...I just realized Lincoln was the Hitler of the 19th century.

[GHook93]

Where is the constitution does it say you have a right to privacy? Where does it stop people from murdering and raping other people?

Please find it!

I've told you multiple times that I'm only posting my opinions, but you've been convinced I think I'm some sort of constitutional scholar that the Supreme Court would actually take seriously.

No. They could have actually upheld the Constitution and said Lincoln was wrong.

Let's turn it around. You say nowhere in the constitution does it say they can't secede (as you understand it). Where in the constitution does it say they can? And if that particular base isn't covered, what is the right thing to do?

I ask this question because I can see in the next 100-150 years a couple of states seceding - Arizona, New Mexico and perhaps southern California as the Hispanic population takes hold. And not to Mexico either. I think a lot of the anti-immigration crowd fail to realise that just because an American citizen has a Latino surname they somehow want to become part of Mexico. I think most do not. They see it for the corrupt shithole that it is. However, I can see them wanting to break away from the US due to cultural issues once they become the majority...

No where does the Constitution mention secession at all. It neither affirms nor denies secession. However, the Constitution was setup so that it had to list the powers of the federal government, and the prohibitions on the states. The 10th Amendment makes this clear. This means that if something is not explicitly stated as a power of the federal government, then the federal government is not authorized to do that. If a state is not explicitly prohibited by the Constitution from doing something, then it has the authority to do that. Basically, the Constitution works in an opposite way regarding federal and state governments.

Since the Constitution does not mention secession whatsoever, the federal government is not authorized to deny secession and the states are not prohibited from seceding.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Where is the constitution does it say you have a right to privacy? Where does it stop people from murdering and raping other people?

Please find it!

Let's turn it around. You say nowhere in the constitution does it say they can't secede (as you understand it). Where in the constitution does it say they can? And if that particular base isn't covered, what is the right thing to do?

I ask this question because I can see in the next 100-150 years a couple of states seceding - Arizona, New Mexico and perhaps southern California as the Hispanic population takes hold. And not to Mexico either. I think a lot of the anti-immigration crowd fail to realise that just because an American citizen has a Latino surname they somehow want to become part of Mexico. I think most do not. They see it for the corrupt shithole that it is. However, I can see them wanting to break away from the US due to cultural issues once they become the majority...

No where does the Constitution mention secession at all. It neither affirms nor denies secession. However, the Constitution was setup so that it had to list the powers of the federal government, and the prohibitions on the states. The 10th Amendment makes this clear. This means that if something is not explicitly stated as a power of the federal government, then the federal government is not authorized to do that. If a state is not explicitly prohibited by the Constitution from doing something, then it has the authority to do that. Basically, the Constitution works in an opposite way regarding federal and state governments.

Since the Constitution does not mention secession whatsoever, the federal government is not authorized to deny secession and the states are not prohibited from seceding.

The right to privacy would be covered by the 4th, 5th, and 9th amendments. As for where the Constitution stops people from doing anything, it doesn't. It was designed to setup the federal government.

 

[Liberty]

Now, correct me if I am wrong but it was my understanding that the constitution was set up not to give others rights, but to put limitations on the federal government. This is why amendments say things such as "No law shall be created that...." is because it is setting out what the federal congress can't pass. Peoples' rights are ordained on them for being human, Locke's natural law concept had a great deal of influence on the framers. And this is why BO has said things like the constitution is just "negative liberties" because it puts these limitations on the federal government.

Now, assuming this is correct, all the 10th amendment does is basically says "If we forgot anything, you can't do that either." and then leaves up it up to the states and the people. Therefore, murder, rape, robbery, and even secession is all a state issue. That seems to make the most sense to me, and it would make sense that the federal government and federal courts would LIKE to say that that is treason and such, the way I see it is that is just scare tactics because they know it is not illegal.

That is what I'm taking from this thread anyway.

On a second note, what is, if not secession are the states' logical recourse towards an Orwellian nightmare?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Constitution must explicitly say what the Congress can do for them to be allowed to do it

We have to disagree on this point -

Article I, Section 8, Clause 18:

"The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."​

Yes, the laws necessary to do what they are explicitly authorized by the Constitution to do.

That is not what it says. You say it is, and that doesn't mean anything. You are trying to revise history.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If she actually knows about what she is talking about she will know it didn't. They just looked at the issue after the war and declared that the south was wrong.

My bold....

Take a gander at that word in red. The fact that the court could point to nothing in the constitution to support its argument is pretty clear from the fact that they had to resort to conjecture to make their case.

Only in your mind.

 

[Samson]

Bush = Hitler

Obama = Hitler

now Lincoln = Hitler

One thing you gotta admit, Hitler made an impression on the simple-minded.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Why is that the libertarians and other wing nuts are so interested in Hitler? I have a family member, older now, quite well off, votes conservative conservative, and devours everything about Hitler and the Third Reich. I know others like him.

 

[Samson]

Why is that the libertarians and other wing nuts are so interested in Hitler? I have a family member, older now, quite well off, votes conservative conservative, and devours everything about Hitler and the Third Reich. I know others like him.

He was a colorful character who wasn't homosexual?

 

[bodecea]

the southern population shouldn't have waged war against their country.

and hitler didn't target anyone committing treason.

might be one of the more absurd analogies i've seen.

I guess this is the result of the education system in our country today. The south did not wage war against the north, they seceded from the north, then the north waged war to force them to back.

So..the South didn't fire first. Dang textbooks.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The South seceded. The South fired on Ft. Sumter and the flag. The north, Republican and Democrat alike, rallied to Old Glory and the Union, because South's cannonade of the fort was metaphorically spitting on the flag and pissing on the graves of the patriots of the War of Independence. What the heck did the South think would happen?

 

[Samson]

The South seceded. The South fired on Ft. Sumter and the flag. The north, Republican and Democrat alike, rallied to Old Glory and the Union, because South's cannonade of the fort was metaphorically spitting on the flag and pissing on the graves of the patriots of the War of Independence. What the heck did the South think would happen?

Precisely.

Lincoln was actually at odds about how to react to the seccession, and was interested in a peaceful solution, warning the Southern States that Federal Property would remain in the USA.

Confederates ignored this, and attacked Ft Sumter.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The South seceded. The South fired on Ft. Sumter and the flag. The north, Republican and Democrat alike, rallied to Old Glory and the Union, because South's cannonade of the fort was metaphorically spitting on the flag and pissing on the graves of the patriots of the War of Independence. What the heck did the South think would happen?

Precisely.

Lincoln was actually at odds about how to react to the seccession, and was interested in a peaceful solution, warning the Southern States that Federal Property would remain in the USA.

Confederates ignored this, and attacked Ft Sumter.

Lincoln was more than willing to have the South come back to the Union with its slavery guaranteed as long as (1) slavery could not be exported to the rest of the country, particularly the territories; (2) the South returned all federal possessions in their respective states to the national government; and (3) the South respected the consequences of the electoral and constitutional processes of the Election of 1860.

The war and its awful consequences is solely the fault of the South, its culture, and its leadership.

 

[hortysir]

The South seceded. The South fired on Ft. Sumter and the flag. The north, Republican and Democrat alike, rallied to Old Glory and the Union, because South's cannonade of the fort was metaphorically spitting on the flag and pissing on the graves of the patriots of the War of Independence. What the heck did the South think would happen?

Precisely.

Lincoln was actually at odds about how to react to the seccession, and was interested in a peaceful solution, warning the Southern States that Federal Property would remain in the USA.

Confederates ignored this, and attacked Ft Sumter.

South Carolina had already seceded and Union forces refused to leave.
They were an invading force.
For a bunch of people that didn't mind Iraqis firing on us for being an occupying force, ya'll sure seem to think that this isn't justified.

 

[rightwinger]

I never realized that Hitler freed the slaves

 

[hortysir]

I never realized Lincoln ever freed a single Union slave

 

[JBeukema]

the southern population shouldn't have waged war against their country.

they didn't


nor should have the colonists

 

[JBeukema]

the southern population shouldn't have waged war against their country.

They didn't. The Confederate states were well within their rights to secede and demand that the US leave their territory.

just like with the brits

 

[JBeukema]

He just freed the slaves

lincoln never freed a single slave

 

[JBeukema]

the southern population shouldn't have waged war against their country.

and hitler didn't target anyone committing treason.

might be one of the more absurd analogies i've seen.

I guess this is the result of the education system in our country today. The south did not wage war against the north, they seceded from the north, then the north waged war to force them to back.

blue coats = red coats

 

[JBeukema]

the southern population shouldn't have waged war against their country.

They didn't. The Confederate states were well within their rights to secede and demand that the US leave their territory.

Is that your Islamic thinking in work? States have no ABILITY to secede from the Union. Once your in your in!

the Brits said the same thing about a colony once it was in the empire