Replies

It is alarming how many big-government, pro-arbitrary power so-called conservatives are on Free Republic. While sticking to principles, as we are doing, is easy...it does grow a bit tiring having to explain the difference between the easily plain reading of our founding legal documents and commentary or opinions by others during that period. I never knew Madison was the sole spokesman, singular source for all hermeneutics associated with the Constitution. On this thread, he seems to be the definitive opinion.

Anyway, as you know, back in 1776, the people of the Colonies plainly, clearly, and simply stated in the Declaration that Natural Law and transcendent law of our Creator supersedes all other laws. They then assumed equal and separate standing leading to separation "at pleasure." They did not seek the approval of Parliament, the King or anyone else...they just declared it. This is the nonsense of it taking all parties to agree before a contract can be broken. In fact, I'm about to "withdraw" from one by declaration tomorrow in my business and I'm not waiting for the other party in the contract to agree to it. How absurd. Contracts are not perpetual, if so, then let's get the paddy-wagons out, round up all the people who walked away from their mortgages, deliver them back to their houses and MAKE THEM PAY! As unpleasant as it is, these people broke their contract without asking permission from all parties. Again, how absurd to think otherwise. In fact, the national government (sadly) is even helping these people "withdraw" from their contracts! Now, I/we may suffer consequences, may lose my business, may pay legal fees. But I'm not staying in it. So the war between the States was not settled by some profound legal mumbo jumbo related to universal law, perpetuity, unbreakable contracts without permission from all parties, etc. The war was settled because Lincoln decided to break his oath and act unconstitutionally. One person on this thread who I respect now for his honesty conceded that Lincoln had no authority to do what he did. He followed it with a "so what?" Fair enough, at least he was forthright enough not to hide behind what Lincoln did as somehow Constitutional. No, Lincoln won because he was willing to kill 700,000 fellow citizens. But in this case, might doesn't make right...it just means he won an unconstitutional war. That's all.

Fortunately, more and more people are awakening to the notion that a State can secede in 2012 at pleasure and hopefully some will in the near term. Though I fear some on this thread who are very Lincolonian will shoot people like me who may want to honor our Natural Rights and transcendent and Inalienable Right to self-governance without the "permission" of Congress. I only ask, that if you're going to shoot me for trying this, please make its a head shot and not a gut shot; I'm not fond of agony.

Back to contracts. Following Lincoln's notion of contracts in his 1st Inaugural Address, the 13 States should have waited for permission from England before the seceded! And this is the inconsistency of big-government pro-arbitrary Anybody But Obama so-called conservatives. They pound their chests about the moral superiority of declaring separation from England without "permission" and at their "pleasure;" but when the South decides to separate, all kinds of new theories about Universal law, perpetuity, odd contract law, with pleasure vs. injury emerge. They seem to be unable to see the inconsistency.

So, I'll end with the Voltaire quote I posted a few posts ago: "It is hard to free fools from the chains they revere."