed Bush policies" and destroy our economy, who wanted to take away social security for the elderly by giving their money to wall street, who wanted to defund welfare programs to grow the military, who wanted to start new wars across the globe, continue fighting in Iraq for 100 years, take away a womans "right" to kill her unborn offspring, and who was a "heartbeat away" from sticking the country with a radical-right-wing-Christian-Fundamentalist nutjob who would turn the country into a Christian theocracy first chance she got...
They were really the ones who ran on fear... You betcha'
I am a bit hazy on this one... recognized in what way? Buchanan certainly did not recognize them. In fact, in his final address to Congress he denied that states had the legal rights to secede. (He did say that if they did the Federal Government legally could not prevent them in all fairness).
That said, federal property in the South was still owned by the United States. It would akin to Venezuela nationalizing American interests in the country and expecting that we do nothing about it.
Is Palestine a "sovereign state"? Is Kurdistan? Chechnya? Taiwan? People can claim they are a state if they want, and meet the criteria you spelled out, but if no one recognizes that, then it is irrelevant.
Yes, there was an ongoing debate on the issue... Buchanan also stated that states did not have the right to succeed... He was in a tough spot politically, and tried to walk a fine line.
I understand your point, just don't agree with it, but that is the way it goes.
True.
So? It answered the question of the legality of the issue. Yes it came after the war, but it did come.
No doubt they felt that way.
You're one of the few people I can amicably disagree with while being called a racist.
Yea, sadly the back and forth among many people is basically who can yell the loudest, or insult the other person the most.
pocketfullofshells
Well-Known Member
It has to do with that little thing called the bill of rights...I am sorry thats hard for you to understand....I did not say it had anything to do with States Seceding...
pocketfullofshells
Well-Known Member
Oh, so it was McSame (Bush III), who wanted to continue the "failed Bush policies" and destroy our economy, who wanted to take away social security for the elderly by giving their money to wall street, who wanted to defund welfare programs to grow the military, who wanted to start new wars across the globe, continue fighting in Iraq for 100 years, take away a womans "right" to kill her unborn offspring, and who was a "heartbeat away" from sticking the country with a radical-right-wing-Christian-Fundamentalist nutjob who would turn the country into a Christian theocracy first chance she got...
They were really the ones who ran on fear... You betcha'
See the difference is, some of those are true..
He was going to push the Bush Policy on Economy, he did want to privatize SS ( effectivly taking it away as the econ tanked) he would grow the military, he did want to cut wellfare programs, he is Pro Life, he said we would be in Iraq for 100 years, and Palin was a nut job a heart beat away from office...
Why do you say that privatization of social security means it is "taken away as the economy tanks"?
If you are going to say because the stock market has fallen, I challenge you to show where in any of Bush's proposals he would force people into the stock market in a personal retirement account.
GenSeneca
Well-Known Member
It's still fearmongering. You guys ran on fear with a spattering of vapid promises for "hope and change" which turned out to be more of "Bush's failed policies", like the bailouts, stimulus, Afgan surge, tax "cuts" (during a time of war), we still have the Patriot act, still have warrantless wiretaps, still have illegal search and seizure, a quadrupling of our deficit, record debt that's still climbing, econ in the tank... Gee, we sure are lucky Bush didn't have a 3rd term!
GenSeneca
Well-Known Member
It's difficult to have a discussion with you...
I said Lincoln violated the Constitution.
You asked if I thought he did the right thing.
I said no.
You stated that I thought the Constitution should be followed exactly as written and suggested that there are different interpretations as to what is actually written.
My only reply to that is... If you interpret the Constitution with something other than the original intent, the Constitution can be transformed into an amorphous pile of clay which can be molded into whatever you wish it to say.
I can see why you would support interpretations that are not based on original intent, it gives people such as yourself the ability to re-write the constitution without actually going through the difficult process of amending it. It can mean whatever you want it to mean and I see that as dangerous and irresponsible.
Nowhere in the enumerated powers of the Constitution does the president, or Congress, have the power to stop a state from seceding from the union or the power to force them back into the union. That's my "interpretation" based on everything I know about what the founders and framers stated on the subject.
If you take Big Rob's POV, he considers secession a rebellion but I don't know where he gets that. The federalist papers explain the rebellion provision as a state falling into anarchy from the collapse, or overthrow, of the state government. I also think he's wrong because for nearly 100 years it was understood that states were sovereign entities unto themselves and being part of the union was a willful choice of each state... Hence the United States.
That's a big part of why the power of the federal government was so limited in the Constitution, many states would not have joined the union if they knew they were giving up their sovereignty to the federal government.
--------
BigRob, I apologize for cramming my response for both you and pocket into the same reply but I think what I had to say was relevant to both of you.
The federalist papers were written to convince the states why they should join the union and take part in a constitutionally limited federal government...
"The state governments by their original constitutions are invested with complete sovereignty. In what does our security consist against usurpations from that quarter? Doubtless in the manner of their formation, and in a due dependence of those who are to administer them upon the people. If the proposed construction of the federal government be found, upon an impartial examination of it, to be such as to afford to a proper extent the same species of security, all apprehensions on the score of usurpation ought to be discarded." Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Papers Pg. 164
I could offer many other examples but I had to transcribe that from my copy of the federalist papers and I think I've offered enough evidence as to why I believe my "interpretation" is correct.
Which was entirely his opinion. It was not until 1869 that the courts ruled on the subject and secession was actually deemed to be illegal. I could say that you don't have a legal right to do X but until there is a law, or court ruling, on the subject, it's only my opinion.
States were supposed to be recognized as sovereign by the federal government as evidenced by the quote from Hamilton on the subject.
It did so after the fact... Just out of curiosity, has all of your understanding about secession been a result of post facto analysis? That is to say, I looked for what was said prior to it becoming an issue and based my understanding on that information. You seem to have looked only at what happened after the fact (such as the 1869 SC ruling) to reach your conclusion.
Gipper
Well-Known Member
The states were considered sovereign entities at the founding. And yes, Lincoln changed all that. He ignored the Constitution much like our politicians do today.
Much of what is taught about Lincoln is a myth. He and his fellow Illinois politician Obama, have much in common.
A great book on the subject is "The Real Lincoln." It is very well documented and proves that most northern state governments, newpapers, etc. considered secession the right of any state prior to the Civil War. Many believed if the southern states want to secede, let them. That is their right under the Constitution.
Ending slavery was an admirable thing, but was never Lincoln's intention. The consequences of the Civil War on the South was immeasurable and lead to dictatorial control of most of those states by the Dem Party. This resulted in outrageous racism, poverty, and segregation of blacks for another 100 years.
Much of what is taught about Lincoln is a myth. He and his fellow Illinois politician Obama, have much in common.
A great book on the subject is "The Real Lincoln." It is very well documented and proves that most northern state governments, newpapers, etc. considered secession the right of any state prior to the Civil War. Many believed if the southern states want to secede, let them. That is their right under the Constitution.
Ending slavery was an admirable thing, but was never Lincoln's intention. The consequences of the Civil War on the South was immeasurable and lead to dictatorial control of most of those states by the Dem Party. This resulted in outrageous racism, poverty, and segregation of blacks for another 100 years.
This is the book that made it happen: the nationwide revision concerning the man who they tried to tell us was a great liberator. Dictator and slayer of liberty is more like it. Lincoln was not the godlike figure of myth and legend but an unusually cruel political operator who exploited the moment for personal gain, just as we've come to expect of modern politicians.
In this blockbuster, Thomas DiLorenzo calls for a complete rethinking of a central icon of American historiography. He looks at the actions and legacy of Abe Lincoln from an economics point of view to show that Lincoln's main interest was not in opposing slavery but in advancing mercantilism, inflationism, and government spending: the "American system" of Henry Clay.
Through extensive historical investigation, DiLorenzo shows that the high tariff pushed by Northern industries, at the expense of Southern agriculture, was the main cause of the sectional conflict. Further, Lincoln's goal in preventing Southern secession was the consolidation of federal power and the collection of revenue, not the elimination of slavery. Introduction by Walter Williams.
Barron's says: "More than 16,000 books have already been written about Abraham Lincoln. But it took an economist to get the story right. The Real Lincoln, by Loyola College economics prof Thomas J. DiLorenzo, is this year's top pick in [Gene Epstein's] sixth annual review of Holiday Gifts that Keep on Giving, When It's the Thought that Counts."
http://mises.org/store/Real-Lincoln-The-P172.aspx
I fall in line with Webster's argument (articulated below by James Schouler).
"The Union was held up to view in all its strength, symmetry, and integrity, reposing in the ark of the Constitution, no longer an experiment, as in the days when Hamilton and Jefferson contended for shaping its course, but ordained and established by and for the people, to secure the blessings of liberty to all posterity. It was not a Union to be torn up without bloodshed; for nerves and arteries were interwoven with its roots and tendrils, sustaining the lives and interests of twelve millions of inhabitants. No hanging over the abyss of disunion, no weighing of the chances, no doubting as to what the Constitution was worth, no placing of liberty before Union, but "liberty and union, now and forever, one and inseparable."
More from his speech directly:
"Is the federal government the agent of the state legislatures, and hence the "servant of 24 masters, of different wills and ... and yet bound to obey all?" The truth is that this is "the people's government made for the people; made by the people; and answerable to the people". Clearly the constitution does limit and control state sovereignty - a state cannot make war, coin money, or make treaties, regardless of her "feeling of justice"."
I think for nearly 100 years it was understood that states were this way by some. However, we have to remember that the Federalist papers were really propaganda pieces of their day and were certainly not the only opinion on the matter.
Let us not forget that there were anti-federalists as well, who I think we might can agree were "founding fathers." Just to name a few of them: Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, James Monroe.
So, in your view is the Constitution merely a treaty, or is it a founding document that created an indivisible union which would protect the rights of all its citizens?
This is Hamilton's opinion, and as mentioned, not the only opinion out there.
Correct from your "interpretation" of the document. I don't think you can really argue that you are against interpretation of the document, but then cite numerous interpretations of the document to back that up.
And in that case, the Chief Justice cites the articles of Confederation:
"The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union." It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?"
Following it up, he states, "When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States."
Therefore, the only explanation for what the Southern states did, was revolution, or rebellion.
In his opinion.
I can grant you that it was very much an "open" question during the mid 1800's, but ultimately the question has been settled by the 1869 ruling, and that is where we have to ultimately look in my view.
GenSeneca
Well-Known Member
I disagree that the Constitution controlled state sovereignty but I agree that it did limit state sovereignty within the confines of federal governments enumerated powers. All other power not specifically delegated to federal government was retained by the states.
You're just supporting my point by bringing them up... The Anti-Federalist Papers were trying to warn states that their power and their sovereignty would be usurped by a federal government. That is why I quoted Hamilton, who, in the Federalist Papers, insisted that such fears were unfounded and that no such usurpations would take place.
Boy did he turn out to be wrong.
Neither... It created a federal government strictly limited in its authority and authorized to do only what was enumerated by the Constitution with all other sovereign power retained by the States.
I know. We're screwed... The constitution is meaningless if the meaning can be reinterpreted to say something it never originally said. General Welfare was meant to be limited to the enumerated powers but once that was reinterpreted as having zero limitations, we got the ever expanding welfare state and began our slide into oblivion.
"Settled" only after the fact... 8 years too late to prevent the civil war. History is written by the victors... Do you doubt the SC ruling would have said the exact opposite had the south been in control of the SC and won the war?
And after examining the law, etc, post the Civil War and the facts surrounding the debate, the Supreme Court ruled that succession was illegal.
It supports your point only to an extent. My point is simply that there was a debate going on as to the how the constitution would be interpreted.
How do we come to terms with something like an Executive Order then? They are not mentioned in the Constitution, however even George Washington issued them.
I don't disagree that the provide for the general welfare provisions have been way overblown... it does in fact say "provide" however, not only "promote."
Potentially, we will never know. Even if they had ruled it illegal before the Civil War, it probably would not have stopped the war.
Werbung:
GenSeneca
Well-Known Member
That's a good question and not one that I've considered.
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents. " - James Madison
"Our tenet ever was... that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated, and that, as it was never meant that they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money." - Jefferson
"The perversion of interpreting the general welfare clause as meaning that a welfare state is constitutional proves that through interpretation any limits placed on government are purely illusory and this means that our rights too have become illusions subject to the whims of what is now the unlimited power of the federal government." - GenSeneca
The ruling would have had to come before the first secession in order to claim without ambiguity that the actions of the southern states were an act of rebellion.
