Started by Shooterman, February 11, 2012, 03:58:55 AM
QuoteSame 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.
Quote from: mdgiles on July 02, 2012, 05:03:29 AM 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.
QuoteAs 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.
QuoteIMHO, 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.
Quote from: tbone0106 on July 02, 2012, 05:03:58 AMHere'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
Quote from: Solar on July 02, 2012, 05:29:46 AMOnce 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.
Quote from: tbone0106 on July 02, 2012, 05:47:03 AMWell, 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.
Quote from: tbone0106 on July 02, 2012, 02:04:46 AMThere 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. Oh, and the Articles of Confederation were officially supplanted by the Constitution on March 4, 1789, and didn't much matter in 1861.
Quote from: tbone0106 on July 02, 2012, 06:14:57 AMSorry, I meant the post before. The above was my first sidelines post.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 02, 2012, 01:26:49 AM1. The AoC decrees that the United States shall be perpetual.
Quote from: Solar on July 02, 2012, 04:40:15 AMDo you believe this happy horse shit?
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 02, 2012, 07:13:10 AMAt 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?
QuoteSo you oppose universal women suffrage?What about men who neither own property, nor pay taxes, nor are veterans? Should they vote?
QuoteWhatever 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?