[quote]pushharder wrote:
…and The Argument was not settled through debate, legislation, court rulings, popular opinion, etc. It was settled with brute force. For good or bad.[/quote]
Thank you.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
This is precisely my point. Even Jefferson himself didn’t really know what to make of the subject. His pendulum swung both ways.
There was no consensus. Not even within the brilliant mind of Thomas Jefferson.[/quote]
…and if the people of a country are supposed to be free, and the federal government’s powers enumerated(skeptix, you do understand that rights were not enumerated, only government powers, correct?), it should be considered illegal(tyrannical/unethical, at least) for the government to claim powers it was not given.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
This is precisely my point. Even Jefferson himself didn’t really know what to make of the subject. His pendulum swung both ways.
There was no consensus. Not even within the brilliant mind of Thomas Jefferson.[/quote]
…and if the people of a country are supposed to be free, and the federal government’s powers enumerated(skeptix, you do understand that rights were not enumerated, only government powers, correct?), it should be considered illegal(tyrannical/unethical, at least) for the government to claim powers it was not given.[/quote]
You mean like the powers of secession and nullification?
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
You mean like the powers of secession and nullification?[/quote]
Exactly. People can peacefully delegate their rights to representatives(it’s not perfect, but as many would point out-a truly anarchist/libertarian society is likely not possible, some individuality will likely always have to be sacrificed for the sake of protection), but when those representatives no longer represent the people who appoint them, the people must be free to withdraw.
Example: The people of Virginia decided to secede from the United States and join the Confederate States. The people in the counties of what is now West Virginia did not wish to do so, so they seceded from Virginia. The United States went to war with Virginia; Virginia did not attempt to force the northern and western counties to rejoin it.
The United States of America is not a country of free men; it is a state held together by force-no different than any other(for the time being, the Republic of Crimea is a possible exception).
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
And again, I’ve never stated there is a codified right to succession in the constitution. I claimed an authority that is higher and unanimously supported by the founders.
[/quote]
It is NOT an authority that is higher and UNANIMOUSLY supported by the founders.
I have shown you the writings that pointedly disagree with that declaration.
What I will agree with is, and I repeat myself, that SOME of the Founders believed in a mystical right to popular revolution that transended state and government compacts.
See? I can be agreeable. Despite what Push says about me.[/quote]
I thought you said earlier that their actions speak louder than words. Look at Madison. He was all in favor of blatantly ignoring the law of the land to basically overthrow the legally binging and democratically established federal government when it he though something better could be achieved. Then later, when the talk is of overturning HIS system, he claims the law doesn’t provide for it so people can’t do it, though the law never stopped him from establishing the constitution in the first place.
Madison’s actions speak differently than the quotes you posted. But, I wouldn’t expect anything different from the guy most responsible for the constitution to try to protect it from crumbling. He was defending his intellectual baby. If anything he’s probably about the most biased person on the subject.
And if a founder didn’t believe in the right of succession and revolution, they would have necessarily been against breaking from England and against the constitutional convention.
And for clarity, morality and legality are 2 very different things. I don’t disagree with the convention on moral grounds and am not arguing they did something bad. I think breaking the law is many times the only moral course. But to deny they broke the law is revisionist nonsense. People today have too much bias to see that the Articles then held the position the Constitution does now. They fail to see the perspective that the Articles were binding law. You even fail to see it by quoting that their directive for the convention didn’t limit them to the Articles.
By the same token, a group of states today could “legally” get together, withdraw from the Constitution, and write a new plan for the federal government as long as the directive for their convention didn’t specifically bind them to the Constitution. Do you honestly think that legal? That the directive for the convention somehow overrides the federal charter? It’s ridiculous.
You can bet that if Madison’s Constitution was ignored and altered/re-drafted in violation of the rules for changing it, him and the rest of the federalists would have been screaming over the illegality (as evidenced by your quotes).
The funny thing for me is that I think the federalists AND the anti-federalists were both right. The Constitution did strengthen us in a needed way not possible with more sovereign states. But it also has led to far less liberty for the people of the states.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
You mean like the powers of secession and nullification?[/quote]
Exactly. People can peacefully delegate their rights to representatives(it’s not perfect, but as many would point out-a truly anarchist/libertarian society is likely not possible, some individuality will likely always have to be sacrificed for the sake of protection), but when those representatives no longer represent the people who appoint them, the people must be free to withdraw.
Example: The people of Virginia decided to secede from the United States and join the Confederate States. The people in the counties of what is now West Virginia did not wish to do so, so they seceded from Virginia. The United States went to war with Virginia; Virginia did not attempt to force the northern and western counties to rejoin it.
The United States of America is not a country of free men; it is a state held together by force-no different than any other(for the time being, the Republic of Crimea is a possible exception).[/quote]
It is ironic that West Virginia’s succession from Virginia was also illegal but upheld by the federal government.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
It is ironic that West Virginia’s succession from Virginia was also illegal but upheld by the federal government.
[/quote]
Which just goes to further demonstrate that after the Civil War the United States became a country no different than any other.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
And again, I’ve never stated there is a codified right to succession in the constitution. I claimed an authority that is higher and unanimously supported by the founders.
[/quote]
It is NOT an authority that is higher and UNANIMOUSLY supported by the founders.
I have shown you the writings that pointedly disagree with that declaration.
What I will agree with is, and I repeat myself, that SOME of the Founders believed in a mystical right to popular revolution that transended state and government compacts.
See? I can be agreeable. Despite what Push says about me.[/quote]
I thought you said earlier that their actions speak louder than words. Look at Madison. He was all in favor of blatantly ignoring the law of the land to basically overthrow the legally binging and democratically established federal government when it he though something better could be achieved. Then later, when the talk is of overturning HIS system, he claims the law doesn’t provide for it so people can’t do it, though the law never stopped him from establishing the constitution in the first place.
Madison’s actions speak differently than the quotes you posted. But, I wouldn’t expect anything different from the guy most responsible for the constitution to try to protect it from crumbling. He was defending his intellectual baby. If anything he’s probably about the most biased person on the subject.
And if a founder didn’t believe in the right of succession and revolution, they would have necessarily been against breaking from England and against the constitutional convention.
And for clarity, morality and legality are 2 very different things. I don’t disagree with the convention on moral grounds and am not arguing they did something bad. I think breaking the law is many times the only moral course. But to deny they broke the law is revisionist nonsense. People today have too much bias to see that the Articles then held the position the Constitution does now. They fail to see the perspective that the Articles were binding law. You even fail to see it by quoting that their directive for the convention didn’t limit them to the Articles.
By the same token, a group of states today could “legally” get together, withdraw from the Constitution, and write a new plan for the federal government as long as the directive for their convention didn’t specifically bind them to the Constitution. Do you honestly think that legal? That the directive for the convention somehow overrides the federal charter? It’s ridiculous.
You can bet that if Madison’s Constitution was ignored and altered/re-drafted in violation of the rules for changing it, him and the rest of the federalists would have been screaming over the illegality (as evidenced by your quotes).
… [/quote]
Specifics. Specifics?
“Look at Madison.” Okay, look at what, specifically?
Without specifics, there is nothing here for me to think about.
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
And again, I’ve never stated there is a codified right to succession in the constitution. I claimed an authority that is higher and unanimously supported by the founders.
[/quote]
It is NOT an authority that is higher and UNANIMOUSLY supported by the founders.
I have shown you the writings that pointedly disagree with that declaration.
What I will agree with is, and I repeat myself, that SOME of the Founders believed in a mystical right to popular revolution that transended state and government compacts.
See? I can be agreeable. Despite what Push says about me.[/quote]
I thought you said earlier that their actions speak louder than words. Look at Madison. He was all in favor of blatantly ignoring the law of the land to basically overthrow the legally binging and democratically established federal government when it he though something better could be achieved. Then later, when the talk is of overturning HIS system, he claims the law doesn’t provide for it so people can’t do it, though the law never stopped him from establishing the constitution in the first place.
Madison’s actions speak differently than the quotes you posted. But, I wouldn’t expect anything different from the guy most responsible for the constitution to try to protect it from crumbling. He was defending his intellectual baby. If anything he’s probably about the most biased person on the subject.
And if a founder didn’t believe in the right of succession and revolution, they would have necessarily been against breaking from England and against the constitutional convention.
And for clarity, morality and legality are 2 very different things. I don’t disagree with the convention on moral grounds and am not arguing they did something bad. I think breaking the law is many times the only moral course. But to deny they broke the law is revisionist nonsense. People today have too much bias to see that the Articles then held the position the Constitution does now. They fail to see the perspective that the Articles were binding law. You even fail to see it by quoting that their directive for the convention didn’t limit them to the Articles.
By the same token, a group of states today could “legally” get together, withdraw from the Constitution, and write a new plan for the federal government as long as the directive for their convention didn’t specifically bind them to the Constitution. Do you honestly think that legal? That the directive for the convention somehow overrides the federal charter? It’s ridiculous.
You can bet that if Madison’s Constitution was ignored and altered/re-drafted in violation of the rules for changing it, him and the rest of the federalists would have been screaming over the illegality (as evidenced by your quotes).
… [/quote]
Specifics. Specifics?
“Look at Madison.” Okay, look at what, specifically?
Without specifics, there is nothing here for me to think about.
[/quote]
Constitutional convention. Completely ignored the law of the land in order to revolutionize the federal government.
American revolution. He approved by action of the illegal succession of the states from the British constitution in his participation in the war.
He was in favor of, and participated in, the right of succession and revolution outside of the binding law, by action, twice. That is far more powerful than your rhetorical quotes from a time where his intellectual baby was in danger of falling apart and he was trying to protect it.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
And again, I’ve never stated there is a codified right to succession in the constitution. I claimed an authority that is higher and unanimously supported by the founders.
[/quote]
It is NOT an authority that is higher and UNANIMOUSLY supported by the founders.
I have shown you the writings that pointedly disagree with that declaration.
What I will agree with is, and I repeat myself, that SOME of the Founders believed in a mystical right to popular revolution that transended state and government compacts.
See? I can be agreeable. Despite what Push says about me.[/quote]
I thought you said earlier that their actions speak louder than words. Look at Madison. He was all in favor of blatantly ignoring the law of the land to basically overthrow the legally binging and democratically established federal government when it he though something better could be achieved. Then later, when the talk is of overturning HIS system, he claims the law doesn’t provide for it so people can’t do it, though the law never stopped him from establishing the constitution in the first place.
Madison’s actions speak differently than the quotes you posted. But, I wouldn’t expect anything different from the guy most responsible for the constitution to try to protect it from crumbling. He was defending his intellectual baby. If anything he’s probably about the most biased person on the subject.
And if a founder didn’t believe in the right of succession and revolution, they would have necessarily been against breaking from England and against the constitutional convention.
And for clarity, morality and legality are 2 very different things. I don’t disagree with the convention on moral grounds and am not arguing they did something bad. I think breaking the law is many times the only moral course. But to deny they broke the law is revisionist nonsense. People today have too much bias to see that the Articles then held the position the Constitution does now. They fail to see the perspective that the Articles were binding law. You even fail to see it by quoting that their directive for the convention didn’t limit them to the Articles.
By the same token, a group of states today could “legally” get together, withdraw from the Constitution, and write a new plan for the federal government as long as the directive for their convention didn’t specifically bind them to the Constitution. Do you honestly think that legal? That the directive for the convention somehow overrides the federal charter? It’s ridiculous.
You can bet that if Madison’s Constitution was ignored and altered/re-drafted in violation of the rules for changing it, him and the rest of the federalists would have been screaming over the illegality (as evidenced by your quotes).
… [/quote]
Specifics. Specifics?
“Look at Madison.” Okay, look at what, specifically?
Without specifics, there is nothing here for me to think about.
[/quote]
Constitutional convention. Completely ignored the law of the land in order to revolutionize the federal government.
American revolution. He approved by action of the illegal succession of the states from the British constitution in his participation in the war.
He was in favor of, and participated in, the right of succession and revolution outside of the binding law, by action, twice. That is far more powerful than your rhetorical quotes from a time where his intellectual baby was in danger of falling apart and he was trying to protect it.
[/quote]
Forgive me if I bore you with my repeated and previously cited assertions.
- The CC was illegal? An artificial argument. Check with your own cited AofC Article XIII. The CC was in compliance with Articel XIII and so were the states’ votes which followed.
- The Revolution? Please do not use “revolution” interchangeably with “secession”–it ain’t a semantic difference. The colonies were not represented as parliamentary seats equal to those of the United Kingdom (explicitly in 1704). This was no “secession” because the citizens were subjects, and the colonies were grants of the Crown and not intrinsically art of the Union of Great Britain. The citizens of the colonies were in rebellion against the Crown and not in secession from Great Britain and Ireland.
Madison in the VR asserts a right of popular revolution, not of state secession (Letter to Trist)
Next: look again at the AofC XIII. “Perpetual union” Perpetual means perpetual. No secession in AofC; if there were, it would have provided for it.
Push thinks that because a concept was contended, that both sides must have (equal) merit. (See above, remarks on nullification and secession.) Eventually the “consensus” is formed because the authority of one sideis vacant.
Paraphrasing both Isaiah and LBJ, “Come let us reason together…or we shall perish by the sword.”
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
And again, I’ve never stated there is a codified right to succession in the constitution. I claimed an authority that is higher and unanimously supported by the founders.
[/quote]
It is NOT an authority that is higher and UNANIMOUSLY supported by the founders.
I have shown you the writings that pointedly disagree with that declaration.
What I will agree with is, and I repeat myself, that SOME of the Founders believed in a mystical right to popular revolution that transended state and government compacts.
See? I can be agreeable. Despite what Push says about me.[/quote]
I thought you said earlier that their actions speak louder than words. Look at Madison. He was all in favor of blatantly ignoring the law of the land to basically overthrow the legally binging and democratically established federal government when it he though something better could be achieved. Then later, when the talk is of overturning HIS system, he claims the law doesn’t provide for it so people can’t do it, though the law never stopped him from establishing the constitution in the first place.
Madison’s actions speak differently than the quotes you posted. But, I wouldn’t expect anything different from the guy most responsible for the constitution to try to protect it from crumbling. He was defending his intellectual baby. If anything he’s probably about the most biased person on the subject.
And if a founder didn’t believe in the right of succession and revolution, they would have necessarily been against breaking from England and against the constitutional convention.
And for clarity, morality and legality are 2 very different things. I don’t disagree with the convention on moral grounds and am not arguing they did something bad. I think breaking the law is many times the only moral course. But to deny they broke the law is revisionist nonsense. People today have too much bias to see that the Articles then held the position the Constitution does now. They fail to see the perspective that the Articles were binding law. You even fail to see it by quoting that their directive for the convention didn’t limit them to the Articles.
By the same token, a group of states today could “legally” get together, withdraw from the Constitution, and write a new plan for the federal government as long as the directive for their convention didn’t specifically bind them to the Constitution. Do you honestly think that legal? That the directive for the convention somehow overrides the federal charter? It’s ridiculous.
You can bet that if Madison’s Constitution was ignored and altered/re-drafted in violation of the rules for changing it, him and the rest of the federalists would have been screaming over the illegality (as evidenced by your quotes).
… [/quote]
Specifics. Specifics?
“Look at Madison.” Okay, look at what, specifically?
Without specifics, there is nothing here for me to think about.
[/quote]
Constitutional convention. Completely ignored the law of the land in order to revolutionize the federal government.
American revolution. He approved by action of the illegal succession of the states from the British constitution in his participation in the war.
He was in favor of, and participated in, the right of succession and revolution outside of the binding law, by action, twice. That is far more powerful than your rhetorical quotes from a time where his intellectual baby was in danger of falling apart and he was trying to protect it.
[/quote]
Forgive me if I bore you with my repeated and previously cited assertions.
- The CC was illegal? An artificial argument. Check with your own cited AofC Article XIII. The CC was in compliance with Articel XIII and so were the states’ votes which followed.
[/quote]
No it wasn’t. It required unanimous state approval to change them. They voided the articles with on 9/13 and started their own government before they had 13/13.
Secession is withdrawing from a political body. The American revolution was a succession. I’m not sure how you are imagining that it wasn’t. They withdrew political bonds from Britain. That is the definition of secession. It was a revolution too, but it was caused by secession. If Britain had let us go, it would have been strictly a secession without a revolution.
All citizens are subjects everywhere. But what difference does it make? Secession isn’t “the withdrawing of membership in a political stateâ?¦. Unless you are a “subject” with unfair representation, then it doesn’t count”. Nonsense.
No secession rights in the articles huh? and yet the federalists did it anyway? interesting. But how did they assert the right to secede from the articles without secession rights in the articles?
[quote]
Push thinks that because a concept was contended, that both sides must have (equal) merit. (See above, remarks on nullification and secession.) Eventually the “consensus” is formed because the authority of one sideis vacant.
Paraphrasing both Isaiah and LBJ, “Come let us reason together…or we shall perish by the sword.”[/quote]
Normally, and especially in this case, it was settled by the militarily stronger, not debate. But again, all the founders were in favor of and participated in 2 illegal secessions. Which is strange if they didn’t believe in the right to secede.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
And again, I’ve never stated there is a codified right to succession in the constitution. I claimed an authority that is higher and unanimously supported by the founders.
[/quote]
It is NOT an authority that is higher and UNANIMOUSLY supported by the founders.
I have shown you the writings that pointedly disagree with that declaration.
What I will agree with is, and I repeat myself, that SOME of the Founders believed in a mystical right to popular revolution that transended state and government compacts.
See? I can be agreeable. Despite what Push says about me.[/quote]
I thought you said earlier that their actions speak louder than words. Look at Madison. He was all in favor of blatantly ignoring the law of the land to basically overthrow the legally binging and democratically established federal government when it he though something better could be achieved. Then later, when the talk is of overturning HIS system, he claims the law doesn’t provide for it so people can’t do it, though the law never stopped him from establishing the constitution in the first place.
Madison’s actions speak differently than the quotes you posted. But, I wouldn’t expect anything different from the guy most responsible for the constitution to try to protect it from crumbling. He was defending his intellectual baby. If anything he’s probably about the most biased person on the subject.
And if a founder didn’t believe in the right of succession and revolution, they would have necessarily been against breaking from England and against the constitutional convention.
And for clarity, morality and legality are 2 very different things. I don’t disagree with the convention on moral grounds and am not arguing they did something bad. I think breaking the law is many times the only moral course. But to deny they broke the law is revisionist nonsense. People today have too much bias to see that the Articles then held the position the Constitution does now. They fail to see the perspective that the Articles were binding law. You even fail to see it by quoting that their directive for the convention didn’t limit them to the Articles.
By the same token, a group of states today could “legally” get together, withdraw from the Constitution, and write a new plan for the federal government as long as the directive for their convention didn’t specifically bind them to the Constitution. Do you honestly think that legal? That the directive for the convention somehow overrides the federal charter? It’s ridiculous.
You can bet that if Madison’s Constitution was ignored and altered/re-drafted in violation of the rules for changing it, him and the rest of the federalists would have been screaming over the illegality (as evidenced by your quotes).
… [/quote]
Specifics. Specifics?
“Look at Madison.” Okay, look at what, specifically?
Without specifics, there is nothing here for me to think about.
[/quote]
Constitutional convention. Completely ignored the law of the land in order to revolutionize the federal government.
American revolution. He approved by action of the illegal succession of the states from the British constitution in his participation in the war.
He was in favor of, and participated in, the right of succession and revolution outside of the binding law, by action, twice. That is far more powerful than your rhetorical quotes from a time where his intellectual baby was in danger of falling apart and he was trying to protect it.
[/quote]
Forgive me if I bore you with my repeated and previously cited assertions.
- The CC was illegal? An artificial argument. Check with your own cited AofC Article XIII. The CC was in compliance with Articel XIII and so were the states’ votes which followed.
[/quote]
No it wasn’t. It required unanimous state approval to change them. They voided the articles with on 9/13 and started their own government before they had 13/13.
Secession is withdrawing from a political body. The American revolution was a succession. I’m not sure how you are imagining that it wasn’t. They withdrew political bonds from Britain. That is the definition of secession. It was a revolution too, but it was caused by secession. If Britain had let us go, it would have been strictly a secession without a revolution.
All citizens are subjects everywhere. But what difference does it make? Secession isn’t “the withdrawing of membership in a political stateâ?¦. Unless you are a “subject” with unfair representation, then it doesn’t count”. Nonsense.
No secession rights in the articles huh? and yet the federalists did it anyway? interesting. But how did they assert the right to secede from the articles without secession rights in the articles?
[quote]
Push thinks that because a concept was contended, that both sides must have (equal) merit. (See above, remarks on nullification and secession.) Eventually the “consensus” is formed because the authority of one sideis vacant.
Paraphrasing both Isaiah and LBJ, “Come let us reason together…or we shall perish by the sword.”[/quote]
Normally, and especially in this case, it was settled by the militarily stronger, not debate. But again, all the founders were in favor of and participated in 2 illegal secessions. Which is strange if they didn’t believe in the right to secede.[/quote]
I will not attempt to correct the definitions you have bent to your own purposes: secession (in law and government), revolution, rebellion, subject (of the British Crown), citizen (of a polity).
Perhaps you can review the distinctions on your own. THis isn’t sophistry, its provides the understanding as to why Madison’s positions were coherent, and consistent in 1775 as well as 1832.
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
I will not attempt to correct the definitions you have bent to your own purposes: secession (in law and government), revolution, rebellion, subject (of the British Crown), citizen (of a polity).
Perhaps you can review the distinctions on your own. THis isn’t sophistry, its provides the understanding as to why Madison’s positions were coherent, and consistent in 1775 as well as 1832.[/quote]
lol. No, my friend, you might want to look in the mirror. I was using the dictionary.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
I will not attempt to correct the definitions you have bent to your own purposes: secession (in law and government), revolution, rebellion, subject (of the British Crown), citizen (of a polity).
Perhaps you can review the distinctions on your own. THis isn’t sophistry, its provides the understanding as to why Madison’s positions were coherent, and consistent in 1775 as well as 1832.[/quote]
lol. No, my friend, you might want to look in the mirror. I was using the dictionary.[/quote]
Wrong dictionary. Use Madison’s.
Secession occurs when those attempting to secede are allowed to do so. A revolt occurs when those attempting to secede are considered slaves of others and are forced to fight for their freedom. A revolution occurs when those who attempted to secede are successful despite their former master’s efforts not to free them.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Secession occurs when those attempting to secede are allowed to do so. A revolt occurs when those attempting to secede are considered slaves of others and are forced to fight for their freedom. A revolution occurs when those who attempted to secede are successful despite their former master’s efforts not to free them.[/quote]
I can do that!
“I am right when I am right because I am right and I define words to make it so.”
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
No it wasn’t. It required unanimous state approval to change them. They voided the articles with on 9/13 and started their own government before they had 13/13.
[/quote]
'At the time, there were state legislators who argued that the Constitution was not an alteration of the Articles of Confederation, but rather would be a complete replacement so the unanimity rule did not apply.[
Moreover, the Confederation had proven woefully inadequate and therefore was supposedly no longer binding.
Modern scholars such as Francisco Forrest Martin agree that the Articles of Confederation had lost its binding force because many states had violated it, and thus “other states-parties did not have to comply with the Articles’ unanimous consent rule”. In contrast, law professor Akhil Amar suggests that there may not have really been any conflict between the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution on this point; Article VI of the Confederation specifically allowed side deals among states, and the Constitution could be viewed as a side deal until all states ratified it.’