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

Skip to comments.

What did the Declaration of Independence Establish
The Founders Revolution ^ | April 13, 2012 | Scott Strzelczyk

Posted on 04/15/2012 5:31:13 AM PDT by mek1959

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-316 next last
In my view, this guy is 100% headed in the right direction vs. the sophomoric and anti-constitutional solutions being offered by the national campaigns and the national government.
1 posted on 04/15/2012 5:31:17 AM PDT by mek1959
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: mek1959

Our founding fathers would be shooting by now.


2 posted on 04/15/2012 5:53:13 AM PDT by ConservaTexan (February 6, 1911)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConservaTexan

Exactly


3 posted on 04/15/2012 6:00:12 AM PDT by Jagdgewehr (It will take blood)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ConservaTexan

I don’t even think it has to come to “shooting,” I believe we can “amicably divorce” just as Dr. Walter Williams suggested in his 2000 article, “It’s time to part company” (google it).

Only people who support a “perpetual” Union will do the shooting, just as they did in 1860. No, the vast majority of the Founders, Framers and Ratifiers (as well as Locke, Cicero, Plato, Augustine and Aristotle) understood the Inalienable Right to self determination and self governance. And We the People of our separate States need to recapture this thinking, not the serf-like thinking we have now towards the national government.

Look at how many people are putting all of their hope in the 9 politically connected lawyers on the Supreme Court regarding Obamacare. If they were at all consistent in their jurisprudence, they MUST uphold Obamacare as supposedly “Constitutional.” They certainly haven’t seen much of anything else that isn’t under the Commerce Clause or Necessary and Proper Clause or the General Welfare Clause. Yet, millions are putting all there hope in the decision. What a farce.

The Founders, Framers and Ratifiers would clearly have a different opinion about what to do. Take a minute if you will and read the Principles of 98 to see what two of them said they intended to do with the Aliens and Sedition Act.


4 posted on 04/15/2012 6:11:50 AM PDT by mek1959
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mek1959

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2872068/posts


5 posted on 04/15/2012 6:28:42 AM PDT by broken_arrow1 (I regret that I have but one life to give for my country - Nathan Hale "Patriot")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FRiends
WE'RE MILKING THIS FREEPATHON FOR ALL IT'S WORTH



Please consider becoming a new monthly donor.
When you do, a sponsor gladly kicks in a few extra bucks.


Click the Pic
Support Free Republic

6 posted on 04/15/2012 6:28:49 AM PDT by deoetdoctrinae (Gun-free zones are playgrounds for felons)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: mek1959

In 1860 the split was regional. 90%+ of (white) people in most of the southern states supported the war once it started.

Today there is no state in the Union that does not have at least a 1/3 minority on the “other side.”

There is absolutely no way to have a clean break or amicable divorce under such conditions. Massive ethnic and/or ideological cleansing would be required.

Which pretty much makes a mockery of this being done by “the people.” Nope, it would be one group of “the people” domineering over and oppressing another group of “the people.” Which, arguably, is what’s been going on anyway.

The only way to make this an action of “the people” is to redefine “the people” as those who support a particular political POV. Which of course makes all others “enemies of the people” even if they’re a majority in a particular area. Personally, I think the “enemies of the people” meme has a bad enough history I don’t care to revive it.


7 posted on 04/15/2012 6:35:40 AM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: mek1959

I believe as a people we believe in elections, and many are awaiting the results of 2012. If Obama wins, he will most certainly provoke a civil war and/or economic collapse. Romney wants to get elected and stay for a second term, so he won’t have the stomach to rein in entitlements that would cost him votes. Either way, we are in a fast train or a slow train off a cliff, and I can see the edge from this vantage point! When the ultimate collapse happens, not if, but when...we need to step in and grab state sovereignty back. This is essentially what happened with the former Soviet Union.


8 posted on 04/15/2012 6:42:05 AM PDT by broken_arrow1 (I regret that I have but one life to give for my country - Nathan Hale "Patriot")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: mek1959
I believe we can “amicably divorce”...

The problem is "amicably." There is no way the federal gubmint is going to let a state secede. The War of Northern Aggression established that any state wishing to leave the Union would have to do so through force.

9 posted on 04/15/2012 6:47:11 AM PDT by ConservaTexan (February 6, 1911)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ConservaTexan

Actually, I cannot think of a single example of any sub-region or colony wishing to “amicably divorce” EVER having been allowed to leave peacefully. Killing and misery have always been part of the deal, because those in power never ever ever want to give up any significant portion of that control.


10 posted on 04/15/2012 6:57:22 AM PDT by Teacher317 ('Tis time to fear when tyrants seem to kiss.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: mek1959

The Declaration of Independence only restated the Laws of Moses.

It was Moses who first said our rights do not come from an earthly monarch.


11 posted on 04/15/2012 11:34:35 AM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood ("Arjuna, why have you have dropped your bow???")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mek1959

The Declaration of Independence only restated the Laws of Moses.

It was Moses who first said our rights do not come from an earthly monarch.


12 posted on 04/15/2012 11:34:58 AM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood ("Arjuna, why have you have dropped your bow???")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mek1959

The Declaration of Independence only restated the Laws of Moses.

It was Moses who first said our rights do not come from an earthly monarch.


13 posted on 04/15/2012 11:35:14 AM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood ("Arjuna, why have you have dropped your bow???")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConservaTexan

“Our founding fathers would be shooting by now.”

We who are their descendants should first be declaring, “When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands 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.”...it is time for those ‘inside the beltway’ to get that message loud and clear. WE ARE THE PEOPLE! It is time for us to dissolve the political bands which have connected us to them. It might not become a time for shooting.


14 posted on 04/15/2012 11:58:19 AM PDT by GGpaX4DumpedTea (I am a tea party descendant - steeped in the Constitutional legacy handed down by the Founders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Teacher317
Actually, I cannot think of a single example of any sub-region or colony wishing to “amicably divorce” EVER having been allowed to leave peacefully. Killing and misery have always been part of the deal, because those in power never ever ever want to give up any significant portion of that control.

Depends. Generally secession is associated with bitterness and anger -- taking back one's "rights" from the "oppressor."

Secession isn't usually attempted in a calm and peaceable spirit of respect for the country one's leaving. Consequently it's no surprise that secession attempts are met with anger and resentment from those who are cast in the role of the "oppressor" in some narcissistic drama.

When separatist movements take a more peaceful route and ask for consent from the rest of the country and don't regard their fellow countrymen as evil oppressors they may meet with more respect and consideration from the other side.

15 posted on 04/15/2012 1:29:45 PM PDT by x (Remember that a lone amateur built Noah's Ark. A large group of professionals built the Titanic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: mek1959

Moreover, Jefferson is stating that every man has certain unalienable rights endowed upon them by their Creator. Meaning everyone has these unalienable rights. Undoubtedly, all men are created equal and possess the same natural rights under the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God.

That was the view Lincoln was upholding against the Confederate rejection of that truth.

16 posted on 04/15/2012 4:57:00 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration (How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!-Sam Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration

If that’s what Jefferson meant about inalienable rights. You might want to check your history on this, Jefferson was elucidating the Lockean defense against the divine right of kings.

Second, people like you scare me with your Lincoln Machiavellian thought, the ends justify the means for you trample on the Rule of Law. Exactly where in the Constitution did Lincoln have the constitutional AUTHORITY to “preserve the Union” which is why he attacked the South after they seceded. Read his first Inaugural address before you come here and make assertions of which you seem to know nothing about. That he could make a silly argument about the supposed perpetuity of the Union does not mean that his argument is actually based in the Constitution..it wasn’t.

Third, your support of Lincoln suggests an attachment to arbitrary power, another thing that concerns me with your response. I’ll leave it there.


17 posted on 04/15/2012 7:29:17 PM PDT by mek1959
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: mek1959

And you might want to check your history, Locke wasn’t just speaking about the divine right of kings, he was speaking of mankind in general, which he got from the Bible.


18 posted on 04/16/2012 2:12:46 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration (How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!-Sam Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: mek1959
Lincoln was defending the Constitution which he swore an oath to do.

There was nothing arbitary about his power.

19 posted on 04/16/2012 2:14:39 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration (How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!-Sam Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: mek1959
Week One: The Declaration and the Constitution - Hillsdale College
20 posted on 04/16/2012 2:40:33 AM PDT by Daffynition (Our forefathers would be shooting by now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration

Again, point to that section in Article II where the Executive was given ANY and I mean ANY authority to preserve the Union? Crickets. So, your assertion that he was “defending his oath to uphold the Constitution” again, what part, please cite if for me, what part of Article II to We the People, operating through our STATES delegate to him that Authority to shoot 400,000 fellow citizens to “preserve the Union? Where is it? Crickets again. In your Lincolnian thinking, would you shoot the people of Texas, or Nebraska if they wanted to withdraw from the Union. Would you honestly be ok with that? I implore you to reconsider the myth of Lincoln, he was willing to kill 400,000 people to accomplish something he was NEVER told to do.

This was a textbook case of arbitrary power and that you’re ok with it relegates you to the serf status you deserve and everything the national government throws at you (including Obamacare if the SC upholds it). Not me, I took the blinders off years ago...thank you Dr. Walter Williams.


21 posted on 04/16/2012 3:34:00 AM PDT by mek1959
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Daffynition

I’m not sure what you’re suggesting with this link...there’s only a few things in the presentation I would take issue with. Namely, Lincoln’s justification to go to war with the States. The issue of slavery was an despicable and abhorrent stain on our history, there is no denial of this. But there was an actual Constitutional remedy to this; an Article V Amendment (cue music...”but that would have been so difficult!). But no, we couldn’t do that, we had to shoot and kill 400,000 people and destroy countless billions in property. I don’t recall Great Britain going to war against itself to end slavery or am I missing that part of history.

Additionally, that wasn’t even Lincoln’s stated reason for going to war; it was to preserve the Union which again, there simply is NO delegated power, from the consent of the governed, to “preserve the Union. None, nada, zip. Of course there is no authority to arrest State legislators, or suspend habeas corpus or arrest and imprison political opponents or a former Congressman (all inconvenient truths).

So, I generally agree with his teaching on natures law and the Declaration generally...but have serious objections to his understanding of Lincoln.


22 posted on 04/16/2012 4:24:54 AM PDT by mek1959
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: mek1959
The Executive was given authority to uphold the Constitution.

Washington used it.

Jackson would have used it.

Where in the Constitution does it say a State can stop obeying Federal laws?

This discussion was on the meaning of the Declaration, which was universal in nature.

Lincoln was right, Williams is wrong.

23 posted on 04/16/2012 4:36:49 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration (How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!-Sam Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration

Wrong again.

Point 1 - Is or is not the Constitution an WRITTEN set of delegated authorities? Anything other than a YES answer is wrong and you do not understand authority.

Point 2 - Since the Constitution is a WRITTEN set of delegated powers to the three branches of Government, they were created to define the the LIMITS of a government. Anything other than a “I agree” answer is wrong and you do not understand authority nor the writing and ratification of the Constitution. It’s really that simple.

Point 3 - Since the Constitution is a WRITTEN set of limits on the national government, there is NOTHING written that grants the Executive ANY authority to shoot 400,000 people, suspend habeas corpus, arrest State Legislators, political opponents. Failure to understand this and assent to this makes you a serf at the beckoning of a national government. And Jefferson, Madison, Mason, Henry and most others would be ashamed of how you’ve embraced a inaccurate view of the Declaration and the Constitution.

fortheDeclaration is WRONG (completely and utterly) and Jefferson, Madison, Henry, Mason, Lee are right...along with Dr. Williams.


24 posted on 04/16/2012 4:45:26 AM PDT by mek1959
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
"Where in the Constitution does it say a State can stop obeying Federal laws?" Oh, I forgot to respond to this...ummm, let me think for 1 nano second on this, that pesky 9th and 10th Amendment. Geeez...do you even read what you write? "Obey" Federal Laws? Have you actually read Article VI and the clause "in pursuance thereof?" Do you have any idea what the Framers and Ratifiers meant by this? The supremacy clause was NOT a broad grant of power to the federal government. Only serfs believe this.
25 posted on 04/16/2012 4:53:16 AM PDT by mek1959
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: mek1959

I’ve read here some years ago, it is compared to a marriage, as in one spouse saying “I’m not happy, I want a divorce” and the other spouse beating them until they decide not to get a divorce.

Sure a state can secede, if they’re strong enough to withstand the beating. Even if the beating is unlawful, it still happens.

Beyond that, you’re 100% correct mek1959.


26 posted on 04/16/2012 5:06:58 AM PDT by Big Giant Head
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Big Giant Head
Excellent way to look at it. I simply find it so troubling as Jefferson stated in the Declaration that "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." we indeed seem exactly at this point. We're willing to believe a lie propagated by a clever series of myths about the the South withdrawing from the compact, and "suffer" the evils thereof rather than take the blinders off. This must be very disappointing to the Founders, Framers and Ratifiers. I'm certain we would have had a 2nd Declaration of Independence or a break-up of the Union by now if they were alive. Just sad to read how much "Declaration" has swallowed inaccurate history. What he/she believes simply is not accurate.
27 posted on 04/16/2012 5:15:28 AM PDT by mek1959
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: mek1959
Many of us on FR signed up for this Hilldale course and are enjoying it...thought you'd like to see the lecture on the DoI. Maybe not.

Welcome to Week 8 “Abraham Lincoln and the Constitution”

28 posted on 04/16/2012 6:02:24 AM PDT by Daffynition (Our forefathers would be shooting by now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: mek1959
I don’t recall Great Britain going to war against itself to end slavery or am I missing that part of history.

There was no slavery in the British Isles proper. The only slavery they had in the empire was on small islands in the West Indies where the slave owners had no power to resist and the 'freed slaves' had no ability to go elsewhere. Their only option was to go back to the same jobs. Nothing changed in reality.

It was a far different situation than in the United States.

29 posted on 04/16/2012 6:35:41 AM PDT by Ditto (Nov 2, 2010 -- Partial cleaning accomplished. More trash to remove in 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood
"The Declaration of Independence only restated the Laws of Moses."

It was Moses who first said our rights do not come from an earthly monarch."

There's a lot more to the declaration than that.

30 posted on 04/16/2012 6:45:36 AM PDT by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: mek1959
The Confederacy rebelled because they didn't like the results of an election.

Laws are meant to be enforced, they aren't suggestions.

When the States formed the Union, they agreed to abide by the conditions that were stated in the Constitution, which was meant to be stronger then the Conferation.

I know that secession is not granted in the Constitution and wasn't even stated to be allowed in the Confederate constitution, no government could survive if any State could just leave for any reason.

Washington upheld federal laws with force.

Jackson was planning to.

Lincoln was forced to.

The only people who had a real complaint about their rights being violated were the millions of slaves that the South was willing to die trying to keep in slavery.

31 posted on 04/17/2012 3:19:30 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration (How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!-Sam Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration

So, the $64,000 question which I doubt you will answer.

If the PEOPLE (the only true sovereigns) of the State of Texas or Oklahoma decide they no longer want to be part of the Union...would you be willing the shoot them and kill them to force them to stay in the Union they do not want to stay in?

You won’t answer, but I think based on your understanding of the Constitution, inalienable rights and the Rule of Law, yes, you would be willing to shoot and kill people in Texas and Oklahoma if they wanted to go their own way. How sad.


32 posted on 04/17/2012 6:07:18 AM PDT by mek1959
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: mek1959
Only people who support a “perpetual” Union will do the shooting, just as they did in 1860.

The States not only seceeded from the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, their right to do so was acknowledged.

And since the seceding states, by establishing a new constitution and form of federal government among themselves, without the consent of the rest, have shown that they consider the right to do so whenever the occasion may, in their opinion require it, as unquestionable, we may infer that that right has not been diminished by any new compact which they may since have entered into, since none could be more solemn or explicit than the first, nor more binding upon the contracting parties. Their obligation, therefore, to preserve the present constitution, is not greater than their former obligations were, to adhere to the articles of confederation; each state possessing the same right of withdrawing itself from the confederacy without the consent of the rest, as any number of them do, or ever did, possess.
Of the Several Forms of Government, St. George Tucker, View of the Constitution of the United States, Section XIII

33 posted on 04/17/2012 6:36:34 AM PDT by MamaTexan (I am a ~Person~ as created by the Law of Nature, not a 'person' as created by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: x
When separatist movements take a more peaceful route and ask for consent from the rest of the country

LOL!

Having to ask permission to leave a voluntary association would negate the entire concept of sovereignty.

34 posted on 04/17/2012 6:39:46 AM PDT by MamaTexan (I am a ~Person~ as created by the Law of Nature, not a 'person' as created by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
That was the view Lincoln was upholding against the Confederate rejection of that truth.

Oh, you mean the TRUTH that slavery was legally established on the continent at the same time the colonies were being formed?

You mean the TRUTH that slavery was a common national practice when the Declaration of Independence was being written?

You mean the TRUTH that slavery was a common national practice when the Declaration of Independence was being signed?

You mean the TRUTH that slavery was a common national practice when the Declaration of Independence was sent to the King of England?

You mean the TRUTH that slavery was a common national practice when the American Revolution was fought?

You mean the TRUTH that slavery was a common national practice when the first Constitutional Convention was held?

You mean the TRUTH that slavery was a common practice when the States seceded from the Articles of Confederation?

You mean the TRUTH that slavery was a common national practice when the Constitution was signed?

You mean the TRUTH that slavery was a common national practice when the War of 1812 was fought?

You mean the TRUTH that Congress acknowledged slavery was legal in the States and could not be prohibited by the national government?
Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States 1860-1861 Wednesday, December 12, 1860.

-------

Lincoln's actions had NO relationship with the truth.

It was ALL about Lincoln's ego, Lincoln's 'legacy', and how he justified his unconstitutional exercise of power by using a legal contract for a moral purpose.

And so many people still don't realize the unCivil War didn't 'free' anyone......

it just enslaved us all.

35 posted on 04/17/2012 7:08:21 AM PDT by MamaTexan (I am a ~Person~ as created by the Law of Nature, not a 'person' as created by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
Washington upheld federal laws with force.

Washington followed the Constitution:

Article 4 section 4
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

'On Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive' is the STATE governments, not the federal one.

The Governor of Pennsylvania at the time was Thomas Mifflin.

Western Pennsylvania rebelled against the Federal excise tax on whiskey in 1794. Never having fully trusted George Washington, Mifflin refused, when asked by President Washington to call out the Pennsylvania militia to enforce this Federal law. Mifflin asserted that a United States president had no authority to order a state governor to use state militia for any purpose during peacetime and in the absence of any local request for assistance. Mifflin's point was established, setting a precedent that is still honored.
Allison-Antrim Museum

Even Alexander Hamilton acknowledged Mifflin could either allow the federal troops into the state or leave the Compact:

A proclamation was issued by the President, commanding the insurgents to disperse, while quotas of militia were called for from Pennsylvania, Virginia, Maryland, and New Jersey. These Governor Mifflin, of Pennsylvania, who seemed to be in sympathy with the insurgents, hesitated to call out. He was, however, forced either to do so, or to break with the central government, and the militia volunteered in greater numbers than were wanted, even members of the "Society of Friends" joining the force.
John C. Hamilton

--------

You really should stop regurgitating the same pablum most children are spoon-fed via the public school system and try learning a bit of history for yourself.

36 posted on 04/17/2012 7:44:23 AM PDT by MamaTexan (I am a ~Person~ as created by the Law of Nature, not a 'person' as created by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

MamaTexan...you are the BOMB! Way to go with HISTORICAL FACTS. But never you mind, fortheDeclaration will have no problem shooting you and your fellow Texans should you decide to voluntarily withdraw from the Union.

All Lincolnians have no problem forcing their unconstitutional will by using national government troops and shooting people like me...and probably you MamaTexan

Liberty 1
for the Declaration 0

I suspect he will not return, he lost the debate in facts.


37 posted on 04/17/2012 11:01:29 AM PDT by mek1959
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
And you need to stop getting your information from crackpot sources.

Washington did follow the Constitution and put down the Whisky rebellion by force (or the threat of force)

Jackson threatened the same against South Carolina.

Madison stated that no State had a right to secede from the Union.

No State has any right to ignore Federal laws which are for the benefit of all the States.

Nor, does any State have a right to steal weapons, which all of the States paid for.

38 posted on 04/17/2012 12:35:34 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration (How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!-Sam Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
Mifflin asserted that a United States president had no authority to order a state governor to use state militia for any purpose during peacetime and in the absence of any local request for assistance. Mifflin's point was established, setting a precedent that is still honored.

Lincoln didn't order the State Militia, he asked for volunteers.

Maybe you need to follow the context of the precedent a little more closely.

39 posted on 04/17/2012 12:41:35 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration (How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!-Sam Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

The TRUTH of the Declaration of Independence!


40 posted on 04/17/2012 12:43:37 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration (How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!-Sam Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
The TRUTH that no man has a right to own someone else.

You neo-Confederates really make me sick, defending slavery.

41 posted on 04/17/2012 12:44:49 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration (How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!-Sam Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: mek1959
MamaTexan...you are the BOMB! Way to go with HISTORICAL FACTS.

And I didn't even make it to the true Constitutional definition of treason, either, LOL!

------

I came across this just recently. I haven't had much time to pursue it in its entirety, but what I have seen is verrrry interesting:

A Constitutional View of the Late War Between the States, 1868

Page 499 - The obvious deductions, which may be, and indeed have been drawn, from considering the Constitution as a Compact between the States, are, that it operates as a mere treaty, or convention between them, and has an obligatory force upon each State no longer than it suits its pleasure, or its consent continues;, that each State has a right to judge for itself in relation to the nature, extent, and obligations of the instrument, without being at all bound by the interpretation of the Federal Government, or by that of any other State; and that each retains the power to withdraw from the Confederacy, and to dissolve the connection, when such shall be its choice; and may suspend the operations of the Federal Government, and nullify its acts within its own territorial limits, whenever, in its own opinion, the exigency of the case may require.
Story on the Constitution, vol. I, Book 3, Sec. 321

42 posted on 04/17/2012 12:44:49 PM PDT by MamaTexan (I am a ~Person~ as created by the Law of Nature, not a 'person' as created by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: mek1959
The PEOPLE of those States are the PEOPLE of the United States.

The only right to rebellion is if their inalienable rights are being denied, which they aren't.

Lets all secede from each other and become like the Balkans.

43 posted on 04/17/2012 12:47:08 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration (How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!-Sam Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
You neo-Confederates really make me sick, defending slavery.

Since you lack the intellectual aptitude to differentiate between acknowledgment and agreement, you might at least attempt to rebut the argument on a Constitutional basis.

Or is that to much of a strain for you?

44 posted on 04/17/2012 12:49:06 PM PDT by MamaTexan (I am a ~Person~ as created by the Law of Nature, not a 'person' as created by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
And you need to stop getting your information from crackpot sources.

Oh...like the Library of Congress?

-----

Madison stated that no State had a right to secede from the Union.

Show me.

45 posted on 04/17/2012 12:55:19 PM PDT by MamaTexan (I am a ~Person~ as created by the Law of Nature, not a 'person' as created by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
Maybe you need to follow the context of the precedent a little more closely.

Maybe YOU need to know what a legal 'precedent' actually is!

precedent
1) n. a prior reported opinion of an appeals court which establishes the legal rule (authority) in the future on the same legal question decided in the prior judgment.

46 posted on 04/17/2012 1:00:42 PM PDT by MamaTexan (I am a ~Person~ as created by the Law of Nature, not a 'person' as created by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
That has been done time and time again for you neo-confederates

There is no constitutional right for secession.

Licoln had every constitutional right and duty to defend the nation from rebellion, which is in the Constitution.

And ofcourse you guys always claim that you aren't 'for' slavery, but that is why the South were rebelling over what a noble cause you guys rally around!

The right of a State to enslave people.

This thread is on the Declaration of Independence, and because it was universal in nature the Founders had a hard time justfying slavery and hoped that eventaully it would be ended.

As for the Constitution, you can check out the facts here

Abraham Lincoln’s fidelity to the Declaration of Independence is equally a fidelity to the Constitution. The Constitution takes its moral life from the principles of liberty and equality, and was created to serve those principles. We are divided as a nation today, as in Lincoln’s time, because we have severed the connection between these two documents.

Lincoln’s “Fragment on the Constitution and the Union” contains the central theme of Lincoln’s life and work. Drawing upon biblical language, Lincoln describes the Declaration of Independence as an “apple of gold,” and the Constitution as the “frame of silver” around it. We cannot consider the Constitution independently of the purpose which it was designed to serve.

The Constitution acts to guard the principles enshrined in the Declaration of Independence. As the embodiment of the Declaration’s principles, the Constitution created a frame of government with a clear objective. The Constitution is not a collection of compromises, or an empty vessel whose meaning can be redefined to meet the needs of the time; it is the embodiment of an eternal, immutable truth.

Abraham Lincoln defended the Union and sought to defeat the Confederate insurrection because he held that the principles of the Declaration and Constitution were inviolable. In his speeches and in his statecraft, Lincoln wished to demonstrate that self-government is not doomed to either be so strong that it overwhelms the rights of the people or so weak that it is incapable of surviving.

About the Lecturer:

Kevin Portteus is assistant professor of politics at Hillsdale College, where he has taught since 2008. Dr. Portteus is faculty advisor for the Washington-Hillsdale Internship Program, and teaches courses in American political thought and American political institutions.

A visiting graduate faculty member in the American History and Government program at Ashland University, Dr. Portteus formerly taught at Belmont Abbey College and Mountain View College, in Dallas. Having published online through the Washington Times, Human Events, and BigGovernment.com, his book, Executive Details: Public Administration and American Constitutionalism, is under review for publication. He received his B.A., summa cum laude, from Ashland University, and his M.A. and Ph.D. in politics from the University of Dallas.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2869815/posts

But I am sure you will regard Hillsdale college some 'leftwing' college and the lecturer as someone else who was brainwashed by the public school system.

47 posted on 04/17/2012 1:04:29 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration (How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!-Sam Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

Yes and it isn’t precedent regarding Lincoln, who was facing a rebellion.


48 posted on 04/17/2012 1:07:46 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration (How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!-Sam Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
No, the source that stated it was precedent for what Lincoln dealt with.

As for Madison, clearly you have only read what you want on the subject to defend your false view.

James Madison in his old age lived through the Nullification Crisis of 1832-1833. He was against nullification and secession, which he saw lurking clearly in the background of the Crisis. As the author of the Virginia Resolution of 1798 which contended that Congress had no power to pass the Alien and Sedition Acts, Madison had his own words thrown back at him, and he took pains in his letters to explain the differences between his Virginia Resolution and the revolution South Carolina was attempting to initiate. I find his words on secession to be of great interest in light of the battle over the right to secede fought after Madison was long in his grave. Here is a letter to Nicholas Trist on December 23, 1832 in which Madison makes his position clear

Montpellier, Decr 23, 1832. Dr. Sir I have received yours of the 19th, inclosing some of the South Carolina papers. There are in one of them some interesting views of the doctrine of secession; one that had occurred to me, and which for the first time I have seen in print; namely that if one State can at will withdraw from the others, the others can at will withdraw from her, and turn her, nolentem, volentem, out of the union. Until of late, there is not a State that would have abhorred such a doctrine more than South Carolina, or more dreaded an application of it to herself. The same may be said of the doctrine of nullification, which she now preaches as the only faith by which the Union can be saved.

I partake of the wonder that the men you name should view secession in the light mentioned. The essential difference between a free Government and Governments not free, is that the former is founded in compact, the parties to which are mutually and equally bound by it. Neither of them therefore can have a greater fight to break off from the bargain, than the other or others have to hold them to it. And certainly there is nothing in the Virginia resolutions of –98, adverse to this principle, which is that of common sense and common justice. The fallacy which draws a different conclusion from them lies in confounding a single party, with the parties to the Constitutional compact of the United States. The latter having made the compact may do what they will with it. The former as one only of the parties, owes fidelity to it, till released by consent, or absolved by an intolerable abuse of the power created. In the Virginia Resolutions and Report the plural number, States, is in every instance used where reference is made to the authority which presided over the Government. As I am now known to have drawn those documents, I may say as I do with a distinct recollection, that the distinction was intentional. It was in fact required by the course of reasoning employed on the occasion. The Kentucky resolutions being less guarded have been more easily perverted. The pretext for the liberty taken with those of Virginia is the word respective, prefixed to the “rights” &c to be secured within the States. Could the abuse of the expression have been foreseen or suspected, the form of it would doubtless have been varied. But what can be more consistent with common sense, than that all having the same rights &c, should unite in contending for the security of them to each.

It is remarkable how closely the nullifiers who make the name of Mr. Jefferson the pedestal for their colossal heresy, shut their eyes and lips, whenever his authority is ever so clearly and emphatically against them. You have noticed what he says in his letters to Monroe & Carrington Pages 43 & 203, vol. 2,1 with respect to the powers of the old Congress to coerce delinquent States, and his reasons for preferring for the purpose a naval to a military force; and moreover that it was not necessary to find a right to coerce in the Federal Articles, that being inherent in the nature of a compact. It is high time that the claim to secede at will should be put down by the public opinion; (emphasis added) and I shall be glad to see the task commenced by one who understands the subject. http://almostchosenpeople.wordpress.com/2010/02/26/james-madison-on-secession/

49 posted on 04/17/2012 1:16:03 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration (How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!-Sam Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
There is no constitutional right for secession.

Please show me the word 'secession' in the Constitution.

§ 207. XIII. Another rule of interpretation deserves consideration in regard to the constitution. There are certain maxims, which have found their way, not only into judicial discussions, but into the business of common life, as founded in common sense, and common convenience. Thus, it is often said, that in an instrument a specification of particulars is an exclusion of generals; or the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another. Lord Bacon's remark, "that, as exception strengthens the force of a law in cases not excepted, so enumeration weakens it in cases not enumerated," has been perpetually referred to, as a fine illustration.
Justice Joseph Story on Rules of Constitutional Interpretation

-----

Licoln had every constitutional right and duty to defend the nation from rebellion, which is in the Constitution.

The major problem being 'rebellion' is an attempt to overthrow the legitimate authority. The South never tried to overthrow the Constitution, they merely wished to leave the Compact.

As I've already illustrated AND provided Constitutional sources - assistance for rebellions IN the State must come at the request OF the State.

While on the subject-

Article VI. - The United States
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

State Constitutions

THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION
Article 1 - BILL OF RIGHTS
Section 24 - MILITARY SUBORDINATE TO CIVIL AUTHORITY
The military shall at all times be subordinate to the civil authority

***

CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF KANSAS
BILL OF RIGHTS
Sec. 4. The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be tolerated, and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.

***

CONSTITUTION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
PART THE FIRST A Declaration of the Rights of the Inhabitants of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Article XVII. The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.

***

ALL the States haven this provision. To my knowledge, they always have.

-----

And ofcourse you guys always claim that you aren't 'for' slavery, but that is why the South were rebelling over what a noble cause you guys rally around!

Its called Right to Property. Like it or not, slaves WERE a specie of property acknowledged for over 250 years. Slave owners helped form the colonies. Slave-owners helped write the Constitution. Slave-owners helped fight the Revolution.

You may believe I'm cheerleading slavery if you wish, but it has more to do with holding the federal government to the terms of the Compact than it does with your perceptions.

The Constitution ISN'T Burger King....you don't get to have your Constitutional burger served up 'your way'.

-----

But I am sure you will regard Hillsdale college some 'leftwing' college and the lecturer as someone else who was brainwashed by the public school system.

ROFLMAO!

If Lincoln was adhering to Original Intent so closely, there should be a preponderance of evidence from the Founders to justify his actions.

Surely you can do better than posting some college professors lecture from 2008 as some type of rebuttal.

-----

Were the people regarded in this transaction as forming one nation, the will of the majority of the whole people of the United States, would bind the minority; in the same manner as the majority in each State must bind the minority; and the will of the majority must be determined either by a comparison of the individual votes; or by considering the will of a majority of the States, as evidence of the will of a majority of the people of the United States. Neither of these rules has been adopted. Each State in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation then the new Constitution will, if established, be a federal and not a national Constitution.
Federalist, no. 39, James Madison, 16 Jan. 1788

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.
The Federalist No. 45, January 1788, James Madison

50 posted on 04/17/2012 1:49:01 PM PDT by MamaTexan (I am a ~Person~ as created by the Law of Nature, not a 'person' as created by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-316 next last

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.

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