Posted on 02/25/2003 8:51:49 AM PST by Ohioan
I have posted an alert at my web site, and have sent copies to several of our State Legislators in Ohio. The beginning of the article will explain its subject:
March 1, 2003 is the 200th anniversary of Ohio Statehood. We had intended to draft a brief historical review, tracing settlement in the Northwest Territory; discussing the Virginia roots for the southern seventy-seven Counties, while acknowledging the New England origin for the eleven in the north, what had been the Connecticut Western Reserve. We had wanted to acknowledge the special contributions of the Virginians, with Jeffersonian values, who settled Ross County, and built our first Capital at Chillicothe; to celebrate the spirit of our people, expressed at the time we seized Lucas County from the soon to be State of Michigan, in the "Toledo War," when Governor Robert Lucas told Andrew Jackson what would happen, if he attempted Federal intervention. (The Ohio/Michigan issue did not start with college football!)
We had planned to pay tribute to the achievements of Ohio arms in the unfortunate War in the 1860s; noting both the valor of our soldiers and the fact that it was a group of Ohio Generals, Grant, Sherman, Sheridan and others, who directed the key campaigns of the Union forces; as well as the chivalrous respect that Grant showed to General Lee at Appomattox. We had intended to point out that notwithstanding Ohio's role in achieving a Union victory, that our people went to the polls in 1867 to reject the vengeful and hate-filled concepts, implicit in the proposed 14th Amendment; when they voted for a Legislature pledged to rescind an earlier ratification of that proposal in the heat of post-war passion. And we had planned to go on to describe some of the many achievements of Ohioans since.
But we have a report that "Liberals" in the State Legislature are planning to seize what was to have been a patriotic commemoration, a symbolic session to be held in Chillicothe on Saturday, March 1st, to push through a new resolution (S.J.R. 2) ratifying the 14th Amendment! The Amendment is controversial, not only because of the vengeful and hate filled concepts, already referred to; but because many legal scholars believe that it was not validly ratified. It has also been the source for most of the Leftwing Judicial Activism that so grievously impacted American Society in the 20th Century. It was, and is, the ultimate vehicle for the expansion of Federal power at the expense of State's Rights and local self-government. Under such circumstances, to write a nostalgic piece simply celebrating Ohio's past glory, seems inappropriate.
If the report is correct--if the Left intends to take advantage of an event supposed to honor heritage, to in fact undo part of our Conservative past, and to endorse a Federal right to interfere in the future decisions we make for our own affairs, in our own State--to mock the very concept of self-Government--they shall not go unchallenged. This will be our initial response:
To ratify the 14th Amendment (also discussed in the Last Chapter of the Conservative Debate Handbook below) under these circumstances, is wholly inappropriate. First, there has obviously been no opportunity for the serious public debate so momentous a decision should require. In contrast, the Legislature that rescinded ratification of the proposed Amendment in 1868, had been elected precisely on that issue; elected for that purpose, after a full and frank debate.
Secondly, the Amendment was originally drafted by Radicals, in a vengeful spirit, to punish the South in the aftermath of America's bloodiest War. It directly and deliberately contradicted the spirit invoked by Abraham Lincoln in his Second Inaugural Address, shortly before his death: With Malice Towards None, With Charity Towards All. Most of the Amendment's provisions relate directly to punishing the South. Some of them had no other function, and are now completely dated; long ago ceasing to have any point or effect, since the former Confederates are all dead. Since that era, Americans have fought together for common causes in one war after another. What reason could any reasonable man or woman have for wanting to resurrect and reaffirm sectional hostility, 138 years after Lincoln and 135 years after Ohio, each rejected the concept?
Yet more important, the Amendment changed the basic symmetry of our Federal system, and is incongruous to the intended division of State and Federal responsibility. The Amendment, in its lasting aspects, effectively punishes the formerly pro-Union States as effectively as it now punishes the former Confederate States. Consider its effect on specific aspects of Ohio life, since it was embraced as the principal vehicle for Leftwing Judicial Activism in the 20th Century:
The balance of the article, which deals with Judicial activism, may be found at Ohio At 200.
(Excerpt) Read more at pages.prodigy.net ...
Sorry.
The debates were republished in a thick volume, with small print, by an educational arm of the State of Virginia, about 1960. But read the Amendment, itself, before you read what I or anyone else say about it. It is mostly about punishing the South. Everyone quotes the 1st section, but no one reads the 2nd through 4th, and Congress has largely ducked its responsibility under the 5th. Most of the Amendment is dated, and ridiculous. It is the precise opposite of what Lincoln intended for the post-war era. But it also goes against the whole intended division of State and Federal responsibility. It is incongruous to our system.
Virtually every problem Americans have had with Judicial Activism, since the days when FDR started to appoint Leftists to the Courts, flows from the 14th Amendment. Wonder why, you can no longer post the Ten Commandments on your school wall? Wonder why it takes forever to finish with the endless appeals in criminal cases? Wonder why Abortion is leagalized? Why State Legislatures can no longer have a check on big city factions, by allowing every rural county to have at least one representative? Wonder why we have had school busing or Federal Courts redrawing school districts, or Congressional Districts, etc., etc.?
The answer in every case is the same. You may see one benefit in the Amendment, but it has been an absolute can of worms for Americans trying to preserve their heritage.
William Flax
The debates were republished in a thick volume, with small print, by an educational arm of the State of Virginia, about 1960. But read the Amendment, itself, before you read what I or anyone else say about it.
I have, many times in the last five years arguing about it here at FR. - As you well know.
It is mostly about punishing the South. Everyone quotes the 1st section, but no one reads the 2nd through 4th, and Congress has largely ducked its responsibility under the 5th. Most of the Amendment is dated, and ridiculous. It is the precise opposite of what Lincoln intended for the post-war era. But it also goes against the whole intended division of State and Federal responsibility. It is incongruous to our system.
Then why do you people rant about it so?
Simply put, you oppose it because it clearly, in the first section, says that states ~must~ obey our constitutions outlines on basic individual rights.
Virtually every problem Americans have had with Judicial Activism, since the days when FDR started to appoint Leftists to the Courts, flows from the 14th Amendment.
No, it flows from the 'penumbras' they see, 'leftists & rightists' together. -The WODs, for instance, is a rightist penumbra, that flies in the face of the due process of the 14th.
Wonder why, you can no longer post the Ten Commandments on your school wall? Wonder why it takes forever to finish with the endless appeals in criminal cases? Wonder why Abortion is leagalized? Why State Legislatures can no longer have a check on big city factions, by allowing every rural county to have at least one representative? Wonder why we have had school busing or Federal Courts redrawing school districts, or Congressional Districts, etc., etc.? The answer in every case is the same.
Yep, -- the answer is in political failure at state/local levels. The same establishment rules ALL levels of government in this country, as anyone can see. We play Demo-Rino political name games, thats all. Socialism rules.
You may see one benefit in the Amendment, but it has been an absolute can of worms for Americans trying to preserve their heritage.
The only hope we have of restoring our republic is to insist that all levels of government honor our constitutions original intent. The 14th does so. - It is not the problem.
Blame politics.
You keep wanting to add to these a busy body function that was simply not there. You need to look at the vast differences between the States in 1787 to see how far such a uniform view of rights was at the time, from what was intended. It was up to the States to define the limits on the Police Power. All the Bill of Rights did was restrain the Federal Government.
You want us to have to win not only local elections to control local society, but endless Federal elections, to prevent the appointment of the wrong kind of Judges. Why don't we just fight for the system we were actually promised?
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
The Federal Constitution was not intended to apply a cultural norm to all States.
No one here has ever claimed it was. The BOR's is not a 'cultural norm'. Inalienable rights apply to all citizens of the USA.
It was intended to provide a new agency--the Federal Government--to serve interests that all Americans, the citizens of each State, had in common. Those fell in two basic areas--common defense and general welfare. The latter was not the present Welfare State concept--it had nothing to do with helping any group with a particular (i.e. non-General) problem. It had to do with promoting the free market among the States, giving them a sound currency for their transactions, providing uniform weights and measures, better communications, protection for their obligations, etc., etc..
And protection for individual rights, from violations by ~every~ level of government, as made evident by the Supremacy clause, which applies to, -- The right of the PEOPLE to bear arms .... For instance.
You keep wanting to add to these a busy body function that was simply not there.
You call the BOR's a 'busy body' function? Incredible.
You need to look at the vast differences between the States in 1787 to see how far such a uniform view of rights was at the time, from what was intended. It was up to the States to define the limits on the Police Power.
All the Bill of Rights did was restrain the Federal Government.
Not true. That erronious BOR's 'decision' was made in 1833 by a USSC trying to keep the union together, by pandering to the states 'rights' crowd of the day.
It didn't work, obviously, -- so the 14th was ratified to restate the original intent. - Obviously, it hasn't worked either. - Because of socialist politics.
You want us to have to win not only local elections to control local society, but endless Federal elections, to prevent the appointment of the wrong kind of Judges. Why don't we just fight for the system we were actually promised?
We shouldn't have to win "endless Federal elections". -- A few good impeachment proceedings for violation of the oath to protect & defend would end such nonsense, I'm sure.
The 14th Amendment was not adopted for any other purpose but to punish the South and enable Carpetbag and Scalawag rule in the former Confederate States. (It disenfranchises their old leadership, and makes citizenship in a State dependent upon geographic birth alone and/or Federal citizenship. That is a radical idea. (See Immigration & The American Future, for a discussion of the nationality question.)
On the subject of inalienable rights, I would agree with you that the right to have arms is such a right. You do not need the Fourteenth Amendment to make the argument that a Californian should have the right to protect himself. I am hardly a foe of you on that issue. Just don't throw out the baby with the bathwater--i.e. the concept of limited Federal power, in order to vindicate a natural right of man.
William Flax
Life, liberty, property. - Some of these, -- our inalienable rights, -- are enumerated in the BOR's. Most are not, as the 9th makes clear. I am not confused on this issue at all. You are, and its becoming quite apparent.
The Bill of Rights was adopted to make sure the Federal Government did not transgress certain parameters. It is in the form of prohibitions on the exercise of Federal power, except when you get to the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
Exceptions only you see, I'm afraid. Never heard that exact 'penumbra' before.
(Congress "shall make no law," didn't mean that the States couldn't. And in fact they did until the Warren Court--with one of the Founders of the ACLU, dishonorably participating--remade American Constitutional law on the subject of "religious freedom.")
Granted, the USSC makes unconstitutonal decisions. Repeating this fact to me doesn't make your case that our BOR's is 'busy body' bull.
The 14th Amendment was not adopted for any other purpose but to punish the South and enable Carpetbag and Scalawag rule in the former Confederate States. (It disenfranchises their old leadership, and makes citizenship in a State dependent upon geographic birth alone and/or Federal citizenship. That is a radical idea. (See Immigration & The American Future, for a discussion of the nationality question.)
You are convinced the 14th is 'evil'. Fine. Dream on.
On the subject of inalienable rights, I would agree with you that the right to have arms is such a right. You do not need the Fourteenth Amendment to make the argument that a Californian should have the right to protect himself. I am hardly a foe of you on that issue. Just don't throw out the baby with the bathwater--i.e. the concept of limited Federal power, in order to vindicate a natural right of man.
Never have, never will.
You however, seem to see portions of our constitution as your enemy. In that it is you that has 'abandoned the baby' -- and become my foe.
I pledged to protect & defend back in '55, and meant it.
You are simply misconstruing the function of the Amendments. Consider, if you think that the Federal Government was intended to Police the States, why you had an 11th Amendment, soon after the Bill of Rights, which specifically denied the Federal Courts the right to even entertain suits by citizens of other States against any of the States?
Whereas Congress was given specific powers to deal with the intended functions; before the 14th Amendment, Congress was not given any power to enforce what you claim was intended. The Document was much more precisely constructed than your interpretations would imply. You are simply taking ideas out of their proper context.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
Claiming I am "reading additional words into the Bill of Rights" and changing "their function", is ludicrous. Make a specific point, or don't bother.
If they had been what you say, they would not have been in the form of Amendments, but would have been incorporated into Article IV of the Constitution, or Article I, Section 10, where the protected rights and limitations on the States, respectively, are set forth.
Again, you make a supposed 'point' -- "If they had been what you say" -- Without saying what you think or claim I said. - Weird style of argument. Laughable, in fact.
You are simply misconstruing the function of the Amendments. Consider, if you think that the Federal Government was intended to Police the States,
Obviously, I don't "think" that. - Nor do I "misconstrue" function. Your 'arguments' are silly straw men & tar babies.
why you had an 11th Amendment, soon after the Bill of Rights, which specifically denied the Federal Courts the right to even entertain suits by citizens of other States against any of the States? Whereas Congress was given specific powers to deal with the intended functions; before the 14th Amendment, Congress was not given any power to enforce what you claim was intended. The Document was much more precisely constructed than your interpretations would imply. You are simply taking ideas out of their proper context.
This last bit above is nearly indecipherable. -- In any case, your 'debate' tactics leave me no choice but to end this exchange.
- You have abandoned reason, imo.
For others, I will make the points again, in a slightly different form.
The areas where the States are forbidden to act in ways that the Founding Fathers found objectionable, are set forth either in Article I, Section 10, or in Article IV. Those are the places where rights against one of the States may be found, as well as the agreed limitations on their power and authority. The Bill of Rights were intended to put limitations on the Federal Government, not expand its power into being a watchdog over the States on the same issues. Unless you read these things in context, the document is not as clear as it was intended to be. Unless you read the document in context, you play into the hands of the Left, who want to effectively interpret it to their own ends.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
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.