Posted on 04/12/2007 9:34:54 AM PDT by TexConfederate1861
The Constitution, which upon ratification replaced the older document begins with a preamble which reads:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The Constitution superceded the old Articles but stressed in its opening that the Union was, is, and will be perpetual.
What the heck don't you Southrons understand about that?
Considering how far the debate has strayed from Fort Sumter then I suggest that the blatantly unconstitutional actions of Jeff Davis and his regime are just as much an issue as allegations of any violations by Lincoln. Except, of course, that when we bring up violations of article 1, section 8, clause 1; article 1, section 9, clause 1, clause 4, clause 12, clause 14, and clause 17; article 1, section 10, clause 2; article 3, section 1, clause 1; and so forth, you all refuse to come to Davis's defense.
Yeah? What do you call the regulatory powers delegated to Federal agencies?
this issue isn’t even up for debate.
How Goresque of you. Declare the issue undebatable, by authority of your "earlier posts".
I think it’s interesting that you bring up the Articles of Confederation.
The fact that the Articles of Confederation purported to form a perpetual union lends support, I would say, to the notion that the Constitution was not intended to be perpetual.
After all, the Founding Fathers clearly understood how to make the union perpetual—they had done so in the Articles of Confederation—so if the Constitution was intended to be perpetual, why didn’t the Founders so specify?
I know you did -- they did it in East Tennessee and other places too. And that's not even mentioning what they did to Black Union POWs.
But at the same time you are full of "outrage" about the violation of the Constitution when Lincoln just locked traitors up for a while to keep them out of mischief or sent them south to be with their own. I have never heard of a single report of the Union ever hanging a Copperhead or any other pro-Confederate men in their midsts.
Your selective outrage slip is showing, Tex. The neo-confederates could give the Duke 88 some lessons on hypocrisy.
Which would have put it on a par with most Southron posts in terms of inaccuracy.
In Memory of the Gallant Southern Soldiers who died defending their Constitutional Rights TO KEEP SLAVES.
blech
Well, gee, I guess when a power is textually committed to one brach of government and the Supreme Court has so held—without objection—multiple times, I imagine that to most thinking folks, that would close the debate.
Federal agencies only have rule-making authority, not legislative authority. The Supreme Court, rightly or wrongly, has drawn a clear distinction between the two.
Excuse me but “my side” is holding the Office of the President of the United States. and until a few months ago controlled Congress and the Senate. Now tell me again how the Republican Party has always stood for defending the Constitution when our President is actively breaking the law and going against his oath of office by encouraging millions of people to invade our counrty illegally.
Had Lincoln allowed the southern states to form their own country, then you wouldn't be Americans. ( you could argue that the new country was in North America so you would still be "Americans" - but by that logic Canadians and Mexicans are also "Americans".)
No matter what - the South LOST. Get over it.
You can say that until you're blue in the face, but he did and it stuck.
Yes, and as such, he was a lawless tyrant.
Look - I am probably more opposed to illegal immigration than 99.9% of the country - but just where does the Constitution say that the US MUST have tariffs on international trade? How is NAFTA "against the Constitution"???
The Constitution was to make the Union “more perfect” — that is, to make it endure.
My great great grand uncle Peter Hollenbeck fought the rebels with the 44th New York Reg. It’s funny how the goods and bad guys have switched places since Uncle Peter signed up. I don’t believe we would be better off if the Confederacy had won, but I do believe that they were far from totally wrong in their stance.
I’m not really sure how you get “perpetual” or even “enduring” out of “more perfect,” frankly.
Like I said, given that the Articles of Confederation were explicitly perpetual (but if it were indeed perpetual, as it claimed, query as to how it was eventually dissolved; after all, if it was perpetual, how come we aren’t governed by the Articles of the Confederation? And, moreover, how can a parliament bind future parliaments?), shouldn’t it have been easy to include similar language in the Constitution?
the South should have won
The South — and the North — did win the Civil War. The rebels lost.
Because NAFTA is a treaty and the Constitution requires a two-thirds vote by the Senate. It did not have that. therefore it is unconstitutional.
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.