Runboard.com
Слава Україні!

runboard.com       Sign up (learn about it) | Sign in (lost password?)

Page:  1  2  3  4  5 

 
Geezess Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 3067
Karma: 12 (+17/-5)
Reply | Quote
Re: The only "Sane" Response heard


"I consider the Southern States as to having been wrong in the demand to secede, I however also fault Lincoln and the Northern states/Congress for applying said pressures to force this hand."

Specifically how ?
The South seceded because they, the no compromise grits, were afraid of what MIGHT happen.

... just the tiki torch boys are afraid they will be replaced by Woody Allen, right ?
8/23/2017, 2:53 pm Link to this post PM Geezess Blog
 
Rigby5 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 04-2005
Location: Mountain Time
Posts: 6799
Karma: -5 (+26/-31)
Reply | Quote
Re: The only "Sane" Response heard


quote:

Bellelettres wrote:

Cooter, did you read the article at the link you gave us? Here is a paragraph from that article:

The Constitution does not directly mention secession.[55] The legality of secession was hotly debated in the 19th century, with Southerners often claiming and Northerners generally denying that states have a legal right to unilaterally secede.[56] The Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Constitution to be an "indestructible" union.[55] There is no legal basis a state can point to for unilaterally seceding.[57] Many scholars hold that the Confederate secession was blatantly illegal. The Articles of Confederation explicitly state the Union is "perpetual"; the U.S. Constitution declares itself an even "more perfect union" than the Articles of Confederation.[58] Other scholars, while not necessarily disagreeing that the secession was illegal, point out that sovereignty is often de facto an "extralegal" question. Had the Confederacy won, any illegality of its actions under U.S. law would have been rendered irrelevant, just as the undisputed illegality of American rebellion under the British law of 1775 was rendered irrelevant. Thus, these scholars argue, the illegality of unilateral secession was not firmly de facto established until the Union won the Civil War; in this view, the legal question was resolved at Appomattox.[56][59]

http://tinyurl.com/nmf4lxs

Here's a description of a Supreme Court case declaring unilateral secession unconstitutional.

The [Supreme] court ruled [in Texas v. White in 1869] … that the Constitution did not permit states to unilaterally secede from the United States, and that the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the legislatures within seceding states intended to give effect to such ordinances, were "absolutely null".[2]

http://tinyurl.com/lbpymdt

You are aware, are you not, that the Supreme Court has the last word on what is constitutional and what is not. Unless the Supreme Court has rescinded that decision, in a later case, unilateral secession is still unconstitutional.




That can't be right.

First of all, while we agree to follow the SCOTUS rulings, we know they are often wrong. That is easy to prove, just by bringing up the Dred Scott Decision.

Second is that the ONLY source of any legal authority at all in a democratic republic is the inherent rights of individuals, so the closer you are to the people, the more perfectly you represent their rights. So local government always has more legitimacy and authority than more distant federal government.

Third is that states always existed while even under British rule, so they are pre-eminent. They created the federal government and specifically limited it to only act as their agent in things they could not do well individually, such as regulating interstate trade or making group treaties with another nation. So questions like the condition of individual rights is just totally out of the jurisdiction of any federal government in this country. The 9th amendment says the federal government only has the authority explicitly stated in the constitution, and nothing about individual rights is stated in the constitution, only federal limits.

The constitution is a contract of sorts, and clearly when one party violates the contract, the other does not need permission to then consider the whole contract null and void. In fact, that is the whole point of having a contract in the first place. The fact the federal government has all the troops and firepower does not make it right or legal. In fact, almost everything the federal government does these days is illegal. For example, how can the federal government force individual businessman to lose money by enforcing economic sanctions over political beliefs, such as Iranian nuclear programs of Crimea sovereignty? The constitution clearly says the federal government can not enforce political beliefs and can not cause economic loss without compensation. The federal government is way out of line and deep in criminal activity.
8/23/2017, 5:07 pm Link to this post PM Rigby5
 
cooter50 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 4312
Karma: 2 (+15/-13)
Reply | Quote
Re: The only "Sane" Response heard


quote:

Geezess wrote:

"I consider the Southern States as to having been wrong in the demand to secede, I however also fault Lincoln and the Northern states/Congress for applying said pressures to force this hand."

Specifically how ?
The South seceded because they, the no compromise grits, were afraid of what MIGHT happen.

... just the tiki torch boys are afraid they will be replaced by Woody Allen, right ?



So over thirty years of politically motivated economic pressure has no bearing? The tariff and tax figures are well noted in historic records from 1820 up.
8/23/2017, 5:14 pm Link to this post PM cooter50 Blog
 
Bellelettres Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 11-2008
Posts: 2049
Karma: 11 (+22/-11)
Reply | Quote
Re: The only "Sane" Response heard


The Dred Scott decision affirmed the right of slave-owners to take their slaves into the western territories. When slavery was abolished, that decision no longer meant anything.

A case that was decided one way by the Supreme Court and later overturned was Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896, the separate but equal decision saying it was constitutional to segregate the public schools. This was overturned by Brown v. Board of Education in 1954.

When a state ratified the Constitution, it agreed to abide by its final authority. That's what ratifying the Constitution meant. The 10th amendment gives power to the states to make laws not specified in the Constitution. Here's the text:

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.
8/23/2017, 5:20 pm Link to this post PM Bellelettres
 
cooter50 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 4312
Karma: 2 (+15/-13)
Reply | Quote
Re: The only "Sane" Response heard


And yet segregation continues today as those that can do move away from those locations requiring busing or forced integration. The schools should have the same texts, the same base design of programmatic learning, the same teaching processes and the same evaluations levels to determine IF the students are learning adequately and if the faculty is administering the process functionally. They DO NOT address this by desegregation techniques.

I worked among, alongside and in the communities of color or other ethnicity, I have no issue with interracial marriage nor integrated schools and communities. I Have a MAJOR problem with being force fed all the political Feel Good legislation trying to cover a bad example of technique.
8/23/2017, 5:29 pm Link to this post PM cooter50 Blog
 
Geezess Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 3067
Karma: 12 (+17/-5)
Reply | Quote
Re: The only "Sane" Response heard


quote:

cooter50 wrote:

quote:

Geezess wrote:

"I consider the Southern States as to having been wrong in the demand to secede, I however also fault Lincoln and the Northern states/Congress for applying said pressures to force this hand."

Specifically how ?
The South seceded because they, the no compromise grits, were afraid of what MIGHT happen.

... just the tiki torch boys are afraid they will be replaced by Woody Allen, right ?



So over thirty years of politically motivated economic pressure has no bearing? The tariff and tax figures are well noted in historic records from 1820 up.



So again, as that is your contention, which we did understand, anyway, no matter how inconvenient it may be for you, instead of ignoring that we might not be as ignorant as you think we must be because we disagree with you, we actually do understand your contentions.

So please be specific about how in a democratic republic, where they held equal sway in one house of Congress for 30 years, that they still not could fix those issues like Southern gentleman should be expected to do, in your own 30 year time frame ?

... well beyond, like today, being so idealogical that no those old no compromise sorts couldn't get anything done, being focused on the wrong issues like expanding slavery into the new territories where it was not wanted by the majority of those living there, already.

State's Right hypocrisy ?


Last edited by Geezess, 8/23/2017, 5:50 pm
8/23/2017, 5:35 pm Link to this post PM Geezess Blog
 
John1959 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 1536
Karma: 13 (+17/-4)
Reply | Quote
Re: The only "Sane" Response heard


quote:

cooter50 wrote:
So over thirty years of politically motivated economic pressure has no bearing? The tariff and tax figures are well noted in historic records from 1820 up.



If the real complaint in the South was about tariff and taxes, then why didn't they simply say that when seceding?

If we search all of the states declarations of secession, the word "tariff" isn't used even once.

The only mention of taxes comes from South Carolina here;

These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.

And they are not complaining of taxes there.


You would think they would at least mention these things if it had something to do with their reasons for seceding.

---
“I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses.” - NRA president Karl T. Frederick, 1938
8/23/2017, 5:54 pm Link to this post PM John1959 Blog
 
Rigby5 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 04-2005
Location: Mountain Time
Posts: 6799
Karma: -5 (+26/-31)
Reply | Quote
Re: The only "Sane" Response heard


quote:

Bellelettres wrote:

The Dred Scott decision affirmed the right of slave-owners to take their slaves into the western territories. When slavery was abolished, that decision no longer meant anything.

A case that was decided one way by the Supreme Court and later overturned was Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896, the separate but equal decision saying it was constitutional to segregate the public schools. This was overturned by Brown v. Board of Education in 1954.

When a state ratified the Constitution, it agreed to abide by its final authority. That's what ratifying the Constitution meant. The 10th amendment gives power to the states to make laws not specified in the Constitution. Here's the text:

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.




The fact the Dred Scott Decision is no longer meaningful does not change the fact it was wrong.
Its a little more complex then just retaining of slaves while in a free state.

{...
Dred Scott was born a slave in Virginia in 1795. Little is known of his early years.[11] His owner, Peter Blow, moved to Alabama in 1818, taking his six slaves along to work a farm near Huntsville. In 1830, Blow gave up farming and settled in St. Louis, Missouri, where he sold Scott to U.S. Army surgeon Dr. John Emerson.[12] After purchasing Scott, Emerson took him to Fort Armstrong in Illinois. A free state, Illinois had been free as a territory under the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, and had prohibited slavery in its constitution in 1819 when it was admitted as a state.

In 1836, Emerson moved with Scott from Illinois to Fort Snelling in the Wisconsin territory in what has become the state of Minnesota. Slavery in the Wisconsin Territory (some of which, including Fort Snelling, was part of the Louisiana Purchase) was prohibited by the United States Congress under the Missouri Compromise. During his stay at Fort Snelling, Scott married Harriet Robinson in a civil ceremony by Harriet's owner, Major Lawrence Taliaferro, a justice of the peace who was also an Indian agent. The ceremony would have been unnecessary had Dred Scott been a slave, as slave marriages had no recognition in the law.[5][12]

In 1837, the army ordered Emerson to Jefferson Barracks Military Post, south of St. Louis, Missouri. Emerson left Scott and his wife at Fort Snelling, where he leased their services out for profit. By hiring Scott out in a free state, Emerson was effectively bringing the institution of slavery into a free state, which was a direct violation of the Missouri Compromise, the Northwest Ordinance, and the Wisconsin Enabling Act.[5]

Before the end of the year, the army reassigned Emerson to Fort Jesup in Louisiana, where Emerson married Eliza Irene Sanford in February, 1838. Emerson sent for Scott and Harriet, who proceeded to Louisiana to serve their master and his wife. While en route to Louisiana, Scott's daughter Eliza was born on a steamboat underway on the Mississippi River between Illinois and what would become Iowa. Because Eliza was born in free territory, she was technically born as a free person under both federal and state laws. Upon entering Louisiana, the Scotts could have sued for their freedom, but did not. Finkelman suggests that in all likelihood, the Scotts would have been granted their freedom by a Louisiana court, as it had respected laws of free states that slaveholders forfeited their right to slaves if they brought them in for extended periods. This had been the holding in Louisiana state courts for more than 20 years.[5]

Toward the end of 1838, the army reassigned Emerson to Fort Snelling. By 1840, Emerson's wife Irene returned to St. Louis with their slaves, while Dr. Emerson served in the Seminole War. While in St. Louis, she hired them out. In 1842, Emerson left the army. After he died in the Iowa Territory in 1843, his widow Irene inherited his estate, including the Scotts. For three years after John Emerson's death, she continued to lease out the Scotts as hired slaves. In 1846, Scott attempted to purchase his and his family's freedom, but Irene Emerson refused, prompting Scott to resort to legal recourse.[13]
...}

When states ratified the Constitution, they agreed to abide by the Constitution, NOT the actions of the federal government that strongly contradict the Constitution. For example, the war on drugs, the invasion of Iraq, etc. Those criminal acts by the federal government totally invalidate its existence. The only reason to consider otherwise is pure speculation that the alternative may be even worse? The federal government certainly no longer has any legitimacy.

The whole point of the contrast between the 9th and 10th amendment is that the feds are strictly limited to what is explicitly authorized and the states get everything else.
So something like drug laws are totally and completely only state jurisdiction.
Any federal drug law is totally and completely illegal.
8/23/2017, 6:20 pm Link to this post PM Rigby5
 
Bellelettres Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 11-2008
Posts: 2049
Karma: 11 (+22/-11)
Reply | Quote
Re: The only "Sane" Response heard


I would never argue that a Supreme Court decision is never "wrong." Bush v. Gore was wrong. But a Supreme Court decision is the law of the land until it is changed by another Supreme Court decision.

When a state ratified the Constitution, it gave up its sovereignty. It could not be at the same time a part of the United States and a separate nation. State law could at any time be superseded by federal law by a decision of the Supreme Court declaring that the state law was unconstitutional. That's how we got desegregation from Brown v. Board of Education. That decision obliterated state laws mandating segregation.

While segregation still exists de facto (because people move out of the district leaving only one race there), it is the law de jure. Whereas you may not see the difference, the people affected by the law do see it.
8/23/2017, 6:47 pm Link to this post PM Bellelettres
 
gopqed Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 1347
Karma: 10 (+13/-3)
Reply | Quote
Re: The only "Sane" Response heard


States do not give up their sovereignty.
8/23/2017, 7:34 pm Link to this post PM gopqed Blog
 


Add a reply

Page:  1  2  3  4  5 





You are not logged in (login)