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)
I asked “Do you know why the state legislatures could not ratify the Constitution?”
James M. responded “Because the Constitution specifies conventions. I could guess at the reason it does so, but don’t know for sure.”
On the issue of ratifying the proposed Constitution, Mason believed the people, rather than state legislatures, should do the job.
Col. Mason considered a reference of the plan to the authority of the people as one of the most important and essential of the Resolutions. The Legislatures have no power to ratify it. They are the mere creatures of the State Constitutions, and can not be greater than their creators. July 23, 1787
http://www.gunstonhall.org/georgemason/essays/constitution.html
This is significant because the District Courts are creatures of the Legislature. I cannot see how they can be greater than the Legislature.
DNFTT
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?
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.
Larry: “Who do you think the GOVERNED are??? CITIZENS!!!! Geesh!!”
Actually, this may come as a shock to Larry, but all persons in a nation are governed by that nation, whether they are citizens or not.
All aliens who are present in the U.S. are governed by its laws and must obey them.
They give their consent when they voluntarily come to the country and can leave if they do not want to consent.
Now, this may be another shock to Larry, but the persons of African descent in the south did not come under its jurisdiction voluntarily. Their ancestors were brought in by force.
Again, they could not leave, either. If they tried, they could be rounded up under the fugitive slave law.
So they were governed without their consent.
Note that Larry has ignore the main point above.
The southern slaveowners, unlike the colonists who drafted the 1776 Declaration of Independence, were in fact governed by their consent by virtue of their participation at every level of state and federal government.
Larry: “Why would they think ANYTHING Lincoln said was valid since they were not acknowlding him as President?????? Have an answer???”
And, finally, yes, Lincoln was their President throughout the war. He asserted this when he agreed to talks with Davis’s representatives at Norfolk concerning our common country.
Observer,
“To BBB and James M, in this thread it is interesting to note that in Dred Scott…”
Thanks! But we must consider that Lincoln’s inaugural address took place before the Judiciary Act of 1875 which gave the District Court federal question jurisdiction.
That doesn’t change my argument, but I do appreciate you following along and providing input.
James M.,
I think I have made my premise very clear. If, as I suggest, the authority being exercised by the lower court is a usurpation, that usurpation can gain no legitimacy by repetition; just as the violation of the natural rights of slaves gained no legitimacy by repetition.
When the status quo consists of disruptive doctrine there is no reason to shy away from challenging it. I am proposing nothing that would harm the nation. To the contrary, I am suggesting continuity, and recognizing that the District Court cannot (if consistent with the sentiment of the Framer’s) invalidate an Act of the Legislature who created them.
I think you see sovereign immunity as an elitist privilege. 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?
It long has been established, of course, that the United States, as sovereign, “is immune from suit save as it consents to be sued . . . and the terms of its consent to be sued in any court define that court’s jurisdiction to entertain the suit.” United States v. Sherwood, 312 U. S., at 586
“Courts of Appeals routinely grant stays when controversial laws are struck down so that the issue can be heard on appeal.”
A stay in order to continue the force of law approved by both Houses and the Executive, because a lone judge disagreed with them? The whole premise insists on having the wisdom of one being greater than that of the many. It laughs at the concept of a representative republic whose members subscribe to the same oath. Is it perfect? No, but it’s damn sure better than a country at the pleasure of one.
“Having two rounds of appeals automatically built into the case would be silly (first on the issue of the case, and then on the nature of the injunction).”
What two rounds? I never suggested two rounds. To the contrary, I suggest that constitutional questions should be appealed directly to the Supreme Court. That way the decision effects the entire country at one, thus providing continuity.
“The Supreme Court couldn’t handle the caseload if they had to handle direct appeals from the district courts.”
I am not aware of anything that would prevent us from dividing the court and then permitting any split to be settled en banc.
“What harm is there in allowing the courts of appeal to handle the issue until a circuit split develops, at which time the S. Ct. is likely to hear the case?”
Lack of continuity is the problem. If we are a nation, our federal laws must be the same in all circuits.
Ex Parte Young has to do with enjoining a state official. The state official is a person. No person can be granted the authority to perform an unconstitutional act. If anything ex Parte Young supports my position of sovereignty.
“How did the Emancipation Proclaimation free slaves??”
This is almost too obvious for words after 150 years.
The Proclamation freed slaves in areas occupied by the treasonous rebels as the Union armies advanced.
Each time the Union occupied a confederate area, all the slaves in that area became free.
That is how it worked.
“Why didnt Lincoln want NORTHERN slaves free???”
Has Larry read nothing in this thread.
To repeat from above, Lincoln signed laws freeing slaves in D.C. and the territories.
Lincoln supported the 13th Amendment and campaigned for reelection on it after the Republican Convention endorsed it. He persuaded Representatives to vote for it. He signed copies that were sent out for ratification.
So, yes, Lincoln did want northern slaves freed, and worked for their freedom in the political process.
Gyges,
I too think the Beatles are overrated. Conversely I feel that George Harrison was the most underrated of the Beatles.
To BBB and James M, in this thread it is interesting to note that in Dred Scott, Taney managed to hold that the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional and that federal legislation banning slavery in the territories was beyond the power of Congress under the Constitution, in a case to which the United States was not a party.
It was a private civil property dispute between a slaveowner and a slave.
Lincoln noted this fact in his First Inaugural:
“I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court, nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case upon the parties to a suit as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the Government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be overruled and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. Nor is there in this view any assault upon the court or the judges. It is a duty from which they may not shrink to decide cases properly brought before them, and it is no fault of theirs if others seek to turn their decisions to political purposes.”
To Larry.
There was a war on.
The war was provoked by the southern slaveowners when they bombarded Fort Sumter.
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.
These southern apologists have some nerve complaining about constitutional violations while the slaveowners were engaging in massive treason against the United States of America.
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.
This could go on and on.
Larry has just thrown a lot of wild and tendentious charges into the wind.
Buddha,
I feel the same way about the Beatles.
Larry: That quote pretty much contradicts the ones you listed, doesnt it?
uh no, apples and oranges
where is the citation for your statement “There were MORE slaves in the NORTH! This is undisputable fact”?
I have a sneaking suspicion it’s a not(ahem) true
you keep changing the game Larry, what’s your point?
BBB,
Do you know why the state legislatures could not ratify the Constitution?
Because the Constitution specifies conventions. I could guess at the reason it does so, but don’t know for sure.
BBB,
Since you want to change the status quo, I think it’s clear that you do want an expansion of the doctrine as it now exists. Whether you want to couch that expansion as a return to original principals or not, it is still a dramatic expansion from current doctrine.
In your mind, why is sovereign immunity so important? For me, sovereign immunity is a practical idea that keeps the courts and DOJ from getting bogged down in nuisance suits, and allows for fiscal stability because there is less opportunity for major damage awards against the government. However, at its core, sovereign immunity is a doctrine that says that people who are injured by the government are fucked and have no recourse. It derives from the archaic idea that the King is above the law. We explicitly reject the idea that the government is above the law. That’s why we have a constitution. I see why sovereign immunity is a practical necessity, but why is it such a guiding principal for you?
Regarding your suggestion about what the court system should look like, Courts of Appeals routinely grant stays when controversial laws are struck down so that the issue can be heard on appeal. Isn’t that quite similar to how you want the district court to handle it? Just this way, the Court of Appeals can leave the final judgment in place without remanding if they agree with the decision. Having two rounds of appeals automatically built into the case would be silly (first on the issue of the case, and then on the nature of the injunction).
Also, The Supreme Court couldn’t handle the caseload if they had to handle direct appeals from the district courts. What harm is there in allowing the courts of appeal to handle the issue until a circuit split develops, at which time the S. Ct. is likely to hear the case?
I assume you’re also against the logic of Ex Parte Young that allows a public official to be sued in order to enjoin them from some unconstitutional action? If so, how do you handle situations in which the Congress or Executive is violating the Constitution but Congress hasn’t waived sovereign immunity?
Lincoln was overrated.
James M.,
Do you know why the state legislatures could not ratify the Constitution?
Observer, 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?
Got an answer for that???
Why suspend Habeas Corpus??
Why wage war with the consent of congress??
Why did he deport Congressman Vallandigham???
Got answers????
mute = moot = freudian
“larry may be right”—–Im NOT a slavery apologist, Im only pointing out that Lincoln sure as hell wasnt an abolitionist. I think slavery is stupid. It violates the whole concept of “all men are created equal”. You all keep mentioning Southern slavery, southern slavery, southern slavery, but you continually OMIT any talk of the slaves in the NORTH that Lincoln made NO attempt to do ANYTHING about. When you start to accept that ANY anti-slavery rhetoric that Lincoln ever engaged in was ONLY for political support, then you will be nearing the truth. Until then, your heads will remain in your asses.