- Joined
- Dec 27, 2014
- Messages
- 59,448
- Reaction score
- 39,027
- Location
- Best Coast Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
Thank you
only part..you have to have it all...........i shall supply the part you left out.
The other clauses giving powers necessary to preserve harmony among the States to negative all State laws contravening in the opinion of the Nat. Leg. the articles of union, down to the last clause, (the words "or any treaties subsisting under the authority of the Union," being added after the words "contravening &c. the articles of the Union," on motion of Dr. FRANKLIN) were agreed to witht. debate or dissent. The last clause of Resolution 6. [FN11] authorizing an exertion of the force of the whole agst. a delinquent State came next into consideration.
the power is denied...
since you missed something else i shalll provide it also.
William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States 295--304, 305--7 1829 (2d ed.)
The Union is an association of the people of republics; its preservation is calculated to depend on the preservation of those republics. The people of each pledge themselves to preserve that form of government in all. Thus each becomes responsible to the rest, that no other form of government shall prevail in it, and all are bound to preserve it in every one.
But the mere compact, without the power to enforce it, would be of little value. Now this power can be no where so properly lodged, as in the Union itself. Hence, the term guarantee, indicates that the United States are authorized to oppose, and if possible, prevent every state in the Union from relinquishing the republican form of government, and as auxiliary means, they are expressly authorized and required to employ their force on the application of the constituted authorities of each state, "to repress domestic violence." If a faction should attempt to subvert the government of a state for the purpose of destroying its republican form, the paternal power of the Union could thus be called forth to subdue it.
Yet it is not to be understood, that its interposition would be justifiable, if the people of a state should determine to retire from the Union, whether they adopted another or retained the same form of government, or if they should, with the express intention of seceding, expunge the representative system from their code, and thereby incapacitate themselves from concurring according to the mode now prescribed, in the choice of certain public officers of the United States.
The principle of representation, although certainly the wisest and best, is not essential to the being of a republic, but to continue a member of the Union, it must be preserved, and therefore the guarantee must be so construed. It depends on the state itself to retain or abolish the principle of representation, because it depends on itself whether it will continue a member of the Union. To deny this right would be inconsistent with the principle on which all our political systems are founded, which is, that the people have in all cases, a right to determine how they will be governed.
This right must be considered as an ingredient in the original composition of the general government, which, though not expressed, was mutually understood, and the doctrine heretofore presented to the reader in regard to the indefeasible nature of personal allegiance, is so far qualified in respect to allegiance to the United States. It was observed, that it was competent for a state to make a compact with its citizens, that the reciprocal obligations of protection and allegiance might cease on certain events; and it was further observed, that allegiance would necessarily cease on the dissolution of the society to which it was due.
The states, then, may wholly withdraw from the Union, but while they continue, they must retain the character of representative republics. Governments of dissimilar forms and principles cannot long maintain a binding coalition. "Greece," says Montesquieu, "was undone as soon as the king of Macedon obtained a seat in the amphyctionic council." It is probable, however, that the disproportionate force as well as the monarchical form of the new confederate had its share of influence in the event. But whether the historical fact supports the theory or not, the principle in respect to ourselves is unquestionable.
Your argument fails on the grounds that Texas would win that war and send you running back home with your tails between your legs.
Don't mess with Texas
The South got its butt kicked in the 1st Civil War and it would get its butt kicked again in any 2nd civil war.
How did Navy Pride and I get on the same side of a vote?
you said it was unconstitutional..however the constitution does not prohibited the states from seceding..
the 10th amendment is very clear, if its not power of the federal government or prohibited to the states by the constitution then it is power of the states respectively and to the people.
Amendment X
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.
and the people of those southern states exercised their right to secede.
You don't know that for a fact because it hasn't happened yet.
And they got their backsides handed to them and the union survived.
that is true..yes, but not all of the states left because of slavery, and this is made know by some of the states in their declaration of separation from the u.s.....as they stated that the u.s federal government would not upholding the constitution.
slaves at the time were considered property and not people, and life liberty and property did not apply to them.
IL wAR.
That sick idea was put in the trash can by the defeat of the Confederacy in the Civil War.
The South got its butt kicked in the 1st Civil War and it would get its butt kicked again in any 2nd civil war.
But there's not going to be a 2nd civil war because the South remembers how the first one turned out.
Doesn't to me. Confederate soldiers KILLED Americans.
The Tories we American colonists on the side of the British. If you think confederate soldiers deserve a memorial day then how are you going to argue that Tories shouldn't get a memorial day? They are no different than the confederates who did not want to be Americans.
So, the date in various southern states varies from Jan. to Jun.
Does anyone else wonder why it can't be observed on the last Monday in May? You know; Memorial Day. That's the day of observance for all American Soldiers who died in battle. The Union Army soldiers are observed then. Why not observe the bravery and courage of those that gave all to the Confederate Army side on that same day? It makes total sense to me.
It was a CIVIL war.Both sides killed Americans if you consider that all of the combatants were Americans.
The Union soldiers were Americans.
The Southern soldiers were Confederates who were fighting for the South's right to keep black people as slaves.
The South lost and slavery was abolished.
So the Union troops were fighting to end slavery? I don't think so.
The Union soldiers were Americans.
The Southern soldiers were Confederates who were fighting for the South's right to keep black people as slaves.
The South lost and slavery was abolished.
the united states of america...
the confederate states of america
both sides are americans.
lmao. you can ball a turd whatever you want, it's still a turd.
the united states of america...
the confederate states of america
both sides are americans.
the united states of america...
the confederate states of america
both sides are americans.
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?