Author Topic: The battle of Charlottesville: A continuing discussion thread about the War between the States  (Read 11712 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! It's what's for dinner!
  • Member
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 16,502
  • International Cracker of Wise
Show me the words or clause in the Constitution EXPLICITLY permitting free speech.

Quote
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Right there.
Thanks to Cripplecreek and Oceander for the medal! 
From Member DB:  Once you've allowed yourself to be sold, all that remains is for how much.

Offline Hoodat

  • R 8:37
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2,775
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, a most sacred right, a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world.

-Congressman Abraham Lincoln, 1847-
Yet in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us.

Offline Hoodat

  • R 8:37
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2,775

Quote
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Right there.

Read it again.  Nowhere in that does it permit free speech.  Instead, it only places a limit on what Congress can do.  The right to free speech is implicit - not explicit.
Yet in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us.

Online Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! It's what's for dinner!
  • Member
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 16,502
  • International Cracker of Wise
Right there.


Read it again.  Nowhere in that does it permit free speech.  Instead, it only places a limit on what Congress can do.  The right to free speech is implicit - not explicit.

OK.  Whatever.
Thanks to Cripplecreek and Oceander for the medal! 
From Member DB:  Once you've allowed yourself to be sold, all that remains is for how much.

Online INVAR

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 6,377
    • Sword At The Ready
OK.  Whatever.

No, that is important, because if we believe our rights come from a piece of parchment or from whatever a court rules from on high - we have no rights at all, only permissions granted by men for a time, until men decide to rescind them.
“Fart for freedom, fart for liberty—and fart proudly.”  - Benjamin Franklin

“If we must have an enemy at the head of Government, let it be one whom we can oppose, and for whom we are not responsible, who will not involve our party in the disgrace of his foolish and bad measures.”  - Alexander Hamilton

Online Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! It's what's for dinner!
  • Member
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 16,502
  • International Cracker of Wise
No, that is important, because if we believe our rights come from a piece of parchment or from whatever a court rules from on high - we have no rights at all, only permissions granted by men for a time, until men decide to rescind them.

I didn't say that.  I merely pointed out in the Constitution what he said wasn't there, then he said it wasn't explicit enough.  Whatever. 

I said absolutely nothing about where the right was derived.  It comes from the Almighty. You should know me better than that.
« Last Edit: August 19, 2017, 04:02:24 PM by Cyber Liberty »
Thanks to Cripplecreek and Oceander for the medal! 
From Member DB:  Once you've allowed yourself to be sold, all that remains is for how much.

Offline Hoodat

  • R 8:37
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2,775
I didn't say that.  I merely pointed out in the Constitution what he said wasn't there, then he said it wasn't explicit enough.  Whatever.

It's not explicit at all.  Please do not attribute terms to my statement (e.g. "enough") that I did not utter.

said absolutely nothing about where the right was derived.  It comes from the Almighty. You should know me better than that.

Correct.  These truths are self evident.  We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights.  And that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.   (key word:  Consent)  And whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

At least that's what our Founding Fathers believed.

Just to clarify, GoatPrairie is arguing that since the Constitution does not explicitly grant the right of secession to the States, then no such right exists.  And by doing so, he completely ignores the wording of Amendment X which shows that not all rights are explicitly listed.

My counter-argument showed that the Constitution does not explicitly grant the right to free speech, or the right to vote.  Thus by GoatPrairie's argument, people do not have those rights either.
Yet in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us.

Online Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! It's what's for dinner!
  • Member
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 16,502
  • International Cracker of Wise
I'm trying to stay out of the argument about whether states have a right to secede.  I am not a Constitutional scholar, like our last President (Har!).

"Congress shall  make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech" seemed explicit to me, but then again, I'm not a Constitutional scholar.  I'm just looking at the plain language.  It seems lawyers and scholars are constantly finding ways to twist language that seems pretty clear to me.  I didn't mean to give offense.
Thanks to Cripplecreek and Oceander for the medal! 
From Member DB:  Once you've allowed yourself to be sold, all that remains is for how much.

Online INVAR

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 6,377
    • Sword At The Ready
I said absolutely nothing about where the right was derived.  It comes from the Almighty. You should know me better than that.

I was simply addressing your statement of a factual truth which came across as indifference.  I was not addressing your mindset and position regarding where rights come from.  I was responding to the debate about whether the Constitution grants explicit permission of free speech, which it does not because as Hoodat pointed out - it only explicitly forbids Congress from ABRIDGING free speech.  The word 'whatever' came across as blasé and indifference when it should not be so.

Too many people think our rights come from grant of government or grant of parchment.

They do not, and it should not be 'whatever' to a Conservative attempting to preserve those rights, which I know is a core of your being.

Just a friendly admonishment.
“Fart for freedom, fart for liberty—and fart proudly.”  - Benjamin Franklin

“If we must have an enemy at the head of Government, let it be one whom we can oppose, and for whom we are not responsible, who will not involve our party in the disgrace of his foolish and bad measures.”  - Alexander Hamilton

Online Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! It's what's for dinner!
  • Member
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 16,502
  • International Cracker of Wise
I was simply addressing your statement of a factual truth which came across as indifference.  I was not addressing your mindset and position regarding where rights come from.  I was responding to the debate about whether the Constitution grants explicit permission of free speech, which it does not because as Hoodat pointed out - it only explicitly forbids Congress from ABRIDGING free speech.  The word 'whatever' came across as blasé and indifference when it should not be so.

Too many people think our rights come from grant of government or grant of parchment.

They do not, and it should not be 'whatever' to a Conservative attempting to preserve those rights, which I know is a core of your being.

Just a friendly admonishment.

Then I took it in the spirit it was intended!   :beer:

This is why I'm trying to stay out of this argument.
Thanks to Cripplecreek and Oceander for the medal! 
From Member DB:  Once you've allowed yourself to be sold, all that remains is for how much.

Offline bigheadfred

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,535
IMO, no state should, at this point, feel the need to secede. Their reasons for such should be examined. And remedy THOSE problems. One of the problems I see is that courts are ruling we the people have no standing. That probably started with the 11th Amendment.

Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution took away the states’ sovereign immunity

Modified by Amendment XI

My definition, again, of slavery: I have no redress.

The question that lies at the heart of the Eleventh Amendment is whether the individual states can still be regarded as possessing sovereignty: complete legal independence. This certainly was the position for the first decade of independence under the Articles of Confederation. But did this position continue under the U.S. Constitution, which was ratified in 1788?

No, it did not, is my answer.

IMO, if you think you have to ask if you can secede, you can't afford it.






Online Smokin Joe

  • Member
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 15,363
  • The light at the end of the tunnel.
If every state was a sovereign country, why did the U.S. congress reject the Articles of Confederation for the present constitution that gives the fed. gov. power over the states?
All the tenth amendment says regarding the matter is that all powers/laws not specifically delegated/enumerated as federal laws belong to the states.
Why isn't there something in the constitution about states being sovereign countries that are free to secede any time they feel like it? Because the states weren't sovereign, that's why. States serve as an effective vehicle of federalism. They are a means to prevent sole control of everything by an all-powerful fed. gov.
States are parts of the union.  That's all they are.
I'll ask you again...why would the U.S. gov. make an ex territory a sovereign country? They wouldn't.
The US rejected the Articles of Confederation because they were not working. That was the reason for the Constitutional Convention. The Constitution gave limited powers to the Federal Government, only those for a group of individual powers to function to provide standards for improved commerce and their mutual defense, and set up a few rules that all would agree to go by.  We're talking about the original 13 here, not the Dakota Territory. Before the War of Northern Aggression the word "State" had an entirely different meaning, one further eroded by the 17th Amendment later on.

One of my ancestors swore an oath to the Sovereign state of Maryland, after the Revolution.

Look up the Word for Country--ca 1776: "State".
No other country in the world was broken into subunits called "States", the country was the state and the subunits were described as provinces or counties.
All of the States, as colonies, had issued money. Counties don't. Provinces don't. That's a national thing.
A confederation or even a federation is a group of sovereign governments untied for a common purpose like the European Federation.
How God must weep at humans' folly! Stand fast! God knows what he is doing!
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression
And I looked, and rose up, and said unto the nobles, and to the rulers, and to the rest of the people, Be not ye afraid of them: remember the Lord, which is great and terrible, and fight for your brethren, your sons, and your daughters, your wives, and your houses. Nehemiah 4:14 (KJV)

About the only "Big" Liberals don't revile is "Big Government"

Offline Wingnut

  • Bicycling Forum Mod.
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 17,169
  • I'm a Psyclepath.
Then I took it in the spirit it was intended!   :beer:

This is why I'm trying to stay out of this argument.
Sometimes Bro... very very late at night.... when you settle easy into your bed, and you are sleeping the sleep of the just, .....   I lost my thought.  You are on your own.
This highway leads to the shadowy tip of reality: you're on a through route to the land of the different, the bizarre, the unexplainable...Go as far as you like on this road. Its limits are only those of mind itself. Ladies and Gentlemen, you're entering the wondrous dimension of imagination. Next stop....The Briefing Room

Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 22,542
  • The income tax: Root of all evil!
    • The FairTax Plan
The US rejected the Articles of Confederation because they were not working. That was the reason for the Constitutional Convention. The Constitution gave limited powers to the Federal Government, only those for a group of individual powers to function to provide standards for improved commerce and their mutual defense, and set up a few rules that all would agree to go by.  We're talking about the original 13 here, not the Dakota Territory. Before the War of Northern Aggression the word "State" had an entirely different meaning, one further eroded by the 17th Amendment later on.

One of my ancestors swore an oath to the Sovereign state of Maryland, after the Revolution.

Look up the Word for Country--ca 1776: "State".
No other country in the world was broken into subunits called "States", the country was the state and the subunits were described as provinces or counties.
All of the States, as colonies, had issued money. Counties don't. Provinces don't. That's a national thing.
A confederation or even a federation is a group of sovereign governments untied for a common purpose like the European Federation.

His mind is made up and has no wish to be confused with facts.

Online Smokin Joe

  • Member
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 15,363
  • The light at the end of the tunnel.
It's not explicit at all.  Please do not attribute terms to my statement (e.g. "enough") that I did not utter.

Correct.  These truths are self evident.  We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights.  And that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.   (key word:  Consent)  And whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

At least that's what our Founding Fathers believed.

Just to clarify, GoatPrairie is arguing that since the Constitution does not explicitly grant the right of secession to the States, then no such right exists.  And by doing so, he completely ignores the wording of Amendment X which shows that not all rights are explicitly listed.

My counter-argument showed that the Constitution does not explicitly grant the right to free speech, or the right to vote.  Thus by GoatPrairie's argument, people do not have those rights either.
Even more to the point, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights do not grant any Rights at all. They delegate specific and narrow powers to the Federal Government and provide statutory protections (now largely ignored) for the Powers and Rights of the States and of the People, respectively.

Those Rights possessed by the People are unalienable, beyond the scope of man to grant or remove, only the exercise of those Rights may be infringed by a usurping government, which by letter of the law is forbidden.
The powers of the States are established by the Constitutions of those several States, agreed to by the citizens of those states. ("several" being an adjective, meaning distinct, capable of being dealt with separately.)

When the Government seeks to infringe on those Rights, enumerated or not, it has exceeded its lawful boundaries and must cease and desist or it renders itself void by its noncompliance.
How God must weep at humans' folly! Stand fast! God knows what he is doing!
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression
And I looked, and rose up, and said unto the nobles, and to the rulers, and to the rest of the people, Be not ye afraid of them: remember the Lord, which is great and terrible, and fight for your brethren, your sons, and your daughters, your wives, and your houses. Nehemiah 4:14 (KJV)

About the only "Big" Liberals don't revile is "Big Government"

Online INVAR

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 6,377
    • Sword At The Ready
When the Government seeks to infringe on those Rights, enumerated or not, it has exceeded its lawful boundaries and must cease and desist or it renders itself void by its noncompliance.

It has rendered itself illegitimate long ago and established its abject and irredeemable corruption and lawlessness in the last several years.   It exists in it's overpowering state only by the threat of confiscating what you have and putting a gun to your head to force compliance.

Now that it has decreed itself the arbiter of life and death and what constitutes marriage and sex - it is an egregious affront to God. That we this people have empowered it to this state - have now brought upon ourselves the incurred Judgement that is being pronounced upon us and we have not yet even begun to experience the consequences we have sown for ourselves.
“Fart for freedom, fart for liberty—and fart proudly.”  - Benjamin Franklin

“If we must have an enemy at the head of Government, let it be one whom we can oppose, and for whom we are not responsible, who will not involve our party in the disgrace of his foolish and bad measures.”  - Alexander Hamilton

Offline goatprairie

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2,062
Even more to the point, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights do not grant any Rights at all. They delegate specific and narrow powers to the Federal Government and provide statutory protections (now largely ignored) for the Powers and Rights of the States and of the People, respectively.

Those Rights possessed by the People are unalienable, beyond the scope of man to grant or remove, only the exercise of those Rights may be infringed by a usurping government, which by letter of the law is forbidden.
The powers of the States are established by the Constitutions of those several States, agreed to by the citizens of those states. ("several" being an adjective, meaning distinct, capable of being dealt with separately.)

When the Government seeks to infringe on those Rights, enumerated or not, it has exceeded its lawful boundaries and must cease and desist or it renders itself void by its noncompliance.
Please start naming all the terrible oppressive things the North was doing to the South before the onset of hostilities.

Online Smokin Joe

  • Member
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 15,363
  • The light at the end of the tunnel.
Please start naming all the terrible oppressive things the North was doing to the South before the onset of hostilities.
You won't read them anyway, so I'll go pull weeds in the garden. Others have listed plenty.

How God must weep at humans' folly! Stand fast! God knows what he is doing!
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression
And I looked, and rose up, and said unto the nobles, and to the rulers, and to the rest of the people, Be not ye afraid of them: remember the Lord, which is great and terrible, and fight for your brethren, your sons, and your daughters, your wives, and your houses. Nehemiah 4:14 (KJV)

About the only "Big" Liberals don't revile is "Big Government"

Online InHeavenThereIsNoBeer

  • TBR Advisory Committee
  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,177
Please start naming all the terrible oppressive things the North was doing to the South before the onset of hostilities.

This is a very good question, IMO.

The Southern States chose to leave the Union.  I personally believe that the primary reason was to protect slavery, which I find disgusting, but IMO they had the right to choose their form of government.

At this point, the Northern States attacked the Southern States.  Why?  Clearly if slavery had been the issue the Northern States could have attacked years ago. Therefore the question becomes what terrible oppressive things the North was doing to the South before the onset of hostilities were wurth protecting at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives?

Online INVAR

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 6,377
    • Sword At The Ready
Please start naming all the terrible oppressive things the North was doing to the South before the onset of hostilities.

Essentially the same damn thing the Federal Beast is doing to us now.  The difference is the lynch pin of using slavery as the justification to force the South back into the union when their legislatures voted to end their compact with the Feds since the urban/industrial North broke the covenant.

Economics once again - taxation, spending and intrusion of government on the lives and businesses of those in sovereign states.

Raising an army to invade the South to forcibly disband the state legislatures that voted by the clear mandate of their constituencies and force them back into servitude of the union was the final straw. 

To disregard the will of the people, nullify their demand to be left alone, is the epitome of a meddlesome tyranny.  The South was simply wise enough to know where it would all lead.

And just like Antifa and their propagandists in the media are using White Supremacy as a cause to foster a state of war, so too did Lincoln use slavery as the cause to foster war to force sovereign states into obeisance and establish Statism with a powerful federal beast as Sovereign.

Now the beast is self-aware after 150 years of a people continuing to feed it, and once again the urban blue areas think it is fitting to dictate to the rest of the country - what kind of government and culture we must bow down to, and what we must surrender in order to be left alone.
“Fart for freedom, fart for liberty—and fart proudly.”  - Benjamin Franklin

“If we must have an enemy at the head of Government, let it be one whom we can oppose, and for whom we are not responsible, who will not involve our party in the disgrace of his foolish and bad measures.”  - Alexander Hamilton

Offline goatprairie

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2,062
It's not explicit at all.  Please do not attribute terms to my statement (e.g. "enough") that I did not utter.

Correct.  These truths are self evident.  We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights.  And that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.   (key word:  Consent)  And whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

At least that's what our Founding Fathers believed.

Just to clarify, GoatPrairie is arguing that since the Constitution does not explicitly grant the right of secession to the States, then no such right exists.  And by doing so, he completely ignores the wording of Amendment X which shows that not all rights are explicitly listed.

My counter-argument showed that the Constitution does not explicitly grant the right to free speech, or the right to vote.  Thus by GoatPrairie's argument, people do not have those rights either.
You are the one trying to interpret what the amendment says to your favor drawing a conclusion that is not implied. 
All American laws are purportedly derived from an interpretation of the constitution.  That's why we have  a SC that deliberates on laws passed by men. 
Sure, we all have natural rights that cannot be taken away by the government.
I've already listed one of the rights as the right to rebel against an unjust government. But we are also a nation of laws designed and enforced by men. 
To say because the constitution doesn't specifically forbid state secession, virtually anything not mentioned in the constitution should be allowed?
You know there are all types of human behavior that we have passed laws about that are nowhere mentioned in the constitution. I don't believe I have to list some of the vile behaviors of the sexual sort that some people engage in that have been outlawed but not specifically mentioned in the U.S.constitution.
But wouldn't you think that something that would be as momentous and fraught with ramifications and repercussions like a state being  allowed to legally leave the union would have been enunciated in the constitution?
Again, if states were presumed to be sovereign entities loosely held together by a weak fed. gov.  why did the FFs give the fed. gov. laws dominance over individual state laws.
Why did they make a union rather than keep with a confederation? Because they considered states subordinate entitles to the fed. gov.
They rejected the idea of a very weak fed. goverment with the understanding that the fed. gov's role was to be as limited as possible.  That doesn't mean in the slightest that they considered states sovereign entities or separate nations.
But once again we're ignoring the big question:  why did the states secede?
They didn't secede because they thought the fed. gov. was too big or because the North was economically raping the South with tariffs.  They seceded because they feared their institution of slavery was going to be destroyed.  And they were right to think so. Except instead of it happening in 20-40 years, it happened in four years.

Offline mountaineer

  • Member
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 35,684
And now for a moment of clarity:
Life is too short to leave the key to your happiness in someone else's pocket.

Online Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! It's what's for dinner!
  • Member
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 16,502
  • International Cracker of Wise
And now for a moment of clarity:

That cow's not dead yet....
Thanks to Cripplecreek and Oceander for the medal! 
From Member DB:  Once you've allowed yourself to be sold, all that remains is for how much.

Offline Hoodat

  • R 8:37
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2,775
Please start naming all the terrible oppressive things the North was doing to the South before the onset of hostilities.

Not relevant.  You do not get to be the arbiter of whether Virginia has a good enough reason to secede.  Virginia does.
Yet in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us.

Offline bigheadfred

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,535
Not relevant.  You do not get to be the arbiter of whether Virginia has a good enough reason to secede.  Virginia does.

IMO, whether the Constitution says anything about secession is not really the point.

If any state wants to try they can.

The whole point of secession is to stop worrying about and obeying the laws of the country you want to leave.


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf