Bill would require paid Confederate holiday in SC

[formerlurker]

Who the **** cares? It was ruled on 4 years after the end of the war between the states. Do you normally use current rulings to decide past cases? 

Ah, so it was posted.    The ruling provides you with an "educated" statement for the reasons why it is illegal.   

[Chris_]

If that's your argument, you know dick about the US Constitution. There's nothing that says it ISN'T legal and since the US Constitution is a limitation placed on the federal government, the 10th Amendment gives us that right. There's nothing in the USC that says we can hunt, walk, breath either. Does it mean we can't? THE USC wasn't created to identify things we, as citizens, COULD do, DJ.

Wrong you are, land-o-cotton breath!

The USC specifically spells out how to change the makeup of the Union -- a Constitutional Convention would have to be convened.  Old TJ always was a populist.

[formerlurker]

I do note that you have asked that question several times today.

It has never been answered.

It was answered -- those border states did not join the confederacy.   

[Rebel]

Again, that ruling was a few years after the civil war and pertained to Texas. While it does have some loose affiliation with the issue at hand, it doesn't address the issue at hand. Namely, the legality of secession. ....and sorry, I am one that does NOT think the court system is infallible. Kelo vs. New London, Ct. should prove that.

As for secession, it would have to be specifically written into the Constitution if secession were illegal as that is the document that places limitations upon the federal government. The 10th Amendment that states all rights reserved to the states and people respectively give the states, comprised of their citizens, the right to form their own government should they find that their current government is working against their best interests.

[Rebel]

Wrong you are, land-o-cotton breath!

The USC specifically spells out how to change the makeup of the Union -- a Constitutional Convention would have to be convened.  Old TJ always was a populist.

They weren't trying to change the entire union. ...or are you of the opinion that states had no rights? Am I to believe you don't buy into that old "strong state governments, limited federal government" argument? You'd make Hamilton proud.

[formerlurker]

The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so, for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very liberty which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts…

The name of American, which belongs to you in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation derived from local discriminations…

But these considerations, however powerfully they address themselves to your sensibility, are greatly outweighed by those which apply more immediately to your interest. Here every portion of our country finds the most commanding motives for carefully guarding and preserving the union of the whole.

…

With such powerful and obvious motives to union, affecting all parts of our country, while experience shall not have demonstrated its impracticability, there will always be reason to distrust the patriotism of those who in any quarter may endeavor to weaken its bands.

…

In contemplating the causes which may disturb our Union, it occurs as matter of serious concern that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by geographical discriminations, Northern and Southern, Atlantic and Western; whence designing men may endeavor to excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and views. One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heartburnings which spring from these misrepresentations; they tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection.

…

To the efficacy and permanency of your Union, a government for the whole is indispensable. No alliance, however strict, between the parts can be an adequate substitute; they must inevitably experience the infractions and interruptions which all alliances in all times have experienced. Sensible of this momentous truth, you have improved upon your first essay, by the adoption of a constitution of government better calculated than your former for an intimate union, and for the efficacious management of your common concerns. This government, the offspring of our own choice, uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true liberty. The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp

[formerlurker]

The ordinance is founded, not on the indefeasible right of resisting acts which are plainly unconstitutional, and too oppressive to be endured, but on the strange position that any one State may not only declare an act of Congress void, but prohibit its execution- that they may do this consistently with the Constitution-that the true construction of that instrument permits a State to retain its place in the Union, and yet be bound by no other of its laws than those it may choose to consider as constitutional. It is true they add, that to justify this abrogation of a law, it must be palpably contrary to the Constitution, but it is evident, that to give the right of resisting laws of that description, coupled with the uncontrolled right to decide what laws deserve that character, is to give the power of resisting all laws. For, as by the theory, there is no appeal, the reasons alleged by the State, good or bad, must prevail. If it should be said that public opinion is a sufficient check against the abuse of this power, it may be asked why it is not deemed a sufficient guard against the passage of an unconstitutional act by Congress. There is, however, a restraint in this last case, which makes the assumed power of a State more indefensible, and which does not exist in the other. There are two appeals from an unconstitutional act passed by Congress-one to the judiciary, the other to the people and the States. There is no appeal from the State decision in theory; and the practical illustration shows that the courts are closed against an application to review it, both judges and jurors being sworn to decide in its favor. But reasoning on this subject is superfluous, when our social compact in express terms declares, that the laws of the United States, its Constitution, and treaties made under it, are the supreme law of the land; and for greater caution adds, “that the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.” And it may be asserted, without fear of refutation, that no federative government could exist without a similar provision. Look, for a moment, to the consequence. If South Carolina considers the revenue laws unconstitutional, and has a right to prevent their execution in the port of Charleston, there would be a clear constitutional objection to their collection in every other port, and no revenue could be collected anywhere; for all imposts must be equal. It is no answer to repeat that an unconstitutional law is no law, so long as the question of its legality is to be decided by the State itself, for every law operating injuriously upon any local interest will be perhaps thought, and certainly represented, as unconstitutional, and, as has been shown, there is no appeal.

If this doctrine had been established at an earlier day, the Union would have been dissolved in its infancy. The excise law in Pennsylvania, the embargo and non-intercourse law in the Eastern States, the carriage tax in Virginia, were all deemed unconstitutional, and were more unequal in their operation than any of the laws now complained of; but, fortunately, none of those States discovered that they had the right now claimed by South Carolina. The war into which we were forced, to support the dignity of the nation and the rights of our citizens, might have ended in defeat and disgrace instead of victory and honor, if the States, who supposed it a ruinous and unconstitutional measure, had thought they possessed the right of nullifying the act by which it was declared, and denying supplies for its prosecution. Hardly and unequally as those measures bore upon several members of the Union, to the legislatures of none did this efficient and peaceable remedy, as it is called, suggest itself. The discovery of this important feature in our Constitution was reserved to the present day. To the statesmen of South Carolina belongs the invention, and upon the citizens of that State will, unfortunately, fall the evils of reducing it to practice.

If the doctrine of a State veto upon the laws of the Union carries with it internal evidence of its impracticable absurdity, our constitutional history will also afford abundant proof that it would have been repudiated with indignation had it been proposed to form a feature in our Government…

I consider, then, the power to annul a law of the United States, assumed by one State, incompatible with the existence of the Union, contradicted expressly by the letter of the Constitution, unauthorized by its spirit, inconsistent with every principle on which It was founded, and destructive of the great object for which it was formed.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/jack01.asp

[Chris_]

Wrong you are, land-o-cotton breath!

The USC specifically spells out how to change the makeup of the Union -- a Constitutional Convention would have to be convened.  Old TJ always was a populist.

Your read of the US Constitution and the 10th amendment is disturbing, sir.  The 10th is quite plain; the Federal government is restricted to the authorities specifically granted it within the text of the Constitution, while all rights, powers and authorities not specifically granted the Federal government by the Constitution, are reserved by the Constitution to the individual states or the individual people directly.  Not mostly reserved to the states, except for the right to leave the Union (and whatever other authority the Federal government would like to have).  Reserved, entirely, wholely and without exception, to the individual states.

If the whole of your argument is based upon the arguments of Texas v. White, while a ruling from SCOTUS is weighty, it is not absolute.  I would simply refer to the case of Plessy v. Ferguson, as one of MANY cases where the SCOTUS was wholely wrong, and overturned for being wrong later.

[Chris_]

They weren't trying to change the entire union. ...or are you of the opinion that states had no rights? Am I to believe you don't buy into that old "strong state governments, limited federal government" argument? You'd make Hamilton proud.

There is quite a continuum between Hamilton and Jefferson.  And your question is a non-sequitur.

If secession isn't changing the entire union, what is?  As I said, the USC had a provision for dissolution.  The fact the South chose not to take advantage of it is on itself.

So you can't keep repeating "10th Amendment" and "The USC is silent on secession thus it is OK" -- the facts say otherwise.

[formerlurker]

In the compound republic of America.....a double security arises as to the rights of the people.  The different governments, {state and federal], will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself."

- James Madison, The Federalist, No. 51

Translation -- the South needed approval of the Union to secede.  

[Chris_]

Your read of the US Constitution and the 10th amendment is disturbing, sir.  The 10th is quite plain; the Federal government is restricted to the authorities specifically granted it within the text of the Constitution, while all rights, powers and authorities not specifically granted the Federal government by the Constitution, are reserved by the Constitution to the individual states or the individual people directly.  Not mostly reserved to the states, except for the right to leave the Union (and whatever other authority the Federal government would like to have).  Reserved, entirely, wholely and without exception, to the individual states.

If the whole of your argument is based upon the arguments of Texas v. White, while a ruling from SCOTUS is weighty, it is not absolute.  I would simply refer to the case of Plessy v. Ferguson, as one of MANY cases where the SCOTUS was wholely wrong, and overturned for being wrong later.

But there IS a provision for dissolution of the Union.  My reading is spot on.  Yours is a misapplication of the 10th, since the USC is far from silent on the matter.

Other than that, it is a whole different deal: The WOD is 100% unconstitutional, as is NCLB, the NEA and about 90% of what constitutes the modern federal government.

And Texas v. White has never been overturned. Especially since it was correct.

[formerlurker]

Your read of the US Constitution and the 10th amendment is disturbing, sir.  The 10th is quite plain; the Federal government is restricted to the authorities specifically granted it within the text of the Constitution, while all rights, powers and authorities not specifically granted the Federal government by the Constitution, are reserved by the Constitution to the individual states or the individual people directly.  Not mostly reserved to the states, except for the right to leave the Union (and whatever other authority the Federal government would like to have).  Reserved, entirely, wholely and without exception, to the individual states.

If the whole of your argument is based upon the arguments of Texas v. White, while a ruling from SCOTUS is weighty, it is not absolute.  I would simply refer to the case of Plessy v. Ferguson, as one of MANY cases where the SCOTUS was wholely wrong, and overturned for being wrong later.

I don't think his argument is that it is illegal because SCOTUS declared it such.  It is the opinion of the Court which outlines in detail the reason why it is indeed illegal.

[Rebel]

A little-known fact of the Constitution is that two of the largest states -- Virginia and New York -- made the right to withdraw from the union explicit in their acceptance of the Constitution. And in such an agreement between parties as is represented by the Constitution, a right claimed by one is allowed to all.

The procedure of the articles of ratification of the Constitution in Virginia is described in depth, in original documents, in "The Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution," a wonderful work in progress from the State Historical Society of Wisconsin, volume X, p.1512 and after.

The Virginia convention ended its clause-by-clause consideration of the proposed Constitution on June 23, 1788, and the next day George Wythe proposed that the Committee of the Whole ratify the document. He also recommended amendments to be considered by the new Congress, in the manner prescribed by the Constitution.

This took the form of two resolutions, prefaced by a preamble expressing the belief that all powers not granted to the government by the Constitution were retained by the people and that the government could neither cancel, abridge, restrain, nor modify the people's rights except where the Constitution gave it such power.

Patrick Henry, who led the opposition to ratification, moved that it was premature to do so and he proposed a resolution "to refer a declaration of rights, with certain amendments to the most exceptionable parts of the Constitution, for the other states in the Confederacy, for their consideration, previous to ratification." Henry also presented at the same time a declaration of rights and structural amendments.

The next day (June 25) the convention sat as a Committee of the Whole. Both Wythe's proposal and Henry's were read again, and debated at length. Early in the afternoon, the matter came to a vote. The antifederalist proposal that a declaration of rights and amendments be submitted to the other states "previous to the ratification of the new Constitution" was voted down, 88 to 80. Then the delegates voted 89 to 79 to ratify the Constitution.

[The two-vote difference is because David Patteson of Chesterfield voted with the Antifederalists on amendments, but with the Federalists on ratification.]

The convention then appointed a committee of five to prepare the form of ratification. This "engrossed" ratification was read before the convention and accepted. On June 26, the engrossed Form of Ratification was read again, signed by President Edmund Pendleton, and transmitted to the Confederation Congress. The opening reads like this:

    We the Delegates of the People of Virginia duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly and now met in Convention having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us to decide thereon Do in the name and in behalf of the People of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will: that therefore no right of any denomination can be cancelled abridged restrained or modified by the Congress by the Senate or House of Representatives acting in any Capacity by the President or any Department or Officer of the United States except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes ...

http://etymonline.com/cw/secession2.htm

[Chris_]

I don't think his argument is that it is illegal because SCOTUS declared it such.  It is the opinion of the Court which outlines in detail the reason why it is indeed illegal.

Pretty much.  I could go back over that ground, but to what end?  Res ipsa loquater.

[formerlurker]

Again, that ruling was a few years after the civil war and pertained to Texas. While it does have some loose affiliation with the issue at hand, it doesn't address the issue at hand. Namely, the legality of secession. ....and sorry, I am one that does NOT think the court system is infallible. Kelo vs. New London, Ct. should prove that.

As for secession, it would have to be specifically written into the Constitution if secession were illegal as that is the document that places limitations upon the federal government. The 10th Amendment that states all rights reserved to the states and people respectively give the states, comprised of their citizens, the right to form their own government should they find that their current government is working against their best interests.

It absolutely addressed the legality of secession -- I excerpted the opinion on that very issue above.

[Chris_]

I don't think his argument is that it is illegal because SCOTUS declared it such.  It is the opinion of the Court which outlines in detail the reason why it is indeed illegal.

The opinions of the court outlined in detail why 'Separate but Equal' was legal as well.  Just because the Supreme Court issued an opinion, doesn't make that opinion infallible.

Just last year, the court very nearly was of the opinion that the individual doesn't have the constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms.  By your logic, that would have been okay as well, eh?

[Rebel]

In the compound republic of America.....a double security arises as to the rights of the people.  The different governments, {state and federal], will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself."

- James Madison, The Federalist, No. 51

Translation -- the South needed approval of the Union to secede.  

....while said union was intact. 

[formerlurker]

http://etymonline.com/cw/secession2.htm

You forgot this gem:

The question was not whether such rights would exist under the new government, but whether the rights, specifically those of individuals, needed to be made explicit in a bill of rights.[7] Their being claimed in Virginia's ratification presented no obstacle to Virginia being accepted by Congress as the 10th state in the new union, because the powers claimed were consistent with the Constitution, as understood by those who drew it up and those who recommended it to the states for ratification. The right to secede claimed in the Virginia ratification has to be regarded in the same light.

That is their argument, an no it does not have to be regarded in the same light.   The comments I posted from Andrew Jackson pretty much address this.

[Chris_]

The opinions of the court outlined in detail why 'Separate but Equal' was legal as well.  Just because the Supreme Court issued an opinion, doesn't make that opinion infallible.

But it does provide a legal framework.  And, as I said, it has never been overturned.  Thus, we can probably accept its argumentation as sound -- unless you have a dissenting legal opinion of some substance.

[Chris_]

....while said union was intact. 

You want to dissolve it, go ahead -- the USC has a provision which was not acted upon.

[formerlurker]

The opinions of the court outlined in detail why 'Separate but Equal' was legal as well.  Just because the Supreme Court issued an opinion, doesn't make that opinion infallible.

Just last year, the court very nearly was of the opinion that the individual doesn't have the constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms.  By your logic, that would have been okay as well, eh?

Let us forget this opinion is from SCOTUS as you are hooked on that for your argument.   It is the opinion itself, which is clearly sound.  

[Rebel]

It absolutely addressed the legality of secession -- I excerpted the opinion on that very issue above.

.....yet you've shown me nothing in the founding documents showing that it was illegal. You showed me a court opinion that was made several years after the end of the civil war. Hell, we all have opinions. Someone has to be wrong. ....and I have the fact that it was never specifically written into the US Constitution, nor any other founding documents, on my side.

I also have the ratification of Virginia's documents expressing and reserving the right to secede. ...and that was done before they ever joined the union.

[formerlurker]

You want to dissolve it, go ahead -- the USC has a provision which was not acted upon.

You enter into a contract which has an out clause.  You decide instead to just agree with your homies to ignore the contract.

Yeah that will hold up in court. 

[Rebel]

You forgot this gem:
 

That is their argument, an no it does not have to be regarded in the same light.   The comments I posted from Andrew Jackson pretty much address this.

Those stipulations were placed in the documents before they joined the union. Yes, it does have to be regarded in the same light.

[Chris_]

.....yet you've shown me nothing in the founding documents showing that it was illegal. You showed me a court opinion that was made several years after the end of the civil war. Hell, we all have opinions. Someone has to be wrong. ....and I have the fact that it was never specifically written into the US Constitution, nor any other founding documents, on my side.

I also have the ratification of Virginia's documents expressing and reserving the right to secede. ...and that was done before they ever joined the union.

I have already shown you that you are wrong about that.  You can keep closing your eyes and plugging your ears and going "nya nya" but that doesn't change the very on-oint fact I have presented to you.

And if someone has to be right and someone has to be wrong, the smart money is on the Winner.