Posted on 06/27/2008 7:08:18 AM PDT by cowboyway
A resolution is feckless except as it publicizes political posturing for the benefit of influencing the electorate.
The 17th took the power to elect Senators away from the States and gave it directly to the people. Originally, the Senators would fight abuses of Federal power to ensure state sovereignty (and keep their jobs.) Once the States themselves lost their voice in the Federal government, the power under the Constitution was able to be abused. When Congress passes a law pursuant to its powers under Article I (think Commerce among the States, Taxing and Spending powers - two fairly broad powers), the Supremacy clause, which makes the Constitution and Federal Law made pursuant thereto the supreme law of the land, operates to preempt any state laws. That is how we got a Federal Dept. of Education - Senators stopped looking out for their states (since they answered directly to the people) and they confirmed Justices who believed that “Commerce among the States” meant anything remotely related to Commerce - such as education.
Chill out. It was a joke.
And besides, had the Rebellion and the Black Codes never occured, I doubt we’d even have a 14th Amendment, and thus we wouldn’t be having the problem we see today.
Dixie ping?
Chamberlain recognized, at the conclusion of hostilities, the Rebels were once again Americans,
Or, perhaps the recognized that the freedom and liberty that the Founding Fathers fought for was spiraling down the drain to be replaced by a authoritarian central gubmint...................
His affinity for the South, the Confederacy and the Scots-Irish are to be commended. It’s one redeeming feature.
The FR PC police will disagree I’m sure. But so what! They can go butt a stump for all I care. I’m sick of ‘em!
Another nattering naysayer of negativism............
It's that kind of thinking that has become dominant within the republican party and turned it into an impotent, whimpering embarrassment.
Of which I am, proudly, no longer a member of.
Okay. Fair enough. That is also my take on it. I don’t AGREE that it guts the 10th Amendment but others more powerful than I DO think that way, so there you go.
Now, by “their” logic, can you explain why the 2nd Amendment restrictions on the Federal Government’s ability to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms do NOT apply to the states?
Dixie ping
It was a stupid reply that is prevalent on these threads.
"We won. Get over it."
What if the Nazi's had 'won'?
Would you tell the Jews to 'get over it'...............if there were any left, that is.
IMHO, Jim Webb is seriously unbalanced.
You're probably right because Lincoln would have turned our constitutional representative republic on its head............
“Unless he is able to explain it, it would raise some questions,” Walters said.
Explain what Mr African American Leadership Center director?
Edward H. Sebesta, co-author of the forthcoming “Neo-Confederacy: A Critical Introduction” (University of Texas Press), said Webb’s views express an unhealthy regard for a political system that propped up and defended slavery.
His book, in fact, will cite Webb as an example of the mainstreaming of neo-Confederacy ideas into politics, said Sebesta, a widely cited independent historical researcher and author of the Anti-Neo-Confederate blog.
“I don’t think people have thought through the implications of how his ideas have racial overtones, even if they are inadvertent,” Sebesta said.
Edward Sebesta? Might as well quote the SPLC.
"Born Fighting" is on my bookshelf to read.
That was the slogan of the terrorist movement that Jefferson Davis wanted to initiate after Appomattox.
Robert E. Lee surrendered precisely because he rejected that entire concept as beneath the dignity of Southern manhood. I have no doubt that Thomas J. Jackson would have concurred with his commander's assessment, had he lived.
As for it being a stupid reply, it is a common source of ribbing between myself and my Reb friends, and I would wager a fairly normal reponse between people on opposite sides discussing the topic. Lighthearted and in good fun - if you are still fighting the war, that is not something I should be expected to know.
How do you even figure?
What I want to know is how they will bury this:
Sometimes trying to understand their logic is like trying to understand women - no matter how hard you try, it just ain't gonna happen. Theoretically, it could be not incorporated because its exclusion would not "shock the conscience" and it is a prevelant amendment/article in many state Constitutions, thus it is de facto protected as it. I don't buy it, but that is the only way I believe you could argue it.
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.