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)
Observer said:
“In the meantime, James M. was correct at 6:59 on Nov. 10, when he told 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.” Absolutely right.”
New Englanders were going to secede in 1814. NO ONE questioned their RIGHT to. Jefferson made it CLEAR states can secede. What’s your response????
“Succession”????? James doesnt even know how to spell the f ucking word!!!!! LOL
James said:
“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.”
A complete LIE. The New Englanders were going to secede in 1814 but chose not to—-NOT because they didnt have the right to, but because they decided it wouldnt be good economically or politically to do so. NO ONE questioned their RIGHT to, and Jefferson made it CLEAR in the Kentucky Resolve of 1798 that states CAN secede!
James said:
“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.”
No, actually NEITHER of you answered it. You ACKNOWLEDGED the question but thats not the same as ANSWERING it. You did NOT answer it. Mespo just rambled and rambled and used the words “slavery” and “south” a dozen times and passed it off as answering the question. It was NOT an answer to what I asked.
I see NO ONE will address Lincoln’s crimes nor debunk that Lincoln did the following:
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
Buddha: “Written by Harrison, lead on original studio recording played by Eric Clapton.”
Clapton did it just one take.
Blouise,
I’ve got my three; I’m happy. (You, Buddha, and George Harrison himself).
I like some Bowie, but he’s far from my favorite.
BobEsq said: “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.”
Actually, it is an ” irrelevant jumble” if offered condescendingly with no explanation, reasoning or links or references to sources, and, no, the burden is on the proponent, not another poster, to sort it out, so until then there is a rebutable presumption to the contrary.
In the meantime, James M. was correct at 6:59 on Nov. 10, when he told 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.” Absolutely right.
At least one proposition in the jumble is clearly false, to wit, “sovereignty running with the land since feudal times.” In America, sovereignty does not run with the land, but flows from the people, under the United States Constitution that was proclaimed by “We the People,” that was ratified by the people in conventions, and that is “the supreme Law of the Land.”
Observer wrote: “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.”
Larry answered: “Slaves were NOT citizens—are you telling me non-citizens could fight in our armies??? Got a link proving this??”
It is hard to fathom the depth of Larry’s ignorance.
First, to clarify, Observer did not say that slaves fought. He said slaves who had been freed by the Proclamation fought. Free Black African Americans fought bravely to free all African Americans and to save the Union.
And, yes, I am telling Larry that non-citizens could and did fight in our Army, then and now. Thousands of immigrants were recruited into the Union Army, almost as they got off the boats in the harbor.
Aliens have always served in the Army. Until the draft was abolished in 1973, aliens could be and were drafted into the Army. (When it came time to take the oath of enlistment, each alien was given the choice of enlisting or of reporting to the INS for deportation to his country of origin).
The link to the Army’s official site is below.
I hope this had been educational. Perhaps Larry will recognize the error and admit that non-citizens can and have always been able to enlist in the US Army and to fight for America.
Waiting…
https://forums.goarmy.com/thread/198214)
Q. Who Can Enlist in the US Army under this new Recruiting Program?
A. Persons With TPS, Asylee, Refugee, Or One Of Several Non-Immigrant Visa Statuses (E, F, H, I, J, K, L, M, O, P, Q, R, S, T, TC, TD, TN, U, or V) Are Potentially Eligible To Enlist.
The MAVNI program expands the categories of persons who can lawfully enlist in the United States Armed Forces. Previously, the Armed Forces—the US Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard 1 —have generally enlisted only citizens and non-citizen nationals of the United States; lawful permanent resident aliens (including conditional lawful permanent residents); and certain nationals of the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and Palau who are admissible as non-immigrants under the Compacts of Free Association with those nations. 2 Under Section 504(b)(2) of the military enlistment statute, however, the Secretary of any Armed Force to enlist other aliens “if the Secretary determines that such enlistment is vital to the national interest.” 3 Under guidance from the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Army has determined that the enlistment of certain legal non-citizen health care professionals is vital to the national interest, and has authorized the Army to commence the MAVNI pilot program. 4 The legal non-citizens to be recruited include doctors and nurses as well as persons who can demonstrate proficiency in any one of the foreign languages listed in Appendix 1. 5
The Office of the Secretary of Defense set the immigration eligibility criteria for the program; they are also listed in Appendix 1. Anyone who currently holds asylee, refugee, Temporary Protected Status (TPS), or one of numerous non-immigrant statuses (E, F, H, I, J, K, L, M, O, P, Q, R, S, T, TC, TD, TN, U, or V) may be eligible. A non-citizen must have held one of those legal statuses for at least two years; having changed between these statuses during the two-year period will not bar enlistment. In addition, if the person holds a non-immigrant status (E, F, H, I, J, K, L, M, O, P, Q, R, S, T, TC, TD, TN, U, or V), he or she cannot have had a single absence from the United States of more than 90 days in the past two years (multiple absences are apparently fine, as long as no single trip exceeded 90 days).
Persons whose status is not listed in the eligibility criteria cannot enlist under this pilot program. Thus, those holding B visa or other visitor status—including those who entered on the Visa Waiver Program—are not eligible. Asylum applicants are not eligible, although once they have been granted asylum, they may become eligible. Undocumented immigrants, visa overstayers, and other persons who have violated their status are also not eligible.
1 10 USC §101(a)(4) (2009).
2 See 10 USC §504(b)(1) (2009). In January 2006, Congress enacted a unified enlistment statute for the US Armed Forces in 10 USC §504. Prior to this statute being enacted, each Service had different enlistment rules.
3 10 USC §504(b)(2) (2009).
4 In conjunction with the Army’s launch of the pilot program, the Department of Homeland Security has published a new rule in the Federal Register confirming that persons who enlist in the Army under this program are authorized to work. See 74 Fed. Reg. 7993 (Feb. 23, 2009).
Then the Contract should be held Void…and each goes there separate ways….
James,
Written by Harrison, lead on original studio recording played by Eric Clapton. It’s one of the songs I literally learned to love music from. My uncle’s had a band when I was a wee lil’ buddha and I used to go to practice and listen to music music with them all the time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEnJDaqT3-0 Even if you don’t like Sting, this song was the best stalking song ever.
BIL,
I didn’t know While My Guitar Gently Weeps was written by Harrison. Great song.
And this song speaks for itself (and for me quite often):
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7qpfGVUd8c&fs=1&hl=en_US]
With every mistake, we must surely be learning . . .
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzkhOmKVW08&fs=1&hl=en_US]
If George didn’t get some lovin’ for penning this tune, there is no justice.
Thank you, finally I am recognized for my musical genesis.
Buddha Is Laughing
1, November 10, 2010 at 2:37 pm
Lincoln was overrated.
==================================================
Gyges
1, November 10, 2010 at 3:21 pm
Buddha,
I feel the same way about the Beatles.
========================================================
Buddha Is Laughing
1, November 10, 2010 at 3:38 pm
Gyges,
I too think the Beatles are overrated. Conversely I feel that George Harrison was the most underrated of the Beatles.
==========================================================
Gyges
1, November 10, 2010 at 3:50 pm
Buddha,
I just figured that the discussion was due for some new and creative trolling. Wanna bet I get at least 3 responses to my one sentence (that’s efficient trolling)?
Also, I don’t like Sting.
======================================================
Sorry, all you get is me.
I often wonder about Lincoln. I agree the Beetles were overrated. I agree Harrison was underrated. I can’t stand Sting. David Bowie gives me a headache when he attempts to imitate Anthony Newley, who also gives me a headache.
Mespo,
If only South Carolina would have taken the time to travel into the future and review the 1917 holding of the Court. 🙂
If I recall, some previous holdings (maybe at the Circuit level), and the opinion of Justice Story was contrary to the Court’s holding in 1917.
I’m not revisiting the civil war. I was just asking a question.
I will say that I don’t think South Carolina believed that Lincoln was only sending supplies, other than ammunition, to Fort Sumter.
I also find the whole “perpetual union” argument to be pretty lame. All a perpetual union is, is one with no set expiration. If a state wanted to secede, I think they would stand a pretty good chance of prevailing at an international tribunal (ICJ). They may have to give some pretty significant concessions, but I think they could secede without war.
BBB,
I know what you were trying to say, and given the nature of the thread, I can see why it was on your mind; but this statement did take me a little aback at first:
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.
James M.,
How could you interpret anything I said to have compared someone to a slave owner? (Am I wrong in assuming that you think I was taking a swipe at you? If so, that was not my intention.) I simply pointed out that what people consider to be acceptable in practice is not easily changed.
“I think the concept of judicial review is implicit in the idea that the Constitution trumps federal law.”
I don’t have a problem agreeing with that. My dissatisfaction lies with applying the lower courts decision to parties not before them, and giving orders to another branch of government.
I’m all for judicial review. I’m all for having all courts recognize supremacy. My primary gripe is with the exercise of authority not granted and the resultant ‘law here, but not over here’.
Ooops. Sorry Observer, I missed your post.
BBB:
“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?”
***********************
Eminent domain against the land of the federal government is a violation of the Supremacy Clause. 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.
Two corrections: secession, not succession two posts back; second paragraph shouldn’t be in italics, one post back.