Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: BroJoeK; Idabilly; central_va; mojitojoe; southernsunshine
All the points of your riduculous post are rebutted HERE.

(You need to take that Kool Aid IV out of your arm, pal. Seriously.)

210 posted on 01/04/2012 9:45:32 AM PST by cowboyway (Molon labe : Deo Vindice : "Rebellion is always an option!!"--Jim Robinson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies ]

To: cowboyway; rockrr; donmeaker; Impy
cowboyway: "All the points of your riduculous post are rebutted HERE."

No they are not, and DiLorenzo is Kool-Aid Central for pro-Confederate propaganda lies.

But first of all, Napolitano himself is a good and decent man, who is right in most everything he says -- most everything.
In that regard, we might note the following quote from your link:

"So what can be done?
Among Judge Napolitano's common sense recommendations are abolition of the income tax ("the Sixteenth Amendment . . . should be abolished outright"); same for the Seventeenth Amendment which called for the direct election of U.S. senators and a return to the system of appointing them by state legislatures; and the recognition that the federal government will never check its own power.

" 'Thus, I would clarify the right of the states to secede from the Union,' writes the judge from New Jersey, 'losing all the benefits that come from membership [in the union], but regaining all the freedom membership has taken away.' "

Imho, those are entirely sensible recommendations, necessary to restore the balance between Federal and State powers.
And a constitutional amendment to define lawful secession seems to me long overdue.

But we should also note that none of this has anything to do with Honest Abe Lincoln -- since the 16th and 17th amendments came 50 years after Lincoln's death.

Second important point to note: from the beginning, my argument here can be summarized as: "Founders' Original Intent" -- what did those Federalists who wrote and ratified the new Constitution intend for it to mean?

I say: if you oppose Original Intent, then you oppose the Constitution itself.
Well, the good Judge Napolitano argues, in effect, against the Founders' Original Intent, saying the document was flawed from the beginning in allowing the Founders to increase Federal power beyond what anti-Federalists approved of.

I say that's nonsense: the Constitution means what the Founders said it means, not what anti-Federalists wish it would have meant if they had written or voted to ratify it.

And bringing this all back to our discussion of Deep-South slave-holders declarations of secession, beginning in 1860, the Founders' Original Intent on secession is clear: constitutional secession is by mutual consent, or due to a material breach of contract having that same effect.

None of these conditions existed on November 6, 1860, when Deep-South slave-holders first began the process to declare their secession, simultaneously began committing many acts of increasing rebellion or war against the United States, before formally declaring war on May 6, 1861.

And the slave-holders' declaration of war on the United States invalidates all claims to the constitutional legitimacy of their "right of secession."

The US Constitution says nothing directly about "secession".
It says a lot about people who make war on the United States, or provide them with aid and comfort, committing rebellion, insurrection, invasion and domestic violence.

Those are the constitutional provisions Lincoln used to defeat the slave-holders' rebellion.

218 posted on 01/06/2012 3:04:46 AM PST by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson