Blagojevich: House Democrats Would Have Impeached Lincoln

Newsmax ^ | Wednesday, 01 January 2020 | Rod Blagojevich

[OIFVeteran]

Ok trying to see how you get at pleasure from “a long train of usurpations and abuses.” Can you show me in the Declaration of Independence where it says at pleasure.

[OIFVeteran]

Yes, because the founding fathers believed in the natural right of rebellion. The exact same right that they used against the British. However, the founding father that wrote the constitution believed it could be adopted only in toto and forever.

From James Madison to Alexander Hamilton

N. York Sunday Evening [20 July 1788]

My Dear Sir

Yours of yesterday is this instant come to hand & I have but a few minutes to answer it. I am sorry that your situation obliges you to listen to propositions of the nature you describe. My opinion is that a reservation of a right to withdraw if amendments be not decided on under the form of the Constitution within a certain time, is a conditional ratification, that it does not make N. York a member of the New Union, and consequently that she could not be received on that plan. Compacts must be reciprocal, this principle would not in such a case be preserved. The Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever. It has been so adopted by the other States. An adoption for a limited time would be as defective as an adoption of some of the articles only. In short any condition whatever must viciate the ratification. What the New Congress by virtue of the power to admit new States, may be able & disposed to do in such case, I do not enquire as I suppose that is not the material point at present. I have not a moment to add more than my fervent wishes for your success & happiness.

James Madison

Another founding father, Alexander Hamilton, said the same thing in the federalist papers.

“Let the thirteen States, bound together in a strict and indissoluble Union, concur in erecting one great American system” Alexander Hamilton Federalist 11

[DiogenesLamp]

But "consent of the governed" was not their reason for disunion, "a long train of abuses and usurpations" was.

"A long train of abuses and usurpations" in the *OPINIONS* of the Founders, but not in the opinions of the British people, the Crown, or the Canadians.

Once again, who gets to decide what is an abuse or an usurpation? If it is the Rebels that get to decide, as in the case of our own founders, then the Rebels also get to decide in the subsequent case.

They all meant, in effect: legally actionable breech of contract.

And as Paul Craig Roberts has pointed out, the legal justification for secession was breach of contract regarding slavery. According to him, their real gripe was the lopsided taxes they had to pay, but they had no legal remedy for that problem because the Constitution granted the government the right to tax them so unfairly.

However, the Northern states were clearly in breech of contract on the issue of slaves, slaveowners, and runaway slaves, and so therein lay the legal argument for breech of contract.

[DiogenesLamp]

Ok trying to see how you get at pleasure from “a long train of usurpations and abuses.” Can you show me in the Declaration of Independence where it says at pleasure.

My pleasure.

"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 of 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."

Both of the bolded statements mean "at pleasure." The entire context of this thesis statement of the Declaration of Independence, mean "at pleasure."

[DiogenesLamp]

Yes, because the founding fathers believed in the natural right of rebellion. The exact same right that they used against the British. However, the founding father that wrote the constitution believed it could be adopted only in toto and forever.

These two ideas contradict each other. One cannot have a right to Independence, and then claim "except for this government we have subsequently created."

[OIFVeteran]

I see nothing in that paragraph about “at pleasure”. However in the next paragraph they say this.

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."

No “at pleasure” there. Can’t think of a more light or transient cause in a constitutional republic, with all the checks and balances we have, then because a party you don’t like has won the presidency.

[DiogenesLamp]

I see nothing in that paragraph about “at pleasure”.

You choose not to see it.

Consent."

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes

"Prudence" be D@mned! What people should do has no bearing on what they have a RIGHT to do. Prudence may dictate that you should not drink, but this does not make it forbidden.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations

In who's opinion were these a "long train of abuses and usurpations"? The British people did not consider them such. Neither did the Canadians, nor did the 30% or so of the American population that remained Loyalists.

So *WHO* gets to decide what is an abuse or an usurpation?

Can’t think of a more light or transient cause in a constitutional republic,

How about this one? It seems utterly ridiculous to me that they would consider this an "abuse".

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing Importance, unless suspended in their Operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

OMG! No new laws! What a HORRIBLE thing to do to people! How in the world can a population survive if we don't have busy body troublemakers creating new LAWS for us to suffer under?

After hundreds of years of government, and all the passage of past laws, we would be forsaken and forlorn without the ability of legislatures to constantly create new ones!

In case you are missing it, that is sarcasm.

I clearly do not regard their inability to pass new laws as an "abuse" or an "usurpation." In my mind this is just silly, and represents a little tiff on the part of the people upon whom the King imposed it.

In fact, you have to read pretty far into the Declaration to find something I would consider an "abuse" or an "Usurpation."

Here is an example or two.

"He has erected a Multitude of new Offices, and sent hither Swarms of Officers to harrass our People, and eat out their Substance."

For cutting off our Trade with all Parts of the World:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

Those are things the North did to the South.

"He has plundered our Seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our Towns, and destroyed the Lives of our People."

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the Executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic Insurrections amongst us

North also did this.

But many of the "Abuses and Usupations" are whining about their inability to make new laws. Silly. Just silly. Not anything I would regard as an actual abuse under a monarchist system.

And Lincoln did all these things to the South.

"For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our Governments:"

He has kept among us, in Times of Peace, Standing Armies, without the consent of our Legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly Firmness his Invasions on the Rights of the People.

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with Power to legislate for us in all Cases whatsoever.

[Political Junkie Too]

In who's opinion were these a "long train of abuses and usurpations"? The British people did not consider them such.

The abusers never do.

Neither did the Canadians,

I'd say, not true. Canada (France) and England had been warring over Canadian territories throughout most of the 1700's as English settlements began encroaching on earlier French settlements. France finally surrendered and signed over their claims to Canadian territory in 1763, a mere 13 years before the American Revolution but certainly during the years of American discontent.

nor did the 30% or so of the American population that remained Loyalists.

Doesn't that mean 70% agreed? That's larger than the super-majority required to remove a President.

-PJ

[DiogenesLamp]

The abusers never do.

Exactly my point. It is the people who are the brunt of the abuse who think it is an abuse, not the people giving the abuse who often think it's just fine.

"Abuse" is in the eye of the beholder.

Doesn't that mean 70% agreed? That's larger than the super-majority required to remove a President.

Overly simplistic. The split was roughly 30% wanting to remain with England, 35% wanting to become independent, and the remaining 35% not giving a sh*t one way or the other.

So in no way a majority.

[DiogenesLamp]

A thought has occurred to me. You often make a point of posting secession statements from the three or four states that listed it as their reason for wanting out of the Union.

The fact that you do so implies that their reasons for wanting to leave matter to you.

Is this correct? Do you consider their reasons for wanting to leave important?

[Political Junkie Too]

Two points:

1) if it's overly simplistic, it's because you made it so initially by only stating the 30% number without context. I'll agree that there was no majority, but that goes both ways. You let the 30% number hang out there as significant, but you now say that the leave people had a +5% advantage over the stay people. If this were an impeachment poll, wouldn't you think that was significant?

2) since you didn't respond to the comments about Canada, should I conclude that you concede the point?

-PJ

[DiogenesLamp]

I didn't consider your comment about Canada to be in any way relevant to the discussion. The Canadian colonies had to deal with the same "abuses" as did the American colonies, and they did not think them significant enough to demand independence. In fact, they helped the British try to force us back into the Union.

Do I think a 5% advantage is significant in an impeachment poll? No. Not at all.

Regarding the 35% or so portion of the population that wanted independence from the United Kingdom, they were more energetic and determined, and as Churchill said, it's not the size of the dog in the fight, it is the size of the fight in the dog.

The radicals and activists were in that 35% so it gave them advantages in dragging the rest of the country along that were out sized to their percentage of the population.

Something similar may be true of the Southern states seceding, but the voters did in fact vote to approve what the radicals wanted.

[Political Junkie Too]

I didn't consider your comment about Canada to be in any way relevant to the discussion. The Canadian colonies had to deal with the same "abuses" as did the American colonies, and they did not think them significant enough to demand independence.

Excuse me, but it was significant enough for them to go to war with England for decades before the Americans did. French and Indian wars? Seven Years war?

Canada and the colonies were proxies for France and England during global fights for supremacy. Were they in a position to complain about it like the American colonies did?

-PJ

[DiogenesLamp]

Excuse me, but it was significant enough for them to go to war with England for decades before the Americans did. French and Indian wars? Seven Years war?

But they didn't go to war in 1776, now did they? They didn't burn Government ships, and destroy cargo like the Bostonians did, did they? Not only did they not participate in rebelling against their rightful government, they helped that government try to defeat the Rebels.

Were they in a position to complain about it like the American colonies did?

They could complain as much as the Americans, but it appears that they did not. In fact they sided with the Union.

Again, this demonstrates that so far as they were concerned, the "abuses and usurpations" were not intolerable.

[Political Junkie Too]

That's because they surrendered to the British in 1764. Of course they didn’t go back to war in 1776. They were beaten.

Are you suggesting that Davis and Lee should have gone back to war in 1877 during Reconstruction or should they have stayed beaten?

-PJ

[OIFVeteran]

Take it up with George Washington,James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and Charles Pickney then.

“There are four things, which I humbly conceive, are essential to the well being, I may even venture to say, to the existence of the United States as an Independent Power:

1st. An indissoluble Union of the States under one Federal Head.

“That there must be a faithfull and pointed compliance on the part of every State, with the late proposals and demands of Congress, or the most fatal consequences will ensue, That whatever measures have a tendency to dissolve the Union, or contribute to violate or lessen the Sovereign Authority, ought to be considered as hostile to the Liberty and Independency of America, and the Authors of them treated accordingly”

Both quotes from Washington’s Circular Farewell Letter to the Army 1783

From James Madison to Alexander Hamilton

N. York Sunday Evening [20 July 1788]

My Dear Sir

Yours of yesterday is this instant come to hand & I have but a few minutes to answer it. I am sorry that your situation obliges you to listen to propositions of the nature you describe. My opinion is that a reservation of a right to withdraw if amendments be not decided on under the form of the Constitution within a certain time, is a conditional ratification, that it does not make N. York a member of the New Union, and consequently that she could not be received on that plan. Compacts must be reciprocal, this principle would not in such a case be preserved. The Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever. It has been so adopted by the other States. An adoption for a limited time would be as defective as an adoption of some of the articles only. In short any condition whatever must viciate the ratification. What the New Congress by virtue of the power to admit new States, may be able & disposed to do in such case, I do not enquire as I suppose that is not the material point at present. I have not a moment to add more than my fervent wishes for your success & happiness.

James Madison

Alexander Hamilton: “Let the thirteen States, bound together in a strict and indissoluble Union, concur in erecting one great American system” Federalist 11

Charles Cotesworth Pinckney at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention, 1788. On the indivisibility of the United States, Pinckney said:

Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses.