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

Skip to comments.

Repeal Seventeenth Amendment
State's Liberty Party ^ | John MacMullin

Posted on 10/20/2002 8:04:26 AM PDT by Boonie Rat

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-66 next last
To: Arthur Wildfire! March
The internet makes it much easier for conservatives in Fox News, talk radio, and political campaigns to get informed quickly and cheaply. It is just in its infancy, and it's already having a tremendous affect. You might not notice that disgruntled journalists who are getting shut out by the editors have been leaking to Drudge. Editors are no longer able to spike big news like they did in the past.

Sorry to be the one to have to break the news to you, but here it is: Most people don't care. I'm sure it makes consevatives feel better about themselves when they can annoy journalists, but from spending time in the real world among average people, I can tell you for certain that it's not making an ounce of difference in the way people think about politics - or even causing them to think about politics at all. They're going to keep voting the way they're voting, simple as that.

And if it does start to make a difference sometime in the future, then it will be enough that they'll still have the power to elect representatives, because representatives can stop any unconstitutional legislation or spending right in its tracks regardless of who's in the Senate, or the White House, for that matter. The HR is still the most important branch of government.

You think pork is bad now. What would it be like if we go back to appointments? State governments would love pork even more than the voters.

History doesn't seem to support you on that one. Governments may like money, but they also like sovereignty. People, on the other hand, can be bought much more easily.

21 posted on 10/20/2002 9:03:54 AM PDT by inquest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
The Civil War determined that the act of unilateral secession is not supported by the Constitution.

I was unaware of that little tidbit of history. The Civil War was fought by lawyers and judges?

22 posted on 10/20/2002 9:07:04 AM PDT by inquest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Arthur Wildfire! March
State governments would love pork even more than the voters.

But they sure as heck would NOT love unfunded mandates!

23 posted on 10/20/2002 9:13:24 AM PDT by freedomcrusader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: vetvetdoug
AMEN to that!!! Abraham Lincoln did his best to consolidate power into federal hands & away from the state governments. But back to the issue here: how in the world would a state legislateure, in it's right mind, vote for passage of the 17th Amendment??? Those that did so flat-out gave up their representation in the Senate--they practically said, "take away my voting privileges, I don't want them!" Could you imagine the uproar that would occur if the American people were not allowed to vote for their Representatives in the House? There would be riots in the streets! I just don't understand how the 17th Amendment could actually have been made part of the Constitution.
24 posted on 10/20/2002 9:33:46 AM PDT by libertyman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: inquest
Actually it was decided after the war when the Supreme Court rulled the southern acts of unilateral secession illegal in Texas v. White, 1869.
25 posted on 10/20/2002 10:44:15 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
As if the judges were going to rule otherwise at that point.
26 posted on 10/20/2002 10:46:23 AM PDT by inquest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: vetvetdoug
You admit the Civil War changed the Constitution in your statement.

Nonsense, because you assume that the acts of unilateral secession as practiced by the southern states was allowed by the Constitution. As it turns out the Supreme Court determined that such actions were not allowed. So the Constitution itself was never changed.

Explain West Virginia if your statement is correct.

West Virginia is a perfect example of taking advantage of a situation as it presents itself. The people of western Virginia had never had anything in common with those in eastern Virginia who were running things and in spite of several pre-war conventions which were supposed to settle things they were still restive. Then along came the souther attack on Sumter. On April 17, 1861, a convention of Virginians voted to submit a secession bill to the people. Led by Clarksburg's John S. Carlile, western delegates marched out of the Secession Convention, vowing to form a state government loyal to the Union. Many of these delegates gathered in Clarksburg on April 22, calling for a pro-Union convention, which met in Wheeling from May 13 to 15. Following a Union victory at the Battle of Philippi and the subsequent liberation of northwestern Virginia by General George B. McClellan, the Second Wheeling Convention met between June 11 and June 25, 1861. Delegates formed the Restored, or Reorganized, Government of Virginia, and chose Francis H. Pierpont as governor. President Lincoln recognized the Restored Government as the legitimate government of Virginia. John Carlile and Waitman T. Willey became United States Senators and Jacob B. Blair, William G. Brown, and Kellian V. Whaley became Congressmen representing pro-Union Virginia.

After that it was all as outlined in the Constitution. Since the Restored Government was considered the legal government of Virginia, it granted permission to itself on May 13, 1862, to form the state of West Virginia. Following some dickering over the state Constitution, the United States Senate approved a statehood proposal on July 14, 1862. On December 10, 1862, the House of Representatives passed the act and on December 31, President Lincoln signed the bill into law, approving the creation of West Virginia. On March 26, 1863, the citizens of the fifty counties approved the statehood bill, and on June 20, the state of West Virginia was officially created.

27 posted on 10/20/2002 11:08:50 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: inquest
Just because you don't agree with a Supreme Court decision does not automatically mean that it was coerced or biased. The Chase court had ruled against actions of the Lincoln administration on prior occasions.
28 posted on 10/20/2002 11:10:23 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Unilateral secession=Hartford Convention; Supreme court ruled ex post facto. West Virginia..secession and the formation of a new state would be legal except there was no formal acceptance of the Confederacy (hence, the Yankee term "War of the Rebellion"). Virginia did not organize a vote on secession until Lincoln made an order for troops to invade the sovereign states of the South.

I would welcome an honest treatise on the actions of the government during the Civil War and the ramifications and the effect those changes had on our federalist state. Jackson, Jefferson, Calhoun, and Washington would be whirling in their graves if they could see what we have become and what Lincoln did to start a war to quell a "rebellion". What we do have are many apologists by the North writing to justify their ancestors' actions. The facts are there, one cannot validate their arguements when actions and facts are contridictory. The amount of information exposing the dictatorial government and the loss of Constitutional Order from 1861 to 1877 are legion.

The end

29 posted on 10/20/2002 11:55:55 AM PDT by vetvetdoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Just answer me this: If there had been textual and historical support for the secession doctrine, can you seriously picture the supreme court in 1869 ruling that way? Be honest.
30 posted on 10/20/2002 11:56:32 AM PDT by inquest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: inquest
Probably not, I would have expected the Supreme Court to rule unilateral secession illegal had it been New England in 1814 or the confederacy in 1861. There is no support for unilateral secession. Even Rawle made it clear that secession was an action which should be made only after consultation with all the affected parties. In the Texas v. White decision, Chief Justice Chase made it clear that secession in and of itself was not out of the question, so long as it was done with consent of the states.
31 posted on 10/20/2002 12:31:24 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Arthur Wildfire! March
Voters are generally more informed now.

...informed on WWF and where to buy the cheapest Budweiser.

32 posted on 10/20/2002 12:36:23 PM PDT by Principled
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Boonie Rat
I'd rather see the Tenth Amendment enforced. Ashcroft seems to think it is the Tenth Commandment.
33 posted on 10/20/2002 12:43:54 PM PDT by gcruse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vetvetdoug
The end? Far from it.

Unilateral secession=Hartford Convention

The Hartford Convention, and here is a Link to the document that was issued by it, did not declare the New England states independent. It did not threaten rebellion. Secession was dropped from discussion very early on. It was a list of amendments that the convention wanted added to the Constitution.

Supreme court ruled ex post facto.

Well...yeah. Show me a single Supreme Court decision that was not issued after the fact. That is the nature of the court and for it to do otherwise would be unconstitutional.

West Virginia..secession and the formation of a new state would be legal except there was no formal acceptance of the Confederacy (hence, the Yankee term "War of the Rebellion").

What did that have to do with it? The decision to partition Virginia was made by that organized legislature not in rebellion. Having been recognized as the sole legitimate legislature of Virginia, there was nothing illegal about their actions.

Virginia did not organize a vote on secession until Lincoln made an order for troops to invade the sovereign states of the South.

Lincoln did not issue his call for troops until after the south had initiated hostilities by firing on Sumter.

34 posted on 10/20/2002 12:44:53 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Principled
I will not defend all voters. But just as an economic tides lifts all boats, the rising tide of information lifts all votes.
35 posted on 10/20/2002 2:03:45 PM PDT by Arthur Wildfire! March
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Arthur Wildfire! March
You are correct, Arthur Wildfire! March.

My comment is a reflection of my lack of confidence in Joe Six-Pak to vote wisely.

I do, however, have all the confidence in the world that Joe could protect us from the islamakazees if allowed to do so.

Thanks to the NRA

36 posted on 10/20/2002 2:12:54 PM PDT by Principled
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
That doesn't answer my question. I'll break it down. Imagine, for a second, that a valid argument can be made in favor of the legality of secession. Now, picture the supreme court actually acting upon those arguments and pronouncing secession legal - after the nation lost over 100,000 of their sons in a controversial (even up North) war to prohibit it. In other words, the court would be saying to them that they all died, and the country put through four years of hell, for nothing. Can you say Lynching?
37 posted on 10/20/2002 2:40:53 PM PDT by inquest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Boonie Rat
bump
(Told you so ~2 yrs ago)
38 posted on 10/20/2002 4:42:05 PM PDT by Maelstrom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: inquest
If you read the Supreme Court decision, they did not say that secession was illegal, just that the manner that the southern states pursued was wrong. So your scenario did occure, in a way. Had the south been able to make a valid arguement for their actions then the Civil War wouldn't have happened in the first place.
39 posted on 10/20/2002 4:53:37 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: inquest
One can be assured that the US Supreme Court in 1869 was as unbiased and honest as the current Florida and New Jersy State Supreme Courts.
40 posted on 10/20/2002 6:52:26 PM PDT by vetvetdoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-66 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