Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Insurrection during the CIVIL WAR is NOT and has ZERO to do with an out of control Federal Government...
...with whom our Framers themselves fled and began a new country- OUR OWN , when faced with the same.
PLEASE!
Let's not argue.
We need to do this orderly and peacefully.
Civil war is sucky.
The 14th...
Which of course has absolutley nothing to do with the OP, which is placing a mechanism in the Constitution to provide for peaceful and equitable secession of a state.
>>>>
The 14th...
Which of course has absolutley nothing to do with the OP, which is placing a mechanism in the Constitution to provide for peaceful and equitable secession of a state.
>>>>
Your contention that the Fed Gov overrules States rights doesn't line up and square with settled CASE law which directly goes to the 14th Amendment.
Which of course has absolutley nothing to do with the OP, which is placing a mechanism in the Constitution to provide for peaceful and equitable secession of a state.
>>>>
Your contention that the Fed Gov overrules States rights doesn't line up and square with settled CASE law which directly goes to the 14th Amendment.
The insurrection clause of Article I Section 8 of the Constitution has absolutley nothing to do with the 14th Amendment as Article I Section 8 was passed as part of the original Constitution 80 years prior.
>>>>
Your contention that the Fed Gov overrules States rights doesn't line up and square with settled CASE law which directly goes to the 14th Amendment.
The insurrection clause of Article I Section 8 of the Constitution has absolutley nothing to do with the 14th Amendment as Article I Section 8 was passed as part of the original Constitution 80 years prior.
>>>>
Nice deflection, doesn't work here. I said SETTLED CASE LAW and I noted it with a link.
Uhhh.. this is backwards.. you have to remember that it is the STATES that give the power to the federal government.... it is not up to the fed to say whether a state can withdraw
Nice deflection, doesn't work here. I said SETTLED CASE LAW and I noted it with a link.
The Supreme Court's decision in Barron weighed heavily on the mind of John Bingham, the Republican representative from Ohio who was the primary architect of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Bingham said he "noted … certain words in the opinion of Marshall" when he was "reexamining that case of Barron." The chief justice, Bingham stressed, denied the wharf owner's claim because the Framers of the Bill of Rights, unlike the Framers of Article I, Section 10, had not chosen the type of explicit language that would clearly make the Bill of Rights applicable to state governments. "Acting upon" Marshall's "suggestion" in Barron, Bingham said, he "imitated"the Framers of Article I, Section 10:"As [these Framers had written] 'no state shall … pass any Bill of Attainder …' I prepared the provision of the first section of the fourteenth amendment."
Bingham's remarks shed light on the Supreme Court's decision to make most of the provisions contained in the Bill of Rights applicable to state governments through the doctrine of incorporation.
Uhhh.. this is backwards.. you have to remember that it is the STATES that give the power to the federal government.... it is not up to the fed to say whether a state can withdraw
The doctrine of selective incorporation, or simply the incorporation doctrine, makes the first ten amendments to the Constitution—known as the Bill of Rights—binding on the states.
Once more:
Writing for the Court, Chief Justice John Marshall asserted that the Constitution created the federal government, and the provisions of the Constitution were designed to regulate the activity of the federal government. The people of each state enacted their own constitution, Marshall contended, to regulate the activities of their state and local governments. Thus, Marshall reasoned that the U.S. Constitution operates only as a limitation on the powers of the federal government, unless one of its provisions expressly restricts the powers of state governments, as does Article I, Section 10.
fourteenth amendment legal definition of fourteenth amendment. fourteenth amendment synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.
Once more:
Writing for the Court, Chief Justice John Marshall asserted that the Constitution created the federal government, and the provisions of the Constitution were designed to regulate the activity of the federal government. The people of each state enacted their own constitution, Marshall contended, to regulate the activities of their state and local governments. Thus, Marshall reasoned that the U.S. Constitution operates only as a limitation on the powers of the federal government, unless one of its provisions expressly restricts the powers of state governments, as does Article I, Section 10.
fourteenth amendment legal definition of fourteenth amendment. fourteenth amendment synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.
Again, the power to suppress insurrection is explicitly given to the Congress in Article I Section 8.
>>>>
Uhhh.. this is backwards.. you have to remember that it is the STATES that give the power to the federal government.... it is not up to the fed to say whether a state can withdraw
Actually it is, the States gave the power to suppress revolt to the Congress.
>>>>
Incorporation Doctrine
The doctrine of selective incorporation, or simply the incorporation doctrine, makes the first ten amendments to the Constitutionknown as the Bill of Rightsbinding on the states.
.
