Author Topic: A Right To Secede?  (Read 17200 times)

Offline daidalos

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4215
  • Gender: Male
  • “Democracy is the most vile form of government.”
Re: A Right To Secede?
« Reply #15 on: August 04, 2013, 04:49:50 AM »
Do the Sovereign States have any right to secede from the Union?

Introduction:

Without doubt the subject of Secession results in strong opinions, with the Civil War itself being a strong (and violent)  claim that there is no right to secede. Many cite the post-war case of Texas v White as the final word that Secession is not possible, however this was not exactly any sort of legitimate exercise of our constitutional government and jurisprudence.

It seems The Declaration of Independence itself is emphatic on the matter by asserting, not once, but twice, the right and duty of the people to overthrow a tyrannous government:

  • 1) "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government ... "

    2) "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

However it should be pointed out that the Declaration also emphasizes that this right to institute a new government is only for significant cause:

  • "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes ... "

The only power afforded the federal government in the Constitution, in this regard, is Article 1, Section 8 , to suppress insurrection.  However "insurrection" actually presupposes that the federal government itself is operating within the terms of the Constitution, and legitimate government.

"insurrection" involves resistance to legitimate government and is not necessarily to be applied to the states themselves, as States are legitimate and even sovereign government,  but rather insurrection applies to the general populace in a state of insurrection in conflict with the legitimate governance and the Constitution.

The Constitution is founded on the principle that the states are sovereign entities, and only by the compact among the several States do those sovereign states bring the fiction of the federal government into existence, under express limited terms. The states did not forfeit there sovereignty overall, and only ceded certain authority under specific enumerated issues.

My own position is that the claim that the states have no right to secede is contrary to every principle of this country.

At what point do our grievances go beyond "light and transient causes"?

Do those grievances become significant when the government usurps ownership of citizen's bodies to dictate their care and maintenance, without any enumerated power to do so? Do they become insignificant when the government believes it can infringe the right to keep and bear arms by means of only a Presidential Directive?  Do they become no longer insignificant when the federal government deliberately maintains open borders, and then forces a mass amnesty upon the citizenry?

Given that the right to bear arms is not "a grant" made by the Second Amendment itself, but rather only a "bill" or "listing of particulars in that Bill of Rights, can such an unalienable right even be removed by any amendment to the Constitution?  Or does the government have the authority to limit the Freedom of the Press by limiting what is "a journalist" to those who are paid, and those who work full-time as a journalist?

All of these, and more, are important questions in this Republic, and the issue of whether states have the authority to secede from the Union.

The flaw in your argument trip is this. You cite as a basis for your position, in part, the Declaration of indepencence.

However that document, while an important part of our history, while being a document which expressed many of the ideals which motivated our founders to break away and form their own nation.

The Declaration of Independence has zero weight in law.

Meaning, it's not a legal document. It doesn't establish law, as for example the Constitution does.

However, that said. The Constitution itself, while establishing which conditions must exist for a territory or sovereign to join the Union as a state.

Says nothing on the subject of succession.

Since the Constitution itself, makes no enumeration of such a right.

Since the Constitution itself enumerates no authority to the Federal Government to prophibit or limit such a right.

Since the Constitution enumerates no power or authority to the Federal Government to grant such a right.

And since the Constitution itself makes no enumeration of any restriction on such a right.

It seems clear to me that, despite the precedent set by Lincoln and the resulting Civil war fall out. Which has traditionally since the time of the civil war "established" that a state cannot leave the union.

To the contrary, the tenth amendment firmly establishes that since no enumeration on the matter is made in respect to the federal governments ability to either grant or restrict such a right.

Such power/authority/right, is clearly reserved as a power/right to the States themselves, and their people's  respectively as the amendment states the following:
Quote
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.


Regards,

D.
One of every five Americans you meet has a mental illness of some sort. Many, many, of our veteran's suffer from mental illness like PTSD now also. Help if ya can. :) http://www.projectsemicolon.org/share-your-story.html
And no you won't find my "story" there. They don't allow science fiction. :)

Trip

  • Guest
Re: A Right To Secede?
« Reply #16 on: August 04, 2013, 05:07:27 AM »
The flaw in your argument trip is this. You cite as a basis for your position, in part, the Declaration of indepencence.

However that document, while an important part of our history, while being a document which expressed many of the ideals which motivated our founders to break away and form their own nation.

The Declaration of Independence has zero weight in law.

Meaning, it's not a legal document. It doesn't establish law, as for example the Constitution does.

However, that said. The Constitution itself, while establishing which conditions must exist for a territory or sovereign to join the Union as a state.

Says nothing on the subject of succession.


Actually there's no flaw in my argument at all.

In truth,  the U.S. Constitution itself is not any sort of "legal document". It is not statutory law at all.

In fact  the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution are both on the exact same footing.

The United States Code (law) lists the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation,  the Northwest Ordinance, and the U.S. Constitution all as the "Organic Law" of the United States.

Organic Law is the founding principle of a country.

Incidentally, we don't need a law (statute) to declare a natural right, such as speech, assembly, the ability to keep and bear arms, or to secede from the union.   

Furthermore, the enumeration of the Bill of Rights is not actually any sort of provision of those rights by the Constitution itself, but rather only a Bill, or "listing of particulars."  Those rights cannot legitimately be altered or denied by subsequent amendments to the Constitution itself, much less laws.






Offline daidalos

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4215
  • Gender: Male
  • “Democracy is the most vile form of government.”
Re: A Right To Secede?
« Reply #17 on: August 04, 2013, 05:24:41 AM »

Actually there's no flaw in my argument at all.

In truth,  the U.S. Constitution itself is not any sort of "legal document". It is not statutory law at all.

In fact  the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution are both on the exact same footing.

The United States Code (law) lists the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation,  the Northwest Ordinance, and the U.S. Constitution all as the "Organic Law" of the United States.

Organic Law is the founding principle of a country.

Incidentally, we don't need a law (statute) to declare a natural right, such as speech, assembly, the ability to keep and bear arms, or to secede from the union.   

Furthermore, the enumeration of the Bill of Rights is not actually any sort of provision of those rights by the Constitution itself, but rather only a Bill, or "listing of particulars."  Those rights cannot legitimately be altered or denied by subsequent amendments to the Constitution itself, much less laws.

No trip you are misinformed. (probably by some lib in a public school who did it too)

The Constitution and the Declaration are not on the same footing legally speaking.

The Constitution supersedes everything else, including the Declaration too.

In matters of law.

This is why the Constitution is considered to be the "highest law of the land" as a legal document.

Because it not only establishes within the law certain particulars, as a matter of law. It supersedes everything else as well.

Whereas the Declaration is considered to be well precisely what it's called.

A declaration. It's nothing more than a letter to King George containing a statement of ideals, and a list of greivances, to justify and explain the decision by the colonies to break away. (rebel)

In fact if the Declaration were also, like the Constitution, a legal document.

We in this nation would have had an end to the practice of slavery, and equal rights regardless of gender or skin color way back in the 1700's.

Rather than having to have gone through such things as suffrage, or the civil war.

Indeed, had the Declaration had any kind of legal weight at all.

The southern states would have never, ever, ever, ever, agreed to it.

After all, lets not forget that the Southern states almost didn't vote for it's passage as it is. Because of certain language in the Declaration.

Had this been a legal document establishing law, or precedent in the law, you can rest assured the Southern states would never have gone along with it, as it's written today. ;)





One of every five Americans you meet has a mental illness of some sort. Many, many, of our veteran's suffer from mental illness like PTSD now also. Help if ya can. :) http://www.projectsemicolon.org/share-your-story.html
And no you won't find my "story" there. They don't allow science fiction. :)

Offline AndyJackson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5776
Re: A Right To Secede?
« Reply #18 on: August 04, 2013, 05:24:49 AM »
The problem with any single right in the constitution, is that it's completely at the whim of the president, DOJ, and SC.

If they think secession is OK, then it is.  If they think it's not.....then it's not.

Tea party White House and SC nominee.....it could happen.  Prgressives.....the constitutin may as well not exist at all.  The writings of marx, alinsky, cloward & piven are our direction at the moment.

Offline Solar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63269
  • Gender: Male
Re: A Right To Secede?
« Reply #19 on: August 04, 2013, 05:58:33 AM »
I find it interesting that a group of States that fought for life and freedom from a ruling class, would willingly sign away the Right to do it all over again if necessary.
To even consider secession illegal or unconstitutional is the pinnacle of absurdity.
#WWG1WGA

Offline kramarat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5192
  • Gender: Male
Re: A Right To Secede?
« Reply #20 on: August 04, 2013, 06:10:23 AM »
The problem with any single right in the constitution, is that it's completely at the whim of the president, DOJ, and SC.

If they think secession is OK, then it is.  If they think it's not.....then it's not.

Tea party White House and SC nominee.....it could happen.  Prgressives.....the constitutin may as well not exist at all.  The writings of marx, alinsky, cloward & piven are our direction at the moment.

I don't see it like that...not that it matters.

I see a very clear set of limitations on the federal government. If the constitution doesn't specifically say they "can" do something....it means they can't. Just my worthless opinion.

Trip

  • Guest
Re: A Right To Secede?
« Reply #21 on: August 04, 2013, 06:19:03 AM »
No trip you are misinformed. (probably by some lib in a public school who did it too)

The Constitution and the Declaration are not on the same footing legally speaking.

The Constitution supersedes everything else, including the Declaration too.

In matters of law.

This is why the Constitution is considered to be the "highest law of the land" as a legal document.

Because it not only establishes within the law certain particulars, as a matter of law. It supersedes everything else as well.

Well, actually, I submit that your own public screwling, and the Libs there,  has caused you serious harm.   I didn't go to public school and don't spew falsehoods without any basis in fact.

In point of fact, the Constitution has no legal footing. It is not statutory law. As such, it has the same legal standing as the DOI.  The Constitution actually has "judicial footing', and is used to adjudge the validity of law.  And, yes, just as the Constitution, the DOI has also been cited in Supreme Court opinion.   

True, the Constitution is the "law of the land",  as recognized in the Supremacy Clause, but that's mostly a rhetorical phrasing to indicate that all law must be complaint with the Constitution. In point of fact, all of the philosophy, or principle,inherent to the Declaration of Independence is incorporated into the U.S. Constitution.

However that's not an entirely accurate perspective of the two documents relative importance to one another.     

One day (and soon) the country might end, the government might be overthrown, and what remains of the Constitution, discarded.   As such, the Constitution will have absolutely zero force and effect.   

However the same would not be true of the Declaration of Independence.   The principles outlined in the DOI of unalienable individual rights and the purpose of every form of government being to protect these rights, would still endure.  From such a perspective it could be said, (and has been), that the DOI actually 'trumps" the Constitution.

 
Whereas the Declaration is considered to be well precisely what it's called.

A declaration. It's nothing more than a letter to King George containing a statement of ideals, and a list of greivances, to justify and explain the decision by the colonies to break away. (rebel)


If you imagine the Declaration of Independence to be nothing more than a letter, and nothing more than a statement of ideals, and a liste of gievances, then you missed its impact being the very cornerstone of this country.

In fact the DOI is recognized as the moment where this country was began, with various official documents, not just referencing the DOI, but being dated to the signing of the Declaration of Independence:

  • "Done in convention by the unanimous consent of the States present the seventeenth day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven, and of the independence of the United States of America the twelfth."
    - United States Constitution, Article VII

    "Given under my hand and the seal of the United States, in the city of New York, the 14th day of August, A.D. 1790, and in the fifteenth year of the Sovereignty and Independence of the United States. By the President: GEORGE WASHINGTON"
    - George Washington, James D. Richardson, "A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents 1789-1897", (Authority of Congress, 1899), Vol. I, p. 80, August 14, 1790.

    "In testimony whereof I have caused the seal of the United States to be affixed to these presents, and signed the same with my hand. Done at Philadelphia, the 22nd day of July, A.D. 1797, and of the Independence of the United States the twenty-second. By the President: JOHN ADAMS"
    - John Adams, James D. Richardson, "A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents 1789-1897", (Authority of Congress, 1899), Vol. I, p. 249, July 22, 1797.

    "In testimony whereof I have caused the seal of the United States to be hereunto affixed, and signed the same with my hand. Done at the city of Washington, the 16th day of July, A.D. 1803, and in the twenty-eighth year of the Independence of the United States. By the President: THOMAS JEFFERSON"
    - Thomas Jefferson, James D. Richardson, "A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents 1789-1897", (Authority of Congress, 1899), Vol. I, p. 357, July 16, 1803.

    "Given under my hand and the seal of the United States at the city of Washington, the 9th day of August, A.D. 1809, and of the Independence of the said United States the thirty-fourth. By the President: JAMES MADISON"
    - James Madison, James D. Richardson, "A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents 1789-1897", (Authority of Congress, 1899), Vol. I, p. 473, August 9, 1809.

    "Given under my hand, at the city of Washington, this 28th day of April, A.D. 1818, and of the Independence of the United States the forty-second. By the President: JAMES MONROE"
    - James Monroe, James D. Richardson, "A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents 1789-1897", (Authority of Congress, 1899), Vol. II, p. 36, April 28, 1818.

    "Given under my hand, at the city of Washington, this 17th day of March, A.D. 1827, and the fifty-first year of the Independence of the United States. By the President: JOHN QUINCY ADAMS"
    - John Quincy Adams, James D. Richardson, "A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents 1789-1897", (Authority of Congress, 1899), Vol. II, p. 376, March 17, 1827.

    "Given under my hand, at the city of Washington, this 11th day of May, A.D. 1829, and the fifty-third of the Independence of the United States. By the President: ANDREW JACKSON"
    - Andrew Jackson, James D. Richardson, "A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents 1789-1897", (Authority of Congress, 1899), Vol. II, p. 440, May 11, 1829.

    Also, as additional evidence that the DOI is our founding document <and moment>, states in the union could not violate the principles of the Declaration of Independence:

    "The constitution, when formed, shall be republican, and not repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and the principles of the Declaration of Independence."


    As seen in the Colorado, Nevada, Nebraska, and Oklahoma Enabling Acts.

    The United States Constitution must always be interpreted by the principles found in the Declaration of Independence.

    Finally, The Gettysburg Address:

    Lincoln's 1863 Gettysburg Address begins with the most famous phrase:

    "Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."

    That "Four score and seven", references "score", which is 20 years apiece, plus seven, totals a reference of 87 years. Eighty seven years prior to 1863 puts Lincoln's reference squarely at --- 1776 -- the date of the Declaration of Independence. Lincoln was basing his entire speech on what was created by that very Declaration of Independence.


Now would be a good time to intruduce some other apropos  words from Lincoln:

"Now, my countrymen, if you have been taught
doctrines conflicting with the great landmarks of the Declaration of Independence ...
let me entreat you to come back. ... Come back to the truths
that are in the Declaration of Independence."


~Abraham Lincoln

The DOI is far, far more than just a "letter", "statement of ideals", and "list of grievances".

In fact if the Declaration were also, like the Constitution, a legal document.

We in this nation would have had an end to the practice of slavery, and equal rights regardless of gender or skin color way back in the 1700's.

Rather than having to have gone through such things as suffrage, or the civil war.
This is yet again showing the heavy hand of public leftist education, underlain by an idiotic yet  common idea oft referenced by the left.  They repeatedly say something like "if we had any real rights (such as to life), then no one would be able to take those rights, or take a life (kill another)."

No, those "rights" DO NOT equate to actual, real outcome!

NO, if the DOI were like the Constitution (which it is), a legal document, then we would NOT "have had an end to slavery, and equal rights" etc etc!

I'm sorry but this is just insipid, and failing to understand a major, fundamental philosophy of this country. 

The FACT of the Matter is the Constitution, like the DOI already recognized those freedoms, and rights. 

The only reason we did not have emancipation or equal rights DICTATED  with the ratification of the Constitution (or signing of the DOI), is that this nation's Founders had the infinite wisdom to recognize that if they created a federal government with the authority to dictate emancipation, and declare equal rights,.........

.... then they would have created, at that moment, the very same dictatorial government capable of social engineering and totalitarian dictate that they fought to free themselves from under feudal British government!  Our federal government does not have this authority, for good and profound reason.

It's a shame that too few people recognize this.

The point is neither the DOI nor the Constitution have "legal weight".  They are both "organic" law, being the philosophy of this country, and having zero ability to be directly applied as statutorial law.
« Last Edit: August 04, 2013, 06:23:30 AM by Trip »

Trip

  • Guest
Re: A Right To Secede?
« Reply #22 on: August 04, 2013, 06:56:03 AM »
I find it interesting that a group of States that fought for life and freedom from a ruling class, would willingly sign away the Right to do it all over again if necessary.
To even consider secession illegal or unconstitutional is the pinnacle of absurdity.

You hit the nail on the head... the same basic point i made at the end of my previous post!

If the founders were to give the federal government the ability to dictate the terms of society, be it rights, or whatever, just as with the hypothetical of the "perpetual union", then they likewise would have been creating the very dictatorial and intrusive government they fought to free themselves from.




Offline Solar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63269
  • Gender: Male
Re: A Right To Secede?
« Reply #23 on: August 04, 2013, 10:30:39 AM »
You hit the nail on the head... the same basic point i made at the end of my previous post!

If the founders were to give the federal government the ability to dictate the terms of society, be it rights, or whatever, just as with the hypothetical of the "perpetual union", then they likewise would have been creating the very dictatorial and intrusive government they fought to free themselves from.
Yep, and I think this points out quite clearly that the Fed hs no power over the States, or it's people.

Quote
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

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.
#WWG1WGA

Offline daidalos

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4215
  • Gender: Male
  • “Democracy is the most vile form of government.”
Re: A Right To Secede?
« Reply #24 on: August 04, 2013, 11:12:43 AM »
The problem with any single right in the constitution, is that it's completely at the whim of the president, DOJ, and SC.

If they think secession is OK, then it is.  If they think it's not.....then it's not.

Tea party White House and SC nominee.....it could happen.  Prgressives.....the constitutin may as well not exist at all.  The writings of marx, alinsky, cloward & piven are our direction at the moment.

Um Stonewall, how did you come to that conclusion?

Well, actually, I submit that your own public screwling, and the Libs there,  has caused you serious harm.   I didn't go to public school and don't spew falsehoods without any basis in fact.

In point of fact, the Constitution has no legal footing. It is not statutory law. As such, it has the same legal standing as the DOI.  The Constitution actually has "judicial footing', and is used to adjudge the validity of law.  And, yes, just as the Constitution, the DOI has also been cited in Supreme Court opinion.   

True, the Constitution is the "law of the land",  as recognized in the Supremacy Clause, but that's mostly a rhetorical phrasing to indicate that all law must be complaint with the Constitution. In point of fact, all of the philosophy, or principle,inherent to the Declaration of Independence is incorporated into the U.S. Constitution.

However that's not an entirely accurate perspective of the two documents relative importance to one another.     

One day (and soon) the country might end, the government might be overthrown, and what remains of the Constitution, discarded.   As such, the Constitution will have absolutely zero force and effect.   

However the same would not be true of the Declaration of Independence.   The principles outlined in the DOI of unalienable individual rights and the purpose of every form of government being to protect these rights, would still endure.  From such a perspective it could be said, (and has been), that the DOI actually 'trumps" the Constitution.

 

If you imagine the Declaration of Independence to be nothing more than a letter, and nothing more than a statement of ideals, and a liste of gievances, then you missed its impact being the very cornerstone of this country.

In fact the DOI is recognized as the moment where this country was began, with various official documents, not just referencing the DOI, but being dated to the signing of the Declaration of Independence:

  • "Done in convention by the unanimous consent of the States present the seventeenth day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven, and of the independence of the United States of America the twelfth."
    - United States Constitution, Article VII

    "Given under my hand and the seal of the United States, in the city of New York, the 14th day of August, A.D. 1790, and in the fifteenth year of the Sovereignty and Independence of the United States. By the President: GEORGE WASHINGTON"
    - George Washington, James D. Richardson, "A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents 1789-1897", (Authority of Congress, 1899), Vol. I, p. 80, August 14, 1790.

    "In testimony whereof I have caused the seal of the United States to be affixed to these presents, and signed the same with my hand. Done at Philadelphia, the 22nd day of July, A.D. 1797, and of the Independence of the United States the twenty-second. By the President: JOHN ADAMS"
    - John Adams, James D. Richardson, "A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents 1789-1897", (Authority of Congress, 1899), Vol. I, p. 249, July 22, 1797.

    "In testimony whereof I have caused the seal of the United States to be hereunto affixed, and signed the same with my hand. Done at the city of Washington, the 16th day of July, A.D. 1803, and in the twenty-eighth year of the Independence of the United States. By the President: THOMAS JEFFERSON"
    - Thomas Jefferson, James D. Richardson, "A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents 1789-1897", (Authority of Congress, 1899), Vol. I, p. 357, July 16, 1803.

    "Given under my hand and the seal of the United States at the city of Washington, the 9th day of August, A.D. 1809, and of the Independence of the said United States the thirty-fourth. By the President: JAMES MADISON"
    - James Madison, James D. Richardson, "A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents 1789-1897", (Authority of Congress, 1899), Vol. I, p. 473, August 9, 1809.

    "Given under my hand, at the city of Washington, this 28th day of April, A.D. 1818, and of the Independence of the United States the forty-second. By the President: JAMES MONROE"
    - James Monroe, James D. Richardson, "A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents 1789-1897", (Authority of Congress, 1899), Vol. II, p. 36, April 28, 1818.

    "Given under my hand, at the city of Washington, this 17th day of March, A.D. 1827, and the fifty-first year of the Independence of the United States. By the President: JOHN QUINCY ADAMS"
    - John Quincy Adams, James D. Richardson, "A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents 1789-1897", (Authority of Congress, 1899), Vol. II, p. 376, March 17, 1827.

    "Given under my hand, at the city of Washington, this 11th day of May, A.D. 1829, and the fifty-third of the Independence of the United States. By the President: ANDREW JACKSON"
    - Andrew Jackson, James D. Richardson, "A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents 1789-1897", (Authority of Congress, 1899), Vol. II, p. 440, May 11, 1829.

    Also, as additional evidence that the DOI is our founding document <and moment>, states in the union could not violate the principles of the Declaration of Independence:

    "The constitution, when formed, shall be republican, and not repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and the principles of the Declaration of Independence."


    As seen in the Colorado, Nevada, Nebraska, and Oklahoma Enabling Acts.

    The United States Constitution must always be interpreted by the principles found in the Declaration of Independence.

    Finally, The Gettysburg Address:

    Lincoln's 1863 Gettysburg Address begins with the most famous phrase:

    "Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."

    That "Four score and seven", references "score", which is 20 years apiece, plus seven, totals a reference of 87 years. Eighty seven years prior to 1863 puts Lincoln's reference squarely at --- 1776 -- the date of the Declaration of Independence. Lincoln was basing his entire speech on what was created by that very Declaration of Independence.


Now would be a good time to intruduce some other apropos  words from Lincoln:

"Now, my countrymen, if you have been taught
doctrines conflicting with the great landmarks of the Declaration of Independence ...
let me entreat you to come back. ... Come back to the truths
that are in the Declaration of Independence."


~Abraham Lincoln

The DOI is far, far more than just a "letter", "statement of ideals", and "list of grievances".
This is yet again showing the heavy hand of public leftist education, underlain by an idiotic yet  common idea oft referenced by the left.  They repeatedly say something like "if we had any real rights (such as to life), then no one would be able to take those rights, or take a life (kill another)."

No, those "rights" DO NOT equate to actual, real outcome!

NO, if the DOI were like the Constitution (which it is), a legal document, then we would NOT "have had an end to slavery, and equal rights" etc etc!

I'm sorry but this is just insipid, and failing to understand a major, fundamental philosophy of this country. 

The FACT of the Matter is the Constitution, like the DOI already recognized those freedoms, and rights. 

The only reason we did not have emancipation or equal rights DICTATED  with the ratification of the Constitution (or signing of the DOI), is that this nation's Founders had the infinite wisdom to recognize that if they created a federal government with the authority to dictate emancipation, and declare equal rights,.........

.... then they would have created, at that moment, the very same dictatorial government capable of social engineering and totalitarian dictate that they fought to free themselves from under feudal British government!  Our federal government does not have this authority, for good and profound reason.

It's a shame that too few people recognize this.

The point is neither the DOI nor the Constitution have "legal weight".  They are both "organic" law, being the philosophy of this country, and having zero ability to be directly applied as statutorial law.


Wrong again Trip.

The Constitution establishes through consent of the governed, certain laws. As well as the legal authority of both the State and the Federal Governments.

The DOI does not.

Two really good links for learning about YOUR Constitution ladies and gentlemen.

https://kirbycenter.hillsdale.edu/sslpage.aspx?pid=556

http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2005&month=08
One of every five Americans you meet has a mental illness of some sort. Many, many, of our veteran's suffer from mental illness like PTSD now also. Help if ya can. :) http://www.projectsemicolon.org/share-your-story.html
And no you won't find my "story" there. They don't allow science fiction. :)

Offline kramarat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5192
  • Gender: Male
Re: A Right To Secede?
« Reply #25 on: August 04, 2013, 11:17:07 AM »
Um Stonewall, how did you come to that conclusion?

Wrong again Trip.

The Constitution establishes through consent of the governed, certain laws. As well as the legal authority of both the State and the Federal Governments.

The DOI does not.

Two really good links for learning about YOUR Constitution ladies and gentlemen.

https://kirbycenter.hillsdale.edu/sslpage.aspx?pid=556

http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2005&month=08

Good links. I love constitutional debate. I will read and digest both of them.
Carry on gentlemen.

Trip

  • Guest
Re: A Right To Secede?
« Reply #26 on: August 04, 2013, 11:56:03 AM »

Wrong again Trip.

The Constitution establishes through consent of the governed, certain laws. As well as the legal authority of both the State and the Federal Governments.

The DOI does not.

Uh, no, the Constitution quite certainly does NOT establish certain laws, and the laws themselves have nothing directly to do with "the consent of the governed"!

The Constitution ITSELF is established through that "consent of the governed," and not by any sort of direct populist consent, but through the representative consent. 

There has never been a legislature, law, or person cited for violating  a specific Article, Amendment, or Clause,  but rather the laws, actions, and conflicts are adjudged relative to the Constitution itself, at least prior to the corruption of legal precedent.   

Both the Constitution AND the DOI are the same in not having any direct expression in statutory law!



Two really good links for learning about YOUR Constitution ladies and gentlemen.

https://kirbycenter.hillsdale.edu/sslpage.aspx?pid=556

http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2005&month=08

One cannot legitimately throw out generalized references, such as to Hillsdale.edu, and imply that these somehow support their own argument to the Constitution, ignoring the fact that they are general references, and specifically do not support any such argument.    You may as well have referenced Dr Seuss, or the cumulative works of Dostoevsky and Mann for all the relevance to this specific discussion.

Beyond that, the generality of these Hillsdale references, while overall true, have some particularly troublesome references, such as the following:

  • In popular use, “state’s rights” has had a checkered history. Before the Civil War, it was the rallying cry of southern opponents of proposals to abolish or restrict slavery. By the 20th century, it had become the watchword of many of those who supported segregation in the public schools, as well as those who criticized generally the growing power of the central government.

What is troublesome are these obviously prejudicial reference(s) to history without any qualification.    For instance "segregation" is referenced, but only in context of the 10th Amendment "states rights", while conspicuously ignoring the fact the federal government has no authority whatsoever to compel integration, particular not on sovereign state soil, most particularly not involving private individuals and/or private institutions,  and not even the 14th nor 15th Amendments grant any such authority. 

NOTHING anywhere in the entire U.S. Constitution grants the federal government such authority on State soil, and in fact the prohibition of that authority is a major purpose of that Constitution!

The author, Justice Stephen  Markman,  is thereby making the same grossly prejudicial judgment and error regarding constitutionality, that he is ostensibly objecting to in that very same paragraph, which is extremely shameful!  This corrupt, prejudicial argument is fully shown by the reference to "those who supported segregation in public schools", a flaw of argumentation attempting to impugn by association.    This is obviously a prejudicial reference since people did not reject desegregation solely in support of segregation, which is on par with the claim that anti-abortionists want to deny women control of their own bodies, making them second-class citizens pregnant and in the kitchen.

Justice Markman is actually conflating Supreme Court decision and status guo, with real constitutional legitimacy, which is a common corruption that lawyers of all stripes introduce.  We are no longer a Constitutional Republic as a result of just such justices.

The point is there is no such "generally growing power of the federal government"; there is only the ever-expanding illegitimacy of the federal government and corruption of the Constitution,  ya know, "YOUR" Constitution ... which you are decidedly confused about.

« Last Edit: August 04, 2013, 12:22:07 PM by Trip »

Trip

  • Guest
Re: A Right To Secede?
« Reply #27 on: August 04, 2013, 12:02:32 PM »
Good links. I love constitutional debate. I will read and digest both of them.
Carry on gentlemen.

Glad to hear that you enjoy constitutional debate; undeniably I do too. People need to hear these sorts of discussions in order to grow in understanding.

(In fact there are a number of issues I have been wanting to bring to Mark Levin on-air - but have held off doing so due to "timing", with "Fifty Flavors" being one of those issues; I don't think Levin would have eagerly embraced that issue in the midst of the election process.)


Offline AndyJackson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5776
Re: A Right To Secede?
« Reply #28 on: August 05, 2013, 10:08:58 AM »
So now you're ready to tell Levin how much you know and he doesn't........that's a winner........

....can somebody dig around to see if trip and shenny are the same person  ?

Trip

  • Guest
Re: A Right To Secede?
« Reply #29 on: August 05, 2013, 03:56:51 PM »
So now you're ready to tell Levin how much you know and he doesn't........that's a winner........

....can somebody dig around to see if trip and shenny are the same person  ?

The problem with Levin is he's a lawyer, and often time lawyers, even my own father, misconstrue supreme Court precedent with actually being a representation of constitutional intent and content, which most assuredly is not the case. And even Levin will admit that himself, or are you utterly unfamiliar with his book, "Men in Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America"? 

But the fact is I did not anywhere indicate that I was going to "tell Levin" anything.  My intention was to bring up issues with Levin for discussion.

One such issue is one you clearly do not understand, and that is the fact that 10th Amendment "states rights", more accurately "state powers",  does not involve the power to undermine or deny individual freedoms.   I suspect Levin agrees with this given his own rejection of RomneyCare indicated repeatedly on his show, as well as the repeated indication that Romney was the wrong candidate at the wrong time. 

The only reason I deliberately chose not to bring that issue up by calling into Levin before the election, is that I pretty much agreed with the Levin that Romney, for worse or fpr worse, was "our guy", and better than restoring Obama to office.   Bringing up the issue of Romney's corruption of the 10th Amendment, at that time, would  only serve to undermine Romney. However now that the election is a done deal, the issue of Romney's gross corruption of "states rights" as "Fifty Flavors of Democracy" in those Republican Primary debates, is pretty much fair game -- and Levin is more apt to respond to it entirely from a constitutional perspective, rather than any sort of political perspective.

Another issue I'd like to bring up, and one which I only heard him vaguely address once, with a caller, is the fact that the individual mandate of O-care is actually a constitutionally prohibited Bill of Attainder,  but I'm quite certain you don't have a ****ing clue what that is, and wouldn't know a bill of attainder if it bit you on the ass, so I won't address that consideration here, at this time.

I think someone should "dig around" in your cranium and see if you have any firing neurons, because less neurons is more moron.



« Last Edit: August 05, 2013, 04:03:55 PM by Trip »

 

Powered by EzPortal