The Social Contract and Other Myths

Lew Rockwell ^ | 04-01-02 | Butler Shaffer

[Hank Kerchief]

Acutally, there is no such thing as rights. This is another myth, and, it turns out, a very dangerous one.

Politics - The Autonomist Notebook

[KrisKrinkle]

Ahhhh. At least you're getting to the basics. I'll think more about this later, but for now I'll view it as "...a semi-satirical ... aphorism(s), epigram(s), ...(or) comment(s) ...illustrative of (a particular line of) thought...meant to be instructive, ...(as a) ... pleasant reminder(s) of the clear and essential principles by which we (maybe ought to) live our lives and which make it worth living."

Right now I have to give up the computer.

[stainlessbanner]

Bust this deal:
"Those rights not delegated to the federal government by this Constitution, nor denied by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." -is not denied to the states by the Constitution, so it is the ultimate backstop of the Constitution.

[stainlessbanner]

Your boy Lincoln had another view when he was a young politician. It seems our founding fathers, most politicians, and citizens of the United States of America were well award of the right to secede. Lincoln changed that with his war. Often quoted on the subject of secession....

Abraham Lincoln endorsed secession: "Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable -- a most sacred right -- a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world." (1848)

[KrisKrinkle]

I take it you mean:

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 powers were not delegated to the Federal Government, but to the pepetual union known as the United States, which was already established and predates the Constitution.

If the states had agreed to perpetual union, argueably they had agreed to forgo any power they might have to end the union.

Now, Article VII of the Constitutions says:

The ratification of the conventions of nine states, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the states so ratifying the same.

So maybe the other states were then willing to dissolve the perpetual union, or maybe not.

In any case, peaceable dissolution of an agreement to perpetual union, or of any agreement whose terms have not been fulfilled, depends on the good will of all parties concerned, as well as their ability to act on their ill will.

In the War Between the States or the War of Northern Aggression, certain States did not feel disposed to ending the perpetual union. These things are generally settled by force.

And will any reader please remember that I am merely surfacing for discussion something I had not seen before, namely that the States agreed to perpetual union and that perhaps that provides some justification for the action of states that tried to stop the violation of that agreement. See post 18.

[KrisKrinkle]

So our boy Lincoln (if he's my boy merely because I mentioned his name, he's yours for the same reason) changed his views over a period of a dozen years.

How many people in Colonial America wanted to separate from England in 1763 as opposed to 1775?

[stainlessbanner]

Lincoln was just a politician - I don't give him much more than that. I'm sure he changed his views based on other influencing factors around him - representation, popular views, business leaders, money, etc.

[stainlessbanner]

The powers were not delegated to the Federal Government, but to the perpetual union known as the United States

That doesn't fly - the powers not given to the Feds remain with the state (ie. the people) NOT BACK TO THE UNION. By definition, if I have two items and give you one, I keep the other. By not explicitly giving you the second item, it remains with me. Same with states rights.

[stainlessbanner]

Some more information for the discussion:

1. Alexander Stephens, in his "A Constitutional View of the Late War Between the States," submitted, the central government, the common agent of the people of the states, is legitimate only so long as it exercises its delegated powers within the bounds established by the people through the Constitution.

2. The Declaration of Independence clearly states that governments are institutions that can be defined as “deriving their power from the consent of the governed.” Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence also stated: Whenever "any Form of Government becomes destructive" of the inalienable rights granted by the Creator, "it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government."

3. Secession is not a new idea:

1798-99 Virginia and Kentucky Resolves. Said states could nullify national law if they violated individual state rights!

1804: Massachusetts plotted to secede and tried to get New York to withdraw from the union and establish a "Northern Confederacy".

1807 Embargo Act: New Jersey was going to secede due prohibition of foreign trade

1814: delegates from several New England states threatened to secede over President James Madison's war policies against England.

1844: the Massachusetts Legislature threatened secession when Congress started debating whether to admit Texas into the Union.

[KrisKrinkle]

...the powers not given to the Feds...

The Tenth Amendment doesn't say anything about the Feds. It does mention delegating powers to the United States (the union formed of the individual States) and it mentions powers reserved to the States respectively (the States individually, not as part of the Union.)

The Federal Government and the United States are not the same thing. The United States came to exist before the Federal Government came to exist. The Federal Government is an organizational mechanism of the United States, agreed to by the States Which compose the United States. If the States which compose the United States agreed to amend the Constitution so as to do away with the Federal Government and establish a Constitutional Monarchy as an organizational mechanism, the United States would still exist.

[KrisKrinkle]

1 and 2 in post 29 have little to do with States withdrawing from a Perpetual Union they had agreed to before estalishing the present form of government for that Union, although they are applicable to changing the form of government of that Union.

As to the first part of 3, 1798-99 Virginia and Kentucky Resolves. Said states could nullify national law if they violated individual state rights!: That's not the same as seceding.

As to the rest of part 3, they apparently changed their minds about 1860.

The 'Government of the United States' is not the 'United States.' The Feds confuse that issue all the time. They think that because one opposes the Government misusing its power that one opposes the United States. It's not the same thing.