While on my way to a separation of church and state rally at the capitol, I happened to pass by the monument on the left. It’s a monument to the Confederate dead. There are many similar monuments throughout Texas.
I paused to read the inscription:
DIED
FOR STATES RIGHTS GUARANTEED UNDER THE CONSTITUTION
THE PEOPLE OF THE SOUTH, ANIMATED BY THE SPIRIT OF 1776, TO PRESERVE THEIR RIGHTS, WITHDREW FROM THE FEDERAL COMPACT IN 1861. THE NORTH RESORTED TO COERCION.
THE SOUTH, AGAINST OVERWHELMING NUMBERS AND RESOURCES,
FOUGHT UNTIL EXHAUSTED.
DURING THE WAR THERE WERE TWENTY TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY SEVEN ENGAGEMENTS.
IN EIGHTEEN HUNDRED AND EIGHTY TWO OF THESE, AT LEAST ONE REGIMENT TOOK PART.
NUMBER OF MEN ENLISTED:
CONFEDERATE ARMIES 600,000; FEDERAL ARMIES 2,859,132
LOSSES FROM ALL CAUSES:
CONFEDERATE, 437,000; FEDERAL, 485,216
“FOR STATES RIGHTS GUARANTEED UNDER THE CONSTITUTION?” That sentence made me laugh out loud. Is there a state’s right to slavery in the Constitution that I am unaware of?
Whom do they think they’re kidding? Only themselves.
-David Drumm (Nal)
Larry,
“Why would Southerners feel THREATENED when under the Constitution [as a result of Dred Scott] they were constitutionally PERMITTED to have slaves??”
I gave you one answer, mespo gave you another. If you’re going to reject answers out of hand if they don’t include a magic word you arbitrarily decide on after the fact, we’ll just stop responding.
Larry,
The DOI has no legal effect. It didn’t in 1861 either. The Constitution has no provision for succession. In order to secede or dissolve the United States constitutionally, you’d need to pass an amendment adding a procedure for seceding or dissolving the United States.
BBB,
I’m happy to go there. I think the concept of judicial review is implicit in the idea that the Constitution trumps federal law. Take a straightforward case, e.g. Congress imposes a religious test for office. A court then has to decide whether to apply the law or the plain text of the constitution. Judicial review is born.
The idea of sovereign immunity is hardly as necessary.
Also, comparing someone to a slave owner is a good way to shut down a conversation, regardless of your intentions in doing so.
““The point is—–you cant answer a basic question because you know you CANT answer it without spewing a colossal contradiction or lie.”
Larry cannot carry on a civil discussion without accusations of lying and b*******. This is pathetic.
Larry should explain the question.”
Still dodging my question. LOL. Mespo said earlier that the South felt THREATENED because Lincoln wanted to end slavery, so I asked:
“Why would Southerners feel THREATENED when under the Constitution [as a result of Dred Scott] they were constitutionally PERMITTED to have slaves??”
Understand now? or do you need pictures?
“Of the nearly two million slaves who were freed by the Proclamation, over 180,000 joined the Union Army to fight for the United States of America.”
Slaves were NOT citizens—are you telling me non-citizens could fight in our armies??? Got a link proving this??
“The DOI bars all tyranny from the land; which includes slavery.”
But yet the Dred Scott decision made slavery constitutional. God you guys are freaking nuts!
Observer, find me ONE quotation from Jefferson, Madison or any founding father or any part of any founding document that says or IMPLIES the states are NOT free and independent and cannot seperate from the VOLUNTARY compact. Just ONE. I have already cited MANY that say states CAN seperate and you hav not refuted or debunked me ONCE.
Social contract; distinction between usurpation and tyranny; second paragraph of the DOI; sovereignty running with the land since feudal times? All some irrelevant jumble to you?
Pity.
Maybe Mespo will fill you in.
Bob, Esq., may we politely ask what you are talking about?
Larry: “Why would Southerners feel THREATENED when under the Constitution [as a result of Dred Scott] they were constitutionally PERMITTED to have slaves??”
“What is the point of the question?”
“The point is—–you cant answer a basic question because you know you CANT answer it without spewing a colossal contradiction or lie.”
Larry cannot carry on a civil discussion without accusations of lying and b*******. This is pathetic.
Larry should explain the question.
Mespo—-I will ask it again since you didnt answer it. Your answer looks like a copy and paste job from some website. I didnt see the word “constitution” in your entire response [in the context of my question], despite me using the word in my question—so here is the question again. This time dont ramble on and on while using the words “slavery” and “south” to make it “appear” as if you answered it.
“Why would Southerners feel THREATENED when under the Constitution [as a result of Dred Scott] they were constitutionally PERMITTED to have slaves??”
NO ONE has still addressed my list of Lincoln’s treasonous acts—nor have they refuted the fact that Lincoln committed them or act like they care if he did. So I will list them AGAIN:
1. Suspension of Habeas Corpus throughout his entire presidency
2. Had his military imprison tens of thousands of NORTHERN political critics and opponents without due process
3. Censored all telegraph communication
4. Shut down over 300 opposition newspapers
5. Imprisoned dozens of duly elected officials of the state of Maryland
6. Participated in the rigging of Northern elections
7. Waged war without the consent of Congress
8. Illegally created a new state [West Virginia]
9. Deported the most outspoken member of the Democratic opposition, Congressman Clement L. Vallandigham of Ohio
Anyone DENY Lincoln did any of the above? And what did ANY of the above have to do with slavery?
Answer this question mespo OR observer [that I already asked, and you IGNORED]:
why did Lincoln find the need to shut down over 300 newspapers and censor all telegraph communication if he was such a big advocate of slavery and he was doing the right thing?? The newspapers he shut down and the editors he imprisoned were in the NORTH, not the south. Why was their so much NORTHERN opposition if he was the saint you all think he is?
Larry: “The Proclamation freed slaves in areas occupied by the treasonous rebels as the Union armies advanced.”
“Thats funny, the 13th amendment didnt go into effect until December 1865—several years after the EP—–so theres NO WAY the slaves could have been free until then. Your above statement is utter bullshit.”
Of the nearly two million slaves who were freed by the Proclamation, over 180,000 joined the Union Army to fight for the United States of America.
That is freedom by any standard. Is Larry trying to argue that the 180,000 free Americans who fought in the United States Army were still slaves? That is nonsense.
They were free fighting men.
They were freed by the Emancipation Proclamation.
Here’s the problem Larry: signatories to the DOI are subject to the same restrictions as the Fed.
The DOI bars all tyranny from the land; which includes slavery.
The doctrine of merger and the equal footing doctrine put all states in privity of estate with each other.
Thus, the Northern States, to the extent they were enforcing a declaration of covenants and restrictions against tyranny, running with the land, were legally entitled to kick the shit out of South for breaching said covenant.
The monumental blunder of Davis and the South Carolinians in the Sumter fiasco is still baffling to this day, as is the persistent defense of their mistakes by the Lost Causers.
We know from our own experience in Vietnam that a weaker opponent can defeat a superpower if the superpower is divided politically. At the outbreak of the so-called secession, the north was woefully divided, with massive numbers of people unwilling to wage war to bring the south back.
To this day, commentators say that the north should have let the south go in peace.
Well, it was the south that refused to let that happen. They could have let Lincoln peacefully resupply Sumter and they could have left it in peace. Sure, it was an annoyance in its own harbor. But Cuba has been able to live with a US base in its own harbor for a hundred years or so without bombarding it.
And the shelling was an act of war, even if there were no injuries. Does anyone want to speculate on the American reaction if Cuba suddenly shelled Gitmo?
But Davis and his henchmen were enraged in their Romantic, Cavalier elitist pride by the effrontery. These “gentlemen”: could not abide the affront to their “honor.” They attacked.
The U.S reacted a lot like it did in other situations. Remember the Maine? Pearl Harbor? The north was enraged and mobilized against the south.
Sam Houston, the greatest of all Texans and a loyal Unionist, predicted the inevitable outcome: “Let me tell you what is coming. After the sacrifice of countless millions of treasure and hundreds of thousands of lives, you may win Southern independence if God be not against you, but I doubt it. I tell you that, while I believe with you in the doctrine of states rights, the North is determined to preserve this Union. They are not a fiery, impulsive people as you are, for they live in colder climates. But when they begin to move in a given direction, they move with the steady momentum and perseverance of a mighty avalanche; and what I fear is, they will overwhelm the South.”
We have lived to see similar rash, impulsive, stupid actions in the many years since then.
Why did the Japanese think they could win a war that they provoked with the U.S.? America was divided by isolationists who would have resisted any actions against Japan as they expanded into Dutch and British territories.
Why did Hitler wage a war on Russia? Why did he later declare
war on the United States, when the U.S. had not declared war on Germany. Another blunder.
I meant to say [above] “why wage WITHOUT the consent of Congress?”
“The war was treasonous. Treason is the only crime defined in the Constitution, and consists of levying war against the United States, and requires two witnesses. The southerners did did wage war against the United States and there were more than two witness, so they were traitors.”
Two problems with you calling thi “treason”:
1. The Declaration says: “To secure these rights of [life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness], governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed….whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it i the RIGHT of the people to ALTER OR ABOLISH IT, AND TO INSTUTUTE NEW GOVERNMENT.”
and the other problem is Lincoln’s OWN WORDS:
“Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, AND FORM A NEW ONE THAT SUITS THEM BETTER. This is a most valuable and sacred right—a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of suc people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit.”—–January 12, 1848.
The Declaration of Independence was declaration of SECESSION [from England]—–so how on earth can you say the South’s secession was treasonous? The right to secede was the cornerstone of the founding documents. Do you think the founders after breaking off from England was going to form a new government in which the very same thing could occur within the new government? The right of secession was paramount in making sure government could not be overtaken by another tyrant.
“These southern apologists have some nerve complaining about constitutional violations while the slaveowners were engaging in massive treason against the United States of America.”
“against the United states?” The United States is not one big centralized government state—thy are individual sovereign entities that even had the authority to wage war according to the founding documents.
“Habeas corpus may be suspended when the public safety requires it in cases of rebellion or invasion. There was a rebellion and an invasion. Congress ratified Lincoln’s actions.”
Yes, but the President doesnt have the right to suspend it, ONLY Congress can. Habeas Corpus is a legislative issue, not an executive one and Congress did NOT authorize it. Your statement “congress ratified Lincoln’s actions” makes NO sense because Lincoln could not ACT without approval from Congress first. Habeas Corpus is constitutional right to have a fair trial and representation. To remove it means you are violating the constitution.
“The Proclamation freed slaves in areas occupied by the treasonous rebels as the Union armies advanced.”
Thats funny, the 13th amendment didnt go into effect until December 1865—several years after the EP—–so theres NO WAY the slaves could have been free until then. Your above statement is utter bullshit.
“Larry: “Also, answer this question that I asked Mespo, because he keeps ignoring it:
“Why would Southerners feel THREATENED when under the Constitution [as a result of Dred Scott] they were constitutionally PERMITTED to have slaves??”
What is the point of the question?”
The point is—–you cant answer a basic question because you know you CANT answer it without spewing a colossal contradiction or lie.
Mespo: “the Southern planters could see the winds of change beginning to blow and they understood the Constitution was a living document that could change with the consent of 5 men and the stroke of a pen.”
Living document? So much for the concept of specifically enumerated powers; right?
And there but for the grace of a sovereign of nine goes the right of self-ownership?
You’re kidding me; right?
Show me where and how the Fed was delegated the power to ‘exercise power over’ the inalienable right of self ownership.
“Though the earth, and all inferior creatures, be common to all men, yet every [one] has a property in his own person: this no body has any right to but himself.”
“AS usurpation is the exercise of power, which another hath a right to; so tyranny is the exercise of power beyond right, which no body can have a right to.”
Amazing how Tanney never considered the metaphysical impossibility of something like the fugitive slave clause existing within the constitution. The very essence of the document necessitates the clause be ‘knocked-out’ in a 2-206 fashion.
And what of the negative implication of the 13th Amendment? How may a government defined by its contradiction to all things tyrannical proclaim that it may decide whether or not slavery (a/k/a tyranny) can exist within its society? What the Fed gives the Fed may take away by repealing said amendment and substituting it with a new one stating that slavery is once again the ‘law’ of the land?
Bullshit.
This just part of the reason I say that
Mankind has not evolved and inch from the slime that spawned him.
Nowadays, a state cannot condemn federal property.
Utah Power & Light Co. v. U.S., 243 U.S. 389 (U.S. 1917):
The first position taken by the defendants is that their claims must be tested by the laws of the state in which the lands are situate rather than by the legislation of Congress, and in support of this position they say that lands of the United States within a state, when not used or needed for a fort or other governmental purpose of the *404 United States, are subject to the jurisdiction, powers, and laws of the state in the same way and to the same extent as are similar lands of others. To this we cannot assent. Not only does the Constitution (art. 4, § 3, cl. 2) commit to Congress the power ‘to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting’ the lands of the United States, but the settled course of legislation, congressional and state, and repeated decisions of this court, have gone upon the theory that the power of Congress is exclusive, and that only through its exercise in some form can rights in lands belonging to the United States be acquired. True, for many purposes a state has civil and criminal jurisdiction over lands within its limits belonging to the United States, but this jurisdiction does not extend to any matter that is not consistent with full power in the United States to protect its lands, to control their use, and to prescribe in what manner others may require rights in them. Thus, while the state may punish public offenses, such as murder or larceny, committed on such lands, and may tax private property, such as live stock, located thereon, it may not tax the lands themselves, or invest others with any right whatever in them. … From the earliest times Congress by its legislation, applicable alike in the states and territories, has regulated in many particulars the use by others of the lands of the United States, has prohibited and made punishable various acts calculated to be injurious to them or to prevent their use in the way intended, and has provided for and controlled the acquisition of rights of way over them for highways, railroads, canals, ditches, telegraph lines, and the like. The states and the public have almost uniformly accepted this legislation as controlling, and in the instances where it has been questioned in this court its validity has been upheld and its supremacy over state enactments sustained. … And so we are of opinion that the inclusion within a state of lands of the United States does not take from Congress the power to control their occupancy and use, to protect them from trespass and injury, and to prescribe the conditions upon which others may obtain rights in them, even though this may involve the exercise in some measure of what commonly is known as the police power. ‘A different rule,’ as was said in Camfield v. United States, 167 U. S. 518, … ‘would place the public domain of the United States completely at the mercy of state legislation.’
It results that state laws, including those relating to the exercise of the power of eminent domain, have no bearing upon a controversy such as is here presented, save as they may have been adopted or made applicable by Congress.
Mespo,
How did eminent domain effect Fort Sumter? After notification of secession could South Carolina have used (or thought they had a right to use) eminent domain to recover the fort? Who would they notify if they no longer recognized a federal government?
Mespo,
Did you know that Jefferson’s original draft of the DOI included slavery as a complaint against the King?
Even as a slaveowner, Jefferson knew it was wrong.
James M.,
The federal courts are all courts of limited jurisdiction.
Why do you favor the word “expansion”?
I am in no way suggesting an expansion of something. At best, I could be said to be wanting to limit the waiver. However, when no such waiver currently exists, it would be decidedly silly to have a desire to remove that which is not there to begin with.
“Where is that found in the Constitution or USC?”
Do you really want to go there? If you do, could you direct me to the clause granting the Supreme Court with the power of judicial review?
I would agree that Ex Parte Young was an end around. However, that end around was consistent with personal jurisdiction. Creative? Yes. Unlawful? No.
James,
I don’t expect you to accept my premise anymore than I would expect slaveowners to have accepted such a challenge to the accepted status quo of their slaves. Judges can enjoin persons and corporations (recognized as persons for jurisdiction), but the can’t enjoin the sovereign unless the sovereign specifically grants them that power. It’s as ridiculous as having a court attempt to enjoin the king. If the king had not explicitly granted a waiver, the judge would likely be jailed for even attempting the act.
A judge, by grant of subject matter jurisdiction, can be called upon to answer a question, but the answer can only be within the lawful authority of the judge. When the executive, legislature or even the court, exceed their authority it is a usurpation.
Even-handed analysis overlooks the fact that under a Constitution which delegates and limits power, the burden is on a claimant to point to the source of his power — failing which, it is a usurpation. The burden must be on the claimant to point to the source of his power. Ambiguity and status quo cannot be said to be the source of power; can they?
“Why would Southerners feel THREATENED when under the Constitution [as a result of Dred Scott] they were constitutionally PERMITTED to have slaves??”
*******************
Unlike Larry, the Southern planters could see the winds of change beginning to blow and they understood the Constitution was a living document that could change with the consent of 5 men and the stroke of a pen. Britain had legislatively abolished slavery in 1834 (judicially, the practice of domestic slavery was declared illegal much earlier in 1772 in Somersett’s case) and much of the Western nations had abandoned the stupidity much earlier.
The Southern planters felt quite threatened by the growing resentment of slavery in the North and the rise of abolitionist movements among free blacks and intellectuals. (See the speech of Dr. Henry Ruffner of Washington College that was widely discussed in the South. Ruffner described the abolitionists as violent fanatics who had to be combated. http://books.google.com/books?id=qVtLAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA51&lpg=PA51&dq=southern+attitudes+toward+northern+abolitionists&source=bl&ots=PdtuXdSOGL&sig=5FVI_0jErYKIL6JfGuPiFL2_w3I&hl=en&ei=8BjbTLDhLIS0lQeO-f3ICQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false).
The tide of public sentiment was rushing headlong against the agrarian South who needed slavery to avoid the back-breaking work of farming large plantations. I would say that when your source of cheap labor is directly implicated by the perception that the election of Abraham Lincoln would end slavery, your way of life is thus threatened and this you are apt to rebel. They did.
Larry does have one redeeming virtue in that he is willing to say just about anything in defense of his position allowing the rest of us to marvel at the utter ignorance of history that some of our fellow citizens are willing to loudly display.
BBB,
This is significant because the District Courts are creatures of the Legislature. I cannot see how they can be greater than the Legislature.
District courts do need general jurisdiction, and they have been granted that jurisdiction in certain classes of cases. One particular type of case (federal question) gives them frequent opportunity to pass on the constitutionality of certain laws. I fail to see where sovereign immunity comes into play at all. It sounds like you should be lobbying for a legislative change on general jurisdiction, not pushing an expansion of sovereign immunity.
If, as I suggest, the authority being exercised by the lower court is a usurpation, that usurpation can gain no legitimacy by repetition
That’s true, but I reject your premise. It also doesn’t alter the nature of the change you’d like to see vis a vis the present system.
the District Court cannot . . . invalidate an Act of the Legislature who created them.
Where is that found in the Constitution or USC? The legislature could try to make that change if they thought it was at all workable.
I see it as an accepted doctrine. Do I need to cite the plethora of holdings in which the sovereignty of the United States has been recognized?
I’d disagree with your characterization of both of our positions. I’m OK with sovereign immunity as settled law. You aren’t satisfied with the current law, and want to rewrite our whole federal court system using it.
Also, sovereignty is not the same as sovereign immunity.
Ex Parte Young is an (acknowledged) polite legal fiction through which the constitutionality of laws can be challenged. It’s an end run around sovereign immunity. I like the doctrine just fine, but I figured it would conflict with your view. If not, that’s fine and we can drop it.