It's like I said, I just don't feel like imparting 151 years of U.S. historical expansions and constitutional abuses. It would take too long and too much bandwidth for someone to just either dismiss it or not get it altogether.You scored it wrong sir.
I know you are, but what am I? :nahnah: :roll:
Really?
You just keep dealing in hypotheticals and I will stick with documented history, mkay?
Some parting advice.........go read a few books, stay off of wiki and google for awhile , and get yourself a new perspective on history. G'night champ.
It's like I said, I just don't feel like imparting 151 years of U.S. historical expansions and constitutional abuses. It would take too long and too much bandwidth for someone to just either dismiss it or not get it altogether.
Those rooting for the losers [the Confederacy] realize that the federal grew to unreasonable proportions due to that loss, you can thank that loss the next time you get frisked by the TSA, or audited by the IRS, or whatever happens.
I really don't feel like breaking the process down for you.Oh, by the way, I never got an explanation for this comment:
Were you seriously suggesting that winning the Civil War ultimately caused airport pat-downs?
No matter how many times you repeat this it is not correct. I'm done with you.
I really don't feel like breaking the process down for you.
I disagree, here is why: Secession was not covered in the constitution, it was later adjudicated to be against the constitution after the war, however there is no specific power of the U.S. Federal government to enforce statehood, likewise there is no constitutional prohibition against state secession.....this is actually why we still have secession movements today, obviously some among our countrymen want the issue back in court(though it probably won't do much good).Actually, he IS correct. Ft. Sumter WAS US property. Even if you take the position that secession was legal (which it wasn't), that does not alter the fact that Ft. Sumter was federal property and the south using any violence towards it was an act of aggression. It is also irrelevant as to whether the south wanted to occupy Ft. Sumter peaceably. They had no right to the property.
Both the SCOTUS and the US Constitution disagree with you.Even if you take the position that secession was legal (which it wasn't)
Ft. Sumter ceased to be Federal property of the USA when South Carolina LEGALLY seceded from the Union. Just as the city of San Antonio and the Alamo ceased to be Mexican property when the citizens declared their independence from Mexico, and just as the city of Boston ceased to be British property when the colonies declared their independence from the Crown.that does not alter the fact that Ft. Sumter was federal property and the south using any violence towards it was an act of aggression. It is also irrelevant as to whether the south wanted to occupy Ft. Sumter peaceably. They had no right to the property
I disagree, here is why: Secession was not covered in the constitution, it was later adjudicated to be against the constitution after the war, however there is no specific power of the U.S. Federal government to enforce statehood, likewise there is no constitutional prohibition against state secession.....this is actually why we still have secession movements today, obviously some among our countrymen want the issue back in court(though it probably won't do much good).
The second point is that when secession was tested essentially all territory within southern borders would fall under the laws of the respective nations, right or wrong the fort was now in southern property and the original compact was no longer in force. I had early used the Gitmo analogy, if something changes in Cuba and the new regime decides that they do not want to honor the lease on Gitmo then the U.S. would have the choices of either leave, renegotiate, or fight. While I can see why people say the fort was U.S. property under the condition of leaving the Union the original terms were null and void. I'm not even all that concerned about who was right or wrong on the issue, because I think both sides did more than enough to light the fire. It boiled down to the south telling the north to leave and the north refusing, I think had the north accepted southern delegates at the capital and began negotiations on the fort the war probably could have been avoided, to be fair that is just a theory.
Both the SCOTUS and the US Constitution disagree with you.
Ft. Sumter ceased to be Federal property of the USA when South Carolina LEGALLY seceded from the Union.
Just as the city of San Antonio and the Alamo ceased to be Mexican property when the citizens declared their independence from Mexico, and just as the city of Boston ceased to be British property when the colonies declared their independence from the Crown.
But I digress.....this has all been discussed exhaustively in the past 120 pages or so. I've got the documented history on my side, on yours, you've got implications made from ex post facto court renderings made 10-20 years after the act of secession. :shrug:
There are flaws in strict constructionism, I think the founders did get most of the original framework correct and we have interpreted too much, but there do need to be tests on the scope of rights and other constitutional matters. That being said many founders did speak on the right of the people to dissolve the union if it was determined that government has become intolerable. One can argue fairly that perhaps the south jumped the gun a little, one could also argue that the north was heavy handed. Either way though I do not blame the southern states given the historical nature of the test for seeing a right to secession based on the constitutional lack of wording and the founding father's writings. I also don't blame the SCOTUS for ruling post-war that the secession argument was settled. The big problem with the war was that it allowed arguments for centralization, which in itself is not terrible but once the federal government starting asserting it's powers were supreme amongst the states we started to see a cycle of encroachment on our rights. The biggest problems arise from a one size fits all mentality on many of our core disagreements, and "vote with your feet" is no longer becoming an option.And this is where I reject strict constructionism. The US was never created to be considered a compact or a confederation. These concepts were dissolved when the Articles of Confederation were replaced with the Constitution. The Constitution itself implies the perpetuity of the US. People may say that Texas v. White was decided AFTER the Civil War, but that is irrelevant. It was decided, constitutionally, that secession was illegal. No case indicated that it was legal before or after this.
To be fair on the matter, the test was declared illegal after the fact, thus anything based on that determination tended to skew the discourse a little. Sure, if at the time the test were definitely illegal then the south would have been without a doubt wrong in assuming control of Ft. Sumter, but, once they declared a secession it is my opinion that the occupation was illegal based upon the law at that particular time. This obviously is an opinion matter, but we have seen treaties, land holdings, etc. change hands over time.The secession test was irrelevant since it was not a legal test. The fort was certainly US territory. Your Gitmo example is inconsistent. If the property is leased, then it is not actually US property. If I lease a building, the building is not my property, but the property of the leaser. In the case of Ft Sumter, it WAS US property.
There are flaws in strict constructionism, I think the founders did get most of the original framework correct and we have interpreted too much, but there do need to be tests on the scope of rights and other constitutional matters. That being said many founders did speak on the right of the people to dissolve the union if it was determined that government has become intolerable. One can argue fairly that perhaps the south jumped the gun a little, one could also argue that the north was heavy handed. Either way though I do not blame the southern states given the historical nature of the test for seeing a right to secession based on the constitutional lack of wording and the founding father's writings. I also don't blame the SCOTUS for ruling post-war that the secession argument was settled. The big problem with the war was that it allowed arguments for centralization, which in itself is not terrible but once the federal government starting asserting it's powers were supreme amongst the states we started to see a cycle of encroachment on our rights. The biggest problems arise from a one size fits all mentality on many of our core disagreements, and "vote with your feet" is no longer becoming an option.
To be fair on the matter, the test was declared illegal after the fact, thus anything based on that determination tended to skew the discourse a little. Sure, if at the time the test were definitely illegal then the south would have been without a doubt wrong in assuming control of Ft. Sumter, but, once they declared a secession it is my opinion that the occupation was illegal based upon the law at that particular time. This obviously is an opinion matter, but we have seen treaties, land holdings, etc. change hands over time.
LOL. cracker is racist. Okay what is the PC term for saying what I like to eat with my coffee in the morning.
I am halfway on the federalist/anti-federalist side, I believe in enumeration of powers and can also see the merit of necessary and proper. True there were some additional powers delegated to the federal to strengthen the nation, and most of those enumerated powers are inarguable. Where I think we go wrong is to misconstrue enumerated powers to the point that the federal assumes too much power. There are many things our federal has taken control of that are best left to the states, such as environmental regulation, food safety, etc. I think an argument is past due to figure out what can be relegated back to the states before a major incident transpires. Basically the argument boils down to that of what needs be settled and what is overreach.I am a strong Federalist... of the Hamiltonian type. I see the strong centralization of the federal government as necessary to create a strong nation. One of the reasons that the Articles of Confederation were replaced with the Constitution... a document far less of a "compact" or confederatory nature was to ensure a strong nation. If we look at our history, internal/sectional strife and conflict was far more rampant prior to the Civil War... the outcome of which was to confirm the strength of the union. Now, I understand that there are other factors... transportation and communication, the divisive nature of slavery, and the larger differences of the cultures of different areas of the US, but even with this, the US is far stronger as a federal government than as a group of states. I agree that both sides of the War had a hand in creating it, but I still see the actions of the Southern States as being illegal at the time.
I do get that, and on that point this is correct. What the basic point my side is making is that at the time there was no disbarment and that led to the occupation problems and border disputes. It was an all around control fight.It's like with any Constitutional test. It was declared illegal. Even if it was after the occurrence, it means the occurrence itself was illegal. Laws are passed and then struck down as unconstitutional all the time. Same concept.
It's like with any Constitutional test. It was declared illegal. Even if it was after the occurrence, it means the occurrence itself was illegal. Laws are passed and then struck down as unconstitutional all the time. Same concept.
I am halfway on the federalist/anti-federalist side, I believe in enumeration of powers and can also see the merit of necessary and proper. True there were some additional powers delegated to the federal to strengthen the nation, and most of those enumerated powers are inarguable. Where I think we go wrong is to misconstrue enumerated powers to the point that the federal assumes too much power. There are many things our federal has taken control of that are best left to the states, such as environmental regulation, food safety, etc. I think an argument is past due to figure out what can be relegated back to the states before a major incident transpires. Basically the argument boils down to that of what needs be settled and what is overreach.
I do get that, and on that point this is correct. What the basic point my side is making is that at the time there was no disbarment and that led to the occupation problems and border disputes. It was an all around control fight.
I see their decision over secession much like a see the decisions at Nuremberg... a foregone conclusion, victors justice.
for them to render a different decision would be to undermine their very authority and the document that gives them that authority.
understood.... but i just take a different perspective on the matter.Nuremberg certainly was, since there was nothing that really covered the things that occurred in WWII. In this case, we had standard property rights' laws, laws around the seizing of Federal property, and the implications of perpetuity.
is this a joke? are you really comparing NC & SC to France & Germany?
What about him? And why should anyone care what he thought? Was he a Constitutional scholar, too?
hmm... I wonder what Santa is...
he give away free stuff like no tomorrow... which makes him a Yankee .
but the stuff he gives away is built by his own personal slave army... which makes him a confederate.
i'll have to do more research on this rascal Santa guy.
Actually you are wrong. There was no such thing as southern land. United States had authority over all the United States including the south. The United States would have to approve withdrawal from tue union. Secession is explicitly prohibited by our constitution and therefore the CSA never existed. The South was occupying federal property.
Let me give you a better analogy. Say you are renting an apartment and your landlord institutes a new policy prohibiting pets. Well you disagree and you decide that you are going to claim that apartment as your own. That is illegal. If you want to keep your pet you move to an apartment that allows it. Same thing. The redneck crackers should have gone to a country where slavery was allowed. Not that there were any left. We were the last ones to abolish it. The South keeps trying to block progress.
Didn't King George III also talk to trees? Not sure he's an authority you want to appeal to.
He also doesn't recognize Vermont, Tennessee, etc. So if this is your appeal that all of the states are sovereign, it really doesn't do it.
That's where you are wrong. we have a federation not a confederation like EU. In any dispute, the federal govt is the final authority.The states aren't RENTING their state from the federal government....
The states have VOLUNTARILY BONDED TOGETHER to make a union..
The states own the union, the union doesn't own the states.....
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?