Should The Senate Go Back To Being Elected By The State Legislatures?

[Toro]

I am paying attention. You objected to a clause in the original constitution because the Founding Fathers were racists who didn't allow blacks or women to vote. If that provision is suspect, then why aren't all the other provisions suspect?

That's not what I was arguing. What I was arguing was that the constitution was written in an 18 century context, not for a 21st century context. You can only be judged by the moral standards of your time. We can't judge ourselves by the moral standards of the 24th century. We don't know what the 24th century will be like. By most accounts, the founding fathers were very moral men, for their time. But if one of them were alive today arguing that he should own slaves, you'd think he was nuts. So when one argues that we have to strictly interpret the constitution as it was written 230 years ago, you are arguing that we should apply an 18th century mindset to the 21st century.

 

[Publius1787]

1. The principles of liberty never evolve. They are a constsnt principle. I have the right to do whatever I want unless I directly take the liberties of others in the process.

Actually, though I admire your idealism, the principles of liberty have evolved. The principles of liberty as you define them may never change, but they didn't exist in the 15th century. Concepts of liberty as you define them are more a construct of the Enlightenment and notions of The Rights of Man, which BTW philosophers and legal scholars do not necessarily agree. I may agree with you what constitutes liberty, but it is as you define the concept. Others disagree.

2. Property is liberty. I have the right to think dont I? No one cant take that away without violating my liberties. I have the right to act on my thoughts so as long as my actions do no harm to others dont I? No one has the right to take that away from me. I have the right to, pursue association, associate, or not associate with whoever I want to unless I take away the liberties of others in the process dont I? No one has the right to take that away from me. What all this means is that I have the right to associate with and negotiate with an employer for mutual benefit. He hires my because of my ability to proform actions derived form thought. In this process He takes my labor which only he values and payes me with money which all value. That money is my property just as much as my thoughts, my actions, my right to associate with others, etc etc. If I chut down a tree in my own land and build a chair, it is my property. If I sale the chair, the money I get is my property. When I transform my thoughts, my actions, and my labor in to property that few recognise I get paid in property that all recognise. THE ONLY REASON FOR MY PROPERTY TO BE TAKEN AWAY IN THE FORM OF TAXATION IS FOR THE GOVERNMENTAL SERVICES THAT PROTECT MINE AND EVERYONES RIGHT TO THEIR LIBERTIES SO THAT WE ALL CAN ENJOY LIFE AND PURSUE HAPPINESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH OUR ABILITES TO EXERSIZE OUR LIBERTIES WITHOUT HARMING OTHERS.

Two questions, and these are theoretical

1. Where does it say property is liberty?
2. If property is liberty, and the principles of liberty never evolve, what if property is taken in wars of expansion? If an invading army takes property from innocent civilians and deeds the land to the victorious settlers, haven't you violated your own principles? I am not making a moral judgment, but your concepts seem fungible, given that this land was occupied by others 600 years ago, and conquered peoples were driven off their land to make way for new settlers. Again, this isn't a guilt thing but it seems a contradiction to your principles that property is an inalienable right to liberty when that right was violated by taking land from others in the European colonization of this continent.

I will start with number two because I hear this arguement everytime I speak to a socialist, enviromentalist, or watch link tv. America is not the British. There you go. Weve had hardly any imperialism in the U.S. and nearly all of it was done by constituional disrespecting progressivs. Never try to justify a wrong with what you consider to be another wrong.

Now for number 1.

The 5th Amendment: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation

The 14th Amendment: Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

As explained before your property is your speech, your actions, your ability to associate, etc all rolled in to one. My rights are my property and my property are my rights.

Benjamin Franklin: “When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.”

James Madison: It is sufficiently obvious, that persons and property are the two great subjects on which Governments are to act; and that the rights of persons, and the rights of property, are the objects, for the protection of which Government was instituted. These rights cannot well be separated.

James Madison: The diversity in the faculties of men from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government.

Thomas Jefferson: "To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father's has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association -- the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, and the fruits acquired by it."

Thomas Jefferson: “a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government."

Thomas Jefferson: "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

Thomas Jefferson: “Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.”

John Adams: “The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If ‘Thou shalt not covet’ and ‘Thou shalt not steal’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free

John Adams: Each individual of the society has a right to be protected by it in the enjoyment of his life, liberty, and property, according to standing laws. He is obliged, consequently, to contribute his share to the expense of this protection; and to give his personal service, or an equivalent, when necessary. But no part of the property of any individual can, with justice, be taken from him, or applied to public uses, without his own consent, or that of the representative body of the people. In fine, the people of this commonwealth are not controllable by any other laws than those to which their constitutional representative body have given their consent.

James Madison: “That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest.”

James Madison: If there be a government then which prides itself in maintaining the inviolability of property; which provides that none shall be taken directly even for public use without indemnification to the owner, and yet directly violates the property which individuals have in their opinions, their religion, their persons, and their faculties; nay more, which indirectly violates their property, in their actual possessions, in the labor that acquires their daily subsistence, and in the hallowed remnant of time which ought to relieve their fatigues and soothe their cares, the influence [inference?] will have been anticipated, that such a government is not a pattern for the United States.

James Madison: “The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.”

James Madison: As a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights. Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.

James Madison: The great desideratum in Government is, so to modify the sovereignty as that it may be sufficiently neutral between different parts of the Society to control one part from invading the rights of another, and at the same time sufficiently controlled itself, from setting up an interest adverse to that of the entire Society.

 

[American Legacy]

The only real check on federal power was the ability of the states to secede if they got fed up. Lincoln destroyed that ability when he launched his invasion of the Confederacy.

States have no authority to secede; even the Confederacy recognized that. The only real check on federal power is an informed, vigilant electorate of good moral substance holding its elected leaders accountable for their fidelity to the Constitution.

 

[Publius1787]

The only real check on federal power was the ability of the states to secede if they got fed up. Lincoln destroyed that ability when he launched his invasion of the Confederacy.

States have no authority to secede; even the Confederacy recognized that. The only real check on federal power is an informed, vigilant electorate of good moral substance holding its elected leaders accountable for their fidelity to the Constitution.

To deny the right to secede is to deny the right of self government and democratic republicanism. If a state descides it wants out, well, in the words of Thomas Jefferson on secession, Go in peace. You cannot tie the bonds of future generations to the descisions of your ancestors wothout allowing them to change it.

 

[American Legacy]

Two questions, and these are theoretical....
2. If property is liberty, and the principles of liberty never evolve, what if property is taken in wars of expansion? If an invading army takes property from innocent civilians and deeds the land to the victorious settlers, haven't you violated your own principles? I am not making a moral judgment, but your concepts seem fungible, given that this land was occupied by others 600 years ago, and conquered peoples were driven off their land to make way for new settlers. Again, this isn't a guilt thing but it seems a contradiction to your principles that property is an inalienable right to liberty when that right was violated by taking land from others in the European colonization of this continent.

In a word, yes. There have been many cases of conquered peoples around the world where the only principle being asserted was "might makes right." The ideals expressed and adhered to by our Founders are the highest ideals, ones we strive for. The principles being expressed in this thread are guiding principles for how things should operate. That isn't to say that they always do. Rather that we should strive for the ideal. As the presence of negroes in America reminds us, this nation has not always lived up to the highest promise of its potential. While consistency may be elusive, principle itself isn't ethereal.

 

[American Legacy]

To deny the right to secede is to deny the right of self government and democratic republicanism. If a state descides it wants out, well, in the words of Thomas Jefferson on secession, Go in peace. You cannot tie the bonds of future generations to the descisions of your ancestors wothout allowing them to change it.

Future Americans have the ability to change the laws through electing representatives that will do so. They also have the means to alter the Constitution, if they deem it wise or necessary to do so. States do not, however, have the right to secede from the union.

 

[beowolfe]

Absolutely not!

 

[bripat9643]

Future Americans have the ability to change the laws through electing representatives that will do so. They also have the means to alter the Constitution, if they deem it wise or necessary to do so. States do not, however, have the right to secede from the union.

Where does the Constitution say that?

 

[bripat9643]

States have no authority to secede; even the Confederacy recognized that.

Horseshit. Before the Civil war, most presidents, and the Supreme Court recognized the right of states to secede. States threatened to secede a number of times before the Civil War and no one questioned their right to do so. Lincoln's interpretation of the Constitution was novel for the time, to say the least.

The only real check on federal power is an informed, vigilant electorate of good moral substance holding its elected leaders accountable for their fidelity to the Constitution.

Wrong, secession is the only real check. Any guarantees of state rights in the Constitution of the states is worthless if they have no right to secede. It's like saying a woman has a right not to be abused in her marriage, but she has no right to get a divorce if she is abused.

 

[Publius1787]

To deny the right to secede is to deny the right of self government and democratic republicanism. If a state descides it wants out, well, in the words of Thomas Jefferson on secession, Go in peace. You cannot tie the bonds of future generations to the descisions of your ancestors wothout allowing them to change it.

Future Americans have the ability to change the laws through electing representatives that will do so. They also have the means to alter the Constitution, if they deem it wise or necessary to do so. States do not, however, have the right to secede from the union.

Youve just outlawed represenative government.

 

[American Legacy]

California, for example, has no more right to secede from the United States than Orange County has to secede from California, or Los Angeles from Orange County, for that matter. Lincoln's views were in line with the Founders. James Madison, for example, spent the later part of his life repudiating the notion of sucession.

 

[bripat9643]

California, for example, has no more right to secede from the United States than Orange County has to secede from California, or Los Angeles from Orange County, for that matter.

Well, that's wrong, because the states created the Constitution. It's a contract. And there is no clause in that contract that says a state cannot secede. The Supreme court has ruled that a state cannot surrender any of it's sovereign powers except in unmistakable terms. the only way an attribute of sovereignty can be contracted away by the federal government or state governments is for it to be "specifically surrendered in terms which admit of no other reasonable interpretation." In Stone v. Mississippi, 1879, the court established the long-standing doctrine that a government "may not, in any event, contract to surrender certain reserved powers," as repeated in United States v. Winstar, 1996.

There are numerous other rulings along this vein.

Orange county didn't exist before the State of California and never signed a contract with the state of California to become part of it.

Lincoln's views were in line with the Founders. James Madison, for example, spent the later part of his life repudiating the notion of sucession.

ROFL! Care to quote a founder who said a state couldn't secede from the union?

 

[bripat9643]

Two questions, and these are theoretical....
2. If property is liberty, and the principles of liberty never evolve, what if property is taken in wars of expansion? If an invading army takes property from innocent civilians and deeds the land to the victorious settlers, haven't you violated your own principles? I am not making a moral judgment, but your concepts seem fungible, given that this land was occupied by others 600 years ago, and conquered peoples were driven off their land to make way for new settlers. Again, this isn't a guilt thing but it seems a contradiction to your principles that property is an inalienable right to liberty when that right was violated by taking land from others in the European colonization of this continent.

In a word, yes. There have been many cases of conquered peoples around the world where the only principle being asserted was "might makes right." The ideals expressed and adhered to by our Founders are the highest ideals, ones we strive for. The principles being expressed in this thread are guiding principles for how things should operate. That isn't to say that they always do. Rather that we should strive for the ideal. As the presence of negroes in America reminds us, this nation has not always lived up to the highest promise of its potential. While consistency may be elusive, principle itself isn't ethereal.

The fact that someone asserts something doesn't mean what they assert is true. The principles of liberty have always remained the same, just as the laws of gravity have always remained the same. However, it often takes men time to realize them. All you have pointed out is that men are ignorant, stubborn and just plain evil.

 

[bripat9643]

Youve just outlawed represenative government.

American Legacy seems to have run away from this discussion.

Damn, I was hoping to get into a big knock-down drag-out fight about the legitimacy of secession.

 

[American Legacy]

To deny the right to secede is to deny the right of self government and democratic republicanism. If a state descides it wants out, well, in the words of Thomas Jefferson on secession, Go in peace. You cannot tie the bonds of future generations to the descisions of your ancestors wothout allowing them to change it.

Future Americans have the ability to change the laws through electing representatives that will do so. They also have the means to alter the Constitution, if they deem it wise or necessary to do so. States do not, however, have the right to secede from the union.

Youve just outlawed represenative government.

Poppycock.

The federal government is beholden to the People. The state governments are also beholden to the People. Both are governered by the People's Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land. The People did not grant states the right to leave the Union at their discretion. No state has the legal right to do so. No nation in history has given its members the ability to tear it apart. The Union is perpetual. To permit any state to leave it whenever that state isn't happy (the Hartford Convention, the Confederacy) would be an invitation to national suicide. The Founders certainly did not intend to leave such an unstable legacy to their children's children.

Individuals possess the natural right of revolution. That is not in dispute. That is the right expressed in the Declaration of Independence. States however, have no right to detach themselves from the larger body politic of the American nation. Individuals, not states, have the right to alter or abolish their governments as they see fit. Denying a state the ability to rend the union of all the states apart at its discretion actually protects representative government. Sucession would be the real threat.

 

[bripat9643]

The federal government is beholden to the People. The state governments are also beholden to the People. Both are governered by the People's Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land.

That's liberal theory. Reality is different. The federal government routinely ignores the will of the people, especially the Federal Courts.

The People did not grant states the right to leave the Union at their discretion. No state has the legal right to do so.

When did the people specifically revoke the right of states to secede from the United States? They certainly didn't do it in the Constitution. As pointed out in a previous post, no contract between a state and the federal government can revoke any sovereign powers of that state without explicitly stating "in unmistakable terms" that such is being agreed to. There is no language in the Constitution revoking the right of states to secede. Therefore, the states retain that sovereign power.

No nation in history has given its members the ability to tear it apart.

Wrong. One nation did: the United States. There are probably some other associations of states that allowed secession, but I would have to research that issue.

The Union is perpetual.

Where does the Constitution say that?

To permit any state to leave it whenever that state isn't happy (the Hartford Convention, the Confederacy) would be an invitation to national suicide.

All that means is that an apparatus of compulsion would be dissolved. I have no problem with that. Governments should be dissolved frequently - whenever they become oppressive, and ours meets that criteria.

The Founders certainly did not intend to leave such an unstable legacy to their children's children.

They most certainly did, and they made numerous statements attesting to that fact.

Individuals possess the natural right of revolution. That is not in dispute. That is the right expressed in the Declaration of Independence. States however, have no right to detach themselves from the larger body politic of the American nation.

So citizens have a right to make war on their own government, but the states of which they are citizens have no right to secede? That claim is preposterous on its face.

Individuals, not states, have the right to alter or abolish their governments as they see fit.

You have presented no arguments to support that claim.

Denying a state the ability to rend the union of all the states apart at its discretion actually protects representative government. Sucession would be the real threat.

Right, just as denying a woman the right to get a divorce protects her from being abused by her husband.

Your theories of social relations defy reality.

 

[Toro]

I will start with number two because I hear this arguement everytime I speak to a socialist, enviromentalist, or watch link tv. America is not the British. There you go. Weve had hardly any imperialism in the U.S. and nearly all of it was done by constituional disrespecting progressivs. Never try to justify a wrong with what you consider to be another wrong.

That's not an answer. If you've heard this every time you "speak to a socialist, environmentalist or watched TV," you'd think you'd have a good answer by now.

The natives occupied this land before there were Europeans. If property rights are a universal, timeless, inalienable right, Europeans took that land from the natives by force, not by rule of law. The natives did not sell the land to us. We took it.

So how do you reconcile taking land with the universal, timeless, inalienable right to own property?

 

[Liability]

I will start with number two because I hear this arguement everytime I speak to a socialist, enviromentalist, or watch link tv. America is not the British. There you go. Weve had hardly any imperialism in the U.S. and nearly all of it was done by constituional disrespecting progressivs. Never try to justify a wrong with what you consider to be another wrong.

That's not an answer. If you've heard this every time you "speak to a socialist, environmentalist or watched TV," you'd think you'd have a good answer by now.

The natives occupied this land before there were Europeans. If property rights are a universal, timeless, inalienable right, Europeans took that land from the natives by force, not by rule of law. The natives did not sell the land to us. We took it.

So how do you reconcile taking land with the universal, timeless, inalienable right to own property?

The natives from whom we stole the land did not have the notion of the ability of anybody to own land. It was not theirs to sell (or have stolen from them) in their own view -- back in those days.

Can one steal from a non-owner?

 

[Toro]

I will start with number two because I hear this arguement everytime I speak to a socialist, enviromentalist, or watch link tv. America is not the British. There you go. Weve had hardly any imperialism in the U.S. and nearly all of it was done by constituional disrespecting progressivs. Never try to justify a wrong with what you consider to be another wrong.

That's not an answer. If you've heard this every time you "speak to a socialist, environmentalist or watched TV," you'd think you'd have a good answer by now.

The natives occupied this land before there were Europeans. If property rights are a universal, timeless, inalienable right, Europeans took that land from the natives by force, not by rule of law. The natives did not sell the land to us. We took it.

So how do you reconcile taking land with the universal, timeless, inalienable right to own property?

The natives from whom we stole the land did not have the notion of the ability of anybody to own land. It was not theirs to sell (or have stolen from them) in their own view -- back in those days.

Can one steal from a non-owner?

Hey, possession is 9/10s of the law, Mr. Law-Practicing-Guy!

 

[bripat9643]

That's not an answer. If you've heard this every time you "speak to a socialist, environmentalist or watched TV," you'd think you'd have a good answer by now.

The natives occupied this land before there were Europeans. If property rights are a universal, timeless, inalienable right, Europeans took that land from the natives by force, not by rule of law. The natives did not sell the land to us. We took it.

So how do you reconcile taking land with the universal, timeless, inalienable right to own property?

What does our treatment of the native Americans have to do with whether states can secede from the union?