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

To: Who is John Galt?
Perhaps you should read a little history. As I have noted previously, however, "your question is largely irrelevant. It is the language of the written Constitution that is of critical importance, not the supposed ‘competence’ [or ‘prominence’] of politicians - no matter how much you may prefer the words of politicians to the words of the Constitution..."

I agree that my question had nothing to do with the legitimacy of the constitutional claim that was made by the secessionists, but in view of the fact that hundreds of thousands of young American men died because the issue was decided militarily, I don't know how you can possibly deem irrelevant or unimportant the political decisions that led to the issue being resolved militarily. As I have said before, I believe that competent politicians would not have abandoned all of the existing political and judicial mechanisms that existed for the peaceful resolution of the southern politicians' claim that there existed a constitutional right of secession. I don't think that competent politicians would have attempted to take it upon themselves to unilaterally resolve such an issue except for the most compelling of reasons and I don't think that competent politicians in 1860 would have viewed the eternal preservation of slavery as a compelling reason.

As you know, when we look into the history of these events, we find that many of the most prominent southern politicians (including Stephens) were opposed to "secession." If you can't think of any prominent southern politicians (other than Toombs) who favored the idea, then you've probably helped me all that you can.

Or would you have us believe that the right to keep and bear arms, for example, is somehow dependent upon the 'prominence' of "politicians who worked for and advocated" that right? Hmm?

If you have ever owned a gun, sir, I suppose you already know that the Constitution provides you with very little guidance for how to competently care for and use it. You'll find nothing in the Constitution that forbids competence or common sense.

182 posted on 06/01/2002 4:44:42 PM PDT by ned
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies ]


To: ned
I agree that my question had nothing to do with the legitimacy of the constitutional claim that was made by the secessionists...

Congratulations.

;>)

...but in view of the fact that hundreds of thousands of young American men died because the issue was decided militarily, I don't know how you can possibly deem irrelevant or unimportant the political decisions that led to the issue being resolved militarily. As I have said before, I believe that competent politicians would not have abandoned all of the existing political and judicial mechanisms that existed for the peaceful resolution of the southern politicians' claim that there existed a constitutional right of secession. I don't think that competent politicians would have attempted to take it upon themselves to unilaterally resolve such an issue except for the most compelling of reasons...

A few points. You are aware, are you not, that Mr. Lincoln refused to negotiate in good faith with the Confederate peace commissioners? And of course you are aware that Mr. Lincoln’s decision to relieve Fort Sumter – a course of action that had resulted in gunfire when attempted three months earlier, and that was contrary to the advice of his military leaders, his cabinet, and his personal advisors – clearly constituted an attempt to ‘unilaterally resolve’ the issue? And no doubt you are aware that Mr. Lincoln chose military action rather than “existing political and judicial mechanisms” to settle the question of secession – even though his own Attorney-General advised him that “no [power to make war against a State] is expressly given [to the federal government by the Constitution]; nor are there any words in the Constitution that imply it...it seems to follow that an attempt to do so would ipso facto be an expulsion of such State from the union.”

In short, you appear to be calling Mr. Lincoln ‘incompetent’...

;>)

...and I don't think that competent politicians in 1860 would have viewed the eternal preservation of slavery as a compelling reason.

And yet again, finding yourself unable to prove secession unconstitutional, you play the ‘slavery card.’ How nice.

As you know, when we look into the history of these events, we find that many of the most prominent southern politicians (including Stephens) were opposed to "secession." If you can't think of any prominent southern politicians (other than Toombs) who favored the idea, then you've probably helped me all that you can.

LOL! So, you really are suggesting that our constitutional rights are somehow dependent upon the 'prominence' of "politicians who worked for and advocated" those rights. Simply amazing. Tell us, sport: which “prominent” and “competent” politicians have “worked for and advocated” the Third Amendment in the last few “weeks and months?” Hmm? How about the Ninth Amendment? Do those amendments, in your opinion, still exist? Or have they somehow evaporated due to a lack of recent ‘advocacy’ by “prominent” politicians?

Since I’m in a generous mood, I’ll make it easy for you: list for us the “prominent [and] competent” politicians who “worked for and advocated” the Article I, Section 8 congressional power “to declare war” – in the “weeks and months” prior to our ‘war’ in Afghanistan. When you come up with a few noteworthy examples, by all means tell us how the opinions of the politicians in question affect the constitutionality of the congressional power to make war.

If you have ever owned a gun, sir, I suppose you already know that the Constitution provides you with very little guidance for how to competently care for and use it. You'll find nothing in the Constitution that forbids competence or common sense.

How nice. I find your position comparable to that of ‘gun control’ advocates promoting “common sense” weapons bans, as they willfully ignore the constitutional guarantee that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” And no doubt you would have supported the unconstitutional federal Sedition Act, because the arrest and imprisonment of those who simply criticize the president is a “common sense” interpretation of the phrase “Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech...”

;>)

183 posted on 06/02/2002 7:59:03 AM PDT by Who is John Galt?
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | 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