Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This thread seems to go on and on. I think the lessions are learned. It IS important to look at our past, otherwise, we are doomed to repete it ,.........but , that said , lets look at what is going on NOW. This country is in sad shape, we should all be mad as hell and should not stand for what is going on. Our freedoms are passing before our eyes, does anyone care ?.......we should. lets put down the flags , and take to the streets , before its too late, maybe it already is..........
what freedoms are passing us by? I'm not trying to be deceitful, I just want to understand your statement.
I am not going to read this whole thread as I don't have enough time. But I have no problem with the Confederate flag. It is part of our history. And it's not the Mexican flag.
This thread seems to go on and on. I think the lessions are learned. It IS important to look at our past, otherwise, we are doomed to repete it ,.........but , that said , lets look at what is going on NOW. This country is in sad shape, we should all be mad as hell and should not stand for what is going on. Our freedoms are passing before our eyes, does anyone care ?.......we should. lets put down the flags , and take to the streets , before its too late, maybe it already is..........
Quote:
Originally Posted by Delta Planter
what freedoms are passing us by? I'm not trying to be deceitful, I just want to understand your statement.
Actually, darstar has a valid point.
There is a FINE line between what the FEDERAL government needs to do and what belongs to the State government. Remember States Rights? That was guaranteed to the people by the Founding Fathers? Well, they have eroded over the centuries til the states have almost none left.
REAL ID is the complex workaround to Congress’ failure to sell a national ID card outright, to a frightened public, in the wake of 9/11. Instead they now insist the states individually comply with precise federal standards (standards yet to be fully developed by the Dept. of Homeland Security) for driver licensing. These will probably include the requirement that residents produce birth certificates upon renewal, plus the collection of biometric data. Then, that state DMV database has to able to be accessed not only by the feds, but all the other states. This is supposed to help us fight terrorism, somehow, because the 19 hijackers had driver’s licenses.
States like Maine protested that not only was this law an unwarranted intrusion on the privacy rights of their residents, but it was a de facto national ID card in its own right, yet another foot in the door towards a totalitarian police state. The costs of implementation would be too high, projected to be in the tens of millions in each state, and would have to be passed on to the citizens somehow.
As usual, there was no federal "carrot" with such legislation, only a "stick." The stick, in this case, was that residents of states who failed to comply would either have to show a passport in order to fly, or they simply would not fly. This reminder was delivered, again, on Dobb’s show, by a sneering angry sycophant from DHS.
But this is standard operating procedure. The feds levy high taxes on the residents of the states, make sweeping, unfunded policy edicts, then enforce them by warning the state governments that failure to comply fully will result in those states not getting their own residents’ tax dollars returned to them (minus a cut) in the form of various subsidies.
'There shouldn't be any doubt about our determination to enforce the laws of the United States,'' said Special Agent Richard Meyer, a spokesman for the federal Drug Enforcement Administration in San Francisco. ''Marijuana is illegal regardless of the intended use, regardless of the person cultivating it and regardless of where it originated.''
On the other side, some state and local officials regard Mr. Rosenthal's prosecution as an effort by the federal government to subvert the 1996 statewide voters' initiative, known as Proposition 215, that made marijuana legal for medicinal purposes. Since that initiative passed in California, eight other states have approved similar laws.
After the American Civil War, the Fourteenth Amendment redefined the concept of state's rights. States still had their zone of authority--but whenever human rights were trampled upon, they lost that authority. By protecting human rights at the federal level, the government placed an asterisk next to the Tenth Amendment. The precise meaning of that asterisk would define American domestic policy for a century.
Relating to the increased authority granted to the President of the United States to federalize the National Guard of the individual states without the consent of the governors; and urging the United States Congress to take action to honor the sovereignty of the individual states to regulate and command the National Guard of the states.
Do I need to go on? It's not an issue that is 140+ years old...it is an issue that is staring you in the face right now. Liz
Again, I'm not sure I understand your point. Comparing "taxation without representation" to the failure of the South to have a voting majority in Congress is, to my mind, a false analogy.
I agree with you that the brilliant minds of the south -- especially from Virginia -- were crucial to the foundation of our republic. But I am attracted to the idea that they represented the final flowering of the English Enlightenment rather than any new or "revolutionary" way of thinking.
At any rate, ths is an interesting topic when people stop yelling at each other.
The point isn't the reason why the government is seen as intrusive. It's simply that it is. That was the point in the DOI, not "Hey.... You can't tax us!!!" It was that if you deem the government is overstepping it's bounds you not only have the right, but the DUTY to overthrow it...
I'm guessing that secession was probably preferrable to ALL parties rather than an attempted coup, but it's the same in principle...
Flippant? Your posts up to this point indicate a willingess to overlook a major clause of the Constitution.
It was addressed, and it is irrelevent to the discussion. The clause you cite refers to states within the Union entering into seperate treaties with foriegn powers. The states of the South seperately and properly through legislative and/or referendum process severed connections with the northern states and resumed their status as soveriengn states. The then banded together in a new confederation of their own.
If my citing it intimidates you, you're way too sensitive; if you're impressed with a little sarcasm, what can I say? You're easily impressed, I guess.
Actually, neither. I am easily impressed by a good argument, of course, whether I agree with it or not. But intimidated by very little.
Nothing snide about it. You referred to the Constitution, and I quoted a section of it that addressed your question.
Perhaps not, but the relevance of the section you quoted was adddressed earlier, and again above.
Where do those clever Southerners who wrote the Constitution say within the document that it is voluntary? I missed that, too.
Again, the question is framed wrong. Where is it stated it wasn't? The whole ideal of the American Revolution and experience was consentual government.
Damn right I do. Especially after that disastrous experience with the Articles of Confederation, which was -- as you well know -- a joke and a trainwreck.
It defies logic to suggest that the individual states, upon forming the Union, would have refuted their own principles in forming one which prohibited the ultimate check on a tryanny by the central government.
Feel free to describe it that way. I prefer to say that the southern states, unable and unwilling to marshall the legal means to ensure the existence of slavery in the new states being added to the Union, engaged in a civil insurrection against the United States of America.
Yes, we obviously disagree on this point. I do however call your attention to what was cited earlier concerning "insurrection" and "treason."
Consensual government depends on the rule of the majority. That is the basis of English constitutional law. The southern states were a minority. They lost the legislative battle on the federal level, and rather than accept their defeat, waged warfare against the federal government. It's that simple -- and that tragic.
Yes, it does depend on the majority. And the majority in the individual Southern states believe they would be better off in a nation of their own. To say the Southern states were a minority as pertains to this concept is essentially to say the states are little more than lines on a map. Rather than, as was recognized in the DOI, Treaty of Paris, and again in the U.S. Constitution (by way of the 9th and 10th Amendments), soveriengn entities.
You guys are seriously over-analyzing the declaration of independance and the constitution. Hey even today we have trouble interpreting the laws, that's why we have courts and "common law". But you guys are sounding like those nutcases that refuse to pay tax because "the constitution forbids the US government from collecting tax".
You can't look at every little word and treaty and try to interpret it because, really, then you can use it to justify anything. Sometimes you just have to go with common sense.
As my last post said, Lincoln remarked in his innagural address - It doesn't make sense that the constitution allows states to succeed and, as a result, destroy the nation, as simply, it is illogical for a nation to allow a provision for it's own internal destruction.
Sometimes you just gotta go with common sense, enough with quoting obscure treaties and clauses, taking subtexts out of context, looking at this or that sentence, and so forth. If this was a court case the courts of our nation would say this was settled with the civil war, "common law" rulling saying it was unlawful for a state to suceed. Case dismissed.
You guys are seriously over-analyzing the declaration of independance and the constitution. Hey even today we have trouble interpreting the laws, that's why we have courts and "common law". But you guys are sounding like those nutcases that refuse to pay tax because "the constitution forbids the US government from collecting tax".
You can't look at every little word and treaty and try to interpret it because, really, then you can use it to justify anything. Sometimes you just have to go with common sense.
As my last post said, Lincoln remarked in his innagural address - It doesn't make sense that the constitution allows states to succeed and, as a result, destroy the nation, as simply, it is illogical for a nation to allow a provision for it's own internal destruction.
Sometimes you just gotta go with common sense, enough with quoting obscure treaties and clauses, taking subtexts out of context, looking at this or that sentence, and so forth. If this was a court case the courts of our nation would say this was settled with the civil war, "common law" rulling saying it was unlawful for a state to suceed. Case dismissed.
It's secede..... Sorry, HAD to point that one out.... Of course we want the states to succeed.. (just having fun at your expense. I apologize. )
Anyway, to your point. How I wish logic could be used in legal matters sometimes. IMO that's the largest weakness in our legal system.
Aha! The adversarial nature of the South. Southerners do not like to be told what to do. That's what sparked the civil war. That's why the more people scream that Southerners are morons for their politics, the more entrenched in those politics they get. We shut down when someone starts pushing us around in an overt way. We respond much better to reason, kindness, and courtesy.
I truly believe that this distinction hightights the root of the issue.
I agree, this is a critical abstract idea that hasn't been mentioned yet.
I mentioned earlier that I'm a South Carolinian, my family (and many others' families) have been here since before 1700, and I thought that the flag should have been moved off the statehouse dome (as it was).
Everyone sees this issue in a different light. However, I think the primary thing that motivated average South Carolinians to support the flag was not heritage or racism or the confederacy - it was just stubbornness. The issue was that we didn't want outsiders telling us what to do, plain and simple. When you see cartoonists from California and columnists from Connecticut publicly insulting your state, it just entrenches you more into the idea that those "outsiders" don't understand your point of view..
This can be seen evidently throughout the thread. When people actually discuss the flag on logical terms, we have some really interesting discussions that bring us all closer to understanding each other. When someone just barges in and starts spewing off about racism, without understanding both sides of the argument, it definitely isn't winning over any white southerners, because it is a strawman argument.
Last edited by anonymous; 10-01-2007 at 09:33 AM..
The point isn't the reason why the government is seen as intrusive. It's simply that it is. That was the point in the DOI, not "Hey.... You can't tax us!!!" It was that if you deem the government is overstepping it's bounds you not only have the right, but the DUTY to overthrow it...
I'm guessing that secession was probably preferrable to ALL parties rather than an attempted coup, but it's the same in principle...
Flippant? Your posts up to this point indicate a willingess to overlook a major clause of the Constitution.
It was addressed, and it is irrelevent to the discussion. The clause you cite refers to states within the Union entering into seperate treaties with foriegn powers. The states of the South seperately and properly through legislative and/or referendum process severed connections with the northern states and resumed their status as soveriengn states. The then banded together in a new confederation of their own.
If my citing it intimidates you, you're way too sensitive; if you're impressed with a little sarcasm, what can I say? You're easily impressed, I guess.
Actually, neither. I am easily impressed by a good argument, of course, whether I agree with it or not. But intimidated by very little.
Nothing snide about it. You referred to the Constitution, and I quoted a section of it that addressed your question.
Perhaps not, but the relevance of the section you quoted was adddressed earlier, and again above.
Where do those clever Southerners who wrote the Constitution say within the document that it is voluntary? I missed that, too.
Again, the question is framed wrong. Where is it stated it wasn't? The whole ideal of the American Revolution and experience was consentual government.
Damn right I do. Especially after that disastrous experience with the Articles of Confederation, which was -- as you well know -- a joke and a trainwreck.
It defies logic to suggest that the individual states, upon forming the Union, would have refuted their own principles in forming one which prohibited the ultimate check on a tryanny by the central government.
Feel free to describe it that way. I prefer to say that the southern states, unable and unwilling to marshall the legal means to ensure the existence of slavery in the new states being added to the Union, engaged in a civil insurrection against the United States of America.
Yes, we obviously disagree on this point. I do however call your attention to what was cited earlier concerning "insurrection" and "treason."
Consensual government depends on the rule of the majority. That is the basis of English constitutional law. The southern states were a minority. They lost the legislative battle on the federal level, and rather than accept their defeat, waged warfare against the federal government. It's that simple -- and that tragic.
Yes, it does depend on the majority. And the majority in the individual Southern states believe they would be better off in a nation of their own. To say the Southern states were a minority as pertains to this concept is essentially to say the states are little more than lines on a map. Rather than, as was recognized in the DOI, Treaty of Paris, and again in the U.S. Constitution (by way of the 9th and 10th Amendments), soveriengn entities.
Now, then, gotta get to work!
[
Have a good day. I hope we have a chance to discuss this some more. I am still not completely clear that you are saying anything more than "prove some negatives" and "the Southern states had the right to do whatever they wanted because they weren't really part of the Union."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
(just having fun at your expense. I apologize. 