To: philman_36; sheltonmac; yall
"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?
" 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.
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?
posted on 02/05/2003 1:08:30 PM PST
...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.
To: tpaine; philman_36
"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."
I think the perfect start would be to repeal the 17th Amendment. That is when the state governments finally lost their voice in Washington.
Lew Rockwell has made a compelling case that the Constitution is a "dead letter." The federal government has violated that document/contract in virtually every way, rendering it null and void.
Now, I wouldn't go that far; I still believe that it is possible to reclaim those principles. But I also believe that any change for the better will only come about when enough people within enough states come to their senses and unite to take a stand against the federal government. They could do this via the ballot box--for now, at least.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson