Posted on 08/02/2005 9:39:04 AM PDT by Salvation
Washington DC, Aug. 01, 2005 (CNA) - In a letter sent to Senator Richard Durbin regarding what many see as a “religious litmus test” for Supreme Court nominee Judge John G. Roberts, Congressman Henry Hyde warned that ‘practicing Catholics need not apply’ must not become the motto of ‘religious bigots’ operating in the public square.
As Judge Roberts faces what many see as an unjust line of scrutiny centered around his being Catholic, largely led by Senator Durbin, (himself a Catholic), Hyde said that “No one of our faith - or that of any other denomination or religion - should be excluded from public office for his or her religious values.”
He cited Article VI of the U.S. Constitution which, he said, “unequivocally prohibits such a litmus test: ‘No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office of public trust under the United States.’”
Hyde recalled the anti-Catholic bigotry which permeated U.S. politics “well into the 20th century”, saying that “’Irish Need Not Apply’ signs were common in the storefront windows of Chicago's neighborhood until a few years ago, a bias driven largely by the Catholic faith shared by most Irish-Americans.”
“I want to believe”, he added, “that you do not wish to turn back the clock to that ugly period of our history.”
Many fear that Robert’s Catholic faith could color his decisions on judicial matters--particularly that of the legality of abortion. Senator Durbin reportedly asked Roberts recently what he would do if “the law required a ruling that his church considers immoral”?
Critics have lambasted Durbin for asking what they see as a blatantly pointed question.
“’Practicing Catholics need not apply’”, Hyde said, “cannot become a rallying cry of modern day religious bigots who would seek to drive from the public square all federal office candidates of faith. I hope that your question to Judge Roberts, if accurately reported, does not constitute an opening salvo in a process in which the candidate's faith will constitute sufficient justification for denying him a speedy confirmation.”
'Lutherans' need not apply.'
'Jews' need not apply.'
Please notify me via FReepmail if you would like to be added to or taken off the Catholic Discussion Ping List.
Breeders need not apply.
LOL!
Only athiests allowed in public office, sounding more like soviet Russia every day.
I don't this that Roberts being Catholic should have anything to do with the hearing.
Would we even have these headlines if he were Jewish, Protestant?? You can put in the other religions........
I thought that REAL Catholics are already not welcome?
No it will be athiest members of the Soviet party.
later read/pingout.
Hey Catholics haven't made it to a GOP Presidential nomination yet. That will be the real acid test of acceptance of Catholics, practicing that is. The Democrats have put up some cross dressers.
Bork for President!
'Test Act' placemarker.
Hugh Hewitt's take ....
http://www.theweeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/956qpnnx.asp
I remember this issue surfacing when JFK ran for office. I thought we were long beyond it by this time.
Only CINO's are eligible, John F. Kerry faux-catholiques.
However, the true problem is the stealth strategy that the conservatives slip into, as far as the judicial nominees are concerned. Rather than tsk-tsking at the question, why not answer it proudly? This is what I wish a conservative candidate answered:
- When I encounter a conflict between the moral law and the US law I will work to change the US law till it is moral law. When I technically cannot change the law, I will state what the law says and I will signal my disapproval of it on moral grounds. I will not recuse myself from decisions where I see such conflict; in fact, I consider it my duty to pay special attention to such cases.Until we field candidates that are not afraid of their conservatism, we'll keep losing.- I am Catholic and I derive my understanding of morals from the teachings of my Church. Justices of other religions, denominations, and irreligious persuasions are free under out Constitution to derive their concept of morals from the sources they like.
I was born a month after JFk died, I don't know anything about it.
Fighting it all!
At what point can we treat Non-Catholocs the way they treat us? Looking forward to the day!
You are quite correct. But you have said you believe that a test of a candidate's Christianity is legitimate for a public official, and that is no less a violation of the Constitution. Both are outrageous.
- I am Catholic and I derive my understanding of morals from the teachings of my Church. Justices of other religions, denominations, and irreligious persuasions are free under out Constitution to derive their concept of morals from the sources they like.
Such statements are what is causing all of the concern over religious tests. By subverting the Constitution and its laws to a set of moral codes that may or may not be defined and will differ from religion to religion, you are placing yourself in the position of an activist judge, absolutely no different than any leftist activist judge, who feels his moral philosophy conflicts with the Constitution and/or the US Code, and therefore it is up to him to change it. What you have described is judicial activism, not conservatism.
Until we field candidates that are not afraid of their conservatism, we'll keep losing.
I think you are trying to link conservatism to religious or moral codes. There is no linkage, other than tangentially. Conservatism and judicial activism are simply anathema to each other.
Thanks for the PING...
Thanks for the PING...
Here's JFK's address to the Houston Ministerial Association on the subject of a politician's religious affiliation:
http://www.quotedb.com/speeches/greater-houston-ministerial-association
I think that was the speech when he brought the whispering campaign about his religion out in the open and confronted it. It's also the speech that set the model for politicians claiming religious affiliations to set moral principle aside when it is expedient (personally opposed, publicly supportive):
"But let me stress again that these are my views--for contrary to common newspaper usage, I am not the Catholic candidate for President. I am the Democratic Party's candidate for President who happens also to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my church on public matters--and the church does not speak for me.
Whatever issue may come before me as President--on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject--I will make my decision in accordance with these views, in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressures or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise."
I would like to see a Calvinist on the court
My model statement for a conservative candidate was meant to equally apply to all three branches of government. Indeed, a judge is typically enjoined from legislating, and a congressman -- from deciding cases, but the role of religion in their respective activities should be as I say.
As you know, there is a gap between what I believe and what the US Constitution says. I don't have a big problem with religious tests, particularly on the state level, where they have been used historically. I certainly don't have a problem with religious tests where religion is viewed as an asset of character, because that is what is objectively is. I do have a problem with the view implicit in Durbin's question, and which you also expressed to me, that once the candidate's views have been traced to a religion, he needs to separate that view from his persone, recuse himself from cases where that view is relevant, and generally behave as if religiosity were a case of leprosy. Since that view is also unconstitutional in light of the 1st Amendment, I don't mind pointing that out.
Judicial activism is not the defining characteristic of the left, nor strict constructionaism -- defining characteristic of conservatism. Nor following the moral law as one's religion defines it is coincidental with judicial activism. The religious conservative view is that moral absolutes exist, they are primarily known through Christian religion and are reflected in other religions somewhat; that the foundational principles of the US Constitution do not deviate from the moral law, but can be corrupted to serve evil, and in fact have been. It is hence inescapable that the moral law may be in conflict with the prevailing today interpretation of the Constitution, and when so, the moral law takes precedence. When there is no conflict, there is no room for judicial activism.
There exists a faction of irreligious conservatives that place their trust exclusively with the Constitution. I think, they are naive when they project their irreligiosity as something to do with the Constitution as written, -- since when the Constitution was written the chances of meeting irreligious candidate for office was close to nil.
Thank you!
Pitiful cripple.
Therein lies our major difference. If religious tests were permitted, ultimately they could and likely would, clearly lead to a total erosion of a republican government based on democratic principles. You can see the conflict that exists in the efforts to develop a constitution in Iraq today. Religion is the biggest single hindrance to a legitimate democracy there. But we agree to disagree.
I certainly don't have a problem with religious tests where religion is viewed as an asset of character, because that is what is objectively is.
You presume that "character" itself requires a religious grounding. It does not. And as you know, we have discussed the various character flaws that can be found in people of faith. Conversely though, I certainly don't look down on a religious person and I would normally see that person as someone with moral principles. To that extent, it could help, but if I set it up as a "test" of some sort, of course, I have violated the rights of those who may be of high character but would not have the religious "diploma", so to speak.
I do have a problem with the view implicit in Durbin's question, and which you also expressed to me, that once the candidate's views have been traced to a religion, he needs to separate that view from his persone, recuse himself from cases where that view is relevant, and generally behave as if religiosity were a case of leprosy. Since that view is also unconstitutional in light of the 1st Amendment, I don't mind pointing that out.
You know that is not what I said nor is it what I believe. I said that he could (should) recuse himself from a case in which he could not make a decision in compliance with the Constitution. If he makes a decision that violates his moral code, he loses favor with God; if he makes a decision contrary to the Constitution he violates his oath, and he loses favor with God and the people. But I never said that he must recuse himself where his religious views are relevant, simply in conflict.
Judicial activism is not the defining characteristic of the left,
It has been a major tool of the left since FDR stacked the court for that very purpose. It certainly led to Roe, and almost every week you can look to the 9th Circuit decisions and see it very clearly. Ultimately, all of those non negotiable areas you previously mentioned will be brought down through leftist judicial activism.
The religious conservative view is that moral absolutes exist, they are primarily known through Christian religion and are reflected in other religions somewhat; that the foundational principles of the US Constitution do not deviate from the moral law, but can be corrupted to serve evil, and in fact have been.
And so they do. Which is why religion is and ought to be a personal decision and personal lifestyle. The moment you bring it into government in such a way as to defy laws and the Constitution, you have created the very conflict the authors of the Constitution were trying to evade.
It is hence inescapable that the moral law may be in conflict with the prevailing today interpretation of the Constitution, and when so, the moral law takes precedence.
You seem to feel that moral law is somehow a clearcut set of absolutes. Some moral codes prescribe the stoning of a woman to death for being raped. Other moral codes proscribe any kind of death penalty. As we have discussed before, even within the family of Christian religions there are substantial differences in some of your moral absolutes including abortion, birth control, divorce, gay unions, etc. That is why you cannot permit a judge to substitute his moral convictions for his God-sworn duty to uphold the Constitution.
There exists a faction of irreligious conservatives that place their trust exclusively with the Constitution.
Perhaps they recognize that religion is a personal experience between them and God.
I think, they are naive when they project their irreligiosity as something to do with the Constitution as written, -- since when the Constitution was written the chances of meeting irreligious candidate for office was close to nil.
Then why did the founding fathers prohibit religious tests of any kind?
You keep reducing the broad issue of religion in politics with this narrow one of a judge (not a legislator and not a president) facing an immoral yet inambiguous law. You say, the judge should then recuse himself. Wrong. He should state: "This law is immoral, but this is what it, immorally, says ... . I ignore this law and rule on the merits of the case. Overrule me or impeach me."
Religion is not merely personal experience. It confers an obligation to conduct oneself in a certain manner in public.
The founding fathers prohibited establishment of a federal religion. They did not prohibit religious tests, and in fact it is quite proper to inquire as to the religion of a candidate and take that into account. What they did also prohibit is hindrances in the way of a US citizen, even US citizen holding a federal office, publicly exercising his particular religion. Like I said in my first post here, we are making a mistake objecting to this line of questioning. We should instead just answer the question without evasion, and watch the left attempt to reject a candidate because he is too moral or too religious.
Then if he feels he may have to do that, he should under no circumstances take the oath "to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, So Help Me God.
Religion is not merely personal experience. It confers an obligation to conduct oneself in a certain manner in public.
but not to extend your own personal moral or religious obligations on those who may not share your beliefs.
They did not prohibit religious tests, and in fact it is quite proper to inquire as to the religion of a candidate and take that into account.
You may want to review Article VI of the Constitution. As for taking a person's religion into account, only if that religion is a prerequisite for the job, such as a chaplain. Any other use of religion as a test of any kind is prohibited by both the Constitution and the US Code. Religion is one of the seven discriminatory factors that include race, national origin, gender, etc. They can only be taken into consideration in the selection of a candidate in a very narrow range including to correct past discriminatory practices or where the specific requirements of the position require it.
Like I said in my first post here, we are making a mistake objecting to this line of questioning.
I agree!
We should instead just answer the question without evasion, and watch the left attempt to reject a candidate because he is too moral or too religious.
If he answers as you previously suggested, he would likely and should be removed from consideration. He would have said that the Constitution is not the supreme law of the land, that his own moral code takes precidence, which would make him an activist judge, and for real conservatives, unacceptable.
If one is a legislator or a judge, then he is authorized by the power of his office to extend his beliefs, including, of course his religious beliefs, onto others through his decisions. You don't like his religious beliefs, -- vote accordingly.
The Constitution is supreme law of the land. However, no political law, not even the Constitution, can trespass on the moral law. Luckily, there is nothing in the Constitution itself that is immoral, so when these conflicts arise we know that by rejecting the immoral law the Constitution remains intact.
You are so right, Julie, Holy Lord Jesus protect us from that day!
Good article from Hewitt about Bill Pryor. Didn't Bush have to do a recess appointment for him?
**there is a de-facto litmus test of Catholicism established by the left, and it violates the Constitution.**
Absolutely!
That would be fine with me too!
Same here. Any firmly held and practiced Christian beliefs are equally fine in a judge, while lukewarm personal religiosity that does not extend into the civic duty are harmful regardless of denomination, and God knows we have no shortage of Catholics in name only fouling up the public service. Neither a Calvinist or a Catholic judge will be adjudicating on T.U.L.I.P. anyway. In fact, Calvinists have a uniquely salutary contribution to the formation of the American Republic.
True as far as the religious tests within states. But the 14th Amendment made all of those illegal since it covers any activity that can result in an unequal protection of the law.
If one is a legislator or a judge, then he is authorized by the power of his office to extend his beliefs, including, of course his religious beliefs, onto others through his decisions. You don't like his religious beliefs, -- vote accordingly.
He has no specific authorization to do so, and if he does extend them to others through his actions or decisions he very likely is violating the 14th Amendment. Again you are right, the corrective action can be voting out of office...or impeachment.
The Constitution is supreme law of the land. However, no political law, not even the Constitution, can trespass on the moral law. Luckily, there is nothing in the Constitution itself that is immoral, so when these conflicts arise we know that by rejecting the immoral law the Constitution remains intact.
As a statement of principle, I agree with that. But unfortunately the devil is in the detail. Two problems result from that. First, there is nothing immoral about the constitutional requirement that Congress provide for the general welfare, etc. But when that requirement extends to where it is today, of course many might consider both legislative and judicial actions to provide for the general welfare as immoral. Second, our Constitution provides that our set of laws and judicial reviews make up the overall law of the land. Within both of those, a judge or other official may consider something immoral such as birth control or divorce. What happens when a judge tries to outlaw divorce? And of course, it can get worse. Roy Moore's agenda was certainly not limited to his grandstanding on the Ten Commandments display. These are the kinds of actions and people that pose serious dangers to our way of life and our country. I am quite comfortable with the USSC being the ultimate decision maker as long as it is composed of those who believe that their responsibilities are limited to whether or not a law is within the framework and meaning of the Constitution. We both agree on Roe, but for different reasons. You believe that it is immoral thus not compatible with the Constitution. I believe that there never was a right to privacy such that an abortion could be considered a protected activity, and further that until the USSC defines a "person" or human being as clearly not a preborn, it cannot conclude that abortion is permissible. To permit any law or court decision to be ignored or changed by a judge or official based on his personal moral code is as I have stated many times, chaotic and tantamount to anarchy.
Finally, you again mention the moral law as being superior to the Constitution. But where is that moral law found? Why is it that every religion has different moral laws? That requires an answer before discussing the subordination of the Constitution to it.
Well, you just pointed out two major defects of the US Constitution: the improperly ratified 14th Amendmant and the impossibly vague General Welfare clause. Surely an originalist would look at the Constitution itelsf first and as framed, and to the post bellum amendments secondly and in the light of the original Constitution.
It is true that the moral law lacks the level of specificity of some man-made laws, and there is room for varying interpretations of that, particularly if religions not organic to the United States are allowed to have a say. But there is simply no substitute to discerning the moral law, no matter how hard, chaotic and "tantamount to anarchy" the task may be. Surely the task of interpretation of the Divine moral law, entrusted to the clergy which has the universal breadth of 2 thousand years of Christian history (not counting equally instructive Jewsih history) is less chaotic-bordering-on-anarchy than what goes into the interpretation of political law -- the fake passions and outright lies of politicians whose mental horizon is 4-6 years in office and the Beltway interior.
Agree on the vagueness of the general welfare part, but not on the 14th Amendment. The Southern states didn't have to ratify, but given their history of slavery and their treatment of blacks post bellum, the Amendment certainly had (and has) its value. Without equal protection, fanatics from both ends of the political spectrum could make deep inroads into the freedoms that were contemplated by our founding fathers. Radical Christians are not the only group who would trash our freedoms for their own moral philosophy. Many on the left would love to see a very different America than we have today. They are the ones who celebrate the squalor of Fidel's Cuba. Freedom must be protected constantly.
Surely an originalist would look at the Constitution itelsf first and as framed, and to the post bellum amendments secondly and in the light of the original Constitution.
Very difficult to do. The Amendments are no less supreme than the original document itself. They don't exist as a hierarchy. Generally you would lean toward the clause or amendment that granted more, not less, rights.
Surely the task of interpretation of the Divine moral law, entrusted to the clergy which has the universal breadth of 2 thousand years of Christian history (not counting equally instructive Jewsih history) is less chaotic-bordering-on-anarchy than what goes into the interpretation of political law
Can't argue the generality, but as I've said before, the devil's in the detail. And what's more important, as I've said before, some of the most basic "moral" tenets for you are not the same for other religious groups including abortion, gay unions, birth control, divorce, etc. This is the key to why someone's particular moral code simply cannot substitute for constitutional law. Roberts will be in a very good position to consider his own moral code as a USSC justice, and may well inject it into his decision making process. But that is the USSC and it does have more freedom of creativity than do lower courts. So we'll see. As long as he's not a fundamentalist who looks on the Constitution as something that requires changing to better reflect his Catholic upbringing, he will be fine. But going all the way back to JFK, it is quite understandable to hear the question: "Given the Pope and the Constitution, where does your loyalty lie?".
It is your position, not mine, that the Constitution should be followed faithfully as written and intended. If so, it should not matter to you that the 14th Amendment is a good, moral (ahem) law. It should only matter that its ratification was accomplished under duress, if at all, and so it is perhaps a nice enough law, but it is not constitutionally arrived at law.
My preference is to interpret the 14 Amendment in light of the 1st, which allows freedom of conscience. In application to an officeholder, that would mean that the officeholder cannot be barred from following his religion in executing his office. Now, this may not be the prevailing interpretation today, but then I am not the one advocating that the Constitution is something that can be followed robotically, all moral consideration be damned.
I agree that the moral law is no substitute for man-made (constitutional, statutory, etc) law. these are rare instances where the man-made law as currently interpreted is in conflict with the moral law. Then, and only then, the moral law trumps the man made law. And, yes, the moral law is in itself something that can be debated, and it is possible to interpret it incorrectly. It is simply a fact of life. We are not robots, and a constitution does not make us ones.
I think it should be followed as closely as possible and within the intention of the writers at the time. Most of us accept it with the Amendments because it is a moral document, and therefore consistent with the civil needs of a moral people. But we also know that the changing of it should be taken very seriously, and certainly not by one man who decides it is insufficiently moral for him. Granted it was and still is not a perfect document. But when it needs changing, there are 2 specific methods, neither of which involves one judge. It is bad enough that judges believe they can "interpret" it in any way they choose. I don't have to support such activism. Others do support it.
The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments were proof that the Constitution was not perfect. But it remains the supreme law of the land. I'm not aware that the 14th was not ratified, nor am I aware that it has been declared unconstitutional. Considering what the South had done, it was hardly overreaching to require its ratification as a prerequisite to reentry. I do know that many decisions relating to it have "changed" the original meaning of parts of it, just as with other amendments.
My preference is to interpret the 14 Amendment in light of the 1st, which allows freedom of conscience. In application to an officeholder, that would mean that the officeholder cannot be barred from following his religion in executing his office.
Again, you make a statement that requires more substance, because the way you have posited it is beyond argument. I agree, unless in following his religion, he contravenes the Constitution or the federal laws. This would certainly include imposing that religious belief on anyone in such a way as to infringe on their rights, including the 1st, 5th and 14th Amendments. That likely still gives that official a lot of wriggle room.
Now, this may not be the prevailing interpretation today, but then I am not the one advocating that the Constitution is something that can be followed robotically, all moral consideration be damned.
Nor am I, and of course, as a justice of the USSC, Roberts will have some room, but not much if he is not an activist judge, as he claims.
these are rare instances where the man-made law as currently interpreted is in conflict with the moral law. Then, and only then, the moral law trumps the man made law.
I have on a number of occasions given you examples of moral law differences that exist within the family of Christian sects. I would like you to address those and how you would permit handling by different judges.
And, yes, the moral law is in itself something that can be debated, and it is possible to interpret it incorrectly.
Which is exactly why a constitution is needed, along with laws that will exclude such arguments, as a basis for decision making.
It is simply a fact of life. We are not robots, and a constitution does not make us ones.
I agree, which is why we have methods for amending our Constitution.
For my purposes it is sufficient to note that problems of interpretation, -- that have lead to a brutal civil war, no less, -- exist in the Constitution. Compared with that, the Christian moral code is remarkable in its consistency and clarity.
All Christian agree that abortion is an evil act, that divorce is possible only after a guilty party irreparably damages the marriage. Prior to 1930 all Christians even agreed that contraception is inherently evil. Typically, the differences iare in the stridency with which a particular position is pursued, not in the evaluation of right and wrong. Was there anything else that you mentioned as controversial among the Christians? On these, the disagreements that may exist between Christians are infinitesimal compared to how our laws -- as of this writing, constitutional laws -- treat these issues.
But let us say a Catholic SC justice follows his conscience and attempts to ban all contraception. He is only one of 9 justices. If they are all Catholic and agree, congratulations, we must be living in a Catholic country. Besides, even so the Catholic position is that contraception is a personal sin, but not an objective crime (unlike abortion), and the Catholic Church does NOT teach that all sinful behaviors should be outlawed. Chances are, opinions that are marginal for the moral law will remain marginalized in actual judicial practice. And, how is the decision making of this hypothetical Catholic justice differs from a secularist who, for example, attempts (and, as of now, succeeds) in banning school prayer?
Parenthetically, what is this "prerequisite to reentry" business? The South understood the Constitution, rightly or wrongly, but sirely reasonably, as allowing for secession. It seceded and got invaded by the North, and lost the war. If, like you say, conditions for reentry were imposed on them in good faith, why did they not ignore the conditions and not re-enter, erffectively implementing the original plan? I don't want to get sidetracked on the Civil War controversies, but would you explain what is your concept of the Civil War? Mine is, the slavery was a violation of the moral law, but the Constitution was silent on secession and the South was at least reasonable, if not outright correct in insisting on the right to secede, under the greater freedom principle. They seceded, got beaten, and the 14 Amendment was imposed when the memory of Atlanta burned was fresh in the Southern mind. They ratified, -- those states that did, I don't know which states ratified the 14th off the top of my head, -- under duress, not wanting to go through another crisis with the militarily superior occupying force of the North.
I saw your name on another thread showing ping lists. I am a Roman Catholic in Upstate, NY and would like to be on your Catholic Ping list if possible. God Bless.
Regards,
Tim
But nevertheless, within your non negotiable six items, there are substantial differences, certainly not enough to result in a civil war, but substantial nonetheless.
All Christian agree that abortion is an evil act,
Well, not exactly. Even the Catholic Church has had many different views on abortion. Augustine and Aquinas both accepted early abortions up until animation. In fact even some of the Popes took the same view, which does bring into question the issue of infallibility. The Episcopal Church recognizes the right to an abortion. The Presbyterians also seem to accept it, though with some concern. But with all of these differences, one does not have to be a Catholic or other Christian to want to put an end to abortion. As for divorce, gay marriage and use of birth control, there are substantial differences among the religions.
But let us say a Catholic SC justice follows his conscience and attempts to ban all contraception. He is only one of 9 justices. If they are all Catholic and agree, congratulations, we must be living in a Catholic country
Which then could better be labeled a theocracy. But the point would be if all 9 outlawed contraception, that would be legislating from the bench because it would take a law to do that...it is not in the Constitution per se.
And, how is the decision making of this hypothetical Catholic justice differs from a secularist who, for example, attempts (and, as of now, succeeds) in banning school prayer?
The distinction would be that banning school prayer emanates from the 1st Amendment, while the other decision making from the Catholic would simply be made up out of whole cloth...or legislating.
We are drifting again, but the main point is that there should be no religious tests for or against Catholics, but I understand the concerns expressed by some who do not want to see the Pope inserted into our legal process. As for Roberts, I doubt that would ever happen.
Many volumes have been written on that issue, ie: the right to secede. Though it took a majority of states to ratify the Constitution, it takes "We the People" to undo it. That is why the Preamble begins with "We the People" rather than "We the individual states". That to me is clear enough to prevent a secession. If secession were lawful, so would the violation of any other part of the Constitution. If a state did not want to abide by your favorite amendment, the 14th, then just ignore it. Not possible, nor is secession, unless by all of the "people".
If, like you say, conditions for reentry were imposed on them in good faith, why did they not ignore the conditions and not re-enter, erffectively implementing the original plan?
Because by that point in time the war had ended, and "reentry" simply meant to again be permitted to have their own elected state government and to again be a part of the representational process. It did not mean they were free to go on their way.
Mine is, the slavery was a violation of the moral law, but the Constitution was silent on secession and the South was at least reasonable, if not outright correct in insisting on the right to secede, under the greater freedom principle.
Again, I explained my rationale above. Yes, slavery was immoral, but done worldwide at the time...much of it by Christians BTW. And the 14th Amendment was crammed down their throats because in addition to ending slavery, the freedmen had a long way to go to become a part of a free society. The South stood in the way of that...and did so for a hundred years. Loyalty oaths and ratification of the 3 amendments were all part of the rehabilitation and reentry of the South. Many in the South today still live for the anti-bellum South, and still look to their own nation one day.
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.