Confederacy... will it return?

[Zoomie1980]

The confederate states wouldn't be a viable nation by themselves.

Cotton is no longer king.

Perhaps they might become a state funded by sending their soldiers off to die in other people's wars.

Lord knows that the South creates the sorts of guys who are used to having to go into the military because there's damned all little opportunity to make a living at home.

Not so sure about that. The South now manufactures more than any other area of the country, being home to Honda, Toyota and BMW plants, massive petrochemical plants. And over 75% of the gasoline and other distillates come from Texas and Lousiana. Cotton isn't king, but oil and refined products are, and most of that is in the South. Top end transportation now too and most of the best ports (Houston, New Orleans, Mobile, Miami-Ft lauderdale, Jacksonville, Norfolk. And most of the major military bases are there, too. NASA and the Kennedy Space Center so kiss good by to space for the rest of the US.

Not so much as if the South could stand on it's own, but the north would die without it.

 

[Navy1960]

I don't believe the Constitution is open to interpretation because the times have changed. If we find the Constitution lacking then the framers gave us the means to amend it.

marbury v madison says otherwise. stop making it up as you go along.

read.... learn... unless you're uneducable and i don't think you are.

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

hello jillian, I was under the impression that marbury v. madison established the process of "judicial review" where the court could render legislation unconstitutional. More or less establishing a check and balance in within our form of Govt. While of course the constitution is open to interpretation as it applies to constituionality and as it applies to laws made my Federal state and local legislatures. It is my humble opinion that the constitution is not a document that is meant be "read between the lines" or subject to the the feelings or life experiences of those rendering decisions. However, there are as correctly pointed out mechanisms within the constitution itself that allow for the document itself to be amended at anytime. I know you are fully aware of this, and you know my stance is an old one on this issue , as we have discussed it many times in the past as far as my position on the those would legislate from the bench. I do believe however, that a judge has every right to "interpret" the constitution based on case law, constitutionality, and other mitigating factors to render a correct decision.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I don't believe the Constitution is open to interpretation because the times have changed. If we find the Constitution lacking then the framers gave us the means to amend it.

marbury v madison says otherwise. stop making it up as you go along.

read.... learn... unless you're uneducable and i don't think you are.

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

I would say it's the Supreme Court making things up as they go along, as Marbury v. Madison demonstrates.

 

[Citizen]

I don't believe the Constitution is open to interpretation because the times have changed. If we find the Constitution lacking then the framers gave us the means to amend it.

marbury v madison says otherwise. stop making it up as you go along.

read.... learn... unless you're uneducable and i don't think you are.

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

hello jillian, I was under the impression that marbury v. madison established the process of "judicial review" where the court could render legislation unconstitutional. More or less establishing a check and balance in within our form of Govt. While of course the constitution is open to interpretation as it applies to constituionality and as it applies to laws made my Federal state and local legislatures. It is my humble opinion that the constitution is not a document that is meant be "read between the lines" or subject to the the feelings or life experiences of those rendering decisions. However, there are as correctly pointed out mechanisms within the constitution itself that allow for the document itself to be amended at anytime. I know you are fully aware of this, and you know my stance is an old one on this issue , as we have discussed it many times in the past as far as my position on the those would legislate from the bench. I do believe however, that a judge has every right to "interpret" the constitution based on case law, constitutionality, and other mitigating factors to render a correct decision.

It never ceases to amaze me that people over two hundred years after the fact, claim to know more about what the Framers intent was than the Framers themselves.

It would appear that the reasons our Constitution was actually adopted were as follows:

"The common defense (national security); the preservation of public peace, as well against internal convulsions as external attacks; the regulation of commerce with other nations and between states; the superintendent of our intercourse, political and commercial, with foreign countries (foreign affairs)." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper No.23, 1787 - a founding father with most important interpretation of the Constitution.

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State." - James Madison, Federalist Paper No. 25, 1788 - considered the 'father of the Constitution'

"With respect to the words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." - James Madison

But if you know of anyone living today with more insight into the Constitution, than those quoted above, I would very much like to meet them.

Anyone in doubt about the intent of the Framers can find out for themselves by simply reading the Federalist Papers. Federalist Papers

As mention before, there is, within the Constitution itself, the very method which it may be changed, and it is through the amendment process as spelled out in Article 5.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Along with many other theories which may occur within the next ten years is the fear that the Confederate States of America will be reborn. ...

No...

When the left finally brings themselves to revolt against the very government which they created, the civil war which results from this, will provide the moral justification to wipe every facet of this evil from the culture at large; this on the certainty that is the unalienable right to defend one's life and one's right from the clear and present danger represented by those who come to unjustifiably strip you of your life and your rights, or impart serious bodily injury... further, the duty to defend same in one's neighbor.

There will be no confederacy... merely the re-establishment of the Original US Constitution, as written, minus the amendments which came to undermine that instrument at the onset of the leftist 'Progressive movement of the late 19th century and througout the 20th century...'

Notions such as those seek to impart a subjective 'fairness', which as was argued at the time, could only usurp equality... and so on... will be removed and replaced with articles which reinforce the moral certainty born in equal rights; and the objective, sustainable principles of equal opportunity... setting aside the ruse applied through notions of the fairness born of equal outcome.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

I don't believe the Constitution is open to interpretation because the times have changed. If we find the Constitution lacking then the framers gave us the means to amend it.

marbury v madison says otherwise. stop making it up as you go along.

read.... learn... unless you're uneducable and i don't think you are.

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

What we find here is the tired conclusion which states that other specious conclusions provided for unconstitutional authority; which shockingly were imparted to those who came to those conclusions, are the basis to conclude that such authority actually exists...

And this of course is the soul of the ideological left's grip on the judiciary...

Absent, this deception, there would be no means by which the ideological left could impart further deceptions upon the culture... they ride from one misnomer to the next red herring and drive deeper into the culture through the advancement of both.

 

[MaggieMae]

Clearly the constitution is open for interpretation.

No, it is not, save for the power of SCOUTS to declare law to be Unconstitutional.

With our changing society, what the constitution conveyed in it's day can be open to interpretation in current times

No it cannot, save through amendments to the text

I absolutely HATE any discussion over the "intent" of the Constitution. Quite simply, the framers were not stupid. They obviously knew that the country would not be stuck in a time warp, which is WHY so many of the tenets therein were deliberately written in ambiguous terms.

 

[MaggieMae]

I don't believe the Constitution is open to interpretation because the times have changed. If we find the Constitution lacking then the framers gave us the means to amend it.

marbury v madison says otherwise. stop making it up as you go along.

read.... learn... unless you're uneducable and i don't think you are.

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

hello jillian, I was under the impression that marbury v. madison established the process of "judicial review" where the court could render legislation unconstitutional. More or less establishing a check and balance in within our form of Govt. While of course the constitution is open to interpretation as it applies to constituionality and as it applies to laws made my Federal state and local legislatures. It is my humble opinion that the constitution is not a document that is meant be "read between the lines" or subject to the the feelings or life experiences of those rendering decisions. However, there are as correctly pointed out mechanisms within the constitution itself that allow for the document itself to be amended at anytime. I know you are fully aware of this, and you know my stance is an old one on this issue , as we have discussed it many times in the past as far as my position on the those would legislate from the bench. I do believe however, that a judge has every right to "interpret" the constitution based on case law, constitutionality, and other mitigating factors to render a correct decision.

The next real amendment to the Constitution needs to be one revising the amendment process itself (Article V) which requires two-thirds majority of the House, then two-thirds of the States to even propose a Constitutional Convention. By the time an amendment would get done these days, most of us would have forgotten what the purpose of the amendment was in the first place.

But to do that would take a Constitutional Convention in the first place! Enter Catch-22.

 

[MaggieMae]

marbury v madison says otherwise. stop making it up as you go along.

read.... learn... unless you're uneducable and i don't think you are.

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

hello jillian, I was under the impression that marbury v. madison established the process of "judicial review" where the court could render legislation unconstitutional. More or less establishing a check and balance in within our form of Govt. While of course the constitution is open to interpretation as it applies to constituionality and as it applies to laws made my Federal state and local legislatures. It is my humble opinion that the constitution is not a document that is meant be "read between the lines" or subject to the the feelings or life experiences of those rendering decisions. However, there are as correctly pointed out mechanisms within the constitution itself that allow for the document itself to be amended at anytime. I know you are fully aware of this, and you know my stance is an old one on this issue , as we have discussed it many times in the past as far as my position on the those would legislate from the bench. I do believe however, that a judge has every right to "interpret" the constitution based on case law, constitutionality, and other mitigating factors to render a correct decision.

It never ceases to amaze me that people over two hundred years after the fact, claim to know more about what the Framers intent was than the Framers themselves.

It would appear that the reasons our Constitution was actually adopted were as follows:

"The common defense (national security); the preservation of public peace, as well against internal convulsions as external attacks; the regulation of commerce with other nations and between states; the superintendent of our intercourse, political and commercial, with foreign countries (foreign affairs)." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper No.23, 1787 - a founding father with most important interpretation of the Constitution.

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State." - James Madison, Federalist Paper No. 25, 1788 - considered the 'father of the Constitution'

"With respect to the words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." - James Madison

But if you know of anyone living today with more insight into the Constitution, than those quoted above, I would very much like to meet them.

Anyone in doubt about the intent of the Framers can find out for themselves by simply reading the Federalist Papers. Federalist Papers

As mention before, there is, within the Constitution itself, the very method which it may be changed, and it is through the amendment process as spelled out in Article 5.

All of your quotes above are vague intents, tantamount to enacting a new law in the 21st Century simply saying "All coastal waters surrounding the United States shall remain untouched." Would that mean no swimming? No fishing? No boating? No offshore drilling?

 

[MaggieMae]

Along with many other theories which may occur within the next ten years is the fear that the Confederate States of America will be reborn. ...

No...

When the left finally brings themselves to revolt against the very government which they created, the civil war which results from this, will provide the moral justification to wipe every facet of this evil from the culture at large; this on the certainty that is the unalienable right to defend one's life and one's right from the clear and present danger represented by those who come to unjustifiably strip you of your life and your rights, or impart serious bodily injury... further, the duty to defend same in one's neighbor.

There will be no confederacy... merely the re-establishment of the Original US Constitution, as written, minus the amendments which came to undermine that instrument at the onset of the leftist 'Progressive movement of the late 19th century and througout the 20th century...'

Notions such as those seek to impart a subjective 'fairness', which as was argued at the time, could only usurp equality... and so on... will be removed and replaced with articles which reinforce the moral certainty born in equal rights; and the objective, sustainable principles of equal opportunity... setting aside the ruse applied through notions of the fairness born of equal outcome.

Egads. You could have written Mein Kampf.

 

[MaggieMae]

I don't believe the Constitution is open to interpretation because the times have changed. If we find the Constitution lacking then the framers gave us the means to amend it.

marbury v madison says otherwise. stop making it up as you go along.

read.... learn... unless you're uneducable and i don't think you are.

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

What we find here is the tired conclusion which states that other specious conclusions provided for unconstitutional authority; which shockingly were imparted to those who came to those conclusions, are the basis to conclude that such authority actually exists...

And this of course is the soul of the ideological left's grip on the judiciary...

Absent, this deception, there would be no means by which the ideological left could impart further deceptions upon the culture... they ride from one misnomer to the next red herring and drive deeper into the culture through the advancement of both.

Other than exterminate anyone who isn't just like me, does anyone have a clue what this guy is blabbering about?

 

[bill777]

It's not the Confederate States that will be a problem, it's the Confederate Brotherhood. We're talking about ideology here, and it can't be bound by state lines.

 

[Navy1960]

"Since the formation of the Nation sharp differences of opinion have persisted as to the true interpretation of the phrase. Madison asserted it amounted to no more than a reference to the other powers enumerated in the subsequent clauses of the same section, that, as the United States is a government of limited and enumerated powers, the grant of power to tax and spend for the general national welfare must be confined to the enumerated legislative fields committed to the Congress. In this view the phrase is mere tautology, for taxation and appropriation are or may be necessary incidents of the exercise of any of the enumerated legislative powers. Hamilton, on the other hand, maintained the clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated, is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States. Each connection has had the support of those whose views are entitled to weight. This court had noticed the question, but has never found it necessary to decide which is the true construction. US v. Butler Justice Roberts

I thought this was worth posting here, as it relates to the General Welfare Clause. It would appear that Justice Roberts was quite clear that the court had basically had no opinion on the matter and did not think it necessary to decide upon it's true meaning however ..

Helvering v. Davis

"Congress may spend money to aid in the 'general welfare.' There have been great statesmen in our history who have stood for other views. We will not resurrect the contest. It is now settled by decision... The conception of the spending power advocated by Hamilton and strongly reinforced by Story, has prevailed over that of Madison, which has not been lacking in adherents [supporters]."

"The line must be drawn between one welfare and another, between particular and general. Where this shall be placed cannot be known through a formula in advance of the event. There is a penumbra [uncertainty] in which discretion is at large. The discretion, however, is not confided to the courts. The discretion belongs to Congress, unless the choice is clearly wrong, a display of arbitrary power, not an exercise of judgment... What is critical or urgent changes with the times."

Congress, according to the Court, has the subjective authority, unrestrained by the judiciary, to declare what constitutes the general welfare irrespective of whether that determination corresponds to any of the other enumerated powers granted to the federal government by the Constitution. And, to add insult to injury, the Court, in another decision, made it almost impossible for the States or the American people to challenge the power of Congress under this provision.

 

[MaggieMae]

It's not the Confederate States that will be a problem, it's the Confederate Brotherhood. We're talking about ideology here, and it can't be bound by state lines.

So true.

 

[p kirkes]

Not finding satisfaction nor comfort in our Federal and State Governements and disparing of any solutions to the continuing and mounting problems of ours, and other, nations I would join a society based, not on land, but on a floating artificial island.

I saw a documentary some time back that depicted a big city (county) size seaborne, powered island that was self contained and moved about the oceans at will.

Just think, people of like mind could band together and incorporate themselves and live their lives on the "island". It would be governed like an ocean going vessel, with a captain, crew and passengers. The trip could be for a lifetime or shorter. Business could be conducted, trade, even manufacturing. The possibilites are endless.

The point is that the articles of incorporation could be much tighter than "constitutions" and reflect the bias of the group that makes common pact.

Conservatives could have their own Island, so could liberal, and so on.

I wonder if these Islands would fare better than land based societies. I could always hope.

 

[MaggieMae]

Not finding satisfaction nor comfort in our Federal and State Governements and disparing of any solutions to the continuing and mounting problems of ours, and other, nations I would join a society based, not on land, but on a floating artificial island.

I saw a documentary some time back that depicted a big city (county) size seaborne, powered island that was self contained and moved about the oceans at will.

Just think, people of like mind could band together and incorporate themselves and live their lives on the "island". It would be governed like an ocean going vessel, with a captain, crew and passengers. The trip could be for a lifetime or shorter. Business could be conducted, trade, even manufacturing. The possibilites are endless.

The point is that the articles of incorporation could be much tighter than "constitutions" and reflect the bias of the group that makes common pact.

Conservatives could have their own Island, so could liberal, and so on.

I wonder if these Islands would fare better than land based societies. I could always hope.

Haven't you ever seen the movie "Waterworld"?? Not exactly what you have in mind, but in the fictional post water-water-everywhere apocalyptic result of global warming, manmade islands were established, each with their own set of primitive laws based on resources available and for bartering. (And then there's the bad guy with a huge gutted oil tanker as his HQ and skidoos made out of torpedo parts which caused problems for everyone else. So basically nothing changed.) The movie is good, with the good guy played by Kevin Costner and the bad guy by Dennis Hopper.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

The next real amendment to the Constitution needs to be one revising the amendment process itself (Article V) which requires two-thirds majority of the House, then two-thirds of the States to even propose a Constitutional Convention. By the time an amendment would get done these days, most of us would have forgotten what the purpose of the amendment was in the first place.

But to do that would take a Constitutional Convention in the first place! Enter Catch-22.

Catch 22... LOL...

Sweet Mother... and this is just a quick look at how California came to be the political basket case that it is...

The beautiful part of this post is how this member is so blissfully ignorant of the genius that she comes to lament...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Along with many other theories which may occur within the next ten years is the fear that the Confederate States of America will be reborn. ...

No...

When the left finally brings themselves to revolt against the very government which they created, the civil war which results from this, will provide the moral justification to wipe every facet of this evil from the culture at large; this on the certainty that is the unalienable right to defend one's life and one's right from the clear and present danger represented by those who come to unjustifiably strip you of your life and your rights, or impart serious bodily injury... further, the duty to defend same in one's neighbor.

There will be no confederacy... merely the re-establishment of the Original US Constitution, as written, minus the amendments which came to undermine that instrument at the onset of the leftist 'Progressive movement of the late 19th century and througout the 20th century...'

Notions such as those seek to impart a subjective 'fairness', which as was argued at the time, could only usurp equality... and so on... will be removed and replaced with articles which reinforce the moral certainty born in equal rights; and the objective, sustainable principles of equal opportunity... setting aside the ruse applied through notions of the fairness born of equal outcome.

Egads. You could have written Mein Kampf.

ROFL... how would you know... you've never read it.

Now, just so ya know, the reason I can state that with such certainty, is that had you read it, you wouldn't be in here, day in and day out cheering on the repeating of human history which set the stage for it...

But hey... all one can do is to cast the warning... that they refuse to listen, is their problem.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

marbury v madison says otherwise. stop making it up as you go along.

read.... learn... unless you're uneducable and i don't think you are.

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

What we find here is the tired conclusion which states that other specious conclusions provided for unconstitutional authority; which shockingly were imparted to those who came to those conclusions, are the basis to conclude that such authority actually exists...

And this of course is the soul of the ideological left's grip on the judiciary...

Absent, this deception, there would be no means by which the ideological left could impart further deceptions upon the culture... they ride from one misnomer to the next red herring and drive deeper into the culture through the advancement of both.

Other than exterminate anyone who isn't just like me, does anyone have a clue what this guy is blabbering about?

Maggie, listen to me carefully here... as this is very important...

YOU'RE AN IMBECILE! And you're views are those of a child... and a very foolish child at that.

You would be far better off, doing more reading and less typing...

 

[Citizen]

marbury v madison says otherwise. stop making it up as you go along.

read.... learn... unless you're uneducable and i don't think you are.

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

hello jillian, I was under the impression that marbury v. madison established the process of "judicial review" where the court could render legislation unconstitutional. More or less establishing a check and balance in within our form of Govt. While of course the constitution is open to interpretation as it applies to constituionality and as it applies to laws made my Federal state and local legislatures. It is my humble opinion that the constitution is not a document that is meant be "read between the lines" or subject to the the feelings or life experiences of those rendering decisions. However, there are as correctly pointed out mechanisms within the constitution itself that allow for the document itself to be amended at anytime. I know you are fully aware of this, and you know my stance is an old one on this issue , as we have discussed it many times in the past as far as my position on the those would legislate from the bench. I do believe however, that a judge has every right to "interpret" the constitution based on case law, constitutionality, and other mitigating factors to render a correct decision.

The next real amendment to the Constitution needs to be one revising the amendment process itself (Article V) which requires two-thirds majority of the House, then two-thirds of the States to even propose a Constitutional Convention. By the time an amendment would get done these days, most of us would have forgotten what the purpose of the amendment was in the first place.

But to do that would take a Constitutional Convention in the first place! Enter Catch-22.

Just for your information, the framers of the Constitution were confronted with the problem of how to make amendments to the Constitution practicable and yet not to make the process so easy that the Constitution would be amended every time a new fad sprang up, so they came up with the method outlined in Article 5, of the Constitution.

California is an example of how often, and how easy a constitution can be amended with out some constraints such as those in Article 5 of the US Constitution.

I, for one, am glad it is not easier to amend our Constitution, although many times it is just ignored by those that wish to change by interpretation rather than through the constitutional method.