Author Topic: Was The Union Perpetual?  (Read 16870 times)

Offline mdgiles

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9431
  • Gender: Male
Re: Was The Union Perpetual?
« Reply #30 on: July 02, 2012, 12:03:29 PM »
Quote
Same thing said about child labor laws and women's suffrage.  "Proven to work"?  There's one side that's proven itself throughout history, and it ain't yours.
Child labor ended due to the immigration into the United States, not to mention much of the sheer muscle power required in modern Industrial labor. Children simply weren't strong enough to move things around on an assembly line. As for women's suffrage, I've always been of two minds about that. Women who are property owners or who pay taxes or who are veterans should vote. Otherwise, no. IMHO, women tend to pick security all other things being equal - which makes them much of the driving force behind Socialism/Progressivism. I think the Nanny state appeals to women.
« Last Edit: July 02, 2012, 12:09:35 PM by mdgiles »
"LIBERALS: their willful ignorance is rivaled only by their catastrophic stupidity"!

tbone0106

  • Guest
Re: Was The Union Perpetual?
« Reply #31 on: July 02, 2012, 12:03:58 PM »
Here's where you both fall on your face.

This is what the Supremacy Clause -- actually Article VI, Clause 2 -- of the Constitution says:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

I highlighted the key words: "...under the authority of the United States..." because these words can only refer back to the remainder of the Constitution (there exists NO other authority), which, of course, never addresses secession, but DOES grant individual states the maximum possible latitude under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, as I posted earlier. Under the Constitution, it is no more lawful, again as I argued earlier, to bar a state from seceding than it is to simply dissolve a state by act of Congress.

Any constructionist view of the Constitution has to be based on the obvious fact that it was written BY THE STATES to grant VERY LIMITED power to the federal entity, which they were creating out of whole cloth. The powers granted, limited as they were, CAME FROM THE STATES in the first place. And any powers not SPECIFICALLY granted to the federal government by the Constitution -- including secession rights -- are automatically and expressly reserved to the states and to the people under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

/lesson  :tounge:

Offline Sci Fi Fan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1538
Re: Was The Union Perpetual?
« Reply #32 on: July 02, 2012, 12:27:03 PM »
Child labor ended due to the immigration into the United States, not to mention much of the sheer muscle power required in modern Industrial labor. Children simply weren't strong enough to move things around on an assembly line.

Whatever the reason behind the law becoming economically feasible, the fact remains that the evil progressives passed it.  It's yet another list of accomplishments under the banner of liberalism.  Who says it never works?

Quote
As for women's suffrage, I've always been of two minds about that. Women who are property owners or who pay taxes or who are veterans should vote. Otherwise, no.

 :huh:

Quote
IMHO, women tend to pick security all other things being equal - which makes them much of the driving force behind Socialism/Progressivism. I think the Nanny state appeals to women.

So you oppose universal women suffrage?

What about men who neither own property, nor pay taxes, nor are veterans?  Should they vote?

------------------------------

I would point out that the entire question of the legality of secession is rather silly in context, anyhow.  If you're going to secede from a government you don't like, why would you really give a damn if it's legal under said government's laws?

Online Solar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 67749
  • Gender: Male
Re: Was The Union Perpetual?
« Reply #33 on: July 02, 2012, 12:29:46 PM »
Here's where you both fall on your face.

This is what the Supremacy Clause -- actually Article VI, Clause 2 -- of the Constitution says:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

I highlighted the key words: "...under the authority of the United States..." because these words can only refer back to the remainder of the Constitution (there exists NO other authority), which, of course, never addresses secession, but DOES grant individual states the maximum possible latitude under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, as I posted earlier. Under the Constitution, it is no more lawful, again as I argued earlier, to bar a state from seceding than it is to simply dissolve a state by act of Congress.

Any constructionist view of the Constitution has to be based on the obvious fact that it was written BY THE STATES to grant VERY LIMITED power to the federal entity, which they were creating out of whole cloth. The powers granted, limited as they were, CAME FROM THE STATES in the first place. And any powers not SPECIFICALLY granted to the federal government by the Constitution -- including secession rights -- are automatically and expressly reserved to the states and to the people under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

/lesson  :tounge:
Once again, the point was his contradicting himself,
He claimed it was unconstitutional, then claimed it was Constitutional.
Please T, don't be as thick as he is.
#WWG1WGA

tbone0106

  • Guest
Re: Was The Union Perpetual?
« Reply #34 on: July 02, 2012, 12:47:03 PM »
Once again, the point was his contradicting himself,
He claimed it was unconstitutional, then claimed it was Constitutional.
Please T, don't be as thick as he is.
Well, sir, if you'll carefully read my previous post (scroll up three or four or five), I'm not claiming one way or the other for the right to secede. I'm just sorta sittin' on the sidelines watching you guys do the Rock'em-Sock'emTM thing and wondering when somebody will just read the Constitution. I agree that claiming it one way, then the other way scores you no points at all around here. But my only point is, all this Constitution arguing is moot, 'cause it ain't in there anywhere. And as for the Articles of Confederation, come on. They expired in 1789.

The real kernel of the argument is: what exactly is "federal authority?" What are the limits? Clearly, there are limits. The Constitution, and especially the Bill of Rights, were written for the express purpose of creating a very finely limited federal entity. To argue that the federal government can forbid a state from seceding is to leap across a VERY wide chasm without a bridge, a lifeline, or a parachute. There's nothing there at all. The fundamental principle of the document, and the thought behind it, is limitation. The entire thing, front to back, every single word, including the amendments, is designed to LIMIT the federal government, and at the same time retain the maximum latitude and freedom for the states and the people. This is the very genius of the document. This is the magnificent legacy of the founding fathers. This is the one and only seed of American greatness and uniqueness and -- yes -- exceptionalism.

I'm not trying to be thick. (I don't normally have to TRY.  :tounge:) Just pointing out some things that might clarify the argument.

Online Solar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 67749
  • Gender: Male
Re: Was The Union Perpetual?
« Reply #35 on: July 02, 2012, 01:07:20 PM »
Well, sir, if you'll carefully read my previous post (scroll up three or four or five), I'm not claiming one way or the other for the right to secede.
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
So now your claim that it was unconstitutional, really wasn't what you claimed after all?
You really are a piece of work, you know that?
#WWG1WGA

tbone0106

  • Guest
Re: Was The Union Perpetual?
« Reply #36 on: July 02, 2012, 01:14:57 PM »
There is a school of thought on this subject that holds that North and South Carolina, Virginia, and Georgia had the right to secede because it was more or less a given at the time of federation that if things didn't work out, it was goodbye. The same wouldn't necessarily apply to the remainder of the Confederate states, since they came along after the nation had been formed.

In any case, the Constitution and Bill of Rights are not, and were never meant to be, a complete digest of the rights of the several states. You have to remember that when they were written, and until they were ratified, the several states had ALL the rights and the federal government was just an idea. In any case, any rights to secession -- and I'm not arguing that they exist, or that they don't -- would be nicely covered by the Ninth and/or Tenth Amendments. The Constitution and Bill of Rights were specifically and expressly written to put some pretty tight shackles on the new federal government, while reserving to the states the maximum freedom to govern themselves.

Also the Supremacy Clause is, I think, pretty limited to matters elsewhere specifically covered in the Constitution, such as laws governing interstate commerce, for example. To say that Congress can prohibit a state from seceding, and that's that, is a bit of a stretch. If Congress can do that, then it can also just pass a law disbanding the State of Arizona, something I think Dear Leader wouldn't mind doing right about now.  :tounge:

Oh, and the Articles of Confederation were officially supplanted by the Constitution on March 4, 1789, and didn't much matter in 1861.

Sorry, I meant the post before. The above was my first sidelines post.  :tounge: :tounge:

Online Solar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 67749
  • Gender: Male
Re: Was The Union Perpetual?
« Reply #37 on: July 02, 2012, 01:54:37 PM »
Sorry, I meant the post before. The above was my first sidelines post.  :tounge: :tounge:
OOPS! I thought I was responding to Scifi post.
I only read the first line, since most of his stuff is self congratulatory.

But the point that seems to evade you is, he claimed it was Unconstitutional, then claimed it was, when called on this little point, he goes in circles trying to prove both were correct.

But the truth is, if one State reserves the Right of secession, or two, as in the case of Virginia and New York, where they claimed the right to withdraw from the union explicit in their acceptance of the Constitution.
Where such an agreement between parties as is represented by the Constitution, a right claimed by one is allowed to all.
So yes, secession is legal.
Consider that the Federal Govt is a servant to the Sovereign States, not the other way around.

So it appears were on the same page after all. :biggrin:
« Last Edit: July 02, 2012, 01:59:06 PM by Solar »
#WWG1WGA

Offline Sci Fi Fan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1538
Re: Was The Union Perpetual?
« Reply #38 on: July 02, 2012, 02:13:10 PM »
At no point did I ever claim secession was constitutional.  Your willful evasion of requests for evidence of me ever doing this leaves me to seriously question your own honesty, and exactly who you are trying to fool here.

So exactly how could a national government possibly survive, with the precedent that any state can secede or threaten secession whenever it doesn't get its way...like, for example, when a candidate it doesn't like wins a lawful election, or when it fears that the evil union will take away its slaves?

Offline Shooterman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2813
  • Gender: Male
  • Draft Jan Morgan for President
Re: Was The Union Perpetual?
« Reply #39 on: July 02, 2012, 02:43:38 PM »
1. The AoC decrees that the United States shall be perpetual. 

I had no idea we still was subject to the AoC. Live and learn.

BTW, that perpetual union, wasn't. The states seceded from it to form the current union.
There's no ticks like Polyticks-bloodsuckers all Davy Crockett 1786-1836

Yankees are like castor oil. Even a small dose is bad.
[IMG]

Offline Shooterman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2813
  • Gender: Male
  • Draft Jan Morgan for President
Re: Was The Union Perpetual?
« Reply #40 on: July 02, 2012, 02:46:59 PM »
Do you believe this happy horse shit? :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Well, Solar, once this goes to the SCOTUS, and Mr Roberts decides whether it is horse shit, and/or whether it is happy or not, then I will be obligated to give my answer. :lol:
There's no ticks like Polyticks-bloodsuckers all Davy Crockett 1786-1836

Yankees are like castor oil. Even a small dose is bad.
[IMG]

Online Solar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 67749
  • Gender: Male
Re: Was The Union Perpetual?
« Reply #41 on: July 02, 2012, 02:48:38 PM »
At no point did I ever claim secession was constitutional.  Your willful evasion of requests for evidence of me ever doing this leaves me to seriously question your own honesty, and exactly who you are trying to fool here.

So exactly how could a national government possibly survive, with the precedent that any state can secede or threaten secession whenever it doesn't get its way...like, for example, when a candidate it doesn't like wins a lawful election, or when it fears that the evil union will take away its slaves?
Read my above post.
Your need to make the Federal Govt the King with the final say, slaps in the face of what the Founders had in mind, they saw the Govt as the servant of the people, not the other way around.
Remember, we retain the right to dismantle as a people, a corrupt Govt.

That hardly sounds like a Govt with the right to dictate to Sovereign States whether they can stay or not.
#WWG1WGA

Offline mdgiles

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9431
  • Gender: Male
Re: Was The Union Perpetual?
« Reply #42 on: July 02, 2012, 03:03:58 PM »
Quote
So you oppose universal women suffrage?

What about men who neither own property, nor pay taxes, nor are veterans?  Should they vote?
NO I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF UNIVERSAL  SUFFRAGE FOR MEN. That clear enough?
"LIBERALS: their willful ignorance is rivaled only by their catastrophic stupidity"!

tbone0106

  • Guest
Re: Was The Union Perpetual?
« Reply #43 on: July 03, 2012, 12:16:21 AM »
At no point did I ever claim secession was constitutional.  Your willful evasion of requests for evidence of me ever doing this leaves me to seriously question your own honesty, and exactly who you are trying to fool here.

So exactly how could a national government possibly survive, with the precedent that any state can secede or threaten secession whenever it doesn't get its way...like, for example, when a candidate it doesn't like wins a lawful election, or when it fears that the evil union will take away its slaves?
You're presupposing that the object of the game is to insure the survival of a national government. It is not, and never has been, except in the lib/prog mindset, where such notions fester. As Thomas Paine famously said, "Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one." THAT is the mindset of the founders.

Your examples intrigue me though. I would ask how could any legislature function when those members who disagree with the majority pack their toothbrushes and briefcases and leave Wisconsin to shack up in motel rooms in Illinois in order to deny the opposition a quorum? How is that different from secession, in your mind?

Offline mdgiles

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9431
  • Gender: Male
Re: Was The Union Perpetual?
« Reply #44 on: July 03, 2012, 08:13:34 AM »
Quote
Whatever the reason behind the law becoming economically feasible, the fact remains that the evil progressives passed it.  It's yet another list of accomplishments under the banner of liberalism.  Who says it never works?
Really? Where, when and why? Or is this just another example of you claiming any good law as the results of "progressives". BTW, explain what's wrong with child labor?
"LIBERALS: their willful ignorance is rivaled only by their catastrophic stupidity"!

 

Powered by EzPortal