Guarantee of a republican form of government

. ^ | 2/4/03 | Marcia H. Armstrong

[Fiddlstix]

BTTT

[Just another Joe]

The article and your post at number 1 are dead-on-target

I'll second that remark.

[tpaine]

Many here at FR think that states should have the power to 'regulate' behavior by majority vote, - by prohibitions on 'evil' objects or on repugnant acts.

None of us like to see, for instance, 'evil' drugs bring used in the repugnant acts of drug abusers. --
-- But we must realise that the enforcement of outright prohibitions violate rights far more than their acts justify.
--Reasonable state/local regulations, as per booze, are thus constitutional. Bans are not.

[philman_36]

Many here at FR think that states should have the power to 'regulate' behavior by majority vote, - by prohibitions on 'evil' objects or on repugnant acts.
Regulate - agree. Prohibition - disagree, partially.
The States should regulate some things as without those regulations many actual crimes would take place. For instance, a States "weights and measures" regulations. If there were not regulations in such instances then the purchasing of a gallon of gasoline or a pound of vegetables would be at the whim of each merchant. My gallon or pound might be less, constituting theft.
In the prohibition aspect "things" shouldn't be prohibited while "criminal acts" should be prohibited. Murder is a "repugnant act" as well as a criminal act, the same as with rape. I want things such as murder and rape prohibited by law.
However, many "repugnant acts", as they are viewed by some, aren't criminal acts yet are made so within the law. There is simply too much objectivity in stating something is a "repugnant act". One person may not see it as such and another person does. That is why our State legislators are supposed to be objective and look out for the rights of the people as a whole and not cater to "special interests".
Just MO and very limited, but something to think about.

[tpaine]

Thanks again. - Its encouraging to get some positive feedback, instead of the usual mindless catcalls from the warriors of WOD/gun/liberties crowd.

[philman_36]

We do have to clarify our thoughts don't we. So easy to "run amok with snippets", isn't it.

[MissAmericanPie]

In a democracy the individual takes a hit from both ends, the tyranny of the majority, and the tryanny of the minoirity. Democracy doesn't work, a socialist democracy never works. George Washington, "We have given you a Republic ma'am, if you can keep it".

[american spirit]

Good info and I would like to add that codes, rules, regulations, etc. are not constitutional unless they were created by the normal legislative process. Codes, regulations, etc. mandated by local gov'ts. are not constitutional because they were created under "color of law" and do not apply to citizens. Our biggest problem is that we have an estimated 60 million+ codes, rules, reg's etc. on the books, the vast majority of which were created as revenue producers.

[michigander]

Federalist No. 10
Federalist No. 14
Federalist No. 48

[philman_36]

George Washington, "We have given you a Republic ma'am, if you can keep it".
Benjamin Franklin, not George Washington.

[tpaine]

Well put.

Could you expand on your "color of law", -- 'does not apply to citizens', -- thought though? - You lost me.

[sheltonmac]

That is why our State legislators are supposed to be objective and look out for the rights of the people as a whole and not cater to "special interests".

Everything I have stated in this thread would fall under that umbrella. Take the issues of secession and nullification--why would you deny those fundamental rights if they served to protect the rights of the people "as a whole"? Are states republics or not?

In my first post I was simply pointing out the fact that the republic--that is the United States of America--envisioned by our forefathers is dead. It died when when Lincoln used deadly force to prevent a few states from exercising their rights as independent republics. They had willingly joined the union and believed--quite correctly--that they could willingly depart. The majority, however, believed that those states did not have the right to secede, and 620,000 men died as a result of "majority rule."

It's nice to see discussions like this, but when you paint yourself into a corner by believing that things can only be rectified through "using the courts & civil disobedience," you are left with nothing more than a dream that can never be realized. I wonder where we would be if the founders took such a passive approach.

[american spirit]

It's my understanding that the codes/reg's etc. created by a city council does not have the same force of law as those laws created by normal constitutional process. Most city gov'ts. are now nothing more than corporations attempting to gain more control and revenue from citizens in their alleged jurisdiction. Any set of codes passed by a city council are essentially unenforceable because they are not constitutional in nature and as such are created under "color of law". The mayor and city council are nothing more than the CEO and board of directors of the local corporation known as "The City of...." and have no more jurisdiction over our affairs than would the CEO and board of IBM. Also, when IBM creates a set of codes and rules it's only applicable to their employees, same thing applies to local corporate gov'ts.

[A Patriot Son]

bump

[tpaine]

States rights are your 'dream' and your 'corner'.
- Governments at all levels have only the powers granted to them by the people. -- Powers that respect our constitutional rights. -- They have no other powers.

- You apparently want to reargue the civil war. No thanks.

[philman_36]

Take the issues of secession and nullification--why would you deny those fundamental rights if they served to protect the rights of the people "as a whole"?
I wouldn't and don't deny the rights of secession and nullification. I personally believe that a State has the right to secede from the union if it so chooses. Ours is supposed to be a voluntary union entered into upon agreed terms, but, as you rightly point out, it was held together by force of arms in the past. It probably would come to that point again, force of arms, to keep the union together if the situation were to repeat itself. Force of arms might be attempted, though I don't think the outcome would be the same.
In the climate of the world today we need the union of our seperate republics moreso than at any other time in history. Restraining the federal powers is what every one of the States should be doing and instead more and more power and authority is being turned over.
Are states republics or not?
Our American States are republics. I thought I made that clear earlier. That touches upon what you wrote earlier and I spoke my piece on that.

[philman_36]

BTW...
The majority, however, believed that those states did not have the right to secede, and 620,000 men died as a result of "majority rule."
"The majority" can kiss my backside. They can "believe" whatever the hell they want to. If they want to "believe" that Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny exists they can do so.
A belief in some things isn't always reality.

[tpaine]

philman_36
"The various States, each being a seperate republic, compromise a union, or confederacy if you will, of republics."


Exactly. - The key to the union being, -- the states agreement that the U.S. Constitution is to be the supreme 'law of the land', -- as it applies to our basic individual inalienable rights. [Art. VI]

Many here at FR think that states should have the power to 'regulate' behavior by majority vote, - by prohibitions on 'evil' objects or on repugnant acts.
-- This type of law violates any number of the constitutional safeguards of our BOR's.

As we see in CA, 'evil' guns are being regulated out of the hands of law abiding citizens, using this type of statist thinking.
19 posted on 02/04/2003 2:26 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies | Report Abuse ] __________________________________

To: tpaine; sheltonmac
A very great misperception. I don't know how anyone can view things in the manner in which sheltonmac did.
sheltonmac, do you understand the difference now?
20 p
__________________________________
" Take the issues of secession and nullification--why would you deny those fundamental rights if they served to protect the rights of the people "as a whole"? "
-S Mac-

I wouldn't and don't deny the rights of secession and nullification. I personally believe that a State has the right to secede from the union if it so chooses. Ours is supposed to be a voluntary union entered into upon agreed terms, but, as you rightly point out, it was held together by force of arms in the past. It probably would come to that point again, force of arms, to keep the union together if the situation were to repeat itself. Force of arms might be attempted, though I don't think the outcome would be the same.
In the climate of the world today we need the union of our seperate republics moreso than at any other time in history. Restraining the federal powers is what every one of the States should be doing and instead more and more power and authority is being turned over.

"Are states republics or not?"

Our American States are republics. I thought I made that clear earlier. That touches upon what you wrote earlier and I spoke my piece on that.
________________________________

At #20, above, you agreed with me that states do not have the power to violate our constitution. -- Yet you agree with S-Mac that they can nullify/secede from our union, in effect destroying that same document.

I don't get 'it'. - Either the principles of our union/constitution are worth fighting for, -- within the bounds set forth in the document itself, or it should be amended.

-- What are your proposed amendments, gentlemen?

[philman_36]

...you agreed with me that states do not have the power to violate our constitution.
Where does the Constitution state that States can't secede? I don't see it anywhere.