Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

If Lincoln was correct...
Me | 3/11/03 | A2J

Posted on 03/11/2003 2:10:43 PM PST by A2J

If Lincoln Was Correct... Then MUST the U.S. Abide By United Nations’ Demands?

Recently, while listening to a conservative radio talk show, the host mentioned that someone (I failed to get the name) had either written a book or made a statement to the effect that the United States was obliged to follow all of the mandates of the United Nations, primarily because the U.S. entered into a pact or contract with member nations to do so. This contention intrigued me as to the parallels it has regarding whether Lincoln was indeed right when he claimed that the South illegally seceded from the Union, thus igniting his attempt to restore the Union.

Indeed, there are many here on FR that contend that the sovereignty of the Southern states, as well as all states, became subservient to the conditions of the Constitution upon their ratification of it. If true, if the Southern states abdicated, or at least greatly restricted, their sovereignty upon entry into the Union, then does it not portend that the United States has also abdicated or greatly restricted its sovereignty upon its entry into the United Nations, NATO and other pacts that demand compliance with its resolutions? For example, if the UN would approve of a resolution that mandated that the U.S. withdraw from specific areas of the world, isn’t the U.S. required to do so because of its membership in the UN?

Although I am an avid, pro-Southern opponent of Lincoln and his policies, I would appreciate any comments regarding whether the U.S. is obligated by the mandates of the UN and/or any other organization of which it is a member nation. I would also like to hear the reasoning behind the answers whether they are to the affirmative or negative to the question. In addition, please consider the question as to whether the U.S. has the right to withdraw from said organizations and why?

Let us debate!


TOPICS: Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-70 next last
Comments?
1 posted on 03/11/2003 2:10:43 PM PST by A2J
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: billbears; 4ConservativeJustices; shuckmaster
Bump for your comments.

Also please ping other Southerners for theirs as well.

2 posted on 03/11/2003 2:15:13 PM PST by A2J (Those who truly understand peace know that its father is war.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A2J; stainlessbanner; sheltonmac
Bump for later. Good question BTW
3 posted on 03/11/2003 2:16:09 PM PST by billbears (Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A2J
No United Nations charter was ever considered the supreme law of our land, the Constitution is and always was.
4 posted on 03/11/2003 2:17:11 PM PST by #3Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A2J

How many divisions has Annan?


5 posted on 03/11/2003 2:19:10 PM PST by Paleo Conservative (This space left intentionally blank.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A2J
Looks like you guys are really getting desperate for things to bash Lincoln on.
6 posted on 03/11/2003 2:21:07 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A2J
The US did not alienate any of its sovereignty when it joined the UN.

All states obviously gave up at least some elements of their sovereignty when they joined the Union. For instance, the right to control inter-state trade and foreign relations.

A Federal Union is very different from a League.
7 posted on 03/11/2003 2:21:35 PM PST by Restorer (TANSTAAFL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A2J
It is time to get out of the u.n.no matter what anyone thinks.It is of no value,we fight all the battles and pick up all the tabs anyway,THEY NEED US,WE DO NOT NEED THEM!
8 posted on 03/11/2003 2:22:20 PM PST by INSENSITIVE GUY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
bump
9 posted on 03/11/2003 2:22:55 PM PST by billbears (Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: A2J
I refer you to the great Virginian, the honorable James Madison:

What would be the condition of the States attached to the Union & its Govt. and regarding both as essential to their well-being, if a State placed in the midst of them were to renounce its Federal obligations, and erect itself into an independent and alien nation? Could the States N. & S. of Virginia, Pennsyla. or N. York, or of some other States however small, remain associated and enjoy their present happiness, if geographically politically and practically thrown apart by such a breach in the chain which unites their interests and binds them together as neighbours & fellow citizens. It could not be. The innovation would be fatal to the Federal Governt. fatal to the Union, and fatal to the hopes of liberty and humanity; and presents a catastrophe at which all ought to shudder.

And...

Even in the case of a mere League between nations absolutely independent of each other, neither party has a right to dissolve it at pleasure; each having an equal right to expound its obligations, and neither, consequently a greater right to pronounce the compact void than the other has to insist on the mutual execution of it. [See, in Mr. Jefferson's volumes, his letters to J. M. Mr. Monroe & Col. Carrington]

--Letter to Nicholas Trist, 15 Feb. 1830

The United Nations, so far as I know, is a league. I think it is fair to say that the US should satisfy whatever obligations it has agreed to. The states of the Union have even stronger obligations, as I think Mr. Madison clearly pointed out.

10 posted on 03/11/2003 2:23:50 PM PST by Huck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Looks like you guys are really getting desperate for things to bash Lincoln on.

This is not intended to "bash Lincoln," but to substantiate the differences, if any, between a pact that a state enters into versus one a nation enters into.

Don't worry, we'll try to leave your god alone in this one.

11 posted on 03/11/2003 2:25:03 PM PST by A2J (Those who truly understand peace know that its father is war.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: A2J
Here is a link to the United Nations Charter. If you want to debate then lets get down to specifics. What parts of the Charter give the United Nations sovereignity over the United States? What actions of President Lincoln were in line with the UN Charter?
12 posted on 03/11/2003 2:27:07 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
What parts of the Charter give the United Nations sovereignity over the United States? What actions of President Lincoln were in line with the UN Charter?

By law, none necessarily. However, the same could be said of the union over the states. The Constitution outlined certain specific powers that the federal government had, however over time through misreadings and wishful revision the federal government came to have much more power than it was originally intended. lincoln used those misinterpreted powers like an iron fist in '61. Are you strong enough in your convictions of the 'voluntary' aspect of the UN to state without a doubt that the UN hasn't intruded on the sovereignty of these United States much as the tyrant did to the states in '61?

13 posted on 03/11/2003 2:32:45 PM PST by billbears (Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: A2J
This seems to be a rather long, disengenious stretch to bash Lincoln. How you can compare the Civil War and slavery and the current situation is beyond my comprehension. Other than to point out how much you hate Lincoln, I really don't understand what you attempting to say. Why not post a thread entitled "Top 10 reasons why I hate Abraham Lincoln"? It would be much less confusing, and a genuine debate could ensue. Better luck next time.
14 posted on 03/11/2003 2:39:46 PM PST by GLDNGUN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A2J
Absolutely nothing in the UN Charter forces member states to abrogate their self-interests. It can condemn those interests. It can authorize military action against some action. But it can not legally compel a member to follow its dictates.

The US Constitution, however, in the Supremacy Clause, clearly says that state law must conform with the Constitution and the President has a sworn duty to see that the laws are fatefully enforced and applied equally in every jurisdiction. .

Who ever you heard say otherwise has no damn idea what he is talking about.

BTW. In the 60+ years the UN has been around there have been somewhere around 60 wars. On only three occasions has the UN authorized use of force and those three were all requested by the United States --- Korea in 1950, Gulf I in 1990, and Gulf II with resolution 1444 in November 2002. Russia, China, France and other nations have had wars that were either outside of UN approval or specifically condemned by the UN. No one but the US has ever even asked for UN permission. What the UN said never bothered France or Russia one bit when they were involved in following their self-interests. What the UN says will not bother us in the least as we move in to finally crush Saddam.

15 posted on 03/11/2003 2:41:33 PM PST by Ditto (You are free to form your own opinions, but not your own facts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GLDNGUN
This seems to be a rather long, disengenious stretch to bash Lincoln.

The Lincoln haters are like this guy. There is no stretch too long for them.

16 posted on 03/11/2003 2:48:11 PM PST by Ditto (You are free to form your own opinions, but not your own facts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: billbears
The Constitution outlined certain specific powers that the federal government had, however over time through misreadings and wishful revision the federal government came to have much more power than it was originally intended.

I must have missed the part which says that billbears determines what constitutes misreadings and wishful revisions.

Are you strong enough in your convictions of the 'voluntary' aspect of the UN to state without a doubt that the UN hasn't intruded on the sovereignty of these United States much as the tyrant did to the states in '61?

Yes.

17 posted on 03/11/2003 2:48:42 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: A2J
Just as the Constitution does not deny a state the right to re-assert its sovereignty (i.e., secede), the Charter does not deny a nation the right to retain its soverignty. The U.S. has the right to defend itself. Whether or not that warrants an attack on Iraq is another debate.
18 posted on 03/11/2003 2:57:50 PM PST by sheltonmac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
I must have missed the part which says that billbears determines what constitutes misreadings and wishful revisions.

Figures you would. It says it in the 10th Amendment. You know that sticky Amendment that states powers not explicitly enumerated in the aforesaid document belong to the states? Revisionism from judicial review have treated that Amendment like a piece of toilet paper from 1803 on

19 posted on 03/11/2003 3:08:48 PM PST by billbears (Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: A2J
A great analogy.

If the US were to secede from the UN, could the other nations label us a "rouge" nation much as the Southern states were labeled by the unionists? Absolutely.

Could the other nations overtly, or through subterfuge, engage the US in conflict to bring it back into the fold? Absolutely.

If successful, could the other nations rewrite our Constitution and impose a government to reduce our sovereignty to international law and organizations? Absolutely.

And would the historians of the World Federation acclaim the motives and justify the outcomes of such an act? Absolutely.

Does it matter to me whether the confederate states had a right to secede? No.

Would I have forced the confederate states back into the union? Yes.

Has federalism over confederacy swung power from where it was originally held between 1777/1781 (The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union) to 1787/1789 (Constitution of The United States) through the Civil War and suceeding world wars? Absolutely.

Personally, I'd like to see the US bring rouge nations like Iraq, Iran and North Korea into the fold, rather than the reverse. Unfortunately, we may need to start with France, Germany and Russia.

20 posted on 03/11/2003 3:10:48 PM PST by optimistically_conservative (We're approaching the one-year anniversary of Democrats accusing Bush of a "rush" to war.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: optimistically_conservative
Personally, I'd like to see the US bring rouge nations like Iraq, Iran and North Korea into the fold, rather than the reverse. Unfortunately, we may need to start with France, Germany and Russia

LOL!! What absolute arrogance. Could you outline for me where it says in the Constitution of these United States where it's our responsibility, even our right, to bring other nations 'back into the fold' as you say? Are they not allowed to practice their national sovereignty either? Granted North Korea is a viable and direct threat to these United States but none of the other countries, except maybe for Russia, have the capability to attack our continental borders. But you've all the sudden decided to bring these people 'back into the fold'. And which 'fold' is that, praytell? The folds of democracy, the folds of civilized thought, how about the folds of the sphere of American Empire influence? That's it isn't it? How dare these nations have any interests in mind other than what Washington DC wants them to have, is that it?

Wait a minute, let me guess. I expect you're going to say something to the effect of 'it's not Constitutional, but it's the right thing to do' drivel. Yep, that's Constitutional < /sarcasm>

21 posted on 03/11/2003 3:22:04 PM PST by billbears (Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: billbears
What absolute arrogance.

I'm not sure how the sole remaining super-power exercises a foreign policy without being a hegemon subject to criticism of arrogance.

Could you outline for me where it says in the Constitution of these United States where it's our responsibility, even our right, to bring other nations 'back into the fold' as you say?

The Constitution gives the Congress and President wide latitude to deal with other nations in:

Article I, Section 8 Article II, Section 2
Turning the question around, could you outline for me where it says in the Constitution the Congress or President would be prohibited from such actions?

Granted North Korea is a viable and direct threat to these United States but none of the other countries, except maybe for Russia, have the capability to attack our continental borders.

Uhh, North Korea is the only threat? Well, maybe Russia too? And France's nuclear arsenal? Iraq and Iran, no? I do agree, Germany is pretty harmless internationally.

How dare these nations have any interests in mind other than what Washington DC wants them to have, is that it?

It's been my experience that the US doesn't care about the interests of other countries unless they directly interfere with our own, or by placating theirs, they enable us to achieve ours.

I expect you're going to say something to the effect of 'it's not Constitutional, but it's the right thing to do' drivel.

Nope, I'm a realist, not an idealists dreaming of utopia or isolationism.

22 posted on 03/11/2003 3:58:10 PM PST by optimistically_conservative (We're approaching the one-year anniversary of Democrats accusing Bush of a "rush" to war.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: billbears
It says it in the 10th Amendment.

The 10th Amendment says that powers not reserved to the United States nor prevented by the Consitution are reserved to the states and their people. I believe that the power to make and change the status of a state is a power reserved to Congress by the Constitution. And that the power to act in a unilateral manner where the interests of other states is impacted is a power prevented the states. That nasty old Constitution getting in the way again. Maybe thats why the confederate president ignored it as he pleased.

23 posted on 03/11/2003 4:32:17 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
I believe that the power to make and change the status of a state is a power reserved to Congress by the Constitution. And that the power to act in a unilateral manner where the interests of other states is impacted is a power prevented the states. That nasty old Constitution getting in the way again

So by that logic, because these United States joined a voluntary union in the UN, which does not have much more in the way of guaranteeing a separate state's sovereignty than the Constitution and the 10th Amendment, these US must abide by the ruling of the UN. Therefore, they not only have to face the issue of the Constitution and defining whether or not Iraq as a nation is a clear and present danger against the borders, they now must convince the majority of the UN and abide by their decision. Now while I do not believe these US must abide by any decision of the UN, your logic says they must. Both the UN and these US are unions entered voluntarily. Neither stipulates a way that a nation or state can leave voluntarily. How is one different from the other? Unless you can prove otherwise I don't remember seeing a document that stated specifically the states gave up their rights. Rather the 10th protected them (at least until abe came along). Heck, at least the Constitution has that. Apparently once you join the UN you can't leave!!

I believe that the power to make and change the status of a state is a power reserved to Congress by the Constitution.

Well that's fine if you believe that, but precedence as shown through the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions as well as the stipulations laid out by New York and Rhode Island prove that point otherwise. If the Founders as a whole had agreed that once a state joined this voluntary union that gave up their right of deciding their own course, then why did they accept such stipulations for some states that fly in the face of your argument?

24 posted on 03/11/2003 5:45:57 PM PST by billbears (Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: billbears
Well that's fine if you believe that, but precedence as shown through the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions as well as the stipulations laid out by New York and Rhode Island prove that point otherwise.

Oh crap, billbears. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, not the Virginia or Kentucky resolutions. The Constitution states how a state is admitted and by implication how it can leave.

25 posted on 03/11/2003 6:32:04 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
The Constitution states how a state is admitted and by implication how it can leave.

By implication? Pray, where does it say by implication?!? What the Constitution says is

'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.

Is the power of secession or directions for leaving the union somewhere in the document I missed? No? Then it falls under the 10th as a power not delegated to the federal government. Look at it this way. I enter into a contract with you, but send you back the contract with certain changes that I deem necessary, and you, by your silence, accept those changes. We for some reason have to go in front of a court. Any court in the land that follows common law is going to side with me on a judgement because you did not voice an objection to the changed agreement.

This is the same situation. New York, Kentucky, and Rhode Island sent back a changed agreement. The Southern states recognized that change, and of course after watching their northern brethren threaten secession time and time again since the inception of the document, decided to themselves secede. It was only in '69 after that infamous politicized decision that secession was declared illegal. Interesting that it took eight years. You would have thought that during the four years of the war that the government of these United States would have brought something to trial to have secession declared illegal. Ah, but Sal fixed that one for them didn't he? Of course to cover his own tail as well

26 posted on 03/11/2003 7:23:44 PM PST by billbears (Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: A2J
From Article VI of the Constitution:
    This Constitution, and the Laws of the United
    States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties
    made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United
    States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in
    every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution
    or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
So the question becomes one of  what is our arrangement under the UN Charter, is it a treaty or something else, and whether or not the Constitution protects us from anything  other wise in the arrangement.   If we do not like the answers to those questions, then other questions are raised, such as do our complaints rise to the level of the Declaration of Independence such that we are "impelled" to separation.
 

From the Preamble to the Articles of Confederation:

     Whereas the Delegates of the United States of America in Congress
    assembled did on the fifteenth day of November in the Year of our
    Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventyseven, and in the Second
    Year of the Independence of America agree to certain articles of
    Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of
    Newhampshire, Massachusetts-bay, Rhodeisland and Providence
    Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania,
    Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North-Carolina, South-Carolina and
    Georgia in the Words following, viz.
From the Articles of Confederation:
      Article XIII. Every State shall abide by the determinations of
    the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by
    this confederation are submitted to them.  And the articles of this
    confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the
    Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time
    hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed
    to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed
    by the Legislatures of every State.
From the Northwest Ordinance of 1787:
      Sec. 14. It is hereby ordained and declared, by the authority
    aforesaid, that the following articles shall be considered as
    articles of compact, between the original States and the people and
    States in the said territory, and forever remain unalterable,
    unless by common consent, to wit:


A cursory consideration  indicates that the Founders intended a perpetual union unless there was common consent to separate or a complaint rising to the level of the Decleration of Independance.

The Constitution of the United States does not appear to have changed this.  The Constitution of the United States merely sets up a new form of government for the States previously joined in perpetual union.  They could have set up a Constitutional Monarchy, and it would have been the same States joined in perpetual union.

27 posted on 03/11/2003 7:32:43 PM PST by KrisKrinkle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KrisKrinkle
The Constitution of the United States merely sets up a new form of government for the States previously joined in perpetual union.

Funny then isn't it that they didn't put the statement 'perpetual union' in the document? And the facts that the document was signed only with provisions in certain states to maintain their sovereignty and leave when they (not Congress) chose. Never mind that the d#mn yankees had been suggesting secession for themselves since 1803

They could have set up a Constitutional Monarchy, and it would have been the same States joined in perpetual union.

And that's exactly what Hamilton and his ilk wanted, as evidenced by his statements at the Constitutional Convention. That along with a national bank (lincoln), one money standard (lincoln and his worthless greenback scam), federal taxation (lincoln), strong centralized government (lincoln). Hmmm, looks like the Federalist trash got everything he wanted and more

28 posted on 03/11/2003 7:42:57 PM PST by billbears (Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: billbears
Funny then isn't it that they didn't put the statement 'perpetual union' in the document?

That would have been simpler.  But...

From the Preamble:

      We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
      Union, ... do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Article 1, Section 1:
     Representatives and direct Taxes shall be
    apportioned among the several States which may be included within
    this Union...
Article IV, Section 3:
    New States may be admitted by the
    Congress into this Union;
Article IV, Section 4:
    The United States shall guarantee to every State in
    this Union a Republican Form of Government,
The existence of the Union seems to have been assumed, perhaps as so obvious that it did not need elaboration.  That would make sense if they had established it as a perpetual Union.  Would  you and your spouse restate your marriage vows everytime you changed the arrangement between the two of you?  And they certainly didn't feel the need to elaborate on other things that would have been obvious to them:  Republican Form of Government, Representative, Senator, Department, Office.
 

And the facts that the document was signed only with provisions in certain states to maintain their sovereignty and leave when they (not Congress) chose.

The states should maintain some sovereignty, and willingly give up some as they enter into an arrangement with others.  As a matter of fact, they should maintain more sovereignty than they do.  (I am not so sure direct election of Senators was a good idea.  The Senators were to represent the States, after all.)  And there was no point in trying to enforce the Union if no State had actually left.  But when a state  left, if at all, it could not be only by its own chooseing.  The other States, not the Congress, would have a say.  When one party to an agreement decides to break the agreement, other parties have a right to hold the first party to the agreement, or extract satisfaction.  If they decide not too, that's there decision, not the decision of the party that breaks the agreement.  And of course that would not hold true if  a State's complaints rose to the level of the Declaration of Indpendence.
 

Never   mind that the d#mn yankees had been suggesting secession for themselves since 1803

Like I said above.  And that doesn't make it right.  Maybe the South kept it's honor longer than the North.  (I already know you'd strike the 'maybe.")

I've got people in Eastern North Carolina.  And I'm pretty sure I had people on both sides of The War.
 

29 posted on 03/11/2003 9:35:08 PM PST by KrisKrinkle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: #3Fan
No United Nations charter was ever considered the supreme law of our land

There are some elsewhere in the world who believe it to be so. One of them named Kofi Annan recently said that the UN Charter prevented the US from going to war in Iraq, indicating this very same belief.

30 posted on 03/12/2003 12:30:25 AM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: KrisKrinkle
A cursory consideration indicates that the Founders intended a perpetual union unless there was common consent to separate or a complaint rising to the level of the Decleration of Independance.

It is interesting that your primary piece of evidence for that assertion is the Articles of Confederation clause pertaining to its applicability:

"And the articles of this confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual"

Evidently this was not to be so as those articles of "perpetual" unionism were ditched half a decade later and replaced by the Constitution. By contrast, evidence does exist to suggest that the founders were tolerant of a separation of the union including one based upon the desires of the separating region. Jefferson wrote of this after the acquisition of the Louisiana territories:

"The future inhabitants of the Atlantic & Missipi States will be our sons. We leave them in distinct but bordering establishments. We think we see their happiness in their union, & we wish it. Events may prove it otherwise; and if they see their interest in separation, why should we take side with our Atlantic rather than our Missipi descendants? It is the elder and the younger son differing. God bless them both, & keep them in union, if it be for their good, but separate them, if it be better." - Thomas Jefferson, August 12, 1803

It is also a matter of fact that the states of Virginia and Rhode Island ratified the Constitution itself with clauses reserving the right to withdraw from it. It stands to reason that, if the founders were in consensus upon a perpetual union, they would not have, in at least two cases, adopted clauses to permit that union to be withdrawn from by a state.

31 posted on 03/12/2003 12:56:59 AM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: billbears
What the Constitution says is...

What the Constitution also says, billbears, is that a state can only be admitted to the Union on the majority vote of Congress. States cannot combine without congressional approval or split up without congressional approval or change their borders one fraction of an inch without congressional approval. Obviously the power to determine the status of a state was a power reserved to Congress by the Constitution.

32 posted on 03/12/2003 4:27:02 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: GLDNGUN
How you can compare the Civil War and slavery and the current situation is beyond my comprehension.

Considering that fact that slavery and other atrocities (genocide) have occured and are occuring in/by nations that are members of the UN (Sudan, for one), how can there not be a correlation between the reasons for the Civil War and the right of the U.S. to secede from the UN?

You need to work on your comprehension, sir.

33 posted on 03/12/2003 6:10:37 AM PST by A2J (Those who truly understand peace know that its father is war.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: optimistically_conservative
RE: #20

Is your post a very good one? Absolutely.

(Although I disagree about forcing the Confederacy back into the Union.)

34 posted on 03/12/2003 6:13:13 AM PST by A2J (Those who truly understand peace know that its father is war.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: billbears
"Granted North Korea is a viable and direct threat to these United States but none of the other countries, except maybe for Russia, have the capability to attack our continental borders."

Little backward goat hearders and religious nuts in Afghanistan sure were never a threat to attack us either.

Wake up and smell the rubble Bill. Damn near anyone can strike us at damn near any time they want. Big oceans are no defense anymore and the attackers don't need tanks, ships, or ICBMs to put a big hurt on us.

35 posted on 03/12/2003 9:39:04 AM PST by Ditto (You are free to form your own opinions, but not your own facts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Ditto
Damn near anyone can strike us at damn near any time they want. Big oceans are no defense anymore and the attackers don't need tanks, ships, or ICBMs to put a big hurt on us.

I agree wholeheartedly. They are. However if we are to begin attacking every nation out there that supports sociopaths fiscally or otherwise, these United States are going to be at war for a long time. By the standards set forth in the writing and intent of the Founders, the only nation that is a viable and direct threat currently is North Korea

36 posted on 03/12/2003 10:00:40 AM PST by billbears (Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: billbears
"However if we are to begin attacking every nation out there that supports sociopaths fiscally or otherwise, these United States are going to be at war for a long time."

We will be at war for a long time. We can pretend otherwise, but the sociopaths will continue to attack us on their schedule --- unless we get them and their masters first.

It's ugly, but it is a fact.

37 posted on 03/12/2003 11:37:49 AM PST by Ditto (You are free to form your own opinions, but not your own facts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: billbears
"By the standards set forth in the writing and intent of the Founders, the only nation that is a viable and direct threat currently is North Korea.

Can you point me to that clause in the Constitution that says only countries with the ability to launch nuclear missles at the United States qualify as enemies?

38 posted on 03/12/2003 11:41:47 AM PST by Ditto (You are free to form your own opinions, but not your own facts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Ditto
Can you point me to that clause in the Constitution that says only countries with the ability to launch nuclear missles at the United States qualify as enemies?

Can you point to me that clause in the Constitution that says countries with fourth rate armies that are only a direct threat to their neighbors which are all thousands of miles away qualifies in any way as an enemy of these United States? And please none of that 'national interest' malarkey. By that argument we should have probably bombed half of Eastern Europe anytime between 1948-1985

39 posted on 03/12/2003 11:54:54 AM PST by billbears (Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: billbears
"Can you point to me that clause in the Constitution that says countries with fourth rate armies that are only a direct threat to their neighbors which are all thousands of miles away qualifies in any way as an enemy of these United States?"

Remember this?

And please none of that 'national interest' malarkey. By that argument we should have probably bombed half of Eastern Europe anytime between 1948-1985

I remember 1 Million US troops with a full complment of Nuclear and Conventional weapons sitting outside the Iron Curtain ready to turn any and every thing on the other side to dust if need be. National interest is far more than just protecting our borders. Even your hero Jefferson understood that when he attacked a fourth rate North African "power" which presented no threat whatsoever to the US mainland --- without a congressional declaration of war I might add. He did the exact right thing while the European powers all looked on in amazement at our "arrogance".

40 posted on 03/12/2003 12:33:19 PM PST by Ditto (You are free to form your own opinions, but not your own facts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
There are some elsewhere in the world who believe it to be so. One of them named Kofi Annan recently said that the UN Charter prevented the US from going to war in Iraq, indicating this very same belief.

And this is significant because...?

41 posted on 03/12/2003 2:14:45 PM PST by #3Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: #3Fan
And this is significant because...?

Because it shows that your statement, regardless of how you asserted it and regardless of what merits it may have, is not universally accepted to the point that others are willing to take actions in violation of it.

42 posted on 03/12/2003 4:06:07 PM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
It is interesting that your primary piece of evidence for that assertion is the Articles of Confederation clause pertaining to its applicability:

Arguably the United States was formed as a perpetual union under the Articles of Confederation, and its government was reorganized under the Constitution leaving the perpetual union part intact.  The Constitution references the Union as an existing entity.  If I recall correctly Madison joined Hamilton in writing Federalist 18. 19 and 20 under the title "The Insufficiency of the Present Confederation to Preserve the Union."

The “Letter of the President of the Federal Convention, Dated September 17, 1787, to the President of Congress, Transmitting the Constitution” states:

The friends of our country have long seen and desired, that the power of making war, peace, and treaties, that of levying money and regulating commerce, and the correspondent executive and judicial authorities should be fully and effectually vested in the general government of the Union: But the impropriety of delegating such extensive trust to one body of men is evident-Hence results the necessity of a different organization.


This letter notes the necessity of a different organization of the government of the Union and was sent to the representatives of the States that composed the Union.  (The Federal Government is not the United States. It is a governing mechanism or agent agreed to by the States.)  There is no indication that the Union was intended to end, just a change in the governing mechanism for it.

Looks to me like it flows.

Note that I have not maintained that a state has no right to secede.  What I maintain is that the other states may have a right to object to that secession.  Some of the States tried to "bust the deal" and were forced to "face the wheel."  In this case, the "Wheel" was a form of Judicial Combat.  Arguably, Lincoln and the Federal Government acted on behalf of the States which did not agree with the decision of other States to back out of a deal they had agreed to (before the Constitution existed).

Regarding the Louisiana Territory, if one of the States formed from that Territory decided to secede, and the remainder of the States agreed to the Secession, should those remaining States demand that the State vacate the land in question, or pay for it?  After all, the United States paid $15 million in good American dollars for that land and there is no reason to allow somebody to abscond with it without payment, like they had conquered it in war or something.

Or maybe not.  Do you have an opinion on the Constitutional basis for the purchase of the Louisiana Territory? Maybe none of them are legally part of the United States anyway.
 

43 posted on 03/12/2003 5:10:55 PM PST by KrisKrinkle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur; billbears
 
It says it in the 10th Amendment.

The 10th Amendment says...

What the Ninth and Tenth Ammendments say is:

ARTICLE (IX.)


      The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not
    be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

                                ARTICLE (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.
 

So, if the elected officials of the Federal Government represent the People and the States (the House of  Representatives for the People, the Senate for the States (at least usta be), and the President for both), and the People have a right as noted in the 9th, and the power as noted in the 10th, and the States have the power, as noted in the 10th, can they not have their representatives do most anything on which they can agree among themselves?  At least as long as it doesn't violate a right?  Was not the Federal Government acting in accordance with the agreement of the People of the Northern States who at least thought they had the right and power to hold the Southern States in the Union?  Would that not explain Social Security, and HUD and the EPA and a host of things "we" don't like?

Please argue against this.  Considering the way people have tended  to exercise their rights and powers for the last little while, it kind of scares me.

44 posted on 03/12/2003 5:48:12 PM PST by KrisKrinkle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: KrisKrinkle
Arguably the United States was formed as a perpetual union under the Articles of Confederation, and its government was reorganized under the Constitution leaving the perpetual union part intact.

I suppose it is arguable, but seeing as the Articles of Confederate use the term both times in reference to those same articles, a more plausible explanation suggest that the term applied only as far as the articles themselves remained intact. The first is in the document's reference to itself as "articles of confederation and perpetual union," and the second states that the union "shall be perpetual" under what it describes as the "articles of this confederation." Thus each description of the union in that document comes as an attribute to the articles themselves. It seems to follow that, if those same articles cease to be the governing mechanism and are replaced by something else, the attributes they give to themself also share in the fate of the articles.

The Constitution references the Union as an existing entity.

That it does, but a common mistake of many is to take a simple reference to "the Union" or a statement praising the benefits of "the Union" as if it were an endorsement for perpetual and inescapable membership in that same union. The Constitution makes no statement asserting the perpetual nature of "the Union," though it does use the term union. It would be fallacy though to conclude that the former is true by virtue of the latter's presence alone.

If I recall correctly Madison joined Hamilton in writing Federalist 18. 19 and 20 under the title "The Insufficiency of the Present Confederation to Preserve the Union."

Even so, simple praise of the union or a call to preserve it intact is not the same as a mandate perpetually binding its membership to that same union. It is a similar fallacy to identify simple advocacy of the union itself then conclude, based upon it alone, that the union's nature is inseparable.

This letter notes the necessity of a different organization of the government of the Union and was sent to the representatives of the States that composed the Union.

That it does, but again, a simple reference to the concept of the union, the functions of that union, or the benefits of that union does not constitute an assertion of that union's permanency. It is fallacy to insert that final step where there is none.

Note that I have not maintained that a state has no right to secede. What I maintain is that the other states may have a right to object to that secession.

The right to assert an objection is itself an obvious right of the other states. The issue is the degree in which they may assert this objection - specifically, does it mean they may simply urge their colleagues against secession, may they require that qualifications be met in order to secede, may they require their own full consent for secession to occur, or may they exert coercive force against a seceding state to prevent it from exercising an act of secession against their consent? Alexis de Tocqueville addressed this issue by noting that, ultimately, little could be legitimately done to stop secession. An act of coercion itself against a seceding state by an objecting state would itself be a violation of the Constitution's founding principle, thus making it the greater illegitimacy. As Tocqueville put it:

"If it be supposed that among the states that are united by the federal tie there are some which exclusively enjoy the principal advantages of union, or whose prosperity entirely depends on the duration of that union, it is unquestionable that they will always be ready to support the central government in enforcing the obedience of the others. But the government would then be exerting a force not derived from itself, but from a principle contrary to its nature. States form confederations in order to derive equal advantages from their union; and in the case just alluded to, the Federal government would derive its power from the unequal distribution of those benefits among the states."

Regarding the Louisiana Territory, if one of the States formed from that Territory decided to secede, and the remainder of the States agreed to the Secession, should those remaining States demand that the State vacate the land in question, or pay for it? After all, the United States paid $15 million in good American dollars for that land and there is no reason to allow somebody to abscond with it without payment, like they had conquered it in war or something.

In such a case, the question becomes one of a right to make such a claim. Upon the settlement of those lands, ownership of the inhabited properties will generally belong to those who inhabit them or use them to whatever purpose is theirs. Accordingly, to ask that they vacate that land or pay another state that has no singular or direct claim of ownership to it for that land's use is akin to robbery. In theory, this issue could extend as well to federal properties within a seceding state. Suppose that Louisiana, for example, desires to secede. It is true that the people of Louisiana havte paid taxes to the federal government just like those of Massachusetts or any other state, and those taxes are presumably used to build things - let's say forts - in both Louisiana and Massachusetts. If Louisiana decides to leave the union, should Massachusetts have any more claim to a fort within the boundaries of Louisiana than Louisiana does? Just the same, should Louisiana have any more claim to a fort within the boundaries of Massachusetts? If Louisiana were to secede it would no doubt be asserted by some in Massachusetts that they were "stealing" a fort paid for by Massachusetts tax dollars, but such a claim would be disingenuous as Louisiana tax dollars also paid for that same fort and for other forts outside of Louisiana. One could, I suppose, attempt to determine values and ownership based on formulas of federal tax contributions by state, but doing so would be a logistical, mathematical, and political nightmare. Instead it seems that the most prudent method of determination is geographical.

Do you have an opinion on the Constitutional basis for the purchase of the Louisiana Territory? Maybe none of them are legally part of the United States anyway.

Very possible. It would probably come down to whether or not the territory's de facto acceptance and admission into the United States supersedes the constitutionally sketchy ground on which it was obtained.

45 posted on 03/12/2003 6:00:39 PM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
Well, we have some agreement and some differences in view. Where you might view some things as "alone," I might view them as part of a pattern. Either view can lead one astray. "'It' is what 'it' is, regardless of one's view of it."
46 posted on 03/12/2003 8:45:30 PM PST by KrisKrinkle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: billbears; A2J
But wait, I can hear Lincoln Koffi now, "The UN created the United States, it prexisted the US, and other countries. It created them .... "
47 posted on 03/12/2003 9:52:36 PM PST by 4CJ ('No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.' - Alexander Hamilton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: KrisKrinkle
Please argue against this.

I'd be glad too except I'm not sure what you are trying to say. My position has been that the southern acts of secession were illegal. Not that secession itself is necessarily prevented but it can only be accomplished with the consent of all the parties involved, through a majority vote in Congress. That is how the Constitution requires new states be added, that's how the Constitution requires any change in the status of a state be authorized, so that should be the minimum requirement for leaving. Add to the the fact that the Constitution also forbids a number of unilateral actions by states where the interest of other states may be impacted. So it would seem that the 10th Amendment would argue against the southern actions not in favor of them.

48 posted on 03/13/2003 3:55:19 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
Because it shows that your statement, regardless of how you asserted it and regardless of what merits it may have, is not universally accepted to the point that others are willing to take actions in violation of it.

I still don't see Kofi's opinion as being significant.

49 posted on 03/13/2003 2:11:46 PM PST by #3Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
Because it shows that your statement, regardless of how you asserted it and regardless of what merits it may have, is not universally accepted to the point that others are willing to take actions in violation of it.

I still don't see Kofi's opinion as being significant.

50 posted on 03/13/2003 2:11:48 PM PST by #3Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-70 next last

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
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

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