The Briefing Room
General Category => Editorial/Opinion/Blogs => Topic started by: rangerrebew on August 12, 2014, 11:08:03 am
-
Yet Again Republicans Fight Grassroot Conservatives Harder Than They Fight The Democrats
Posted on August 7, 2014 by Steve Deace — 10 Comments
We have become a nation of two Americas, with two dramatically different value systems attempting to fly the same flag simultaneously. Similarly, there are now also two Republican Parties, each claiming the same branding but with two dramatically different visions.
For the Republican Party establishment, the focus remains on the immediate: the next news cycle. The next election is their idea of long-term thinking. For those of us out here in the grassroots, we don’t have that luxury, because those of us living outside the beltway bubble see our very way of life is at stake. We’re fighting for cultural survival, and they’re fighting for… well, actually they’re fighting us and not them.
Never was this divide more apparent than last week.
Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-Ohio) told The Washington Times in a story, that has about 3,000 more comments (almost all of them negative) than actual words, that pursuing impeachment against the most lawless president in history was “a scam started by Democrats.”
Interesting, I guess all the Tea Party leaders I’ve had on my nationally-syndicated radio show calling for President Barack Obama’s impeachment the past 16 months were tools of “a scam started by Democrats,” and they didn’t even know it.
I guess former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is “a scam started by Democrats” and she didn’t know it, either.
I guess the majority of Republicans who want to see Obama impeached for his now-daily constitutional crises are also “a scam started by Democrats.”
I guess respected conservative thinker Andrew McCarthy, author of the new book “Faithless Execution: Building the Political Case for Obama’s Impeachment” is a “scam started by Democrats.”
My, what a mighty “big tent” we have.
Listen, I live in the real world. I understand impeachment isn’t happening at the moment because while Obama grows more unpopular by the nano-second, the country as a whole hasn’t reached that sort of critical mass yet.
So imagine if the speaker had said something like this instead:
“I understand the frustrations of our constituents. No one is more aware of this president’s continued lawlessness than I am. But impeachment is a drastic measure, done only twice in American history. It’s the political equivalent to capital punishment, and in order to pull it off there needs to be a clear sign this is something a majority of the American people want. Right now, we’re just not there. This November we’ll have an election, and the American people have a chance to send a resounding message they want a check and balance on this president’s lawlessness. If they send that message, and the president ignores the American people and persists down the lawless road he’s currently on, then it may be time for the American people to ask the people’s House to do something drastic. But something that drastic should come from us responding to the wishes of the American people.”
I think most of us in the grassroots would’ve been satisfied, or least understanding, of words to that effect. First you have to win the debate, and then you win the vote. If you want to impeach Obama you have to take that case to the American people to create that critical mass, lest you be guilty of a lesser type of constitutional/political overreach we’re accusing Obama of.
But that’s not what the speaker said.
Instead, a man that through a series of continuing resolutions has funded all of Obama’s anti-constitutional schemes the past three years, and last week was trying to give a president he’s suing for lawlessness even more of our money, dismissed and patronized the legitimate fears of his own base as a “scam.”
The message the speaker just sent to the grassroots of the Republican Party is that race-baiting your own base to win a senate primary in Mississippi is good politics, but standing up to a president who is singlehandedly doing more to dismantle American exceptionalism than any political figure in our history is bad politics. Yet again the GOP establishment fights its own base with more ruthlessness than it opposes Obama.
And these people wonder why the Republican Party is so divided.
They tell us we can’t defund any of Obama’s schemes because that will cause a showdown that may cost us an election. We can’t impeach Obama, either, because that would cost us the election as well. And then we won’t be able to fight next year, because that may cost us the 2016 election. Wash, rinse, repeat.
Meanwhile, the country burns as Obama gets to do whatever he wants, whenever he wants, to whomever he wants – with our money. Culprits always need collaborators, and Boehner and the rest of his feckless ilk are Obama’s.
As a young libertarian named Rocco sarcastically put it on my Facebook wall, “[Republican leaders] have decided to allow the country to suffer for the purposes of winning elections, and my generation is becoming a lost generation. I’m glad a bunch of D.C. consultants decided that it was a good strategy to sacrifice the nation to win elections, though.”
Former California GOP Chairman Tom Del Beccaro warned my audience last week not to assume this is going to be a big Republican year, because “Republicans are just running out the clock” and not showing any real leadership on the issues. Del Beccaro said Republicans aren’t offering the American people anything as a contrast to what they don’t like about Obama, and he fears that could thwart major GOP gains as a result. Increasingly, my audience – most of them Republicans – is asking me what will really change next year if the GOP gains control of the U.S. Senate in November.
I’m struggling to provide them a substantive answer.
Especially with Boehner originally offering up a border crisis bill that does nothing to actually address the premise of the problem to begin with, but does give Obama another $659 million to waste. Next comes a bill to allegedly fix the Veterans Affairs scandal, but really just reads like another massive pork-barrel spending/entitlement cash-grab they will hurry up and pass without actually reading.
Boehner’s answer to Obama’s lawlessness is to keep funding it. Or the filing of some lawsuit asking judges to violate their separation of powers, by doing Boehner’s Constitutionally-mandated oversight job for him. With taxpayers footing the exorbitant cost for all the billable hours accumulated by trial lawyers on both sides, of course.
I get asked all the time when is it time for a third party, but I think I’d like to see what a second party looks like first.
Read more at http://politicaloutcast.com/2014/08/yet-republicans-fight-grassroot-conservatives-harder-fight-democrats/#sJFHl6uIdFyZHfZw.99
-
"I get asked all the time when is it time for a third party, but I think I’d like to see what a second party looks like first."
I hope you're not holding your breath.
-
I'm sorry, but I totally 'get' why the GOP is fighting "grassroot Conservatives" rather than taking the fight to the RATS.
Real "power" is won at the ballot box, that's why.
They are focusing on trying to make sure no more Todd Aikens are out there.....or 'witches' either for that matter.
-
The sole purpose of the Republican Party is to serve as an ineffective alternative to the Democrat Party.
-
I'm sorry, but I totally 'get' why the GOP is fighting "grassroot Conservatives" rather than taking the fight to the RATS.
Real "power" is won at the ballot box, that's why.
They are focusing on trying to make sure no more Todd Aikens are out there.....or 'witches' either for that matter.
Except for the fact that there was not a thing wrong in what Todd Akin said and there never was any witch I'm right there with you!
Will we EVER stop letting the media choose our candidates for us? It seems not!!!
-
I'm sorry, but I totally 'get' why the GOP is fighting "grassroot Conservatives" rather than taking the fight to the RATS.
Real "power" is won at the ballot box, that's why.
They are focusing on trying to make sure no more Todd Aikens are out there.....or 'witches' either for that matter.
Todd Akin, for the umpteenth time, was the GOP establishment candidate.
-
Todd Akin, for the umpteenth time, was the GOP establishment candidate.
Nevertheless, I'm glad to see the Party leadership thoroughly vet their party members and candidates to make sure there's nothing in the closet that can they can trot out a month before the election to lose the particular seat.
if the Tea Party candidate wins....I'm all for it. If they don't...no big deal. The enemy is Barack Obama's policy and the Democrats.
-
Nevertheless, I'm glad to see the Party leadership thoroughly vet their party members and candidates to make sure there's nothing in the closet that can they can trot out a month before the election to lose the particular seat.
if the Tea Party candidate wins....I'm all for it. If they don't...no big deal. The enemy is Barack Obama's policy and the Democrats.
:thumbsup:
-
Todd Akin, for the umpteenth time, was the GOP establishment candidate.
Todd Akin was a member of the US House of Representatives Tea Party Caucus. FACT.
That makes him Tea Party, among common sense non-hairsplitters.
-
Nevertheless, I'm glad to see the Party leadership thoroughly vet their party members and candidates to make sure there's nothing in the closet that can they can trot out a month before the election to lose the particular seat.
if the Tea Party candidate wins....I'm all for it. If they don't...no big deal. The enemy is Barack Obama's policy and the Democrats.
The fact that all incumbent Senators running in GOP primaries won give us an excellent chance of taking the Senate. No cock-fighting supporters, or ex-talk show hosts out there to embarrass the Republicans and take everybody else down too.
-
The democratic party has been screwing America since Moby Dick was a minnow. When some democrats and whigs became the republican party, they offered a good alternative. Since then they have become weak kneed, spineless, whipping posts for the democrats who are still screwing America since the same old way.
-
The democratic party has been screwing America since Moby Dick was a minnow. When some democrats and whigs became the republican party, they offered a good alternative. Since then they have become weak kneed, spineless, whipping posts for the democrats who are still screwing America since the same old way.
Are you including Reagan in that description of the GOP?
In 1854, the new Republican Party alternative to the Democrats was opposition to slavery.
-
Are you including Reagan in that description of the GOP?
In 1854, the new Republican Party alternative to the Democrats was opposition to slavery.
Completely and totally WRONG!
-
Completely and totally WRONG!
Explain.
-
Explain.
The then new Republican party was about protecting the interests of Northern industrialists in every way possible and slavery had nothing at all to do with it except as a convenience.
-
The then new Republican party was about protecting the interests of Northern industrialists in every way possible and slavery had nothing at all to do with it except as a convenience.
You might want to look at the 1856 Republican platform as well as the Lincoln/Douglas Debates in 1858...not to mention the 1860 campaign. The 1860 platform stood against any expansion of slavery into the territories, and was an extension of the Whig principles. The Republicans not only ended slavery and saved the Union, but forced enactment of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. It reminds me of Democrats who say Slavery had nothing to do with the confederacy.
I recommend "Back to Basics for the Republican Party" by Michael Zak. Might provide a different perspective for the self-described conservatives of today.
-
You might want to look at the 1856 Republican platform as well as the Lincoln/Douglas Debates in 1858...not to mention the 1860 campaign. The 1860 platform stood against any expansion of slavery into the territories, and was an extension of the Whig principles. The Republicans not only ended slavery and saved the Union, but forced enactment of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. It reminds me of Democrats who say Slavery had nothing to do with the confederacy.
I recommend "Back to Basics for the Republican Party" by Michael Zak. Might provide a different perspective for the self-described conservatives of today.
As I said! Only as a matter of convenience!
The then Republican party was full of former Whigs who LOVED to pass out government money to their corporate friends. They wanted that to continue and the tariff to be as high as necessary to protect them from having to compete with British manufacturing and to hell with how that harmed the people who actually had to pay it!
And BTW! The ranks of the early Republican Party, and Lincoln's army, was filled with the former leaders of failed European socialist revelations that had taken place in 1848 who had escaped to America from their former homes one step ahead of the hangman!
Learn some REAL history instead of the public school BS you have been fed all your life.
This might help get you started.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forty-Eighters
-
As I said! Only as a matter of convenience!
The then Republican party was full of former Whigs who LOVED to pass out government money to their corporate friends. They wanted that to continue and the tariff to be as high as necessary to protect them from having to compete with British manufacturing and to hell with how that harmed the people who actually had to pay it!
And BTW! The ranks of the early Republican Party, and Lincoln's army, was filled with the former leaders of failed European socialist revelations that had taken place in 1848 who had escaped to America from their former homes one step ahead of the hangman!
Learn some REAL history instead of the public school BS you have been fed all your life.
The former Whigs were the party that pushed for infrastructure for the expanding Nation. The Republican Party of 1854 and ahead was made up principally from the North, and stood against the expansion of slavery. As Kansas was a primary target of the slave expansion, it was the focus of the Republican platform of 1856 and of course led to the 1858 and 1860 campaigns.
As for "REAL history", I again recommend the book I listed above. You sir might learn something. :pondering:
-
MAC wrote above:
[[ The Republicans ... forced enactment of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments... ]]
In retrospect, I wish that they hadn't.
We are still paying for those amendments today, and they have done nothing good for the history of this country.
No apologies for this statement.
-
I don't see how the 48ers prove the Republican party was NOT based on abolition of slavery, which had been controversial since the founding, and already taken place in Britain.
-
I don't see how the 48ers prove the Republican party was NOT based on abolition of slavery, which had been controversial since the founding, and already taken place in Britain.
It was a means to an end (to undermine and destroy the Constitution for REPUBLIC of the United States) and it worked quite well.
-
MAC wrote above:
[[ The Republicans ... forced enactment of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments... ]]
In retrospect, I wish that they hadn't.
We are still paying for those amendments today, and they have done nothing good for the history of this country.
No apologies for this statement.
And slavery was a positive influence on the history of this Country? On the right side of the aisle we frequently refer to God given rights, including of course freedom. Do they exist only for certain humans?
-
It was a means to an end (to undermine and destroy the Constitution for REPUBLIC of the United States) and it worked quite well.
I'm not sure how keeping this Nation together and ending slavery undermined and destroyed our republic. Might be my two years of public school education that's dimming my understanding. I actually attended Catholic school my first ten years.
Anyway perhaps we're discussing the issue of "states-rights" trumping human rights in a republican form of government? If so, yes, that would be a major difference between the Whig-Republican Party of 1856-60 and the Democrat Party.
-
And slavery was a positive influence on the history of this Country? On the right side of the aisle we frequently refer to God given rights, including of course freedom. Do they exist only for certain humans?
Apparently it was impossible to both end slavery and not increase the power of a central government.
Or was one just a convenient excuse to bring in the other?
-
Todd Akin was a member of the US House of Representatives Tea Party Caucus. FACT.
That makes him Tea Party, among common sense non-hairsplitters.
Yet his two opponents, John Brunner and Sarah Steelman, were not part of federal office. Steelman was a state treasurer, a common position held by many Tea Party candidates, including Richard Mourdock. Brunner had never held office.
In contrast, Akin had served six terms in U.S. Congress up to that point.
Of the three, he was the establishment candidate. He had established himself in Washington 12 years before his opponents. FACT.
-
Apparently it was impossible to both end slavery and not increase the power of a central government.
Or was one just a convenient excuse to bring in the other?
Fair point. The real pre-war issue was the expansion of slavery into territories rather than slavery in established states. As anti-slavery as the new Republican Party was, it wasn't prepared to try to force abolition in the South, and didn't have the votes in Congress in any case. But with expansion of the Nation, the South understood that sooner or later Congress would have enough free states to force the issue. Thus the Civil War.
And yes, in the end it did increase the power of the federal government.
-
Fair point. The real pre-war issue was the expansion of slavery into territories rather than slavery in established states. As anti-slavery as the new Republican Party was, it wasn't prepared to try to force abolition in the South, and didn't have the votes in Congress in any case. But with expansion of the Nation, the South understood that sooner or later Congress would have enough free states to force the issue. Thus the Civil War.
And yes, in the end it did increase the power of the federal government.
Ending slavery was hardly a ruse, for expanding government power. Ending slavery had religious origins going back centuries.
-
Ending slavery was hardly a ruse, for expanding government power. Ending slavery had religious origins going back centuries.
Not a ruse. Abolition was certainly the ultimate goal of the Whigs-Republicans. But the ultimate result was a stronger federal (central) government. Could it have been achieved without a stronger central government? Doubt it. And the Republicans were very divided in those goals and timetables. Almost as divided as they are today. The Radical Republicans wanted an immediate end to slavery and harsh punishment for the South. But Lincoln was in many respects more pragmatic.
But if I understood Dan's rhetorical question, the relationship between the two wasn't minor.
On your point of religious objections to slavery, religion was also used to justify it at least in the South.
-
Not a ruse. Abolition was certainly the ultimate goal of the Whigs-Republicans. But the ultimate result was a stronger federal (central) government. Could it have been achieved without a stronger central government? Doubt it. And the Republicans were very divided in those goals and timetables. Almost as divided as they are today. The Radical Republicans wanted an immediate end to slavery and harsh punishment for the South. But Lincoln was in many respects more pragmatic.
But if I understood Dan's rhetorical question, the relationship between the two wasn't minor.
On your point of religious objections to slavery, religion was also used to justify it at least in the South.
All this strikes me as yet another rehash of the olde worn argument that:
--"the Civil War was not over slavery," and now we hear it contended that
--"the Republican Party was not founded centering on abolition of slavery."
-
All this strikes me as yet another rehash of the olde worn argument that:
--"the Civil War was not over slavery," and now we hear it contended that
--"the Republican Party was not founded centering on abolition of slavery."
The Civil War, known in these parts as "The War of Northern Aggression", was fought by the South to keep the new states open to slavery. From the North's part, it was to hold together the Nation. But Lincoln wasn't holding the issue of slavery as a requirement for ending the war...at least not at the start. Even after the Emancipation Proclamation he issued in Sept 62, he didn't push for an end to slavery as far as the rest of the Nation went until the end of the war.
But as I've said, the Republican Party was very much abolitionist, some extremely so; some pragmatically so. And the Party was even more splintered during Reconstruction with the Radical Republicans demanding far more of the South than others in the Party.
-
The Civil War, known in these parts as "The War of Northern Aggression", was fought by the South to keep the new states open to slavery. From the North's part, it was to hold together the Nation. But Lincoln wasn't holding the issue of slavery as a requirement for ending the war...at least not at the start. Even after the Emancipation Proclamation he issued in Sept 62, he didn't push for an end to slavery as far as the rest of the Nation went until the end of the war.
But as I've said, the Republican Party was very much abolitionist, some extremely so; some pragmatically so. And the Party was even more splintered during Reconstruction with the Radical Republicans demanding far more of the South than others in the Party.
Just a tad bit more complicated than that I'm afraid. You seem to forget all about the Missouri Compromise, the Compromise of 1850, and The Kansas-Nebraska Act Not all new states would have been admitted as slave states and you know it! And then we have the issue of an extremely high tariff which sough to protect the northern industrialist from foreign competition and force the southern planters to buy ONLY from them as well as the issue of "internal improvements" which worked well for the north and did nothing for the south. No. It was not nearly as simple as you seem to want to make it As is the case in ALL wars, the victor gets to write the history books and they are mostly not worth the paper they are printed on if one wants to know what REALLY happened!
The fact is that Mr. Lincoln walked all over the U.S. Constitution in order to pursue his war and thus opened wide the doors through which every progressive since have walked. We STILL TODAY suffer from what he and his party did during that time.
-
The Republicans not only ended slavery and saved the Union, but forced enactment of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments.
Exactly right! Forced! I fail to find any mechanism in the U.S. Constitution which allows the Federal government to FORCE a state legislature to do anything.
-
Just a tad bit more complicated than that I'm afraid. You seem to forget all about the Missouri Compromise, the Compromise of 1850, and The Kansas-Nebraska Act Not all new states would have been admitted as slave states and you know it! And then we have the issue of an extremely high tariff which sough to protect the northern industrialist from foreign competition and force the southern planters to buy ONLY from them as well as the issue of "internal improvements" which worked well for the north and did nothing for the south. No. It was not nearly as simple as you seem to want to make it As is the case in ALL wars, the victor gets to write the history books and they are mostly not worth the paper they are printed on if one wants to know what REALLY happened!
Well Bigun, you don't seem to have any problem writing your version of history. The Kansas Nebraska Act was actually one of the major events that led to the war. Bleeding Kansas was the attempt of both sides to "influence" Kansans to vote for either freedom or slavery.
Many of my fellow South Carolinians still believe Lincoln started the war, in spite of the fact that SC seceded well before Lincoln took office. These folks, well meaning, don't like to talk about the Confederate constitution which prohibited a state from ever determining its own slave-holding future. Slavery was a constitutional requirement, not a state's option. As for the alleged economic problems of the South, the wealth of the Deep South and Border South states was far greater than any other region of the US, including the manufacturing centers. The Confederate States wealth made them the 4th largest "country" in the world. But their wealth was almost entirely derived from slavery, and the threat of new states coming in free and ultimately outlawing slavery in the US was too terrible a proposition for them to contemplate. Yes, money was the ultimate issue, but money from the sweat and blood of slaves.
The fact is that Mr. Lincoln walked all over the U.S. Constitution in order to pursue his war and thus opened wide the doors through which every progressive since have walked. We STILL TODAY suffer from what he and his party did during that time.
President Lincoln didn't start the war. The unconstitutional confederacy did. Thank God we kept the Union together and ended slavery at the same time.
But as you say, we obviously have differing opinions on this part of our history.
-
Exactly right! Forced! I fail to find any mechanism in the U.S. Constitution which allows the Federal government to FORCE a state legislature to do anything.
It was a requirement of reconstruction, and the state legislatures did so willingly if not happily.
-
President Lincoln didn't start the war. The unconstitutional confederacy did. Thank God we kept the Union together and ended slavery at the same time.
But as you say, we obviously have differing opinions on this part of our history.
By any means necessary! The ends Justify the means! I've heard it all before it seems!
You are very right about us having different opinions on this part of our history. I strongly suspect that will not change! Your only problem is that I have the facts and the law on my side and you are left with only pounding on the table!
-
By any means necessary! The ends Justify the means! I've heard it all before it seems!
You are very right about us having different opinions on this part of our history is I strongly suspect that will not change! Your only problem is that I have the facts and the law on my side and you are left with only pounding on the table!
The worst thing Lincoln had been legitimately accused of was the period he set aside the Writ of Habeas Corpus. Now a lot of people bellyache about that and whether or not it was essential, but as you are well aware, war is war. At the same time, the South was fighting to preserve one of history's most heinous institutions. But I think about what has gone on in the 20th Century and even up to today, and I wonder how well a balkanized North America would have been able to come to the free world's aid on more than one occasion.
As for facts, I'm still waiting. No table pounding here, just you resorting to some silliness. And I've given you quite a few facts, and no real rebuttals.
-
The worst thing Lincoln had been legitimately accused of was the period he set aside the Writ of Habeas Corpus. Now a lot of people bellyache about that and whether or not it was essential, but as you are well aware, war is war. At the same time, the South was fighting to preserve one of history's most heinous institutions. But I think about what has gone on in the 20th Century and even up to today, and I wonder how well a balkanized North America would have been able to come to the free world's aid on more than one occasion.
As for facts, I'm still waiting. No table pounding here, just you resorting to some silliness. And I've given you quite a few facts, and no real rebuttals.
Here are a few facts for you!
There is not one word in the U.S. Constitution which would prevent a state from leaving the union should it decide that it is in it's best interests to do so.
Maryland's legislature was prevented from leaving the union by force of arms! An act nowhere authorized in that same Constitution.
The Constitution forbids the formation of any new state with the boundaries of an already existing state yet we have today the state of West Virginia.
Lincoln unconstitutionally ordered all manner of war spending without any authorization of congress.
For starters.
But the end justifies the means doesn't it and might makes right!
-
Here are a few facts for you!
There is not one word in the U.S. Constitution which would prevent a state from leaving the union should it decide that it is in it's best interests to do so.
Maryland's legislature was prevented from leaving the union by force of arms! An act nowhere authorized in that same Constitution.
The Constitution forbids the formation of any new state with the boundaries of an already existing state yet we have today the state of West Virginia.
Lincoln unconstitutionally ordered all manner of war spending without any authorization of congress.
For starters.
But the end justifies the means doesn't it and might makes right!
Outside of Texas v White in which the USSC determined that secession was unconstitutional, one can look at who empowered the Constitution. It was "We the People", not We the States. And it was enacted to create a "more perfect union", one that was perfected from the previous "perpetual union". But the framers did provide means for amending the Constitution, and to my knowledge no secession amendments have been ratified. It leaves only force of arms to dissolve the Union, since the various states are a part and parcel of that Union.
As for the creation of West Virginia, though you left out the "consent" part of the provision, constitutional scholars have argued this both ways. But West Virginia is a duly recognized state nonetheless. Of course that has nothing to do directly with the secession issue that I can see.
As for Lincoln's spending and though you left it out, his blockade, Congress authorized him to "...employ the militia and to suppress insurrections" and that authorization has been used to justify his actions. In any case, his duty to hold together the "perpetual and more perfect Union" was no doubt a greater duty than any lesser legal or constitutional issues involved in that duty.
And yes, in this case the end did justify the means...and made it right.
-
Outside of Texas v White in which the USSC determined that secession was unconstitutional, one can look at who empowered the Constitution. It was "We the People", not We the States. And it was enacted to create a "more perfect union", one that was perfected from the previous "perpetual union". But the framers did provide means for amending the Constitution, and to my knowledge no secession amendments have been ratified. It leaves only force of arms to dissolve the Union, since the various states are a part and parcel of that Union.
As for the creation of West Virginia, though you left out the "consent" part of the provision, constitutional scholars have argued this both ways. But West Virginia is a duly recognized state nonetheless. Of course that has nothing to do directly with the secession issue that I can see.
As for Lincoln's spending and though you left it out, his blockade, Congress authorized him to "...employ the militia and to suppress insurrections" and that authorization has been used to justify his actions. In any case, his duty to hold together the "perpetual and more perfect Union" was no doubt a greater duty than any lesser legal or constitutional issues involved in that duty.
And yes, in this case the end did justify the means...and made it right.
Enjoy very much your debate with both you and Bigun. Good points from both side. Especially admire your grasp of our history. :beer:
-
Enjoy very much your debate with both you and Bigun. Good points from both side. Especially admire your grasp of our history. :beer:
Thanks DC. :patriot:
-
And yes, in this case the end did justify the means...and made it right.
"And this is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for a second; that second for a third; and so on, till the bulk of the society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery, and to have no sensibilities left but for sinning and suffering.
Then begins, indeed, the bellum omnium in omnia, which some philosophers observing to be so general in this world, have mistaken it for the natural, instead of the abusive state of man.
And the fore horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression.
Thomas Jefferson, letter to Sam Kercheval about reform of the Virginia Constitution, July 12, 1816; "The Writings of Thomas Jefferson," Definitive Edition, Albert Ellery Bergh, Editor, The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association (1905) Vol. XV, p. 40
Where does it stop Mac? Does it stop?
-
Enjoy very much your debate with both you and Bigun. Good points from both side. Especially admire your grasp of our history. :beer:
I thank you as well DC! :beer:
-
Where does it stop Mac? Does it stop?
I don't know Bigun. Perhaps it's all just requiring a lot higher critic than my pay grade. But you said earlier that my historical perspective was oversimplified. And yes, you're right about that as well as who writes the history. While I stand by the facts I've found, I admit history is much more than just facts. It's judgments about right and wrong, causation versus correlation, and the weight we put on events. There are always two sides of an issue. That means there are multiple truths, and multiple moral interpretations. But we each take our position and hope we are being honest with ourselves at least.
Some things start out right (in our respective judgment) but go awry during the development and growth. What we have in Washington today is not representative of the awesome start of our history. Ending slavery and saving the Union isn't the cause of today's political nightmare. That is caused by men today. They cannot blame Lincoln or anyone else any more than Obama can continue to blame his predecessor for his actions.
Unfortunately (depending on one's perspective) our Constitution left a lot of unanswered questions, and those who left and went home that Fall day in 1787 knew that many of the serious questions would have to be answered by future generations. It was written by flawed men and today is being interpreted by flawed men. I sense we have a lot to answer for to future generations. Have a good evening.
-
I don't know Bigun. Perhaps it's all just requiring a lot higher critic than my pay grade. But you said earlier that my historical perspective was oversimplified. And yes, you're right about that as well as who writes the history. While I stand by the facts I've found, I admit history is much more than just facts. It's judgments about right and wrong, causation versus correlation, and the weight we put on events. There are always two sides of an issue. That means there are multiple truths, and multiple moral interpretations. But we each take our position and hope we are being honest with ourselves at least.
Some things start out right (in our respective judgment) but go awry during the development and growth. What we have in Washington today is not representative of the awesome start of our history. Ending slavery and saving the Union isn't the cause of today's political nightmare. That is caused by men today. They cannot blame Lincoln or anyone else any more than Obama can continue to blame his predecessor for his actions.
Unfortunately (depending on one's perspective) our Constitution left a lot of unanswered questions, and those who left and went home that Fall day in 1787 knew that many of the serious questions would have to be answered by future generations. It was written by flawed men and today is being interpreted by flawed men. I sense we have a lot to answer for to future generations. Have a good evening.
It seems to me that we would all be FAR better off if those questions were dealt with within the framework those flawed men built but that is, as you point out, just one man's opinion.
-
It seems to me that we would all be FAR better off if those questions were dealt with within the framework those flawed men built but that is, as you point out, just one man's opinion.
But isn't that what we've been doing? Most constitutional questions seem focused on what the Constitution really says and what the authors meant. And when those questions are taken to the SCOTUS, they are rarely answered with a 9-0 decision. The question of whether a state could secede was a split decision by the USSC, and in the end, the decision was crafted on logic rather than anything specific in the Constitution. But just another man's opinion, lol.
-
But isn't that what we've been doing? Most constitutional questions seem focused on what the Constitution really says and what the authors meant. And when those questions are taken to the SCOTUS, they are rarely answered with a 9-0 decision. The question of whether a state could secede was a split decision by the USSC, and in the end, the decision was crafted on logic rather than anything specific in the Constitution. But just another man's opinion, lol.
And that decision was made with a stacked court in place to ensure just the result they got IMHO!
-
Outside of Texas v White in which the USSC determined that secession was unconstitutional, one can look at who empowered the Constitution. It was "We the People", not We the States. And it was enacted to create a "more perfect union", one that was perfected from the previous "perpetual union". But the framers did provide means for amending the Constitution, and to my knowledge no secession amendments have been ratified. It leaves only force of arms to dissolve the Union, since the various states are a part and parcel of that Union.
Well! I'll give you one thing! You have the dogma down pat!
I've already partially addressed Texas Vs White in part but will add that a fellow by the name of St. George Tucker - a man most people these days have never heard of because the revisionists have made every effort to erase his name from history - even though he was a VERY prominent jurist in the history of the United States and accomplished GREAT things including annotating Blackstone's Law to incorporate the U.S. Constitution. A six volume work which was THE law book in every corner of the U.S for moist of the first half of the 19th century and about which, in-so-far as I have been able to determine, no question was raised for most of that period. The learned Mr. Tucker had a lot to say about this very issue in that work which again was not questioned for fifty years. I'll share a couple of those things with you along with a source citation.
Although the federal government can, in no possible view, be considered as a party to a compact made anterior to its existence, and by which it was, in fact, created; yet as the creature of that compact, it must be bound by it, to its creators, the several states in the union, and the citizens thereof. Having no existence but under the constitution, nor any rights, but such as that instrument confers; and those very rights being in fact duties; it can possess no legitimate power, but such, as is absolutely necessary for the performance of a duty, prescribed and enjoined by the constitution. Its duties, then, become the exact measure of its powers; and wherever it exerts a power for any other purpose, than the performance of a duty prescribed by the constitution, it transgresses its proper limits, and violates the public trust. Its duties, being moreover imposed for the general benefit and security of the several states, in their politic character; and of the people, both in their sovereign, and individual capacity, if these objects be not obtained, the government will not answer the end of its creation: it is therefore bound to the several states, respectively, and to every citizen thereof, for the due execution of those duties. And the observance of this obligation is enforced, by the solemn sanction of an oath, from all who administer the government.
The constitution of the United States, then being that instrument by which the federal government hath been created; its powers defined, and limited; and the duties, and functions of its several departments prescribed; the government, thus established, may be pronounced to be a confederate republic, composed of several independent, and sovereign democratic states, united for their common defence, and security against foreign nations, and for the purposes of harmony, and mutual intercourse between each other; each state retaining an entire liberty of exercising, as it thinks proper, all those parts of its sovereignty, which are not mentioned in the constitution, or act of union, as parts that ought to be exercised in common. It is the supreme law of the land, and as such binding upon the federal government; the several states; and finally upon all the citizens of the United States.... It can not be controlled, or altered without the express consent of the body politic of three fourths of the states in the union, or, of the people, of an equal number of the states. To prevent the necessity of an immediate appeal to the latter, a method is pointed out, by which amendments may be proposed and ratified by the concurrent act of two thirds of both houses of congress, and three fourths of the state legislatures: but if congress should neglect to propose amendments in this way, when they may be deemed necessary, the concurrent sense of two thirds of the state legislatures may enforce congress to call a convention, the amendments proposed by which, when ratified by the conventions of three fourths of the states, become valid, as a part of the constitution. In either mode, the assent of the body politic of the states, is necessary, either to complete, or to originate the measure
“Their submission to it’s operation is voluntary: it’s councils, it’s engagements, it’s authority are theirs, modified, and united. It’s sovereignty is an emanation from theirs, not a flame by which they have been consumed, nor a vortex in which they are swallowed up. Each is still a perfect state, still sovereign, still independent, and still capable, should the occasion require, to resume the exercise of it’s functions, as such, in the most unlimited extent."
Both excerpted from:
BLACKSTONE'S COMMENTARIES:
WITH
NOTES OF REFERENCE,
TO
THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS,
OF THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES;
AND OF THE
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA.
IN FIVE VOLUMES.
WITH AN APPENDIX TO EACH VOLUME,
CONTAINING
SHORT TRACTS UPON SUCH SUBJECTS AS APPEARED NECESSARY
TO FORM A CONNECTED
VIEW OF THE LAWS OF VIRGINIA,
AS A MEMBER OF THE FEDERAL UNION.
BY ST. GEORGE TUCKER,
PROFESSOR OF LAW, IN THE UNIVERSITY OF WILLIAM AND MARY, AND
ONE OF THE JUDGES OF THE GENERAL COURT IN VIRGINIA.
PHILADELPHIA:
PUBLISHED BY WILLIAM YOUNG BIRCH, AND ABRAHAM SMALL,
NO. 17, SOUTH SECOND-STREET.
ROBERT CARR, PRINTER.
1803.
And then we have this from a former Secretary of State:
"The Federal Government is the creature of the States. It is not a party to the Constitution, but the result of it the creation of that agreement which was made by the States as parties. It is a mere agent, entrusted with limited powers for certain specific objects; which powers and objects are enumerated in the Constitution. Shall the agent be permitted to judge the extent of its own powers, without reference to his constituent? To a certain extent, he is compelled to do this, in the very act of exercising them, but always in subordination to the authority by whom his powers were conferred. If this were not so, the result would be, that the agent would possess every power which the agent could confer, notwithstanding the plainest and most express terms of the grant. This would be against all principle and all reason. If such a rule would prevail in regard to government, a written constitution would be the idlest thing imaginable. It would afford no barrier against the usurpations of the government, and no security for the rights and liberties of the people. If then the Federal Government has no authority to judge, in the last resort, of the extent of its own powers, with what propriety can it be said that a single department of that government may do so? Nay. It is said that this department may not only judge for itself, but for the other departments also. This is an absurdity as pernicious as it is gross and palpable. If the judiciary may determine the powers of the Federal Government, it may pronounce them either less or more than they really are. "
Abel Upshur, The Federal government: Its true nature and character
As for the creation of West Virginia, though you left out the "consent" part of the provision, constitutional scholars have argued this both ways. But West Virginia is a duly recognized state nonetheless. Of course that has nothing to do directly with the secession issue that I can see.
And there is NO WAY on earth the Virginia "consented" to the formation of the State of West Virginia within it's boundaries and you know it!
As for Lincoln's spending and though you left it out, his blockade, Congress authorized him to "...employ the militia and to suppress insurrections" and that authorization has been used to justify his actions. In any case, his duty to hold together the "perpetual and more perfect Union" was no doubt a greater duty than any lesser legal or constitutional issues involved in that duty.
Uh NO! That is NOT how the process works and you well know that as well!
-
Thanks Bigun. Appreciate the information and arguments you have provided. Some I knew, some I did not. Appreciate all. :patriot:
-
Thanks Bigun. Appreciate the information and arguments you have provided. Some I knew, some I did not. Appreciate all. :patriot:
You are quite welcome!
The truth is out there for anyone willing to do what is necessary to find it!
-
And that decision was made with a stacked court in place to ensure just the result they got IMHO!
That's what they say about every significant decision made since the SCOTUS let Jefferson know it was a legitimate and equal third part of the government. But just because almost all of the members of the Court were appointed by Republicans, they weren't all together on the issue. The conservative Republicans believed that secession was illegal therefore the state in question never left the Union. The Radical Republicans believed the state in question did leave (illegally or not) and was then a conquered territory and not a state per se.
Still the majority decision based on the logic contained in the Constitution is hard to argue with. The Constitution's Preamble sets one of its goals as "a more perfect Union" following the Articles of Confederation which declared the United States as a perpetual union. That would make the United States a perpetual, thus "indivisible" union, as most of us have said numerous times in the Pledge of Allegiance.
States no longer had the same freedoms or powers they had under the Articles or before when they voluntarily supported the revolution. The amount of powers they retained as we all know continue to be debated today. But surely one of them wasn't to come and go as they pleased. Still, the Constitution did provide for amendments to it, and if a large enough majority of states decide to meet and ratify an amendment to permit secession, that power does exist.
The fact that there were no specific words in the Constitution to prevent secession, the framers no doubt understood the meaning of the words "more perfect" and "perpetual". The Constitution was written and ratified as the means to strengthen the union created from the earlier Articles, not to weaken it.
-
That's what they say about every significant decision made since the SCOTUS let Jefferson know it was a legitimate and equal third part of the government. But just because almost all of the members of the Court were appointed by Republicans, they weren't all together on the issue. The conservative Republicans believed that secession was illegal therefore the state in question never left the Union. The Radical Republicans believed the state in question did leave (illegally or not) and was then a conquered territory and not a state per se.
Still the majority decision based on the logic contained in the Constitution is hard to argue with. The Constitution's Preamble sets one of its goals as "a more perfect Union" following the Articles of Confederation which declared the United States as a perpetual union. That would make the United States a perpetual, thus "indivisible" union, as most of us have said numerous times in the Pledge of Allegiance.
States no longer had the same freedoms or powers they had under the Articles or before when they voluntarily supported the revolution. The amount of powers they retained as we all know continue to be debated today. But surely one of them wasn't to come and go as they pleased. Still, the Constitution did provide for amendments to it, and if a large enough majority of states decide to meet and ratify an amendment to permit secession, that power does exist.
The fact that there were no specific words in the Constitution to prevent secession, the framers no doubt understood the meaning of the words "more perfect" and "perpetual". The Constitution was written and ratified as the means to strengthen the union created from the earlier Articles, not to weaken it.
I respectfully beg to differ! In fact the 'logic" you site is quite easy to refute in view of the FACT that there would have been on ratification of the Constitution had not every single one of those states beleived that they had the right to leave if the time came when their membership in that union was no longer in their best interests.
The very first state to consider secession, and very nearly followed through with it, was Massachusetts.
And BTW: You would do well to learn what actually went on in that room in Philadelphia as the subject of "perpetual Union" was discussed at length and rejected!
The whole thing was in fact a rump convention from which many fled when they went outside the bounds of their charter including all the members of the New York delegation except Hamilton.
-
Well! I'll give you one thing! You have the dogma down pat!
That's the third time you've gone after me personally rather than the argument. Please don't do it again.
I've already partially addressed Texas Vs White in part but will add that a fellow by the name of St. George Tucker - a man most people these days have never heard of because the revisionists have made every effort to erase his name from history
If the revisionists have made every effort to erase his name, how is it that many Supreme Court decisions reference him? Yes he was a great legal scholar, who BTW was an abolitionist before it became popular. As to whether he thought states could resume their sovereignty if they wished, Mr. Tucker also wrote this exactly following your quote. You may have missed it.
But until the time shall arrive when the occasion requires a resumption of the rights of sovereignty by the several states (and far be that period removed when it shall happen) the exercise of the rights of sovereignty by the states individually, is wholly suspended, or discontinued, in the cases before mentioned: nor can that suspension ever be removed, so long as the present constitution remains unchanged, but by the dissolution of the bonds of union. An event which no good citizen can wish, and which no good, or wise administration will ever hazard.
Tucker, Amendment X of the Constitution.
He believed that states could reclaim their sovereignty, but only after changing the Constitution.
And then we have this from a former Secretary of State:
"The Federal Government is the creature of the States..."
Not a good start. As stated in the Preamble, it is a creature of "We the People".
-
I respectfully beg to differ! In fact the 'logic" you site is quite easy to refute in view of the FACT that there would have been on ratification of the Constitution had not every single one of those states beleived that they had the right to leave if the time came when their membership in that union was no longer in their best interests.
The very first state to consider secession, and very nearly followed through with it, was Massachusetts.
And BTW: You would do well to learn what actually went on in that room in Philadelphia as the subject of "perpetual Union" was discussed at length and rejected!
The whole thing was in fact a rump convention from which many fled when they went outside the bounds of their charter including all the members of the New York delegation except Hamilton.
The workings of the Convention have made for some great reading including one of my favorites "The Summer of 1787". But regardless of what came out of the debates, the Constitution was ratified and stands today. States have talked about secession, but according to your man Tucker, without an amendment permitting it, it's unconstitutional. Another good read is "The Anti-Federalist Papers" which illustrate the many divergent opinions on what the Constitution should contain. And I have always argued against the idea that the Founding Fathers were of one mind on almost any issue. In fact Madison submitted an article which would have given Congress the power to void any state law. Thank goodness it was tabled.
But that doesn't change my opinion of what came out of the debates as to the indissolubility of the Union.
We again simply disagree.
-
And thank you MAC for your invaluable perspective, as well as Bigun.
Reading and processing info all ....
-
And thank you MAC for your invaluable perspective, as well as Bigun.
Reading and processing info all ....
Appreciate that AC.
-
That's the third time you've gone after me personally rather than the argument. Please don't do it again.
I have no wish or intent to attack you personally Mac and I'm sorry you took my remarks as such. I have heard these argument so many times over the years they have in fact become dogma to me.
Yes we do disagree and that is likely to continue. I believe that "dissolution of the bonds of union" was exactly what the states that made up the Confederacy were trying to do and also that they had, and still have to this day, every legal right to do so!
-
And thank you MAC for your invaluable perspective, as well as Bigun.
Reading and processing info all ....
I hope the discussion has been informative and that you will look further into the matter yourself.
-
For anyone interested in further study I highly recommend A Constitutional History of Secession by John Remington Graham and Donald Livingston (Oct 31, 2002), States' Rights and the Union: Imperium in Imperio, 1776-1876 by Forrest McDonald (Oct 24, 2000), and When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Secession by Charles Adams (2000)
-
I have no wish or intent to attack you personally Mac and I'm sorry you took my remarks as such. I have heard these argument so many times over the years they have in fact become dogma to me.
Nonetheless Bigun, I am not just a victim of public school bs, as you delicately put it earlier. And what is dogma to one is truth to another.
Yes we do disagree and that is likely to continue. I believe that "dissolution of the bonds of union" was exactly what the states that made up the Confederacy were trying to do and also that they had, and still have to this day, every legal right to do so!
You see, we can agree on something. Yes, the slave-holding states wanted to dissolve the Union, and yes they have every legal right to attempt do so. They simply failed to go about it legally. Even today they can pass an amendment through Congress, or call a convention of the states. Until then, as your legal scholar emphasized, they are bound into a union they ratified.
But I occasionally take on issues not completely appreciated on forums such as this. I don't think you were here when I took on the issue of natural born citizen. I managed to make fewer friends than enemies, lol.
Will you please cite, chapter and verse please, the portion of the Constitution which gives the fed gov. the authority to prevent by force of arms or any other method a state from leaving the union?
-
For anyone interested in further study I highly recommend A Constitutional History of Secession by John Remington Graham and Donald Livingston (Oct 31, 2002), States' Rights and the Union: Imperium in Imperio, 1776-1876 by Forrest McDonald (Oct 24, 2000), and When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Secession by Charles Adams (2000)
I'm only somewhat familiar with the latter book. And we've been over the basis for the author's argument for the reasons leading to the Civil War. The author says it wasn't about slavery but economics. Unfortunately it was about slave-based economics, and slavery was so important an issue leading to the Confederacy that freedom of choice was unconstitutional in their constitution. Again, the years leading up to the war wasn't about slavery within the slave-holding states, but expansion of the Nation, as the record of debates and compromises for a decade more than illustrate.
As for the second book, I'm sure you understand that in our Constitution, it was made clear that states have no rights, only powers. If a state had rights, they could not be limited by a nation or its constitution. That's why only humans have rights. Even in the Confederate constitution, it was made clear that their constitution was the supreme law of the land and every officer of the Confederacy and individual states was required to abide by an oath of allegiance to the Confederacy. Do you believe they would have had no problem with a state seceding from the Confederacy? Given their history of secession in the light of an "assumed right" to do so, you would think the framers of the Confederate constitution would have made sure an article emphasized that.
-
But I occasionally take on issues not completely appreciated on forums such as this.
888smokin
-
I don't think you were here when I took on the issue of natural born citizen.
I wasn't but I'm guessing that we would disagree on that as well! :beer:
-
I wasn't but I'm guessing that we would disagree on that as well! :beer:
Tis very likely my friend.