Posted on 02/17/2010 9:08:09 AM PST by Palter
Something just doesn’t sound right. I’ve seen the Obots other places so you get used to their methods. Then go check their past posting history. That usually outs them.
Scalia? Not likely IMHO. The man is brilliant but is also from Joisey, which might influence his secessionist sensibilities. While he almost always gets it right he has made several unusual decisions. One fairly recent, the particulars of which escapes me at the moment.
Since you are apparently not at all familiar with the circumstances of the case then let me point out one important fact. In the Kelo decision, the Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the Connecticut Supreme Court which originally ruled against Kelo. So if you are truly the Lost Cause advocate as you claim to be then you should be praising the Kelo decision as a triumph of state’s rights because the big central government refused to step in and mandate how a state should act. Instead, the Supreme Court declared that Connecticut was empowered by the Constitution to run its own show within its own borders so long as those actions did not violate the U.S. Constitution. Now we can disagree with the state court’s decision that the seizure was legal, but agree or disagree it is the right of the state to set its own laws. And if the people of Connecticut disagree with their definition of ‘public good’ then it’s their right to change their lawmakers. In any event, it was not the duty of the Supreme Court in this case to step in and impose a solution on Connecticut.
The point is in the proper use of words. Words mean something. There is a big difference between possessing and exercising RIGHTS and possessing and exercising POWER.
He also fails to understand that the Constitution doesn't give us freedom; God does.
Look at the Dictionary for the ‘term’ Federal - Prior to 1864
Federal 1. Pertaining to a league or contract; derived from an agreement or covenant between parties, particularly between nations. 2. Consisting in a compact between parties, particularly and chiefly between states or nations; founded on alliance by contract or mutual agreement; as a federal government, such as that of the United States.
Look at these State ratification ordinances.
Rhode Island
We, the delegates of the people of the state of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, duly elected and met in Convention, having maturely considered the Constitution for the United States of America . . . . declare and make known. . . .
That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness. That the rights of the states respectively to nominate and appoint all state officers, and every other power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or to the departments of government thereof, remain to the people of the several states, or their respective state governments, to whom they may have granted the same; and that those clauses in the Constitution which declare that Congress shall not have or exercise certain powers, do not imply that Congress is entitled to any powers not given by the said Constitution; but such clauses are to be construed as exceptions to certain specified powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution. . . . The United States shall guaranty to each state its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Constitution expressly delegated to the United States
New York
We, the delegates of the people of the state of New York , duly elected and met in Convention, having maturely considered the Constitution for the United States of America . . . declare and make known. . . .
That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness; that every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the departments of the government thereof, remains to the people of the several states, or to their respective state governments, to whom they may have granted the same; and that those clauses in the said Constitution, which declare that Congress shall not have or exercise certain powers, do not imply that Congress is entitled to any powers not given by the said Constitution; but such clauses are to be construed either as exceptions to certain specified powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution
Federalist #46 To the People of the State of New York:
“Were it admitted, however, that the Federal government may feel an equal disposition with the State governments to extend its power beyond the due limits, the latter would still have the advantage in the means of defeating such encroachments. If an act of a particular State, though unfriendly to the national government, be generally popular in that State and should not too grossly violate the oaths of the State officers, it is executed immediately and, of course, by means on the spot and depending on the State alone. The opposition of the federal government, or the interposition of federal officers, would but inflame the zeal of all parties on the side of the State, and the evil could not be prevented or repaired, if at all, without the employment of means which must always be resorted to with reluctance and difficulty. On the other hand, should an unwarrantable measure of the federal government be unpopular in particular States, which would seldom fail to be the case, or even a warrantable measure be so, which may sometimes be the case, the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand. The disquietude of the people; their repugnance and, perhaps, refusal to co-operate with the officers of the Union; the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State; the embarrassments created by legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions, would oppose, in any State, difficulties not to be despised; would form, in a large State, very serious impediments; and where the sentiments of several adjoining States happened to be in unison, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter.”
Federal #43 To the People of the State of New York:
“The express authority of the people alone could give due validity to the Constitution. To have required the unanimous ratification of the thirteen States, would have subjected the essential interests of the whole to the caprice or corruption of a single member. It would have marked a want of foresight in the convention, which our own experience would have rendered inexcusable. Two questions of a very delicate nature present themselves on this occasion: 1. On what principle the Confederation, which stands in the solemn form of a compact among the States, can be superseded without the unanimous consent of the parties to it? 2. What relation is to subsist between the nine or more States ratifying the Constitution, and the remaining few who do not become parties to it? The first question is answered at once by recurring to the absolute necessity of the case; to the great principle of self-preservation; to the transcendent law of nature and of nature's God, which declares that the safety and happiness of society are the objects at which all political institutions aim, and to which all such institutions must be sacrificed. PERHAPS, also, an answer may be found without searching beyond the principles of the compact itself. It has been heretofore noted among the defects of the Confederation, that in many of the States it had received no higher sanction than a mere legislative ratification. The principle of reciprocality seems to require that its obligation on the other States should be reduced to the same standard. A compact between independent sovereigns, founded on ordinary acts of legislative authority, can pretend to no higher validity than a league or treaty between the parties. It is an established doctrine on the subject of treaties, that all the articles are mutually conditions of each other; that a breach of any one article is a breach of the whole treaty; and that a breach, committed by either of the parties, absolves the others, and authorizes them, if they please, to pronounce the compact violated and void. Should it unhappily be necessary to appeal to these delicate truths for a justification for dispensing with the consent of particular States to a dissolution of the federal pact, will not the complaining parties find it a difficult task to answer the MULTIPLIED and IMPORTANT infractions with which they may be confronted? The time has been when it was incumbent on us all to veil the ideas which this paragraph exhibits. The scene is now changed, and with it the part which the same motives dictate. The second question is not less delicate; and the flattering prospect of its being merely hypothetical forbids an overcurious discussion of it. It is one of those cases which must be left to provide for itself. In general, it may be observed, that although no political relation can subsist between the assenting and dissenting States, yet the moral relations will remain uncancelled. The claims of justice, both on one side and on the other, will be in force, and must be fulfilled; the rights of humanity must in all cases be duly and mutually respected; whilst considerations of a common interest, and, above all, the remembrance of the endearing scenes which are past, and the anticipation of a speedy triumph over the obstacles to reunion, will, it is hoped, not urge in vain MODERATION on one side, and PRUDENCE on the other. “
It was understood by the State[s] and the sales team ( Madison and others ) The Constitution was NOT a suicide pact!
Finally: During Virginia’s ratification
Madison:
Give me leave to say something of the nature of the government.
Who are the parties to it? The people—not the people as composing one great body, but the people as composing thirteen sovereignties.
marked
As I said before you need to study contract law. You don't get to make stuff up in contract law and pretend it was “understood” by all who entered into it. That is how you wind up in court. Your ancestors signed you up for a contract with no exit clause. Plain and simple.
Our Government[s] as Thomas Jefferson would say: “deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”
John Quincy Adams - Put it this way :
“But the indissoluble link of union between the people
of the several States of this confederated nation
is, after all, not in the RIGHT, but in the HEART.”
We will Secede from your Socialist Empire! It's not in our heart ( To be a party to your sinking ship )
Bon voyage!
Secession is not a constitutional right; it is the natural right of all men.
It is, however, not settled in a courtroom, but by force of arms. That doesn’t make it less of a right.
Let me expand on that a bit. As the Declaration makes clear, the power of government derives from the consent of the governed.
If it loses that consent, it follows that it loses the legitimate power of governance. That government will not legally recognize this is unsurprising; it has always been so.
So, right there in the Declaration, secession is basically endorsed by implication. That does not mean that it is constitutionally prescribed, however. It is, again, not a legal right, but a natural right.
So, basically, I think Justice Scalia is right; he’s just omitting part of the answer.
"When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."
The consent of the governed can be given, and in the case of repeated abuse, withdrawn...
"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown 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."
You may attempt to argue that the abuses have not reached the point for people to withdraw their consent, but you may NOT argue that the right of the people to actually withdraw their consent and abolish the political bonds that ties them to others does not exist.
Never mind. I'm not even going to attempt to discuss your drivel.
(Shakes head in disappointment and wanders off)
Go back and read any one of your's.
Never mind. I'm not even going to attempt to discuss your drivel.
Because you can't. Admit it.
I'm not going to try and correct a page full of 1st-grade arithmetic errors, either.
You're just not worth the bother. Be well.
The point is that I still can't understand why you think I'm disagreeing with you. You're absolutely right that there is a difference between right and power. Wiki Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld for an even more impressive list of jural correlatives and explanations why they are different.
I realize that I'm dealing with someone who has a second-rate third grade understanding of the Constituiton but I tried to make it as clear as I could. So let me see if I can simplify the situation.
Do you support the government and the Supreme Court stepping in and telling a state what it can and cannot do, yes or no?
The fact that you think that such a question can be asked, as a general and all-inclusive "yes" or "no" question, is exactly why I despair of trying to enlighten you.
It is clear that you have no idea what I believe about property rights vis-a-vis Individual rights and State's rights, or why. And I don't have the time or inclination to start all the way back at Genesis 2:15 and explain it to you.
So, let me try to make this clear:
I don't want to play with you, little doggie. Please stop humping my leg, and go find someone who does. Surely you must have some friends, somewhere.
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.