Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Gianni
No matter, as your reply makes clear that even submission to the will of all states is not equivalent to submission to the ntional government.

I don't think that's what I said. I said it takes less than the unanimous will of states to change their government. Look at the amendment process. Look at judicial appeals. The Constitution provides many avenues for change.

You speak of the role of states as a check on the national government, but what about the reverse? If all the states agreed to violate the Constitution, what then? The Constitution is the law. The men who exist under it will do a varying job of enforcing it. State and Federal governments will fail from time to time. I am fairly certain the Framers knew this. That is not cause for revolution. It is a fact of life.

Madison's letter does not seem to me to deny the right of revolution by secession,

The water can't get any muddier than you are making it here. Revolution by secession? Talk about having your cake and eating it too! He clearly denounces secession and nullification as illegitimate doctrine. He praises Webster for the most famous pro-Union speech ever delivered in Congress, and goes on to explain exactly why Calhoun was wrong.

and he sporadically uses qualifiers like, whilst the Constitutional compact remains undissolved in his argument.

That's more than a mere qualifier. What he said is this: "...without an annulment of the Constitution itself its supremacy must be submitted to." The compact in 1860 remained undissolved.

As for history being the judge of their justification, I would hold out declaring it final - as it's not over yet. If you believe, as I do, that (perceived?) abuse of power was the reason for secession, then we are clearly living the legacy of the war in extraconstitutional federal actions by all three branches of government: Roe, Brady Bill, Assault weapons import ban, affirmative action, on and on.

I don't believe it's anything as painfully oversimplified as that. Sectionalism, and its various interests, was the cause of the Civil War. Some of that goes back to the earliest days of the republic--the retirement of the war debt, for one example. Banking, for another. The debate of what is and what is not Constitutional has always existed. Look at the famous Henry-Madison ratification debates. It isn't as if there was clear agreement until the rascally Republicans came along. Our system was never so perfect.

And the abuses of government have occurred at all levels. In some cases, the states have been the villains. Jim Crow comes to mind. In other cases, it has been the Feds. In the best cases, one arm of government has provided a check against the other. In all cases, there has been a lot of bathwater with the baby. That's government. As they say, if you can think of a better system...

Clearly at some point along the line of usurpation of power, the level of abuse is no longer justified; nor will it be tolerated by a free people. I would have to say, "Jury's still out on this one."

Here is the problem. If we have to resort to violence to solve this problem of government abuse, then the American experiment is a failure. Those are the stakes.

We have state representation. We have local representation. We have a US Congress with a Senate and a House. We have a President that we elect. We have a judicial system. We have a Constitution which is amendable, and which has been amended. We have survived assassinations, civil war, corruption, crime, divided public opinion, injustice, racism, etc.

If we as a people cannot use these mechanisms, if we in our prosperous and free land cannot use our system to create sustainable liberty balanced with order, than America is a failure and civilization is back to the drawing board.

So, let's say it gets really obnoxious and we do it your way--the bloody French way--and heads roll. What then?

444 posted on 05/16/2003 9:02:10 AM PDT by Huck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 434 | View Replies ]


To: Huck
You speak of the role of states as a check on the national government, but what about the reverse? If all the states agreed to violate the Constitution, what then?

The reverse has never been in question, from the early days of the republic. To my knowledge no effort on the part of the individual states has ever succeeded in checking federal power. The WBTS being a prime example thereof.

All the states would not need to conspire to violate the Constitution, as they have the amendment process available to them. Unfortunately, it takes a simple majority with a willing accomplice in the oval office or the court to dominate the majority through extraconstitutional rule.

The water can't get any muddier than you are making it here. Revolution by secession? Talk about having your cake and eating it too! He clearly denounces secession and nullification as illegitimate doctrine.

I think Madison muddied the water with this line, then: "The latter (secession) is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy..."

Not exctly the resounding denunciation you're making it out to be. Did not Madison believe that revolution was a sacred right of the people?

Sectionalism, and its various interests, was the cause of the Civil War.

Sectionalism has taken on a new meaning in modern America; the 'red map' from the 2K election makes that clear. When urban political ideology begins to dominate all aspects of our lives, what peaceful recourse will we have? Let's all hope that one can be found and that our leaders have learned from lessons past.

Here is the problem. If we have to resort to violence to solve this problem of government abuse, then the American experiment is a failure.

I think you're assuming an outcome. Violence was not the desire of the South, separation was. Is cohesion implied in the American experiment? Perhaps, perhaps not. Since cohesion is, however, one of the most fundamental benefits of Union, it seems likely that any separation would be short-lived (even in the absence of domestic war).

I do not (and likely will never) advocate that heads roll in a bloody French-style revolution. What I see happening, though, is consolidation of political power within urban majorities. Will they be slow to abuse their power? Not likely, and returning government to its constitutionally limited role will preempt them from doing so.

448 posted on 05/16/2003 9:27:33 AM PDT by Gianni (Peace, Love, and Biscuits and Gravy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 444 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson