Government Lunacy

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Lil pepper spray never hurt anybody…[/quote]

The vast majority of “occupy” people I’ve spoken too tend to be the type who’s politics are very different than mine. Hearts in the correct direction, mind left unused, as all feeling is confused with thinking.

That being said, I don’t want to see them get pepper sprayed for fucking sitting there. Yeah it costs the tax payers money to babysit these entitled brats, but shit, assembly is protected, and they aren’t being violent. [/quote]

I was just kidding.

102

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
The vast majority of “occupy” people I’ve spoken too tend to be the type who’s politics are very different than mine. Hearts in the correct direction, mind left unused, as all feeling is confused with thinking.

That being said, I don’t want to see them get pepper sprayed for fucking sitting there. Yeah it costs the tax payers money to babysit these entitled brats, but shit, assembly is protected, and they aren’t being violent. [/quote]

I mean, if this was 1776 and they were protesting British occupation, I would sooooo support their rights, but it’s not and they’re not. I’m all for freedom, but those people are different-not necessarily different in skin color, because I’m definitely cool with that kind of difference-than me. [/quote]

You know what would of been awesome?

If the founding father’s had declared Americans independent of British rule and disbanded all forms of government like the Continental Congress. Independence from all rule, for everyone!

Talk about one of the founder’s biggest mistakes!

103

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
The vast majority of “occupy” people I’ve spoken too tend to be the type who’s politics are very different than mine. Hearts in the correct direction, mind left unused, as all feeling is confused with thinking.

That being said, I don’t want to see them get pepper sprayed for fucking sitting there. Yeah it costs the tax payers money to babysit these entitled brats, but shit, assembly is protected, and they aren’t being violent. [/quote]

I mean, if this was 1776 and they were protesting British occupation, I would sooooo support their rights, but it’s not and they’re not. I’m all for freedom, but those people are different-not necessarily different in skin color, because I’m definitely cool with that kind of difference-than me. [/quote]

I’m not sure you’re picking up what I’m throwing down here.

Most of the occupy people I know are leftist, which in turn is why they were protesting at the wrong place. Rather than portest “rich people” they should have been protesting government, but alas, like I said, leftist tend to feel rather than think.

Anywho, either way, I don’t care that they protest, everyone is allowed to voice their opinion. And as long as they aren’t rioting and shitting in the street, there is no need to pepper spray them.

USMC, I knew you were kidding, I just wanted to be clear that even though I disagree with them, I do want them free to voice displeasure.

104

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
USMC, I knew you were kidding, I just wanted to be clear that even though I disagree with them, I do want them free to voice displeasure. [/quote]

Totally agree.

105

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
The vast majority of “occupy” people I’ve spoken too tend to be the type who’s politics are very different than mine. Hearts in the correct direction, mind left unused, as all feeling is confused with thinking.

That being said, I don’t want to see them get pepper sprayed for fucking sitting there. Yeah it costs the tax payers money to babysit these entitled brats, but shit, assembly is protected, and they aren’t being violent. [/quote]

I mean, if this was 1776 and they were protesting British occupation, I would sooooo support their rights, but it’s not and they’re not. I’m all for freedom, but those people are different-not necessarily different in skin color, because I’m definitely cool with that kind of difference-than me. [/quote]

I’m not sure you’re picking up what I’m throwing down here.

Most of the occupy people I know are leftist, which in turn is why they were protesting at the wrong place. Rather than portest “rich people” they should have been protesting government, but alas, like I said, leftist tend to feel rather than think.

Anywho, either way, I don’t care that they protest, everyone is allowed to voice their opinion. And as long as they aren’t rioting and shitting in the street, there is no need to pepper spray them.

USMC, I knew you were kidding, I just wanted to be clear that even though I disagree with them, I do want them free to voice displeasure. [/quote]

I was just writing what a large number of people secretly believe-it wasn’t directed at anyone in particular.

106

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
You know what would of been awesome?

If the founding father’s had declared Americans independent of British rule and disbanded all forms of government like the Continental Congress. Independence from all rule, for everyone!

Talk about one of the founder’s biggest mistakes! [/quote]

The founding fathers established a more or less voluntary country-notice that they didn’t outlaw secession. Smaller states WERE established(no new states could be formed within existing states, without the consent of the legislature of that state/those states), but the smaller states were not tied to a central state by force.

107

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
When did we lose the sacrosanctity of private property rights? Is equality really equality if forced by the end of a gun barrel?[/quote]

Really , where is the gun barrel ? Basic Straw man
[/quote]

Lol. I forgot you think our government is a benevolent third party incapable of using force to bend its subjects to its will.
[/quote]

No, I know our Gov is quite unkind , I just do not see this mythical gun barrel the so called right is always describing [/quote]

Pick up a history book and educate yourself. I’m betting Generals Lee and Jackson would disagree with you.
[/quote]

Washington was the first. Look up “The Whiskey Rebellion”. Literally right in my back yard.
[/quote]

I’d heard a little of the Whiskey Rebellion but am surprised I didn’t know more of it since I grew up in NW PA. That damn Alexander Hamilton. That duel came too late.

108

[quote]NickViar wrote:
The founding fathers established a more or less voluntary The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation.
[/quote]

Actually no, that is entirely a figment of Ron Paul’s imagination. That’s why the Continental Congress used the term ‘perpetual Union.’ Chief Justice Salmon Chase explains in Texas v White:

‘The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to ‘be perpetual.’ And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained ‘to form a more perfect Union.’ It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not ?’

They didn’t need to. How can a state secede from a ‘perpetual Union?’

[quote]

Smaller states WERE established(no new states could be formed within existing states, without the consent of the legislature of that state/those states), but the smaller states were not tied to a central state by force.[/quote]

Where do you get this stuff from?

109

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Actually no, that is entirely a figment of Ron Paul’s imagination. That’s why the Continental Congress used the term ‘perpetual Union.’ Chief Justice Salmon Chase explains in Texas v White:

‘The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to ‘be perpetual.’ And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained ‘to form a more perfect Union.’ It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not ?’[/quote]
I’ll care about words used in the Articles of Confederation when the federal government’s power is rolled back to what it was in that document. The Constitution, the interpretation of which has given the federal government its nearly infinite powers, does not prohibit secession. Which should we respect? Or should we just establish Frankenlaw, allowing the federal government to pick and choose its powers from all those ever exercised by states? Prior to the Articles of Confederation, England ruled the colonies. That territory was once ruled by Rome. And so on. Happy Day! Everything the government does is legal!

See above.

[quote]
Where do you get this stuff from?[/quote]
What stuff? Individual states existed…or do you deny that? The Constitution(and the Articles of Confederation, for that matter) did not provide a way to take the sovereignty of the states. The union was voluntary. States were accepted in the union even when those states made clear that they did have the right to secede.

Look, if you want to argue that the United States is powerful enough to defeat individual states in a war, that’s fine. Just don’t argue that secession was legally prohibited. I can physically shoot a woman in her head and then take her purse, but I don’t have a legal right to do it, even if my crime is never discovered.

110

To NickViar

I think we know were you pick up your notions on secession. If you want to argue, please do so with a certain Mr. Madison:

"TO N. P. TRIST. ? MAD. MSS.

Montpellier, Decr 23, 1832.

Dr. Sir I have received yours of the 19th, inclosing some of the South Carolina papers. There are in one of them some interesting views of the doctrine of secession; one that had occurred to me, and which for the first time I have seen in print; namely that if one State can at will withdraw from the others, the others can at will withdraw from her, and turn her, nolentem, volentem, out of the union. Until of late, there is not a State that would have abhorred such a doctrine more than South Carolina, or more dreaded an application of it to herself. The same may be said of the doctrine of nullification, which she now preaches as the only faith by which the Union can be saved.

I partake of the wonder that the men you name should view secession in the light mentioned. The essential difference between a free Government and Governments not free, is that the former is founded in compact, the parties to which are mutually and equally bound by it. Neither of them therefore can have a greater fight to break off from the bargain, than the other or others have to hold them to it. And certainly there is nothing in the Virginia resolutions of ?98, adverse to this principle, which is that of common sense and common justice. The fallacy which draws a different conclusion from them lies in confounding a single party, with the parties to the Constitutional compact of the United States. The latter having made the compact may do what they will with it. The former as one only of the parties, owes fidelity to it, till released by consent, or absolved by an intolerable abuse of the power created. In the Virginia Resolutions and Report the plural number, States, is in every instance used where reference is made to the authority which presided over the Government. As I am now known to have drawn those documents, I may say as I do with a distinct recollection, that the distinction was intentional. It was in fact required by the course of reasoning employed on the occasion. The Kentucky resolutions being less guarded have been more easily perverted. The pretext for the liberty taken with those of Virginia is the word respective, prefixed to the ?rights? &c to be secured within the States. Could the abuse of the expression have been foreseen or suspected, the form of it would doubtless have been varied. But what can be more consistent with common sense, than that all having the same rights &c, should unite in contending for the security of them to each.

It is remarkable how closely the nullifiers who make the name of Mr. Jefferson the pedestal for their colossal heresy, shut their eyes and lips, whenever his authority is ever so clearly and emphatically against them. You have noticed what he says in his letters to Monroe & Carrington Pages 43 & 203, vol. 2,1 with respect to the powers of the old Congress to coerce delinquent States, and his reasons for preferring for the purpose a naval to a military force; and moreover that it was not necessary to find a right to coerce in the Federal Articles, that being inherent in the nature of a compact. It is high time that the claim to secede at will should be put down by the public opinion; and I shall be glad to see the task commenced by one who understands the subject."

111

[quote]NickViar wrote:
I’ll care about words used in the Articles of Confederation when the federal government’s power is rolled back to what it was in that document. The Constitution, the interpretation of which has given the federal government its nearly infinite powers, does not prohibit secession. Which should we respect? Or should we just establish Frankenlaw, allowing the federal government to pick and choose its powers from all those ever exercised by states? Prior to the Articles of Confederation, England ruled the colonies. That territory was once ruled by Rome. And so on. Happy Day! Everything the government does is legal!

[/quote]

It’s you who is picking and choosing. I’m just taking the only rational interpretation of the founders’ intent that is available.

The states agreed to share their sovereignty with a federal government whose powers were carefully and specifically enumerated.

Where is the power to secede enumerated? Why would the expression ’
‘perpetual’ Union be used if the power to secede was intended? Are you suggesting that it was deliberately left out of the Constitution with the intent of allowing states secession rights? If so, what evidence can you proffer to substantiate that claim?

112

And what doc said.

113

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
And what doc said.[/quote]

And this:

What Madison Thought of Secession.
Published: April 21, 1861

It may be averred, without the hazard of contradiction, that no individual in his day and generation devoted more time, whether as a deputy in the Convention that formed the Constitution of the United States, as a member of the State Convention that ratified it, as a member of the Congress that organized the Government, and took action on the proposed amendments to the Constitution, to say nothing of the contributions of his pen with HAMILTON and JAY, in those celebrated letters styled “The Federalist.” I say let it be remembered by the rising generation especially that that individual was JAMES MADISON, of Virginia.

In the course of the debates in the House of Representatives on the amendments to the Constitution an interrogatory was put, which Mr. MADISON answered in the following words:

"The honorable gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. GERRY) asks if the sovereignty is not with the people at large; does he infer that the people can in detached bodies contravene an act established by the whole people? My idea of the sovereignty of the people is, that the people can change the Constitution if they please, but while the Constitution exists, they must conform themselves to its dictates. But I do not believe that the inhabitants of any district can speak the voice of the people: so far from it, their ideas may contradict the sense of the whole people."

The soundness of Mr. MADISON’S views on this point in particular were well understood by the State Conventions, hence the House on a subsequent day passed the ninth article: “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny, or disparage others retained by the people.” G. B. R.

– Hon. James O. Putnam has signified his acceptance of the Consulship to Havre, and has accordingly disposed of his residence in Fredonia.

115

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
To NickViar

I think we know were you pick up your notions on secession. If you want to argue, please do so with a certain Mr. Madison:

"TO N. P. TRIST. ? MAD. MSS.

Montpellier, Decr 23, 1832.

Dr. Sir I have received yours of the 19th, inclosing some of the South Carolina papers. There are in one of them some interesting views of the doctrine of secession; one that had occurred to me, and which for the first time I have seen in print; namely that if one State can at will withdraw from the others, the others can at will withdraw from her, and turn her, nolentem, volentem, out of the union. Until of late, there is not a State that would have abhorred such a doctrine more than South Carolina, or more dreaded an application of it to herself. The same may be said of the doctrine of nullification, which she now preaches as the only faith by which the Union can be saved.

I partake of the wonder that the men you name should view secession in the light mentioned. The essential difference between a free Government and Governments not free, is that the former is founded in compact, the parties to which are mutually and equally bound by it. Neither of them therefore can have a greater fight to break off from the bargain, than the other or others have to hold them to it. And certainly there is nothing in the Virginia resolutions of ?98, adverse to this principle, which is that of common sense and common justice. The fallacy which draws a different conclusion from them lies in confounding a single party, with the parties to the Constitutional compact of the United States. The latter having made the compact may do what they will with it. The former as one only of the parties, owes fidelity to it, till released by consent, or absolved by an intolerable abuse of the power created. In the Virginia Resolutions and Report the plural number, States, is in every instance used where reference is made to the authority which presided over the Government. As I am now known to have drawn those documents, I may say as I do with a distinct recollection, that the distinction was intentional. It was in fact required by the course of reasoning employed on the occasion. The Kentucky resolutions being less guarded have been more easily perverted. The pretext for the liberty taken with those of Virginia is the word respective, prefixed to the ?rights? &c to be secured within the States. Could the abuse of the expression have been foreseen or suspected, the form of it would doubtless have been varied. But what can be more consistent with common sense, than that all having the same rights &c, should unite in contending for the security of them to each.

It is remarkable how closely the nullifiers who make the name of Mr. Jefferson the pedestal for their colossal heresy, shut their eyes and lips, whenever his authority is ever so clearly and emphatically against them. You have noticed what he says in his letters to Monroe & Carrington Pages 43 & 203, vol. 2,1 with respect to the powers of the old Congress to coerce delinquent States, and his reasons for preferring for the purpose a naval to a military force; and moreover that it was not necessary to find a right to coerce in the Federal Articles, that being inherent in the nature of a compact. It is high time that the claim to secede at will should be put down by the public opinion; and I shall be glad to see the task commenced by one who understands the subject."[/quote]

Read the last paragraph in my previous post. You can bring up all the outside sources you want, but the Constitution(and not personal letters) is supposed to be the supreme law of the land.

The Constitution only had to be ratified by nine of 13 states in order for it become effective IN THOSE NINE STATES, but amendments were made because the other four states were wanted. Why would the ratification of nine states not make the Constitution effective in ALL 13 states if the union created the states?

116

…and this:

James Madison to Daniel Webster

15 Mar. 1833Writings 9:604–5
I return my thanks for the copy of your late very powerful Speech in the Senate of the United S. It crushes “nullification” and must hasten the abandonment of “Secession.” But this dodges the blow by confounding the claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression. The former answers itself, being a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged. The latter is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy. Its double aspect, nevertheless, with the countenance recd from certain quarters, is giving it a popular currency here which may influence the approaching elections both for Congress & for the State Legislature. It has gained some advantage also, by mixing itself with the question whether the Constitution of the U.S. was formed by the people or by the States, now under a theoretic discussion by animated partizans.

It is fortunate when disputed theories, can be decided by undisputed facts. And here the undisputed fact is, that the Constitution was made by the people, but as imbodied into the several states, who were parties to it and therefore made by the States in their highest authoritative capacity. They might, by the same authority & by the same process have converted the Confederacy into a mere league or treaty; or continued it with enlarged or abridged powers; or have imbodied the people of their respective States into one people, nation or sovereignty; or as they did by a mixed form make them one people, nation, or sovereignty, for certain purposes, and not so for others.

The Constitution of the U.S. being established by a Competent authority, by that of the sovereign people of the several States who were the parties to it, it remains only to inquire what the Constitution is; and here it speaks for itself. It organizes a Government into the usual Legislative Executive & Judiciary Departments; invests it with specified powers, leaving others to the parties to the Constitution; it makes the Government like other Governments to operate directly on the people; places at its Command the needful Physical means of executing its powers; and finally proclaims its supremacy, and that of the laws made in pursuance of it, over the Constitutions & laws of the States; the powers of the Government being exercised, as in other elective & responsible Governments, under the controul of its Constituents, the people & legislatures of the States, and subject to the Revolutionary Rights of the people in extreme cases.

It might have been added, that whilst the Constitution, therefore, is admitted to be in force, its operation, in every respect must be precisely the same, whether its authority be derived from that of the people, in the one or the other of the modes, in question; the authority being equally Competent in both; and that, without an annulment of the Constitution itself its supremacy must be submitted to.

The only distinctive effect, between the two modes of forming a Constitution by the authority of the people, is that if formed by them as imbodied into separate communities, as in the case of the Constitution of the U.S. a dissolution of the Constitutional Compact would replace them in the condition of separate communities, that being the Condition in which they entered into the compact; whereas if formed by the people as one community, acting as such by a numerical majority, a dissolution of the compact would reduce them to a state of nature, as so many individual persons. But whilst the Constitutional compact remains undissolved, it must be executed according to the forms and provisions specified in the compact. It must not be forgotten, that compact, express or implied is the vital principle of free Governments as contradistinguished from Governments not free; and that a revolt against this principle leaves no choice but between anarchy and despotism.

117

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
To NickViar

I think we know were you pick up your notions on secession. If you want to argue, please do so with a certain Mr. Madison:

"TO N. P. TRIST. ? MAD. MSS.

Montpellier, Decr 23, 1832.

Dr. Sir I have received yours of the 19th, inclosing some of the South Carolina papers. There are in one of them some interesting views of the doctrine of secession; one that had occurred to me, and which for the first time I have seen in print; namely that if one State can at will withdraw from the others, the others can at will withdraw from her, and turn her, nolentem, volentem, out of the union. Until of late, there is not a State that would have abhorred such a doctrine more than South Carolina, or more dreaded an application of it to herself. The same may be said of the doctrine of nullification, which she now preaches as the only faith by which the Union can be saved.

I partake of the wonder that the men you name should view secession in the light mentioned. The essential difference between a free Government and Governments not free, is that the former is founded in compact, the parties to which are mutually and equally bound by it. Neither of them therefore can have a greater fight to break off from the bargain, than the other or others have to hold them to it. And certainly there is nothing in the Virginia resolutions of ?98, adverse to this principle, which is that of common sense and common justice. The fallacy which draws a different conclusion from them lies in confounding a single party, with the parties to the Constitutional compact of the United States. The latter having made the compact may do what they will with it. The former as one only of the parties, owes fidelity to it, till released by consent, or absolved by an intolerable abuse of the power created. In the Virginia Resolutions and Report the plural number, States, is in every instance used where reference is made to the authority which presided over the Government. As I am now known to have drawn those documents, I may say as I do with a distinct recollection, that the distinction was intentional. It was in fact required by the course of reasoning employed on the occasion. The Kentucky resolutions being less guarded have been more easily perverted. The pretext for the liberty taken with those of Virginia is the word respective, prefixed to the ?rights? &c to be secured within the States. Could the abuse of the expression have been foreseen or suspected, the form of it would doubtless have been varied. But what can be more consistent with common sense, than that all having the same rights &c, should unite in contending for the security of them to each.

It is remarkable how closely the nullifiers who make the name of Mr. Jefferson the pedestal for their colossal heresy, shut their eyes and lips, whenever his authority is ever so clearly and emphatically against them. You have noticed what he says in his letters to Monroe & Carrington Pages 43 & 203, vol. 2,1 with respect to the powers of the old Congress to coerce delinquent States, and his reasons for preferring for the purpose a naval to a military force; and moreover that it was not necessary to find a right to coerce in the Federal Articles, that being inherent in the nature of a compact. It is high time that the claim to secede at will should be put down by the public opinion; and I shall be glad to see the task commenced by one who understands the subject."[/quote]

Read the last paragraph in my previous post. You can bring up all the outside sources you want, but the Constitution(and not personal letters) is supposed to be the supreme law of the land.

The Constitution only had to be ratified by nine of 13 states in order for it become effective IN THOSE NINE STATES, but amendments were made because the other four states were wanted. Why would the ratification of nine states not make the Constitution effective in ALL 13 states if the union created the states? [/quote]

Like I said, have your argument with Madison. It’s all there.

118

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
"The honorable gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. GERRY) asks if the sovereignty is not with the people at large; does he infer that the people can in detached bodies contravene an act established by the whole people? My idea of the sovereignty of the people is, that the people can change the Constitution if they please, but while the Constitution exists, they must conform themselves to its dictates. But I do not believe that the inhabitants of any district can speak the voice of the people: so far from it, their ideas may contradict the sense of the whole people."
[/quote]

Exactly, and secession was not prohibited by the Constitution. In fact, the Tenth Amendment states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” So there was no LEGAL justification for the United States to occupy the Confederate States after the Confederate States declared their independence.

119

…and here, in Federalist 43:

“The express authority of the people alone could give validity to the Constitution. To have required the unanimous ratification of the thirteen States, would have subjected the essential interests of the whole to the caprice or corruption of a single member. It would have marked a want of foresight in the convention, which our own experience would have rendered inexcusable.”

120

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
"The honorable gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. GERRY) asks if the sovereignty is not with the people at large; does he infer that the people can in detached bodies contravene an act established by the whole people? My idea of the sovereignty of the people is, that the people can change the Constitution if they please, but while the Constitution exists, they must conform themselves to its dictates. But I do not believe that the inhabitants of any district can speak the voice of the people: so far from it, their ideas may contradict the sense of the whole people."
[/quote]

Exactly, and secession was not prohibited by the Constitution. In fact, the Tenth Amendment states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” So there was no LEGAL justification for the United States to occupy the Confederate States after the Confederate States declared their independence.[/quote]

Rubbish. Rubbish provided by Lew Rockwell.

The 10th Amendment specifically created no new rights. There is nowhere a stated right to secession; there are, however, constitutional remedies–courts, calling a constitutional convention, etc. If you believe the 10th Amendment creates a right to secede, to whom is that right secured? If the people had a right to secession, which people? The people of the state or states attempting to secede, or to all of the American people of The More Perfect Union? If to the states, each individual state or to all the states of the Union to agree on secession?

Really, you need to write to Lew and tell them to update their rubbish.
And you can send them the Madison citations.

I’ll sign off here. Some of us have to face real jobs in the morning.