What's your brand of constitutional interpretation?

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I am no fane of JakeStarkey, but I think the reference was probably an allusion to some old Court dictum that maintained that the Constitution is not a suicide pact.

Let's stipulate that Abe did violate the Constitution.

It is a bad thing to violate the Constitution. On the other hand, had he not done so, that would have been the end of the United State of America.

So, at least in that instance, it was the violation of the Constitution to save the Republic that permitted both the Repbulic and the Constitutional form of government to continue.

Noting it is not the same as applauding it. But denying it doesn't really serve much purpose, either.

No, it wouldn't have been the end of the United States. The Confederate States wanted to form their own government, not take over Washington, D.C.

They wanted to continue the imperfections that compromise in 1787 had inflicted on America, slavery being the main problem.

Yet slavery was safer within the Union than without, and both Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee believed that slavery would eventually collapse under its own weight.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I am no fane of JakeStarkey, but I think the reference was probably an allusion to some old Court dictum that maintained that the Constitution is not a suicide pact.

Let's stipulate that Abe did violate the Constitution.

It is a bad thing to violate the Constitution. On the other hand, had he not done so, that would have been the end of the United State of America.

So, at least in that instance, it was the violation of the Constitution to save the Republic that permitted both the Repbulic and the Constitutional form of government to continue.

Noting it is not the same as applauding it. But denying it doesn't really serve much purpose, either.

No, it wouldn't have been the end of the United States. The Confederate States wanted to form their own government, not take over Washington, D.C.

We know what the Confederacy wanted to do. That's not the question.

It would have been the end of the United States because there would then have been precedent for simply terminating the agreement (easily and at whim) that formed ANY kind of "Union." We probably would have reverted back to some weak little loosely associated confederacy of our own and we knew from experience that didn't work too well. We in efffect would not be a Nation anymore, but a hodgepodge of sovereign states akin to the mess known as Europe.

Yet the founders intended for the individual states to be more powerful than the Union, only ceding certain powers to the federal government that was created to act as their agent. Taking away the Confederate's right to self-government and forcing them into a Union against their interests destroyed the spirit of the United States.

 

[Liability]

No, it wouldn't have been the end of the United States. The Confederate States wanted to form their own government, not take over Washington, D.C.

We know what the Confederacy wanted to do. That's not the question.

It would have been the end of the United States because there would then have been precedent for simply terminating the agreement (easily and at whim) that formed ANY kind of "Union." We probably would have reverted back to some weak little loosely associated confederacy of our own and we knew from experience that didn't work too well. We in efffect would not be a Nation anymore, but a hodgepodge of sovereign states akin to the mess known as Europe.

Yet the founders intended for the individual states to be more powerful than the Union, only ceding certain powers to the federal government that was created to act as their agent. Taking away the Confederate's right to self-government and forcing them into a Union against their interests destroyed the spirit of the United States.

I believe I already conceded that Abe violated the Constitution. I don't think the violation amounts to the travesty you view it as, though.

But even if it were a travesty of that magnitude, is it your contention that we would be "better off" today had the North simply shrugged its shoulders and accepted Southern States' secession?

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

You never did answer my question Jake. I will present another. Are there any conditions ( in your opinion ) upon which the Constitution should be put to the side, in order to save the unity of the United States?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

We know what the Confederacy wanted to do. That's not the question.

It would have been the end of the United States because there would then have been precedent for simply terminating the agreement (easily and at whim) that formed ANY kind of "Union." We probably would have reverted back to some weak little loosely associated confederacy of our own and we knew from experience that didn't work too well. We in efffect would not be a Nation anymore, but a hodgepodge of sovereign states akin to the mess known as Europe.

Yet the founders intended for the individual states to be more powerful than the Union, only ceding certain powers to the federal government that was created to act as their agent. Taking away the Confederate's right to self-government and forcing them into a Union against their interests destroyed the spirit of the United States.

I believe I already conceded that Abe violated the Constitution. I don't think the violation amounts to the travesty you view it as, though.

But even if it were a travesty of that magnitude, is it your contention that we would be "better off" today had the North simply shrugged its shoulders and accepted Southern States' secession?

Any violation of the Constitution is a travesty.

Yes. It's the right of the states to secede, and to form their own union if they so choose.

 

[Liability]

Yet the founders intended for the individual states to be more powerful than the Union, only ceding certain powers to the federal government that was created to act as their agent. Taking away the Confederate's right to self-government and forcing them into a Union against their interests destroyed the spirit of the United States.

I believe I already conceded that Abe violated the Constitution. I don't think the violation amounts to the travesty you view it as, though.

But even if it were a travesty of that magnitude, is it your contention that we would be "better off" today had the North simply shrugged its shoulders and accepted Southern States' secession?

Any violation of the Constitution is a travesty.

Yes. It's the right of the states to secede, and to form their own union if they so choose.

It's not such a clear "right." It might be implicit. Maybe.

But you still ducked the question.

Is it your "belief" that we would BE BETTER OFF TODAY had the North quietly acquiesced in allowing the Southern States to secede?

 

[Tech_Esq]

I'm not suggesting any written constitution should be a chameleon, but it should remain useful rather than become merely a museum piece.

How "useful" is a document people simply ignore the wording of entirely in favor of what they WISH it said? Why even bother having the sucker?

That would be entirely useless if it were the case. It isn't the case so your point is irrelevant.

In fact, that isn't entirely the case is it? In fact, cases like United States v. Darby Lumber Co. and Wicker v. Filburn make a mockery of the written Constitution. In much the same way as Griswold v. Connecticut does on another front. The fact is that an oligarchical Supreme Court took the opportunity to strike down Stare Decisis in the case of Darby, mangle interpretations in Wicker and manufacture a brand new right in the case of Griswold.

How are those not ignoring the wording to do what they wish? Because they had to mention the wording to ignore it? Please.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I believe I already conceded that Abe violated the Constitution. I don't think the violation amounts to the travesty you view it as, though.

But even if it were a travesty of that magnitude, is it your contention that we would be "better off" today had the North simply shrugged its shoulders and accepted Southern States' secession?

Any violation of the Constitution is a travesty.

Yes. It's the right of the states to secede, and to form their own union if they so choose.

It's not such a clear "right." It might be implicit. Maybe.

But you still ducked the question.

Is it your "belief" that we would BE BETTER OFF TODAY had the North quietly acquiesced in allowing the Southern States to secede?

You don't think the right to self-government is clear? I'd have to disagree.

I'm not omniscient. How would I know how we'd be doing today had the Lincoln not invaded the south? Maybe we'd have a great ally in the CSA, maybe not. Maybe they'd have realized they were better off in the United States rather than on their own, maybe not. Regardless, we had no right to force them back into the United States against their will.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, it wouldn't have been the end of the United States. The Confederate States wanted to form their own government, not take over Washington, D.C.

They wanted to continue the imperfections that compromise in 1787 had inflicted on America, slavery being the main problem.

Yet slavery was safer within the Union than without, and both Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee believed that slavery would eventually collapse under its own weight.

Good hindsight, Kevin Kennedy, but you are ignoring Davis's veep who stated for the entire South in the "cornerstone speech" that slavery was the "prime cause" of the Civil War, and that he was only following Thomas Jefferson's belief on the matter. Obviously the Southerners were not willing to trust the North to let them keep slaves.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, it wouldn't have been the end of the United States. The Confederate States wanted to form their own government, not take over Washington, D.C.

We know what the Confederacy wanted to do. That's not the question.

It would have been the end of the United States because there would then have been precedent for simply terminating the agreement (easily and at whim) that formed ANY kind of "Union." We probably would have reverted back to some weak little loosely associated confederacy of our own and we knew from experience that didn't work too well. We in efffect would not be a Nation anymore, but a hodgepodge of sovereign states akin to the mess known as Europe.

Yet the founders intended for the individual states to be more powerful than the Union, only ceding certain powers to the federal government that was created to act as their agent. Taking away the Confederate's right to self-government and forcing them into a Union against their interests destroyed the spirit of the United States.

Founders turned out to be right, Kevin Kennedy. The federal government did prove to be stronger than the states. Next.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You never did answer my question Jake. I will present another. Are there any conditions ( in your opinion ) upon which the Constitution should be put to the side, in order to save the unity of the United States?

Sure. Give me some.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

They wanted to continue the imperfections that compromise in 1787 had inflicted on America, slavery being the main problem.

Yet slavery was safer within the Union than without, and both Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee believed that slavery would eventually collapse under its own weight.

Good hindsight, Kevin Kennedy, but you are ignoring Davis's veep who stated for the entire South in the "cornerstone speech" that slavery was the "prime cause" of the Civil War, and that he was only following Thomas Jefferson's belief on the matter. Obviously the Southerners were not willing to trust the North to let them keep slaves.

Thomas Jefferson stated many times that he believed slavery was an evil institution.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yet slavery was safer within the Union than without, and both Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee believed that slavery would eventually collapse under its own weight.

Good hindsight, Kevin Kennedy, but you are ignoring Davis's veep who stated for the entire South in the "cornerstone speech" that slavery was the "prime cause" of the Civil War, and that he was only following Thomas Jefferson's belief on the matter. Obviously the Southerners were not willing to trust the North to let them keep slaves.

Thomas Jefferson stated many times that he believed slavery was an evil institution.

Pro-slavery and anti-slavery folks belonged to the societies to colonize Africa with African Americans. Check it out, TJ was one of them. What you wrote about him is true and has nothing to do with this thread.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Good hindsight, Kevin Kennedy, but you are ignoring Davis's veep who stated for the entire South in the "cornerstone speech" that slavery was the "prime cause" of the Civil War, and that he was only following Thomas Jefferson's belief on the matter. Obviously the Southerners were not willing to trust the North to let them keep slaves.

Thomas Jefferson stated many times that he believed slavery was an evil institution.

Pro-slavery and anti-slavery folks belonged to the societies to colonize Africa with African Americans. Check it out, TJ was one of them. What you wrote about him is true and has nothing to do with this thread.

I was responding to your saying that Thomas Jefferson would have agreed with Stephens.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

You never did answer my question Jake. I will present another. Are there any conditions ( in your opinion ) upon which the Constitution should be put to the side, in order to save the unity of the United States?

Sure. Give me some.

I was asking you if there were any conditions that warranted such. You said yes. It makes no sense for me to play some kind of guessing game, when you obviously already know what the conditions would be. Remember, you said yes, not me.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Thomas Jefferson stated many times that he believed slavery was an evil institution.

Pro-slavery and anti-slavery folks belonged to the societies to colonize Africa with African Americans. Check it out, TJ was one of them. What you wrote about him is true and has nothing to do with this thread.

I was responding to your saying that Thomas Jefferson would have agreed with Stephens.

Don't put words in my mouth. I said that Stephens said the was following Jefferson.

Pay attention.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Then quote what I said verbatim. You will not get to put words in my mouth.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Pro-slavery and anti-slavery folks belonged to the societies to colonize Africa with African Americans. Check it out, TJ was one of them. What you wrote about him is true and has nothing to do with this thread.

I was responding to your saying that Thomas Jefferson would have agreed with Stephens.

Don't put words in my mouth. I said that Stephens said the was following Jefferson.

Pay attention.

Yet by continually repeating that sentiment and trying to use it to bolster your argument you betray the fact that you agree with it. So once again, Thomas Jefferson claimed many times that slavery was evil, and I have never seen any quote of his that says he believed that slavery was their natural position as Stephens asserts.

 

[veritas]

Constitution. Constituents. Constitutes. Make up, ingredients, definitions.

We are constituted of 50 Constitutional states......and a few protectorates and territories. We have a corporeal constitution and an incorporeal one. The corporeal includes the land and the people. The incorporeal addresses the purpose of the "union" of the now inseverable state constitutions. We have definable assets and a purpose. The US Constitution governs/binds all 50 of the member constitutions by minimum standards, or seeks to do so. It gives us a name, says where we are and what our boundaries are and sets up basic rules. All rules promulgated within the 50 subordinate constitutions shall conform to and/or enhance the basic rules. [ideally]. The Constitution establishes systems that can make new rules as the need arises and enforce the ones in place: The Legislative, The Executive and the Judicial. It's all about the rules and the maintenance of the rules. The players can change and the board can get bigger [not smaller,unless nature intervenes], but the rules remain.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I was responding to your saying that Thomas Jefferson would have agreed with Stephens.

Don't put words in my mouth. I said that Stephens said the was following Jefferson.

Pay attention.

Yet by continually repeating that sentiment and trying to use it to bolster your argument you betray the fact that you agree with it. So once again, Thomas Jefferson claimed many times that slavery was evil, and I have never seen any quote of his that says he believed that slavery was their natural position as Stephens asserts.

Thank you for a clear answer that reveals you STILL don't get it. Stephens asserted that Jefferson stated that the republic would founder on the issue of slavery. Kevin, I just realized that you are pooting through your mouth -- you have never read even portions of the speech, much less than the whole thing.