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.
"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
This is in the Constitution too!
That's become a very interesting topic of conversation even among conservative jurists. Stay tuned!!!
The 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 9th amendments are what formed a right to privacy. As decided in Griswold v. Connecticut, Roe v. Wade, Miranda v. Arizona, and Brown v. Board of Education.
War and Emergency Powers Acts
United States, Senate Report 93-549 states: "That since March 09, 1933 the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency." Proclamation No. 2039 declared by President Franklin D. Roosevelt on March 9, 1933. This declared national emergency has never been revoked and has been codified into the US Code (12 U.S.C. sec. 95a and b).
"A majority of the people of the United States have lived all of their lives under emergency rule. For 40 years (as of the report 1933-1973), freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought into force by states of national emergency."
FREEDOMS ... GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION ... HAVE BEEN ABRIDGED BY LAWS ... UNDER EMERGENCY RULE ...
Constitutional U.S.A. (1789 - 1933) R.I.P.
Welcome to the Peoples Democratic Socialist Republic of America.
As you have been told on a number of occasions, those emergencies were all cancelled by acts of Congress.
WRM20, this is news to me. What acts of Congress cancelled them? Link/reference?
Cornell's Legal Information Institute (LII) has a section on the Act of Congress that codifies FDR's emergency act into U.S. law. And it makes no mention of any of them EVER being cancelled. See https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/95
WRM20, this is news to me. What acts of Congress cancelled them? Link/reference?
Cornell's Legal Information Institute (LII) has a section on the Act of Congress that codifies FDR's emergency act into U.S. law. And it makes no mention of any of them EVER being cancelled. See https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/95
The act terminated FDR's 1933 proclamation, Truman's Korean War proclamation, Nixon's 1970 postal service strike emergency, and Nixon's 1971 supplemental duty declaration.
The act terminated FDR's 1933 proclamation, Truman's Korean War proclamation, Nixon's 1970 postal service strike emergency, and Nixon's 1971 supplemental duty declaration.
That Act simply made it necessary for whoever's President now, to re-declare the emergency. The excuse changes, but the granting of extraordinary powers to the President, remains the same. Funny how that works out. Every President had been doing exactly that, every year or so, since 1976.
Other posts in this thread are correct: We have been under a State of Emergency ever since 1933... and it continues to this day. Only the excuse changes. It has NEVER ended... and it never will.
It sounds like he believes the south had a Constitutional right to secede from the Union, and the north violated the US Constitution by engaging in a war to force southern retention in the Union.
That is news to me. I have never heard him propose that before. I really don't understand what he is saying here. I am not a Constitutional scholar.
Hanson is probably referring to States' Rights and other limits on Federal Power, not secession itself. With that said, Thomas Jefferson believed in the compact theory, he also believed in state nullification(see the nullification crisis). As one commentator wrote, "What is secession except the nullification of all laws?"
As to States' Rights and the Constitution. The North was making the same arguments that modern democrats make. That the Constitution is outdated and that "the people"(IE the majority) should rule. In fact, they believed the Constitution established defacto "minority rule"(think Electoral College, Trump/Bush getting fewer votes, every state getting two senators, and before the 17th amendment they were also appointed by the state legislatures).
The North also refused to enforce provisions it didn't like(such as the fugitive-slave clause), as well as voting for lopsided tariffs/taxes and spending federal dollars on things not included in Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution(same as modern democrats trying to justify everything under the General Welfare Clause instead of the enumerated powers).
Basically, the North believed the Constitution was irrelevant and completely ignored it to the extent they had the power. Same as modern democrats.
With that said, while the Constitution doesn't specifically grant states a right to secede, there is nothing in the Constitution that prevents it. In fact, if anything, the Constitution makes it explicit that preventing secession is unconstitutional since it fits within the definition of treason(IE levying war against the states). The way Abraham Lincoln got around it was by declaring the South to be in a state of insurrection and thus in violation of Article 4, section 4 of the US Constitution. But the south was not in a state of insurrection, and their "Republican" governments remained intact. Which means Abraham Lincoln was waging an illegal war.
For some background on the above, you can refer to President James Buchanan's address to Congress on December 3rd, 1860(about two weeks before South Carolina seceded from the Union). It pretty much outlines all the southern grievances and the Constitutional basis(or not) for secession. Here is part of the speech...
Quote:
"The course of events is so rapidly hastening forward that the emergency may soon arise when you may be called upon to decide the momentous question whether you possess the power by force of arms to compel a State to remain in the Union. I should feel myself recreant to my duty were I not to express an opinion on this important subject.
The question fairly stated is, Has the Constitution delegated to Congress the power to coerce a State into submission which is attempting to withdraw or has actually withdrawn from the Confederacy? If answered in the affirmative, it must be on the principle that the power has been conferred upon Congress to declare and to make war against a State. After much serious reflection I have arrived at the conclusion that no such power has been delegated to Congress or to any other department of the Federal Government. It is manifest upon an inspection of the Constitution that this is not among the specific and enumerated powers granted to Congress, and it is equally apparent that its exercise is not "necessary and proper for carrying into execution" any one of these powers. So far from this power having been delegated to Congress, it was expressly refused by the Convention which framed the Constitution.
It appears from the proceedings of that body that on the 31st May, 1787, the clause "authorizing an exertion of the force of the whole against a delinquent State" came up for consideration. Mr. Madison opposed it in a brief but powerful speech, from which I shall extract but a single sentence. He observed:
--- "The use of force against a State would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound."
Upon his motion the clause was unanimously postponed, and was never, I believe, again presented. Soon afterwards, on the 8th June, 1787, when incidentally adverting to the subject, he said: "Any government for the United States formed on the supposed practicability of using force against the unconstitutional proceedings of the States would prove as visionary and fallacious as the government of Congress," evidently meaning the then existing Congress of the old Confederation.
Without descending to particulars, it may be safely asserted that the power to make war against a State is at variance with the whole spirit and intent of the Constitution. Suppose such a war should result in the conquest of a State; how are we to govern it afterwards? Shall we hold it as a province and govern it by despotic power? In the nature of things, we could not by physical force control the will of the people and compel them to elect Senators and Representatives to Congress and to perform all the other duties depending upon their own volition and required from the free citizens of a free State as a constituent member of the Confederacy.
But if we possessed this power, would it be wise to exercise it under existing circumstances? The object would doubtless be to preserve the Union. War would not only present the most effectual means of destroying it, but would vanish all hope of its peaceable reconstruction. Besides, in the fraternal conflict a vast amount of blood and treasure would be expended, rendering future reconciliation between the States impossible. In the meantime, who can foretell what would be the sufferings and privations of the people during its existence?
The fact is that our Union rests upon public opinion, and can never be cemented by the blood of its citizens shed in civil war. If it can not live in the affections of the people, it must one day perish. Congress possesses many means of preserving it by conciliation, but the sword was not placed in their hand to preserve it by force.
But may I be permitted solemnly to invoke my countrymen to pause and deliberate before they determine to destroy this the grandest temple which has ever been dedicated to human freedom since the world began? It has been consecrated by the blood of our fathers, by the glories of the past, and by the hopes of the future. The Union has already made us the most prosperous, and ere long will, if preserved, render us the most powerful, nation on the face of the earth. In every foreign region of the globe the title of American citizen is held in the highest respect, and when pronounced in a foreign land it causes the hearts of our countrymen to swell with honest pride. Surely when we reach the brink of the yawning abyss we shall recoil with horror from the last fatal plunge."
PS: The above speech is essentially the reason James Buchanan is considered the worst president in American History. He was unwilling to ignore the Constitution to save the union.
Last edited by Redshadowz; 08-23-2023 at 03:51 AM..
I do, but many Democrats see it only as an obstacle for more Authoritarian Government control. The Courts certainly don't believe in it as they let many clearly Unconstitutional laws stand. All gun laws are Unconstitutional and 22,000 of them are still on the books.
The Constitution is a living document. It can and has been CHANGED. If there is enough States that want to change it, they can.
Remember, the Constitution DOES NOT GRANT RIGHTS. It limits what Government can do, that's all. You possess your Rights, naturally, as Human Beings.
"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
This is in the Constitution too!
Technically, the 14th amendment was never legally ratified(or even legally passed through Congress). But as you know, no one cares.
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.
