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

Skip to comments.

Glenn Beck's Current Take on Secession
http://youtu.be/iO5DrT2Vn9M ^ | Scott Ryan

Posted on 11/13/2012 8:25:48 PM PST by publius321

A great deal of discussion has taken place on conservative message boards today due to the fact that Glenn Beck has referred to those in twenty states who have signed petitions to “secede” from the union. These petitions seemed peculiar to me since it would be the job of their elected state legislators to secede if such an activity were to take place, not individual citizens.

As I elaborated in my video today, on his radio program Glenn has repeatedly urged listeners to move from northern states to Oklahoma and Texas. The inference is obvious.

Yet, he implies that people who see secession coming are insane.

This to me is a form of hedging that is taking place. Later, depending on what happens, these radio hosts can all say they always said these people were kooks. But when they see it become more inevitable as God fearing, red states defend their citizenry against brazen evil - then - the talking radio heads will go out on a limb and bravely “predict” secession.

I have been predicting secession since Obama was elected for reasons enumerated at TableOfWisdom.com and again today at the video following. However, the way in which the possibility is being handled by signers in these twenty states is unrealistic and will not take place as a result of this apparent endeavor.

If or when it happens it will occur as a result of Obama forcing states to protect their citizens against clear violations against the constitution. The beginning stages where Obama has waged war against states can be seen in the lawsuits launched against Arizona for simply trying to enforce federal law in protecting its borders against outside invasion. One can also point to Obama’s election ploy where he proclaimed that deportation laws against illegals would not be enforced.

It will get much worse once Obamacare fully kicks in over the next few years but with the aforementioned examples, one can see states exhausting all options through the legal system before they have to resort to secession. One can see these state representatives doing what our founding fathers did step by step through every channel before they were left with no other choice. Our founders were mostly “loyalists” to the crown until they had no other choice. Enter the Declaration of Independence where they expatiated in full – why they had no choice.

We have not reached that point yet, but I have no doubt in my objective mind that WE WILL. Obama has had no other intention from day one then to FORCE this upon the states.

There are some on the conservative boards that believe that the federal government will simply implode as the currency dies, thereby preventing this from happening. They are erroneously leaving out one important factor. The Obama administration is rapidly seeking to empower and surrender our sovereignty to the United Nations. This administration is treasonously participating in UN resolutions to take over our rights.

Regardless of whether this encroachment comes to full fruition before or after Bernanke prints our currency to worthlessness, they are coming with the United Nations and nations who hold the gold – like China.

In the days of the confederacy, the states were fighting a federal government that had arrogated power onto itself that was never intended by our founders. Similarly, the final confederacy will be fighting against a UN that was initially sold to us as a symbolic organization with no power or authority over US citizens.

I observed a few posts by some RINO types who will no doubt be similar to the implacable loyalists who refused to see the writing on the wall to the bitter end. One such post castigated a conservative as follows:

“As much as I don’t like the outcome of the election, I’m not ready to give up on America yet.

Anyone who wants states to leave our nation had better take a long look in the mirror. How dare you disrespect the sacrifices of our fallen veterans who gave their lives for America. And you call yourselves Patriots...I would use a different term...Quitters." (end quote)

If you want to leave America, then I suggest you follow in the footsteps of the forefathers you constantly use as an example and go find your own island, move there, and start your own nation. Leave America for the Americans. We may be a flawed nation, but I’d rather live in America than anywhere else in the world...including your new nation.”

We are seeing this type of rhetoric from some of the very people, including talk radio hosts who were the very people who were telling us that this election is for the fate of our nation since it was all coming down to this election since John Roberts left it to the electorate to overturn Obamacare. Now, when push comes to shove, it seems there stance has morphed into the old "well, there's always next election". Presumably they are now in denial and are conning themselves into the notion that once the kids and unmarried women suffer through four more years of Obama - THEN they will finally see the error of their ways and then elect the next Romney, McCain or Dole (as though that would save us).

What would it take to stop these RINOs from deluding themselves? Will they still be telling us "wait until 2016 as they are handcuffed to a pole in Gitmo?

I would agree these people should not be doing this because it is up to their sovereign states to handle this. From that standpoint, they should be petitioning their state legislatures, not the federal government.

It is also too soon.

Where I disagree with the sentiments is in his perspective about them being unpatriotic. These common assertions sound like sanctimonious platitudes that would fly 10 years ago but not now.

I’m not shouting but need to capitalize this for emphasis.

THE UNITED STATES FOR WHICH YOU AND I LONG NO LONGER EXISTS. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BEGAN SECEDING FROM THE CONSTITUTION BEGINNING AT LEAST IN 2008.

THE ELECTORATE HAS CHANGED. THE DEGRENERATE CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN OF THE BOOMERS -SHOW UP ON ELECTION DAY!!!

DELUSIONAL ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICANS ARE IN DENIAL.

THE “BLUE DOG” DEMOCRATS ARE DEAD AND THEY ARE NOT COMING BACK – SO STOP DELUDING YOURSELF INTO THINKING THEY WILL BE BACK IN 2016.

OVER THE NEXT 2 YEARS YOU ARE GOING TO SEE AN OUTPOURING OF EVIL THAT WILL DEMAND CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE UNLESS YOU ARE EVIL YOURSELF.

THEN - STATE LEGISLATURES (RED) WILL HAVE NO OTHER CHOICE (LIKE OUR FOUNDING FATHERS, THE WAY THEY EXHAUSTED EVERY POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVE BEFORE THE DECLARATION).

I LIKE BECK - BUT HE IS WRONG ABOUT THIS BECAUSE HE IS UNDERESTIMATING THE GRAVITY OF THE SITUATION.

MARK MY WORDS, A YEAR OR TWO FROM NOW HE WILL BE TELLING US HOW HE PREDICTED SECESSION EARLY ON – BECAUSE HE WILL PREDICT IT ONCE OBAMACARE KICKS IN AND HE SEES HOW WICKED IT TRULY IS.

IT IS INEVITABLE - BUT NOT NOW AND NOT BY PEOPLE WHOSE JOB IS NOT TO DO THE WORK OF THEIR ELECTED STATE LEGISLATORS.

To the RINOs like the loyalists to the crown who cannot part with the gravy train from which they make their fortunes, I offer this favorite quote of mine by Samuel Adams written to the loyalists who put their status quo first - rather then the principles enumerated by our founding fathers:

"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."

As for me I stand for the constitution, which is the true America that our founders created 236 years ago. America is NOT a government that murders babies, the handicapped and the elderly. America is NOT a government that sees its citizens as mere resources to be disposed of the moment they deen them a burden.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government; Politics; Religion
KEYWORDS: beck; glenn; obama; secession

1 posted on 11/13/2012 8:25:52 PM PST by publius321
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: publius321

Sorry about the errors in advance such as “it seems there (their) stance...”

I appreciate any feedback as I didn’t take time to proof read and spell check didn’t catch everything.

Thank you.

Scott


2 posted on 11/13/2012 8:29:42 PM PST by publius321
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: publius321

Since I’m the person you quote in your rant, I’ll respond.

1) You state that because I don’t support secession I’m a RINO. If that’s the criteria, the there are only about .001% true Republicans in this country. Do you not understand that RID’s (Republicans in Delusion) such as yourself give the left very easy targets. Your cause, whatever it might be would be much better served if you’d follow the old maxim, talk less, listen more.

2) I stand by my comments that anyone who wants to break apart America has no right to call themselves American much less a patriot. Frankly I think that if you REALLY believe that we should break apart America, then your a traitor.

3) Any talk of breaking apart America is disrespectful to those people who have given their service and lives to America.

If that makes me a RINO, then so be it I can live with that. God Bless America.


3 posted on 11/13/2012 8:44:08 PM PST by chromdome35 (I'm the person you quote...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: publius321
Before any talk of Secession that the Feds would never allow...

The states should call a Constitutional Convention to allow states to leave and /or to dissolve the US and/or dissolve the current Federal government and let the state reform as the chose

I believe the Fed would have not legal power to stop Secession if the states approve it under terms of a Constitutional Convention

In fact the simple threat of a Constitutional Convention that may dissolve the Fed government may be enough

4 posted on 11/13/2012 8:45:25 PM PST by tophat9000 (American is Barack Oaken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chromdome35

“2) I stand by my comments that anyone who wants to break apart America has no right to call themselves American much less a patriot. Frankly I think that if you REALLY believe that we should break apart America, then your a traitor.”

Again, Obama seceded from the union through his nefarious usurpations. The constitution is the real union, not the governmen; therefore, I do not want to secede from the union.

I expect my state to uphold the constitution. Liberals will not allow that. They will physically move against the states to stop them from enforcing the constitution.

I’m not advocating anything but demanding not to do evil. The liberals will insist upon the evil they promulgate being carried out by EVERYONE.

The patriots who served and died did so for the constitution - NOT Barack Obama’s evil schemes.

If you bow to their idols - it is YOU who are the traitor.

END OF DISCUSSION as I do not suffer fools well.


5 posted on 11/13/2012 9:01:22 PM PST by publius321
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: chromdome35
We have hit a tipping point. Were the takers out vote the doers. Succession is inevitable it is only a matter of when.

I signed all that I could find but I know it isn't going to happen until things get worse. I would say 15 to 25 years.

6 posted on 11/13/2012 9:13:18 PM PST by Steve Van Doorn (*in my best Eric Cartman voice* 'I love you, guys')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: chromdome35

“Any talk of breaking apart America is disrespectful to those people who have given their service and lives to America.”

You are wrong. Servicemembers (and politicians for that matter) swear an oath of allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and vow to defend it against ALL enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC.

They do not swear an oath of allegiance to America. There is a BIG difference.

The federal government has, in most cases, become a domestic enemy of the Constitution and it needs to be brought to bear.

We tried elections and that didn’t work. Time to try something else.


7 posted on 11/13/2012 9:19:26 PM PST by 43north (BHO: 50% black, 50% white, 100% RED)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: All
Fred Thompson ‏@fredthompson Gun-maker Smith & Wesson's stock up 10% after election. Apparently people are investing heavily in precious metals, like lead & brass. #tcot
8 posted on 11/13/2012 9:23:26 PM PST by Kolath
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: tophat9000
ConCon would be the absolute WORST idea. Instead of states choosing to leave the union or enforce the Constitution, outlawing abortion, banning faggot "marriage," tossing the 16th and 17th Amendments, repealing 0Care and preventing future 0Care-like endeavors.......

our current crop would use this to radically seize power and remove government power restrictions altogether.

The last ConCon we had completely tossed the Articles of Confederation in favor of our current Constitution. I do not have any faith that 3/4 of the states' representatives have OUR unalienable rights as concern. The Bill of Rights would be first to perish.

I could see the "2nd Bill of Rights" getting passed and you and I having a "right to a job," a "right to a dwelling," a "right to food," and a "right to education," which sounds well and good to an idiot.....

until the realization is "education" = forced indoctrination of Dear Reader's most famous speeches, "dwelling" = soviet style apartments with communal kitchens and bathrooms, "food" = gruel, and "job" = make work programs like the WPA.

9 posted on 11/13/2012 9:23:45 PM PST by Repeat Offender (Official Romney/GOP-E Platform - We suck less)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: publius321

The dilemma is, so long as there is majority rule there will never really be protection of minority rights. This applies to states rights as with individual rights. It’s a problem of Democracy. I don’t favor secession, but the US should practice a less unitary form of federalism.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Anti-Federalist-An-Abridgment-Complete/dp/0226775658/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1352869353&sr=8-2&keywords=complete+anti-federalist


10 posted on 11/13/2012 9:25:46 PM PST by Carismar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Repeat Offender

Just judging by the types who favor a new constitution, I think you are right.


11 posted on 11/13/2012 9:29:39 PM PST by firebrand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: publius321

Well said. And I stand with you. Scared to death, but faithful in our Divine Creator and HIS will be done.


12 posted on 11/13/2012 9:35:01 PM PST by Lucky9teen (Peace is that brief glorious moment in history when everybody stands around reloading.~Thomas Jeffer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: publius321

Even though it’s not about seceding, below is something a friend sent me on Facebook, that I found interesting...

______________________________________________________________
Self-defense, against tyranny...

by Bo Perrin

Let me try to answer your question in three parts.

First, I want to deal with the author’s (see related article-The Use of Deadly Force in Self-Defense By Pastor Ricky Kurth/bereanbiblesociety.org-ed.) contention that the government is to be obeyed even if it disobeys
the laws. The example he uses is when Paul was standing before the Jewish Sanhedrin and Ananias had Paul struck.

There are five things to keep in mind here. First, the Jewish Council was NOT the national government, Rome was. The extent of the Council’s authority was religious as Rome was considered the governing authority. Second, the law was the Jews’ religious law found in the Old Testament, NOT the law of the land. Third, in his retort Paul does not say that it was written that he must obey the High Priest when he does something unlawful rather he must not speak evil of such because in the Old Testament the High Priest was chosen by God through Levi to Aaron’s lineage. Additionally, there are many and I am one who believes that Paul was caving to the Ananias’ authority rather making a subtle religious point. In the Old Testament the High Priest had to be of the tribe of Levi and a descendent of Aaron. When a High Priest died he was replaced by one of his sons. There is a lot of evidence that Ananias was not of that lineage. In fact, during the early days of the church we know that the Romans maintained control over the High Priest position by giving it to the highest bidder. Additionally, if you study the Old Testament you will find that when Israel, God’s government, did not obey the laws of the land he destroyed the nation.

In fact, he permitted his people to actually overthrow the government when the Queen decided Israel was to worship a false god. Finally, there is a serious tension between the author’s conclusion and Scripture. Peter says we ought to obey God rather than man. Since Peter used the generic use of man rather than speaking directly to the Council his statement applies in all areas of life including the political. If I am to obey the government if it acts contrary to the law then that puts me in the position of possibly disobeying God. The proper governing authorities are endorsed by God (Romans 13). They are his servants to follow what is good and avenge what evil as God sees good and evil. God’s view of good and evil (virtue) is found in Scripture. Therefore, if I obey the government when it disobeys the laws then I end up disobeying God. So, for all it is worth I do not believe that this passage proves we are to obey the government when the government acts contrary to the law.

There are two other issues here as well. First, the author does provide a good overview of the passages which allow believers self-defense. He could have added Exodus 22:2 as well. The issues are (1) a believer is to obey the laws of the land if they are not contrary to God’s and (2) the laws of the land demand we protect the Republic.

I will begin with the second issue. Jesus argued we are to render to Caesar what is Caesar’s. Paul writes that God ordains the governing authorities as described in Romans 13. Peter argues that we are to honor the King. Notice that each title refers to the highest law in that area. In these cases the titles refers to individuals and this is where we must be careful in our interpretation. The highest law in the land was Caesar not the Senate at this time in Rome’s history. The Caesar was deity.

In America though the President nor Congress is the highest law of the land. The Declaration and the Constitution are the highest laws of the land and everything the President and Congress does must be accord with these legal documents. If they are not they are ruled unconstitutional and cast out. The President and Congress are not above these legal documents. This is important. A citizen of the Republic is under no Constitutional obligation to obey any law which a lawmaker creates that is contrary to the Declaration or Constitution. Our Caesar, governing authority and King is not a person but the Declaration and Constitution.

So, if a believer in America is going to fulfill God’s word then he must obey the Declaration and Constitution. Here is why this is important. The Declaration which is our national moral compass tells us, “Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.—Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. “ This includes not only the people in our present government but anyone they might aline with who wants to overthrow the law of this land. So, politically we are obligated by the law of the land to overthrow a tyrannical government.

The first issue is rather easy after understanding the second. The Declaration is not contrary to God’s word because if the need arose and it was necessary to overthrow the people who are acting contrary to the Declaration and Constitution we are in fact obeying God’s commands to obey our Caesar, governing authorities and King.

This is where so many fail in exegesis. Most writers apply the terms Caesar, governing authorities and King to the President or Congress in America. Now keep in mind that our American situation is different from other countries. So, they argue a believer cannot overthrow the President because he is our Caesar, governing authority or King. Constitutionally this flawed for the President is not “the head” of our nation and in fact, Congress has far more authority if they would only use it and properly. But in America the highest law of the land is the Declaration and Constitution and our allegiance is not to those we elect but to these legal documents. We can throw our allegiance behind our elected officials as long as they govern according to the Declaration and Constitution but the moment they fail to do so, we must remove our allegiance, remove them from office and elect those who have virtue.


13 posted on 11/13/2012 9:41:24 PM PST by Lucky9teen (Peace is that brief glorious moment in history when everybody stands around reloading.~Thomas Jeffer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: publius321
I received this via email this evening, and I think it is fitting for this thread. We who lean to seceding understand what is stated, and that is what makes us want out. Right or wrong we have had enough, we can no longer fight the ignorant electorate.

....This quote came from the Czech Republic. Someone over there has it figured out. It was translated into English from an article in the Prague newspaper Prager Zeitungon:

"The danger to America is not Barack Obama, but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president.

The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince.

The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools, such as those who made him their president."

14 posted on 11/13/2012 9:58:29 PM PST by annieokie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: publius321

Secession bookmark.


15 posted on 11/13/2012 9:59:33 PM PST by SoCal SoCon (Conservatism =/= Corporatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: annieokie
I've been saying that for years. I said that about Clinton. I remember how shocked I was when Clinton won re-election. I didn't think it was possible. I also remember being on FR in 2000 and about a third of the FReepers were absolutely convinced that Clinton would stage some excuse for martial law and take over the country before stepping down.

The country is in fact in serious crisis, but Obama, like Clinton is not the problem. Obama may be a terrible president but that is as much to do with his incompetence as it is his ideology. The true terror will come when a highly competent man with the same ideology is elected by the same star struck idiots who would re-elect an abject failure.

16 posted on 11/13/2012 11:01:33 PM PST by douginthearmy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: douginthearmy
The true terror will come when a highly competent man with the same ideology is elected by the same star struck idiots who would re-elect an abject failure."""".....

There is the fear, & it WILL happen, which leads many of us to start thinking ahead and to SECEDING.

Give us liberty or give us death.

17 posted on 11/13/2012 11:10:13 PM PST by annieokie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Lucky9teen

Entangling oneself with the kosmos is foolish. It makes the celestial promise in Christ a sham, substituting flesh for spiritual life. Not many know God and His plan of the ages, especially those calling themselves patriots. The day He returns is going to be humiliating and sorrowful for those who had placed their trust in mankind, particularly those believers who knew how deceitful even their own hearts had been.

Either you are a heavenly citizen, or you are not. Either all authority is out of God, or it is not. You are either in the world or dead to it. It is black and white, all philosophical gymnastics aside.

Saving your soul, your sensate libertarian life, is going to cost more than you bargained for. I guarantee it.


18 posted on 11/14/2012 12:20:57 AM PST by 5cents
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: publius321

The people of the state by initiative could call a special election of representatives to a Convention to decide whether to dissolve bonds with the United States. The People are sovereign, not the legislatures. The legislatures did not compact with eachother to form the federal government governed under a Constitution. The People did. The Legislatures did not contract with the federal government as it did not exist. The People, through special Constitutional Conventions took a portion of the power they had given to their inidividual states and gave it to a new federal government. They did this through special Conventions called just for this purpose.


19 posted on 11/14/2012 1:12:15 AM PST by marsh2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: publius321

It was Patrick Henry said that. At a church just up the road here.


20 posted on 11/14/2012 2:17:35 AM PST by wastoute (Government cannot redistribute wealth. Government can only redistribute poverty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: publius321

Beck is pissed at secessionists because he would lose his status quo...his own little Texas “Loyal Opposition Empire” should that movement seriously take hold.

He’s a nut case who turned to making more money than spouting crazy assed conspiracy theories.

At this point, I’m ready to cast off all the so-called conservative icons: Beck, Boortz, Hannity, Erickson, Coulter et al... and go with some new blood that isn’t in it for appeasement, or money.


21 posted on 11/14/2012 2:38:17 AM PST by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carismar
I recently read the The Anti-Federalist.

Pg 37: “The non-attendance of eight or nine men, who were appointed members of the convention, I shall ever consider as a very unfortunate event to the United States.”

Among these were thought to be Abraham Clark of NJ, Richard Caswell & Willie Jones of NC, Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee & Thomas Nelson of VA.

Hmm, add the others from the Constitutional Convention like Paterson, Lansing, Yates, Gorham, Randolph . . . others? That makes ten or so. They could have significantly influenced the Constitution which at any time had about thirty-five members in attendance.

Had they participated, the Constitution would not have been so inclined toward aristocracy, nor would it have as many powers, which would have been better defined. I am also conviced there would have been a prohibition on any that affected the states’ internal police.

Unfortunately, by their absence, the Anti-Federals had only themselves to blame.

22 posted on 11/14/2012 3:02:15 AM PST by Jacquerie (Obama voters don't know what they lost, because they never learned what they had.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: marsh2

I believe the states in red should collect all taxes, both federal, state and local, keep what is needed to provide the services for its people, and send any leftovers on to Washington, DC.

Make allowances for any unfunded federal mandates and all that rubbish.

Problem solved.

Federals would scream and sue and we could watch the fireworks on our fancy
state financed entertainment centers and talk to each other on our state cell phones, buying our Angus beef with our state debit cards. And seeing our physicians at local expense.

LG!


23 posted on 11/14/2012 3:15:16 AM PST by urbanpovertylawcenter (where the law and poverty collide in an urban setting and sparks fly)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: urbanpovertylawcenter
>>I believe the states in red should collect all taxes, both federal, state and local, keep what is needed to provide the services for its people, and send any leftovers on to Washington, DC.

Patrick Henry proposed a similar arrangement, which also limited federal taxation to external objects like tariffs on imports, and left internal, direct taxation of the people to the states.

24 posted on 11/14/2012 3:20:26 AM PST by Jacquerie (Obama voters don't know what they lost, because they never learned what they had.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: publius321

No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The question before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free — if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending — if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained — we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!

They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable — and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace — but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

~Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775.


25 posted on 11/14/2012 3:21:19 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet (You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chromdome35

You dont secede from the Republic. You just divide your state,as an example,North Dakota,South Dakota,Virginia,West Virginia. A State Like Pennsylvannia being dictated By the Inner city Minorities,and the western Part being Punished sets up its own Western Pa,With its own State Govt.Separate Governor The works,they dont secede from the Union,they send their Electoral votes to a Conservative.Philadelphia can support the Marxists all they want.
You dont have to petition the federal govt for permission either.


26 posted on 11/14/2012 3:52:48 AM PST by ballplayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: chromdome35
Any talk of breaking apart America is disrespectful to those people who have given their service and lives to America.

What about my ancestors that fought for the Confederacy?

27 posted on 11/14/2012 3:58:14 AM PST by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: marsh2
The legislatures did not compact with eachother to form the federal government governed under a Constitution.

Whomever taught you history needs to loose there accreditation.

28 posted on 11/14/2012 4:02:02 AM PST by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: publius321

There was a time when I considered Beck a valued asset for the country but, as time passed, he has become more of an grade B actor.

I refer to the times when our country has faced calamities. Beck begins his show with a somber monologue and with a quivering voice, long pauses and tearful predictions of gloom for the country then, without missing a beat launches into...AND NOW A WORD FROM OUR SPONSOR GOLD-R-US.

Anyone who has the ability to snap out of abject depression to a upbeat manic mode that fast, is either acting or has mental problems.


29 posted on 11/14/2012 6:55:58 AM PST by RetSignman ("A Republic if you can keep it"....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: publius321
END OF DISCUSSION as I do not suffer fools well.

Yet you continue making these droning self-serving videos.

30 posted on 11/14/2012 7:24:42 AM PST by humblegunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: central_va

How did the whole secession thing work out for them?


31 posted on 11/14/2012 10:04:03 AM PST by chromdome35 (I'm the person you quote...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: publius321
END OF DISCUSSION

Have you shut down discussion on just this thread or are you shutting Free Republic down altogether??

32 posted on 11/14/2012 10:11:11 AM PST by Eaker ( If a soldier demands that you carry his gear for a mile, carry it two miles.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: chromdome35
Your position is one of appeasement. You are the type htat is sitting back and letting the entitlement class of our society suck this country dry.

Secession is not necessarily the course of action. However, I think this petition is a wake up call to our government. I think they have way underestimated the anger of this country, and at their peril. There are many many ways to channel this anger. It will be interesting to see what happens.

33 posted on 11/14/2012 10:20:30 AM PST by catfish1957 (My dream for hope and change is to see the punk POTUS in prison for treason)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: chromdome35
How did the whole secession thing work out for them?

Kicking a bunch of out of work union goon yankee's asses won't be too tough and wouldn't take too long.

We have God, guns & guts. Y'all have obamaphones, welfare and fag marriage.

No contest.

34 posted on 11/14/2012 10:42:47 AM PST by Eaker ( If a soldier demands that you carry his gear for a mile, carry it two miles.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Eaker

The other thing the US government has that you don’t is the US Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines.

But if you think your a match for the 101st Airborne, then I’m not going to try to change your mind. They will probably retreat at the first sign of your keyboard.


35 posted on 11/14/2012 2:21:02 PM PST by chromdome35 (I'm the person you quote...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: publius321

Let those states that wish to leave secede from the United States
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/228/644/059/let-those-states-that-wish-to-leave-seceed-from-the-united-states/


36 posted on 11/14/2012 4:21:02 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet (You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chromdome35

Hell of a lot more southern boy than yankee fags in the military.

Getting rid of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell was odinga’s way to get more blue state liberals and butt packers in the military.

At least I have the guts to use my real name here unlike you ‘lil missy.


37 posted on 11/14/2012 5:15:34 PM PST by Eaker ( If a soldier demands that you carry his gear for a mile, carry it two miles.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: chromdome35
How did the whole secession thing work out for them?

The CSA created a govt in four weeks. Pretty good I'd say.

38 posted on 11/14/2012 5:25:35 PM PST by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Eaker

You are right, I am positive there are more southern boys than Yankee fags in the military. But the Yankee fags are probably outnumbered 10 to 1 by the southern boy fags in the military. Maybe you should join up.


39 posted on 11/14/2012 7:32:59 PM PST by chromdome35 (I'm the person you quote...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: chromdome35

Sorry about the fag comments, I guess I really struck a nerve.

I never would have posted that if I had known about the lightness of yer little loafers.

Look on the bright side, one of you is President again.


40 posted on 11/14/2012 7:53:02 PM PST by Eaker ( If a soldier demands that you carry his gear for a mile, carry it two miles.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: central_va
In Chisholm, Ex'r. v. Georgia, 2 Dall, 419, 1 U.S. (L.ed., 454, 457, 471, 472), 1793, Justice Wilson stated:

"To the Constitution of the United States the term SOVEREIGN is totally unknown. There is but one place where it could have been used with propriety. But, even in that place it would not, perhaps, have comported with the delicacy of those, who ordained and established that Constitution. They might have announced themselves 'SOVEREIGN' people of the United States. But serenely conscious of that fact, they avoided the ostentatious declaration." at 454.

"In another sense, according to some writers, every State which governs itself without any dependence on another power, is a sovereign State. Whether, with regard to her own citizens, this is the case of the State of Georgia; whether those citizens have done, as the individuals of England are said, by their late instructors, to have done, surrendered the Supreme Power to the State or Government, and reserved nothing to themselves; or whether, like the people of other States, and of the United States, the citizens of Georgia have reserved the Supreme Power in their own hands; and on that Supreme Power have made the State dependent, instead of being sovereign...As a citizen, I know the Government of the State to be republican; and my short definition of such a Government is, - one constructed on this principle, that the Supreme Power resides in the body of the people. As a Judge in this court, I know, and can decide upon the knowledge, that the citizens of Georgia, when they acted upon the large scale of the Union, as part of the 'People of the United States,' did not surrender the Supreme or sovereign Power to that State; but, as to the purposes of the Union, retained it to themselves. As to the purposes of the Union, therefore, Georgia is not a sovereign State..." at 457.

In the same case, Justice Iredell made the following statements:

"...A State does not owe its origin to the Government of the United States, in the highest or in any of its branches. It was in existence before it. It derives its authority from the same pure and sacred source as itself: The voluntary and deliberate choice of the people. A State, though subject in certain specified particulars to the authority of the Government of the United States, is in every other respect totally independent upon it. The people of the State created, the people of the State can only change, its Constitution. Upon this power there is no other limitation but that imposed by the Constitution of the United States; that it must be of the Republican form.."

Alexander Hamilton writes in "The Federalist No. 23":

"It has not a little contributed to the infirmities of the existing federal system, that it never had a ratification by the PEOPLE. Resting on no better foundation than the consent of the several Legislatures; it has been exposed to frequent and intricate questions concerning the validity of its powers; and has in some instances given birth to the enormous doctrine of a right of legislative repeal. Owing its ratification to the law of a State, it has been contended, that the same authority might repeal the law by which it was ratified. However gross a heresy it may be, to maintain that a party to a compact has a right to revoke that compact, the doctrine itself has respectable advocates. The possibility of a question of this nature, proves the necessity of laying the foundations of our national government deeper than the mere sanction of delegated authority. The fabric of American Empire ought to rest on the solid basis of the CONSENT OF THE PEOPLE. The streams of national power ought to flow immediately from that pure original fountain of all legitimate authority."

As stated by James Wilson:

"It [sovereignty] resides in the PEOPLE, as the fountain of government....They have not parted with it; they have only dispensed such portions of power as were conceived necessary for the public welfare....they can delegate it in such proportions, to such bodies, on such terms, and under such limitations, as they think proper." (Gordon S. Woods, The Creation of the American Republic 1776-1787, W.W. Norton & Co., c 1969. at 530.)

Once this is understood, only then is it possible to grasp how the people "may take from subordinate governments powers with which they have hitherto trusted them, and place these powers in the general government...They can distribute one portion of power to the more contracted circle called the State governments; they can also furnish another proportion to the government of the United States." (Creation at 530-31)

St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries: With Notes of Refernce to The Constitution and Laws of the Federal Government of the United States; and the Commonwealth of Virginia, William Young Birch, and Abraham Small; Philadelphia, c 1803. "View of the Constitution of the United States, Section 2"

"It is a compact by which the several states and the people thereof, respectively, have bound themselves to each other, and to the federal government.

"Having shewn that the constitution had its commencement with the body politic of the several states; and, that its final adoption and ratification was, by the several legislatures referred to, and completed by conventions, especially called and appointed for that purpose, in each state; the acceptance of the constitution, was not only an act of the body politic of each state, but of the people thereof respectively, in their sovereign character and capacity: the body politic was competent to bind itself so far as the constitution of the state permitted, but not having power to bind the people, in cases beyond their constitutional authority, the assent of the people was indispensably necessary to the validity of the compact, by which the rights of the people might be diminished, or submitted to a new jurisdiction, or in any manner affected. From hence, not only the body politic of the several states, but every citizen thereof, may be considered as parties to the compact, and to have bound themselves reciprocally to each other, for the due observance of it and, also, to have bound themselves to the federal government, whose authority has been thereby created, and established."

St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries: With Notes of Refernce to The Constitution and Laws of the Federal Government of the United States; and the Commonwealth of Virginia, William Young Birch, and Abraham Small; Philadelphia, c 1803. "View of the Constitution of the United States, Section 1"

"The mild tone of requisition was exchanged for the active operations of power, and the features of a federal council for those of a national sovereignty. These concessions it was seen were, in many instances, beyond the power of the state legislatures, (limited by their respective constitutions) to make, without the express assent of the people. A convention was therefore summoned, in every state by the authority of their respective legislatures, to consider of the propriety of adopting the proposed plan; and their assent made it binding in each state; and the assent of nine states rendered it obligatory upon all the states adopting it. Here then are all the features of an original compact, not only between the body politic of each state, but also between the people of those states in their highest sovereign capacity."

I suggest you read this: The Jubilee of the Constitution: A Discourse Delivered the 30th of April, 1839 http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/misc/1839-jub.htm

"At his residence of Mount Vernon, in March, 1785, the first idea was started of a revisal of the articles of confederation, by an organization of means differing from that of a compact between the state Legislatures and their own delegates in Congress. A convention of delegates from the state Legislatures, independent of the Congress itself, was the expedient which presented itself for effecting the purpose, and an augmentation of the powers of Congress for the regulation of commerce, as the object for which this assembly was to be convened. In January, 1786, the proposal was made and adopted in the Legislature of Virginia, and communicated to the other state Legislatures.

"The Convention was held at Annapolis, in September of that year. It was attended by delegates from only five of the central states, who on comparing their restricted powers, with the glaring and universally acknowledged defects of the confederation, reported only a recommendation for the assemblage of another convention of delegates to meet at Philadelphia, in May, 1787, from all the states and with enlarged powers.

The Constitution of the United States was the work of this Convention. But in its construction the Convention immediately perceived that they must retrace their steps, and fall back from a league of friendship between sovereign states, to the constituent sovereignty of the people, from power to right - from the irresponsible despotism of state sovereignty, to the self-evident truths of the Declaration of Independence...

"The Convention assembled at Philadelphia had themselves no direct authority from the people. Their authority was all derived from the state legislatures. But they had the articles of confederation before them, and they saw and felt the wretched condition into which they had brought the whole people, and that the Union itself was in the agonies of death. They soon perceived that the indispensably needed powers were such as no state government; no combination of them was by the principles of the Declaration of Independence competent to bestow. They could emanate only from the people. A highly respectable portion of the assembly, still clinging to the confederacy of states, proposed as a substitute for the Constitution, a mere revival of the articles of confederation, with a grant of additional powers to the Congress. Their plan was respectfully and thoroughly discussed, but the want of a government and of the sanction of the people to the delegation of powers, happily prevailed. A Constitution for the people, and the distribution of legislative, executive, and judicial powers, was prepared. It announced itself as the work of the people themselves; and as this was unquestionably a power assumed by the Convention, not delegated to them by the people, they religiously confined it to a simple power to propose, and carefully provided that it should be no more than a proposal until sanctioned by the confederation Congress, by the state Legislatures, and by the people of the several states, in conventions specially assembled, by authority of their Legislatures, for the single purpose of examining and passing upon it."

41 posted on 11/14/2012 8:53:38 PM PST by marsh2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: central_va
In Chisholm, Ex'r. v. Georgia, 2 Dall, 419, 1 U.S. (L.ed., 454, 457, 471, 472), 1793, Justice Wilson stated:

"To the Constitution of the United States the term SOVEREIGN is totally unknown. There is but one place where it could have been used with propriety. But, even in that place it would not, perhaps, have comported with the delicacy of those, who ordained and established that Constitution. They might have announced themselves 'SOVEREIGN' people of the United States. But serenely conscious of that fact, they avoided the ostentatious declaration." at 454.

"In another sense, according to some writers, every State which governs itself without any dependence on another power, is a sovereign State. Whether, with regard to her own citizens, this is the case of the State of Georgia; whether those citizens have done, as the individuals of England are said, by their late instructors, to have done, surrendered the Supreme Power to the State or Government, and reserved nothing to themselves; or whether, like the people of other States, and of the United States, the citizens of Georgia have reserved the Supreme Power in their own hands; and on that Supreme Power have made the State dependent, instead of being sovereign...As a citizen, I know the Government of the State to be republican; and my short definition of such a Government is, - one constructed on this principle, that the Supreme Power resides in the body of the people. As a Judge in this court, I know, and can decide upon the knowledge, that the citizens of Georgia, when they acted upon the large scale of the Union, as part of the 'People of the United States,' did not surrender the Supreme or sovereign Power to that State; but, as to the purposes of the Union, retained it to themselves. As to the purposes of the Union, therefore, Georgia is not a sovereign State..." at 457.

In the same case, Justice Iredell made the following statements:

"...A State does not owe its origin to the Government of the United States, in the highest or in any of its branches. It was in existence before it. It derives its authority from the same pure and sacred source as itself: The voluntary and deliberate choice of the people. A State, though subject in certain specified particulars to the authority of the Government of the United States, is in every other respect totally independent upon it. The people of the State created, the people of the State can only change, its Constitution. Upon this power there is no other limitation but that imposed by the Constitution of the United States; that it must be of the Republican form.."

Alexander Hamilton writes in "The Federalist No. 23":

"It has not a little contributed to the infirmities of the existing federal system, that it never had a ratification by the PEOPLE. Resting on no better foundation than the consent of the several Legislatures; it has been exposed to frequent and intricate questions concerning the validity of its powers; and has in some instances given birth to the enormous doctrine of a right of legislative repeal. Owing its ratification to the law of a State, it has been contended, that the same authority might repeal the law by which it was ratified. However gross a heresy it may be, to maintain that a party to a compact has a right to revoke that compact, the doctrine itself has respectable advocates. The possibility of a question of this nature, proves the necessity of laying the foundations of our national government deeper than the mere sanction of delegated authority. The fabric of American Empire ought to rest on the solid basis of the CONSENT OF THE PEOPLE. The streams of national power ought to flow immediately from that pure original fountain of all legitimate authority."

As stated by James Wilson:

"It [sovereignty] resides in the PEOPLE, as the fountain of government....They have not parted with it; they have only dispensed such portions of power as were conceived necessary for the public welfare....they can delegate it in such proportions, to such bodies, on such terms, and under such limitations, as they think proper." (Gordon S. Woods, The Creation of the American Republic 1776-1787, W.W. Norton & Co., c 1969. at 530.)

Once this is understood, only then is it possible to grasp how the people "may take from subordinate governments powers with which they have hitherto trusted them, and place these powers in the general government...They can distribute one portion of power to the more contracted circle called the State governments; they can also furnish another proportion to the government of the United States." (Creation at 530-31)

St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries: With Notes of Refernce to The Constitution and Laws of the Federal Government of the United States; and the Commonwealth of Virginia, William Young Birch, and Abraham Small; Philadelphia, c 1803. "View of the Constitution of the United States, Section 2"

"It is a compact by which the several states and the people thereof, respectively, have bound themselves to each other, and to the federal government.

"Having shewn that the constitution had its commencement with the body politic of the several states; and, that its final adoption and ratification was, by the several legislatures referred to, and completed by conventions, especially called and appointed for that purpose, in each state; the acceptance of the constitution, was not only an act of the body politic of each state, but of the people thereof respectively, in their sovereign character and capacity: the body politic was competent to bind itself so far as the constitution of the state permitted, but not having power to bind the people, in cases beyond their constitutional authority, the assent of the people was indispensably necessary to the validity of the compact, by which the rights of the people might be diminished, or submitted to a new jurisdiction, or in any manner affected. From hence, not only the body politic of the several states, but every citizen thereof, may be considered as parties to the compact, and to have bound themselves reciprocally to each other, for the due observance of it and, also, to have bound themselves to the federal government, whose authority has been thereby created, and established."

St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries: With Notes of Refernce to The Constitution and Laws of the Federal Government of the United States; and the Commonwealth of Virginia, William Young Birch, and Abraham Small; Philadelphia, c 1803. "View of the Constitution of the United States, Section 1"

"The mild tone of requisition was exchanged for the active operations of power, and the features of a federal council for those of a national sovereignty. These concessions it was seen were, in many instances, beyond the power of the state legislatures, (limited by their respective constitutions) to make, without the express assent of the people. A convention was therefore summoned, in every state by the authority of their respective legislatures, to consider of the propriety of adopting the proposed plan; and their assent made it binding in each state; and the assent of nine states rendered it obligatory upon all the states adopting it. Here then are all the features of an original compact, not only between the body politic of each state, but also between the people of those states in their highest sovereign capacity."

I suggest you read this: The Jubilee of the Constitution: A Discourse Delivered the 30th of April, 1839 http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/misc/1839-jub.htm

"At his residence of Mount Vernon, in March, 1785, the first idea was started of a revisal of the articles of confederation, by an organization of means differing from that of a compact between the state Legislatures and their own delegates in Congress. A convention of delegates from the state Legislatures, independent of the Congress itself, was the expedient which presented itself for effecting the purpose, and an augmentation of the powers of Congress for the regulation of commerce, as the object for which this assembly was to be convened. In January, 1786, the proposal was made and adopted in the Legislature of Virginia, and communicated to the other state Legislatures.

"The Convention was held at Annapolis, in September of that year. It was attended by delegates from only five of the central states, who on comparing their restricted powers, with the glaring and universally acknowledged defects of the confederation, reported only a recommendation for the assemblage of another convention of delegates to meet at Philadelphia, in May, 1787, from all the states and with enlarged powers.

The Constitution of the United States was the work of this Convention. But in its construction the Convention immediately perceived that they must retrace their steps, and fall back from a league of friendship between sovereign states, to the constituent sovereignty of the people, from power to right - from the irresponsible despotism of state sovereignty, to the self-evident truths of the Declaration of Independence...

"The Convention assembled at Philadelphia had themselves no direct authority from the people. Their authority was all derived from the state legislatures. But they had the articles of confederation before them, and they saw and felt the wretched condition into which they had brought the whole people, and that the Union itself was in the agonies of death. They soon perceived that the indispensably needed powers were such as no state government; no combination of them was by the principles of the Declaration of Independence competent to bestow. They could emanate only from the people. A highly respectable portion of the assembly, still clinging to the confederacy of states, proposed as a substitute for the Constitution, a mere revival of the articles of confederation, with a grant of additional powers to the Congress. Their plan was respectfully and thoroughly discussed, but the want of a government and of the sanction of the people to the delegation of powers, happily prevailed. A Constitution for the people, and the distribution of legislative, executive, and judicial powers, was prepared. It announced itself as the work of the people themselves; and as this was unquestionably a power assumed by the Convention, not delegated to them by the people, they religiously confined it to a simple power to propose, and carefully provided that it should be no more than a proposal until sanctioned by the confederation Congress, by the state Legislatures, and by the people of the several states, in conventions specially assembled, by authority of their Legislatures, for the single purpose of examining and passing upon it."

42 posted on 11/14/2012 8:53:42 PM PST by marsh2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

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

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