Quote of he Day

[Shooterman]

From The Patriots Post.

"In the next place, the state governments are, by the very theory of the constitution, essential constituent parts of the general government. They can exist without the latter, but the latter cannot exist without them." --Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833


Think on it; the states can exist without the general government, but the general government can not exist without the states.

The Sovereign States created the general government. The created can and should never be greater than the creator/s.

[wasp69]

From The Patriots Post.

"In the next place, the state governments are, by the very theory of the constitution, essential constituent parts of the general government. They can exist without the latter, but the latter cannot exist without them." --Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833


Think on it; the states can exist without the general government, but the general government can not exist without the states.

The Sovereign States created the general government. The created can and should never be greater than the creator/s.

That is all fine and good, but until you convince people that the 14th Amendment unnecessarily created and sustained an entity of "The United States" for legal power over the 9th and 10th Amendments, then it's just noise in the wind.

Not trying to pee on your fire, Shooter, just stating it like I see it.

[Shooterman]

That is all fine and good, but until you convince people that the 14th Amendment unnecessarily created and sustained an entity of "The United States" for legal power over the 9th and 10th Amendments, then it's just noise in the wind.

Not trying to pee on your fire, Shooter, just stating it like I see it.

Not trying to be argumentative here, Wasp, but as the states meeting in Convention created the general government through the ratification of the Constitution, and considering it happened considerably before the illegal ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, which BTW, was designed to make the freed Black citizens full citizens of the country, I am truly not sure exactly what you are getting at.

BTW, Wasp, simple disagreements are, of necessity, not peeing on each others fire.

[docstew]

The states were essential constituents of the Federal Gov't until the 17th amendment was ratified. Why 3/4 of the states at the time approved that POS knowing that their power would be reduced, I can't figure out.

[Eupher]

Not trying to be argumentative here, Wasp, but as the states meeting in Convention created the general government through the ratification of the Constitution, and considering it happened considerably before the illegal ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, which BTW, was designed to make the freed Black citizens full citizens of the country, I am truly not sure exactly what you are getting at.

BTW, Wasp, simple disagreements are, of necessity, not peeing on each others fire.

Interesting counterpoint here:

It was created primarily to ensure that the rights of former slaves (freed by the Thirteenth Amendment in 1865) would be protected throughout the nation. The need for the Amendment was great because up to this time, the provisions of the Bill of Rights were not enforceable against state governments. This was due to the case of Barron v. Baltimore (1835). In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the provisions of the Bill of Rights were only enforceable against the federal government (and not against state governments) due to the federal structure of the nation. Therefore, without a Constitutional Amendment justifying federal intervention in the affairs of the states, states hostile to the interests of the newly freed slaves might still legally discriminate against or persecute them.

While some of the Amendment's supporters felt that the Amendment would incorporate all of the provisions of the federal Bill of Rights to the states, this was not to be. In the Slaughterhouse Cases (1875), the view of these supporters was rejected and the U.S. Supreme Court held that the "privilege and immunities" clause did not automatically incorporate (apply) all of the provisions of the Bill of Rights to the states. Over time though, the Court began to use the "due process" clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to achieve the same end. The following is a list of all the provisions of the Bill of Rights which have thus far been incorporated by the U.S. Supreme Court to the states through the "due process" clause.
...

It is important to note, however, that not all provisions of the Bill of Rights have been incorporated to the states. In fact, in some cases, the U.S. Supreme Court has expressly refused to do so. For example, in Hurtado v. California (1884) the Court refused to incorporate the Fifth Amendment's grand jury requirement to the states.

Link

Progressivism - the scourge that it is - began along about the same time as the 14th Amendment was ratified and it's been a steady decline ever since.

[wasp69]

Not trying to be argumentative here, Wasp, but as the states meeting in Convention created the general government through the ratification of the Constitution, and considering it happened considerably before the illegal ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, which BTW, was designed to make the freed Black citizens full citizens of the country, I am truly not sure exactly what you are getting at.

BTW, Wasp, simple disagreements are, of necessity, not peeing on each others fire.

Shooter, I'm going to answer you, just going to have to do it tomorrow when I'm not on the ipad.

[BigTex]

Think on it; the states can exist without the general government, but the general government can not exist without the states.

They cannot

[Shooterman]

The states were essential constituents of the Federal Gov't until the 17th amendment was ratified. Why 3/4 of the states at the time approved that POS knowing that their power would be reduced, I can't figure out.

I must agree with you about the Seventeenth Amendment, but essential constituents of the Union? Based on what. The union was created by the states, not the other way.

[Shooterman]

They cannot

Why is that, Sir. That, of course, is in direct contradiction to why the union was first created by the states, and the opinion of Justice Story.

The states were sovereign, they met in convention to ratify the Constitution which was the compact that created the general government.

[BigTex]

Why is that, Sir. That, of course, is in direct contradiction to why the union was first created by the states, and the opinion of Justice Story.

The states were sovereign, they met in convention to ratify the Constitution which was the compact that created the general government.

It doesnt say "join for mutual benefit" or "join for prosperity", it says "join or DIE". They states had to join together because they could not stand alone.

[EagleKeeper]

I'm no constitutional scholar and I'm probably mentioning something that is painfully obvious. But this is the first thought that came to mind.

"provide for the common defense"

I'm not so sure that I, as a citizen of the sovereign state of Indiana, would have much heartburn if Canada chose to invade Chicago amphibiously. 

[thundley4]

I'm no constitutional scholar and I'm probably mentioning something that is painfully obvious. But this is the first thought that came to mind.

"provide for the common defense"

I'm not so sure that I, as a citizen of the sovereign state of Indiana, would have much heartburn if Canada chose to invade Chicago amphibiously. 

I live in Illinois, and I keep hoping that Chicago secedes from the state, but Canada invading them would be okay, too.

[NHSparky]

I must agree with you about the Seventeenth Amendment, but essential constituents of the Union? Based on what. The union was created by the states, not the other way.

Try again.  Look at the Articles of Confederation.  Had a weak central government continued, the states would likely have ceased to exist, one consuming the other, either peacefully, or by force.

[Shooterman]

It doesnt say "join for mutual benefit" or "join for prosperity", it says "join or DIE". They states had to join together because they could not stand alone.

Why is that? You do not know of course, as do I not know, what the outcome would have been if only the nine required states had ratified the compact. ( not joined ) There would have been two functioning groups of states united in America, nine in the new union, and four in the old? Would the nine have forced the four to join?

[Shooterman]

Try again.  Look at the Articles of Confederation.  Had a weak central government continued, the states would likely have ceased to exist, one consuming the other, either peacefully, or by force.

We can suppose, I guess, what we may think would have happened, but in the final analysis, there is no way to know.

I do know that three states reserved in their ratification papers, the right to disengage if the union failed to meet its obligations to the states. New York, Rhode Island, and Virginia.

[BigTex]

Why is that? You do not know of course, as do I not know, what the outcome would have been if only the nine required states had ratified the compact. ( not joined ) There would have been two functioning groups of states united in America, nine in the new union, and four in the old? Would the nine have forced the four to join?

So you admit your claim that "the states can exist without the general government" is just your fantasy and you have no knowledge to whether is it true or not.

[NHSparky]

We can suppose, I guess, what we may think would have happened, but in the final analysis, there is no way to know.

I do know that three states reserved in their ratification papers, the right to disengage if the union failed to meet its obligations to the states. New York, Rhode Island, and Virginia.

Whaddya mean, "what we may think"?  The states WERE falling apart under the Articles of Confederation, hence the FF saw the need for the Constitutional Convention.

[Shooterman]

Whaddya mean, "what we may think"?  The states WERE falling apart under the Articles of Confederation, hence the FF saw the need for the Constitutional Convention.

Some of the FFs thought so. The convention was called ostensibly called for to strengthen the Confederation. Hamilton and some of the other Federalist instead pushed for the new compact.

[NHSparky]

Some of the FFs thought so. The convention was called ostensibly called for to strengthen the Confederation. Hamilton and some of the other Federalist instead pushed for the new compact.

Thanks for admitting what most of us already knew, and that the FF probably had a lot better clue as to what was working/what wasn't than someone in 2013 with a political axe to grind.

[wasp69]

Not trying to be argumentative here, Wasp, but as the states meeting in Convention created the general government through the ratification of the Constitution, and considering it happened considerably before the illegal ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, which BTW, was designed to make the freed Black citizens full citizens of the country, I am truly not sure exactly what you are getting at.

Sorry if I wasn't clear in my first response.  What I am saying is that until people are educated enough to understand where the federal government derives all of its current, unintended power, the issue of the Sovereign State and its place over the Federal Government will amount to nothing but wind.  I am well aware of the intent and history of the 14th Amendment, but I don't think enough people know what its impact has been.  It's a slow process, this originalist relearning, that's coming back to them after witnessing the naked abuse of power that the democrats are wielding over the governed without their consent.  I view this process as the same one being witnessed now with the pushback over the recent gun grab; the people (especially the women) are starting to really "get it" in regards to the original intention of the 2nd Amendment and what the Founding Fathers meant for it to be. 

While this shoring up of the most important Amendment is occurring, the language regarding the establishment of "the United States" as per the 14th needs to be honestly looked at and opened up for possible dissolution.  Voting and citizenship rights should be restored back to the various States, as was intended, instead of having whatever power grab initiated by the FedGov be legally legitimized by an (in my opinion) illegal Amendment.

Until this aspect of States Rights are addressed, the 9th and 10th will continue to remain shadows of what they were intended to be.

[Dori]

While this shoring up of the most important Amendment is occurring, the language regarding the establishment of "the United States" as per the 14th needs to be honestly looked at and opened up for possible dissolution.  Voting and citizenship rights should be restored back to the various States, as was intended, instead of having whatever power grab initiated by the FedGov be legally legitimized by an (in my opinion) illegal Amendment.

Until this aspect of States Rights are addressed, the 9th and 10th will continue to remain shadows of what they were intended to be.

"The States are separate and independent sovereigns.
 Sometimes they need to act like it."

- Chief Justice Roberts, U.S. Supreme Court

[Shooterman]

Sorry if I wasn't clear in my first response.  What I am saying is that until people are educated enough to understand where the federal government derives all of its current, unintended power, the issue of the Sovereign State and its place over the Federal Government will amount to nothing but wind.  I am well aware of the intent and history of the 14th Amendment, but I don't think enough people know what its impact has been.  It's a slow process, this originalist relearning, that's coming back to them after witnessing the naked abuse of power that the democrats are wielding over the governed without their consent.  I view this process as the same one being witnessed now with the pushback over the recent gun grab; the people (especially the women) are starting to really "get it" in regards to the original intention of the 2nd Amendment and what the Founding Fathers meant for it to be. 

While this shoring up of the most important Amendment is occurring, the language regarding the establishment of "the United States" as per the 14th needs to be honestly looked at and opened up for possible dissolution.  Voting and citizenship rights should be restored back to the various States, as was intended, instead of having whatever power grab initiated by the FedGov be legally legitimized by an (in my opinion) illegal Amendment.

Until this aspect of States Rights are addressed, the 9th and 10th will continue to remain shadows of what they were intended to be.

First chance I have had to get back to you, Sir.

I must say, after you cleared up what you were thinking, there is little to nothing I can not agree with you on your perception. The Fourteenth Amendment was, from all evidence I have seen, illegally ratified, as was the Sixteenth Amendment as well, but that is a different point and thread. Have a good evening, Sir.

[wasp69]

Have a good evening, Sir.

You, too, sir.

[Eupher]

It's not the first time we've had a discussion about various amendments, Federalist Papers, Articles of Confederation, and similar items. I never fail to learn something.

h5 to both you gents.