View Poll Results: Is state nullification constitutional?

Voters
49. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    19 38.78%
  • No

    26 53.06%
  • Other/Don't know

    4 8.16%
Page 17 of 18 FirstFirst ... 715161718 LastLast
Results 161 to 170 of 178

Thread: Is state nullification constitutional?

  1. #161
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,534

    Re: Is state nullification constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Because the Federal government has stolen power from the states.
    But they didn't in this particular case. The fourteenth is pretty clear about naturalization and citizenship. This is one of the few cases where they actually properly tied two powers to each other. The states gave the federal the power with the fourteenth.



    Nonsense.



    Nonsense. 1. It's not a border issue. This may come as a surprise to you, but deporting people doesn't have any effect at all on border security. Seriously, not a single affect. The borders are no more or less secure if someone is deported. It kind of has a little bit to do with the word "border" having a specific meaning.
    It's very much a border issue, how can one immigrate if they don't cross a border? You can't immigrate to the U.S. from say, Canada, if you never leave Canada. And yes, deporting people does have an effect on immigration, it's one penalty among others that exists to enforce naturalization law. If one won't naturalize or follow proper laws in that regard they are sent away.

    2. I have addressed it. The feds are free to control the borders. You just have to remember that border has a meaning, and that meaning is not "whatever the **** la decides to call border security whenever the whim takes him there"
    Oh this should be good. Define a border that is anything besides the line of demarcation for a country, it's pretty simple, the border is the place where influence ends. The U.S. has full authority over border protections, and that falls under the defense powers.






    So? If it's their own state elections, more power to them. It's their right to do so. They can create whatever rules they want for choosing their representatives in the federal government. What's wrong with the 10th amendment? Why are you trying to overturn it?
    For federal elections, I have to suffer the consequences of people who could potentially care less about the country and have nothing to lose, because they haven't assimilated. I do have a vested interest in people being citizens before they vote, and because it's a federal representative so do they.



    How the hell is that a naturalization issue? what the **** nonsense definition of "naturalization" have you invented, dude?




    Nobody has said that Naturalization isn't under the federal purview. It's an enumerated power. Somebody, however, is under the delusion that immigration is an enumerated power when it is not. I'm debating that person now.



    No it isn't. It is an amendment that describes the rights of citizens. Just because the amendment stated that naturalized citizens are citizens doesn't mean it is a "naturalization amendment."





    The problem is that you are using invented definitions of words and pretending they are true. the 14th doesn't state anything about immigrants. Only citizens.



    Of course. This is how it has always been.



    Of course we do. Without them, our economy would falter greatly. We would have failed as a nation without them. They tend to use fewer resources and break fewer laws than our citizens do, and they contribute hard work and labor for our benefit and all that they ask for in return is the opportunity to work. I WISH our citizens had half the work ethic and only twice the desire for luxury as immigrants do.



    That irrational, purely fictional demonization of immigrants is why people who like to pretend to support small-government policies will hypocritically **** all over their own supposed ideals when it comes down to immigration laws because they do not really have the balls to support about small government because doing so in a legitimate sense would mean that, sometimes, you have to allow **** that you don't personally agree with to be the law of the land.

    It's hard to promote small-government principles consistently. That's why the vast majority of people fail at it.



    This is a case of you ****ting all over your professed ideology because you do not have the gumption to follow that ideology through to it's logical conclusions even when the logical conclusion would force you to take a position which runs counter to your personal views on a matter.

    You are doing this interpretive dance because you are starting from your personal view and then trying to justify that view in order to pretend it is not antithetical to your professed ideology.

    You have no idea how often I promote the rights of certain states to engage in behaviors that I personally abhor. Take immigration law, for example. I supported Arizona's law based entirely on the principles I'm discussing here. I ****ing hate that law, and I think it is ignorant bull****. I think the people who created it are scumbags who deserve to be flogged. But I support their right to pass such idiocy, despite the fact that I find them to be vile hateful morons, because I am consistent in my ideology. Not my state, therefore it's not my business to get the law changed.

    I could easily take the big government stance you are promoting on immigration because it would suit my purposes greatly. I could decide, arbitrarily, that Arizona's enforcement of federal laws could endanger foreign relations, for example, like the SC did when they decided to usurp State authority in 1875. That would allow me to doublethink my way into holding two contradictory positions at the same time, as so many people do on immigration, but I don't do that because I know that all I would be doing is lying to myself in order to hold a view.



    False. People do not have to enter teh process of naturalization in order to obtain a green card. You are simply wrong.



    Asylum is merely one path to getting a green card. Once the person receives the green card, they are no different form anyone else with a green card, legally speaking. You seem to be very unaware of the immigration laws in this country.



    You are using interpretations and redefinitions in order to justify your big government position. It's doublethink.



    The laws which make them "criminals" are unconstitutional because the federal government does not have the authority to define immigration laws. It is not an enumerated power.



    Because the feds usurped state power to determine residency through judicial activism in 1875. That usurpation of authority was unconstitutional, according to the 10th amendment.



    Defense ends at the border. If they get in and receive residency permission from a state, the feds need to prove that the individual is a defense risk in order to have authority.



    Only in your imagination.
    Listen Tuck, I respect you, but you are emotionalizing and we aren't going to agree here. You aren't going to change my mind here, it's pretty simple to me that naturalization depends on having the power over immigration.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  2. #162
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Is state nullification constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    But they didn't in this particular case.
    Actualy, they did. in 1875. The case law is clear.

    The fourteenth is pretty clear about naturalization...
    Yeah, it doesn't say **** about naturalization.

    The states gave the federal the power with the fourteenth.
    Not in any way shape or form. This s just something you are making up. It's imaginary.



    It's very much a border issue, how can one immigrate if they don't cross a border?
    The feds have the power to stop them at teh border. If they don't, it ceases to be a border issue. Why? because the border is at the border. Nowhere else.


    If one won't naturalize or follow proper laws in that regard they are sent away.

    Nobody EVER has been sent away for not becoming a citizen. EVER. By that I mean EVER. You don't know what the **** you are talking about if you think that people who do not naturalize get sent away.

    Oh this should be good. Define a border that is anything besides the line of demarcation for a country, it's pretty simple, the border is the place where influence ends. The U.S. has full authority over border protections, and that falls under the defense powers.
    Exactly. Once a person is no longer at the border, nothing that is done with them can relate to the border.

    It's pretty simple. If it is my job to secure location A, and person X is in location B, and location B is not location A, Person X is not in my jurisdiction.

    Hint: crossing a border =/= immigration




    For federal elections, I have to suffer the consequences of people who could potentially care less about the country and have nothing to lose, because they haven't assimilated.
    boo ****ing hoo. It's their representative in teh federal government that they are electing, not yours. That's the bitch about a democratic republic.

    I do have a vested interest in people being citizens before they vote, and because it's a federal representative so do they.
    Not A federal representative, their federal representative. It's none of your business what people in other states decide to do to vote in their elected officials. You do NOT have a vested interest in it. That's why you do not have a vote. That's the whole point of our system.



    Listen Tuck, I respect you, but you are emotionalizing and we aren't going to agree here. You aren't going to change my mind here, it's pretty simple to me that naturalization depends on having the power over immigration.
    I respect you to, but I have no respect for your position here because it's hypocritical and completely in conflict with your stated beliefs. If I seem "emotional" about it it is because I know you are smart enough to see the truth about your position if you stop choosing to ignore it. Things you have said in this thread directly contradict your views in our discussion. Things you posted concurrently, like "The big problem is misrepresentation of the plain wording" while arguing that all immigrants to this country undergo the naturalization process or saying that immigration is an enumerated power.

    You're capable of seeing the reality of the situation, you are choosing not to.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  3. #163
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,534

    Re: Is state nullification constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Actualy, they did. in 1875. The case law is clear.
    And based upon the fourteenth which was ratified in 1868. I don't see where the issue is.



    Yeah, it doesn't say **** about naturalization.
    It does in the first section, it refers to the citizenship process. Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    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.
    Section 5 delegates all powers to enforce the amendment to the federal.
    Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.[1]


    Not in any way shape or form. This s just something you are making up. It's imaginary.
    That's what the amendment process is, the states delegating a previously held power to the U.S., the federal.





    The feds have the power to stop them at teh border. If they don't, it ceases to be a border issue. Why? because the border is at the border. Nowhere else.
    Not true, this is made up. You are arguing that once they get past the border the issue is nullified to the federal, that's like saying the military can only defend at the borders and any advancing troops must be given a pass once across. People who break border sovereignity are subject to INS detainment and deportation.





    Nobody EVER has been sent away for not becoming a citizen. EVER. By that I mean EVER. You don't know what the **** you are talking about if you think that people who do not naturalize get sent away.
    Not true. Plenty of people have been deported for overstaying visas, border jumping, and otherwise being non-compliant with immigration law. That is exactly being sent away for not becoming a citizen.



    Exactly. Once a person is no longer at the border, nothing that is done with them can relate to the border.
    Incorrect, they are not rightfully here, and within our borders, it is a naturalization and immigration issue.

    It's pretty simple. If it is my job to secure location A, and person X is in location B, and location B is not location A, Person X is not in my jurisdiction.
    Naturalization is the purview of the U.S. government, their jurisdiction is all of the U.S. proper.

    Hint: crossing a border =/= immigration
    Correct, however crossing the border in order to obtain residence is.






    boo ****ing hoo. It's their representative in teh federal government that they are electing, not yours. That's the bitch about a democratic republic.
    And when that idiot violates the constitution and it gets upheld, I have to pay for it. So yes, federal elections are the purview of the federal should the states make improper decisions.



    Not A federal representative, their federal representative. It's none of your business what people in other states decide to do to vote in their elected officials. You do NOT have a vested interest in it. That's why you do not have a vote. That's the whole point of our system.
    Correct, until those states send federal representatives down that vote for things that affect me.





    I respect you to, but I have no respect for your position here because it's hypocritical and completely in conflict with your stated beliefs. If I seem "emotional" about it it is because I know you are smart enough to see the truth about your position if you stop choosing to ignore it. Things you have said in this thread directly contradict your views in our discussion. Things you posted concurrently, like "The big problem is misrepresentation of the plain wording" while arguing that all immigrants to this country undergo the naturalization process or saying that immigration is an enumerated power.
    You don't want to see where I'm going with it, trust me, if I say there is a basis for it constitutionally it's coming from neutral analysis.

    You're capable of seeing the reality of the situation, you are choosing not to.
    You are speaking with someone who wants to take as much power from the federal as possible, I wouldn't be arguing they had this power if I thought they didn't.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  4. #164
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Is state nullification constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    And based upon the fourteenth which was ratified in 1868.
    Not based on the 14th at all.



    It does in the first section, it refers to the citizenship process. Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    That simply states that all persons born in the US and all persons who are naturalized citizens are, in fact, citizens, and as citizens, they are treated equally.

    It says nothing about non-naturalized immigrants (say, people with green cards) or the naturalization process.



    That's what the amendment process is, the states delegating a previously held power to the U.S., the federal.
    No, the amendment process amends the constitution.


    Not true, this is made up.
    No, it's simple logic. If A is not B, then B cannot be A.

    You are arguing that once they get past the border the issue is nullified to the federal
    Because it is.

    that's like saying the military can only defend at the borders and any advancing troops must be given a pass once across.
    It is only a federal issue if there is a clear indication that the action is defense. Deportation has nothing to do with defense. If the individual is deemed to be a defense risk, it becomes a federal military issue. Working construction is obviously not a defense issue.

    People who break border sovereignity are subject to INS detainment and deportation.
    But only because of federal usurpation of state sovereignty.



    Not true.
    False

    Plenty of people have been deported for overstaying visas, border jumping, and otherwise being non-compliant with immigration law.
    Like I said, nobody has ever been deported for not becoming a citizen. Nothing above has anything to do with becoming a citizen. None of it.


    That is exactly being sent away for not becoming a citizen.
    That's absolutely nothing like being sent away for not becoming a citizen. Holy ****, you're too smart to be saying **** like this, dude.


    Incorrect, they are not rightfully here, and within our borders, it is a naturalization and immigration issue.
    The laws which indicate that they are not "rightfully here" are unconstitutional, so the federal government has no authority to say they are not rightfully here.


    Naturalization is the purview of the U.S. government, their jurisdiction is all of the U.S. proper.
    Now learn what naturalization means, because you apparently have no ****ing clue what it means if you think that people get deported for not becoming naturalized.

    Correct, however crossing the border in order to obtain residence is.
    Crossing the borders is one thing. Obtaining residence is another thing. Those two things are NOT the same thing.

    Crossing the border =/= obtaining residence.

    The federal government can control what happens with one thing (crossing the border). that does not mean they can (constitutionally speaking) control the other thing (obtaining residence).

    They CAN control who crosses the border. They do not have any say in what happens with that perosn after tehy have allowed them to cross that border, though, if one actually gives a rats ass about limiting the government to enumerated powers.




    And when that idiot violates the constitution and it gets upheld, I have to pay for it.
    Touch ****. That's true regardless of who does the voting. It's none of your business what other states decided to do with their votes.

    So yes, federal elections are the purview of the federal should the states make improper decisions.
    So now you are promoting the nanny state. The feds are just protecting the states from themselves and all that. Good work. Might as well go whole hog when you decide to give up on the principles you claim to hold dear.



    Correct, until those states send federal representatives down that vote for things that affect me.
    Still none of your business how they decide their representatives. I think that the southern states send a ton of idiots into federal positions, people who have no business being elected. People who deny evolution and believe that an invisible man made people in his own image. True nut jobs. I think that the federal laws would be much better if people who held such views were barred from being elected. But I have no authority to do so and I oppose any attempts to undermine the self-determination of those idiot-filled places that choose such people as their representatives. Their representative, their business.

    I don't have to like their representative, nor should I have the power to deny them their right to self-determination simply because I am so self-absorbed that I think my opinions should be universally applied.



    You don't want to see where I'm going with it, trust me, if I say there is a basis for it constitutionally it's coming from neutral analysis.
    I'd love to see where you are going with it. It's definitely not a neutral analysis, as it is completely fictional and not based on anything real. If it was neutral, you wouldn't have to make up definitions for terms so that they apply where they do not when the real definitions are used.

    You are speaking with someone who wants to take as much power from the federal as possible, I wouldn't be arguing they had this power if I thought they didn't.
    I'm sure you've convinced yourself that they have this power by constitutional authority. I think it's by choice, though, because you want to reach a certain conclusion and that prevents you form seeing the incongruities in your positions. that's why I have called it doublethink earlier. Doublethink was described by Orwell to be "... to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them..."
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  5. #165
    Whoa, daddy!
    MadLib's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Upstate New York
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,225

    Re: Is state nullification constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    Well, it's actually a myth that the constitution was full of holes.
    What I was thinking of is more along the lines of "necessary and proper" vs. the Tenth Amendment, and the conflict between the President being commander in chief while only Congress has the right to declare war, as well as some of the moral issues that the Constitution didn't adequately address, such as slavery.

    The biggest myth around is that the Constitution is an absolutely perfect document that foresaw any and all potential power struggles and military conflicts, and that adequately protected the rights of every citizen of the United States. Don't get me wrong, I think it was well ahead of its time considering events in Europe - the Founders could have easily set up an authoritarian kingdom like Great Britain, or could have paved the way for a quasi-communist Reign of Terror as happened in France. What bothers me is the idolization surrounding the Constitution and an absolute worship of every word in it.
    The big problem is misrepresentation of the plain wording(according to the meaning of those words at the time), the biggest "loopholing" of the constitution started with the Lincoln administration, and the Wilson administration. Everything that followed was just a continuation of abuses.
    Lincoln actually believed his policies were constitutional IIRC. I agree with his assessment of the Constitution as a document that does not permit secession - this opinion is supported by Madison and the wording and context of the Constitution. I don't want to go into a huge discussion of the legality of the Civil War and secession, but Confederate revisionists and apologists have been known to twist facts around, including their exploitation of the ambiguity of the Constitution to argue that secession was allowed despite evidence to the contrary.

    If you're referring to his wartime policies, the Constitution was very unclear on the powers of the federal government, but especially those of the President, during an insurrection like occurred during the Civil War. It did permit Congress to suspend habeas corpus, and so Lincoln assumed he could do that. I don't agree with some of what he did during the Civil War in terms of domestic policy, but I can forgive him because he thought he was preserving the nation and the Constitution by doing what he did; doing the wrong thing for the right reasons.

    As for Wilson, the only thing that comes to mind is the Espionage Act. It wasn't really much different from the Alien and Sedition Acts in regards to suppression of free speech.
    Actually, the Supreme Court has a horrible overall history of getting things correct, usually when they get one right at least they hold off a little damage. Unfortunately, many times they got something wrong they've done massive damage, like Brown V. Board(but at least they reversed themselves).
    You disagree with their Brown decision? The one that declared school segregation unconstitutional? I'm assuming that you mean to say that you disagree with Plessy and are happy that the Brown decision overturned Plessy.
    Their ruling on Obamacare apparently by Robert's wording was to presrve the commerce clause but the idiot actually expanded the tax powers to something that literally could have invalidated the CC.
    How would it have done that?
    The CC itself was expanded by a court that felt threatened, and the court used a process it wasn't clear it owned to give same self that process.
    I'm assuming you're referring to FDR's attempt to increase the size of the SCOTUS. I wouldn't be surprised if it was just to make the court more liberal rather than to blackmail it into passing the New Deal.
    Something has to be done if they are allowed to keep Judicial review I guess is my point. I'm not for or against them having it so much as since they interpreted it for themselves then it should be a legal requirement that they use it properly.
    Who's to decide if they use it properly? Another Supreme Court? Again, the Constitution is deliberately ambiguous on a lot of important issues, leaving room for it to be interpreted either way in a lot of instances.

    To quote Madison:

    Quote Originally Posted by James Madison
    If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.
    Quote Originally Posted by ecofarm View Post
    Hah. If someone put me in their sig, I'd never know. I have sigs off.

  6. #166
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,534

    Re: Is state nullification constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Not based on the 14th at all.





    That simply states that all persons born in the US and all persons who are naturalized citizens are, in fact, citizens, and as citizens, they are treated equally.

    It says nothing about non-naturalized immigrants (say, people with green cards) or the naturalization process.
    I realize that it doesn't explicitly say in the amendment that naturalization is a power, however, and not interpreting mind you the states are bound to the citizenship requirements as is the federal. The reason the federal assumes these powers is because it's an amendment, the constitution most pertains to the federal.





    No, the amendment process amends the constitution.
    Yes, the Congress passes a proposed constitutional amendment, this is the process of asking the states to surrender that power voluntarily, 3/4ths of the states must agree. That IS the amendment process.




    No, it's simple logic. If A is not B, then B cannot be A.
    Ah, but we aren't talking about simple A =/= B. Immigration is part of the naturalization process, illegal immigration is a flagrant violation of such. So sure, A =/= B in a sense that the two are not the exact same thing, but A has a causal relationship to B, and there is the third variable of legality (C).



    Because it is.
    Then please expand on your logic behind this. Because defense, one of the first powers, is universal within U.S. borders at any time, this ties later into naturalization, skirting that process is a form of invasion. Yes, it sounds extreme and we aren't speaking to a martial situation, but it is a non-military invasion nonetheless.


    It is only a federal issue if there is a clear indication that the action is defense. Deportation has nothing to do with defense. If the individual is deemed to be a defense risk, it becomes a federal military issue. Working construction is obviously not a defense issue.
    Okay, this is fair. Now to throw a monkey wrench into the logic, with gangs like MS 13, drug running(the violence that ensues), traffickers, coyotes(human smugglers), etc. this does become a violence issue, along with terrorists, etc. So yes, there is a defense component in this and this is a rare instance where the federal does in fact have a valid interest in knowing who is crossing borders.



    But only because of federal usurpation of state sovereignty.
    I disagree because of the 14th, and yes, I know you disagree that the 14th provides for federal naturalization, but until that is not a factor for interpretation it is what it is.





    False
    There is no way it is false, deportation is a matter of record.



    Like I said, nobody has ever been deported for not becoming a citizen. Nothing above has anything to do with becoming a citizen. None of it.
    Okay, for "not becoming a citizen" granted, people aren't being forced to become citizens, but they have no permanent standing to remain in the U.S., they are here at the discretion of the federal and may be deported at any time the visa expires, they may also be deported for commission of any crime, they do not have the same standing as permanent citizens.




    That's absolutely nothing like being sent away for not becoming a citizen. Holy ****, you're too smart to be saying **** like this, dude.
    Think about it a bit more. I commit a robbery(not going to happen, but for hypothetical's sake) and am arrested, I go to jail, serve time, and return home. A person on visa with no intent to become a citizen commits same crime they can be deported. This is why I gave that example.




    The laws which indicate that they are not "rightfully here" are unconstitutional, so the federal government has no authority to say they are not rightfully here.
    Ah, but they are. Any country has the right to determine the path to citizenship. As long as the federal is charged with upholding citizenship and the rights therein, it's within their purview to set the standards and thus enforce.



    Now learn what naturalization means, because you apparently have no ****ing clue what it means if you think that people get deported for not becoming naturalized.
    Again, if people are not here legally, they can be deported. If a person is going through the naturalization process, they are here legally.



    Crossing the borders is one thing. Obtaining residence is another thing. Those two things are NOT the same thing.
    But, does that person have the right of residence if they do not have the right to be here?

    Crossing the border =/= obtaining residence.
    Agreed.

    The federal government can control what happens with one thing (crossing the border). that does not mean they can (constitutionally speaking) control the other thing (obtaining residence).
    I think we're conflating two issues here. The federal has the power to enforce immigration, but no, they do not have the right to hinder a person seeking residence.

    They CAN control who crosses the border. They do not have any say in what happens with that perosn after tehy have allowed them to cross that border, though, if one actually gives a rats ass about limiting the government to enumerated powers.
    And slight disagreement here, if a person is not here legally, I do argue that the government has the authority to enforce.






    Touch ****. That's true regardless of who does the voting. It's none of your business what other states decided to do with their votes.
    Under a constitutional republic, yes, when I have to suffer unconstitutional laws because of it, no.



    So now you are promoting the nanny state. The feds are just protecting the states from themselves and all that. Good work. Might as well go whole hog when you decide to give up on the principles you claim to hold dear.
    Not what I am saying. Not in the least. The federal has the right to insure that representative to the federal are elected properly.





    Still none of your business how they decide their representatives. I think that the southern states send a ton of idiots into federal positions, people who have no business being elected. People who deny evolution and believe that an invisible man made people in his own image. True nut jobs. I think that the federal laws would be much better if people who held such views were barred from being elected. But I have no authority to do so and I oppose any attempts to undermine the self-determination of those idiot-filled places that choose such people as their representatives. Their representative, their business.
    I'll take a religious nut over a control freak like Pelosi, Reid, and Schumer any day. But yes, just about all of them are ****ing stupid.

    I don't have to like their representative, nor should I have the power to deny them their right to self-determination simply because I am so self-absorbed that I think my opinions should be universally applied.
    Keep in mind I'm not calling for anything more than federal elections being done correctly, I could care less what Wisconsin wants internally, but if they elect an idiot who passes laws against my state's interests it is my problem.





    I'd love to see where you are going with it. It's definitely not a neutral analysis, as it is completely fictional and not based on anything real. If it was neutral, you wouldn't have to make up definitions for terms so that they apply where they do not when the real definitions are used.
    Dude, not making anything up.



    I'm sure you've convinced yourself that they have this power by constitutional authority. I think it's by choice, though, because you want to reach a certain conclusion and that prevents you form seeing the incongruities in your positions. that's why I have called it doublethink earlier. Doublethink was described by Orwell to be "... to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them..."
    Analysis, pure analysis.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  7. #167
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,534

    Re: Is state nullification constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by MadLib View Post
    What I was thinking of is more along the lines of "necessary and proper" vs. the Tenth Amendment, and the conflict between the President being commander in chief while only Congress has the right to declare war, as well as some of the moral issues that the Constitution didn't adequately address, such as slavery.
    Gotcha. Necessary and proper is not all that difficult in my opinion(for the most part anyway). The federal must prove two things 1) A situation in which it has no authority is serious and a compelling interest exists 2) The federal has within it's enumerated powers a close enough relationship to said power to assume legal authority.

    The president actually did have war powers until Vietnam, the War Powers Act of 1973 took the authority from the president and gave it to Congress, limiting the president to police action powers for 60 days plus a 30 day withdrawal period. That IMO was not constitutional. To the moral issues, I think the founders put enough trust in the states to get it corrected, but of course slavery was a hypocracy according to the preamble.



    The biggest myth around is that the Constitution is an absolutely perfect document that foresaw any and all potential power struggles and military conflicts, and that adequately protected the rights of every citizen of the United States. Don't get me wrong, I think it was well ahead of its time considering events in Europe - the Founders could have easily set up an authoritarian kingdom like Great Britain, or could have paved the way for a quasi-communist Reign of Terror as happened in France. What bothers me is the idolization surrounding the Constitution and an absolute worship of every word in it.
    I don't think anyone will argue the document is "perfect" including constitutionalists like myself. The constitution was written as a protection of the liberties and freedoms of citizens of the U.S. and was done so to insure that a government was just strong enough to do so. The big issue is people trying to find loopholes in the document for what they consider to be important needs. We still fight about many of the same things the founders did, we need to find the same path that they did, "live within the prohibitions of good governance".



    Lincoln actually believed his policies were constitutional IIRC. I agree with his assessment of the Constitution as a document that does not permit secession - this opinion is supported by Madison and the wording and context of the Constitution. I don't want to go into a huge discussion of the legality of the Civil War and secession, but Confederate revisionists and apologists have been known to twist facts around, including their exploitation of the ambiguity of the Constitution to argue that secession was allowed despite evidence to the contrary.
    Actually, there is no power of the federal to enforce the union, and no prohibition of the states to secede. In fact many founders, including Madison stated that the federal is served by sovereign states. The Civil War was very complex, and Lincoln himself was not against secession until it served him. Yes, the court did rule in Lincoln's favor, but then again I'm on record as saying the court gets plenty of things wrong. According to the tenth and enumerated powers, the federal was wrong.

    If you're referring to his wartime policies, the Constitution was very unclear on the powers of the federal government, but especially those of the President, during an insurrection like occurred during the Civil War. It did permit Congress to suspend habeas corpus, and so Lincoln assumed he could do that. I don't agree with some of what he did during the Civil War in terms of domestic policy, but I can forgive him because he thought he was preserving the nation and the Constitution by doing what he did; doing the wrong thing for the right reasons.
    I don't so much care about suspension of Habeus Corpus, that is part of martial law. I disagree with Lincoln's assertion that secession was prohibited, and the economic policies that were ninth amendment issues the fed refused to enforce. The reason Lincoln set up what would become the next century of unconstitutionality is the defeat of secession powers, it took away a non-violent method for states to assert their sovereignity. But again, the Civil War was incredibly complex, much more so than many history books cover.

    As for Wilson, the only thing that comes to mind is the Espionage Act. It wasn't really much different from the Alien and Sedition Acts in regards to suppression of free speech.
    That, I've just run across things thanks to another poster who suggests the 16th and 17th amendments were not properly ratified by the states and his AG forged documents to "deem" them ratified. Wilson was a known anti-constitutionalist in his professorship days, he was an economic interventionalist, etc.

    You disagree with their Brown decision? The one that declared school segregation unconstitutional? I'm assuming that you mean to say that you disagree with Plessy and are happy that the Brown decision overturned Plessy.
    I think you're right. I was typing on little sleep last night and may have had a brain fart. Yes, Plessy, seperate but equal was a constitutional joke.

    How would it have done that?
    Here is the problem. Roberts argued that the tax powers held that Obamacare mandates were legal and constitutional, even though the federal had no other powers under the commerce clause to issue any of the law. Literally a thin string of "taxation" upholds the entire bill, IOW, they have no right to enforce mandated commerce but they have the right to tax said non-commerce even so. IOW they have tax powers where they have no powers. Here is the problem in a nutshell, the government now has carte blanche to pass commerce bills requiring actions or purchases, even though they have no right to do so, they may simply tax the refusal to do so and it is now constitutional. So choose any given thing you care about, and do not want to have choices forced or limited to you and apply someone disagreeing with your choice and passing a law against it. Could be anything;
    1) You do not want a firearm, Congress passes a law mandating ownership, president signs. You refuse, but because they tax non-ownership with graded annual increase in penalties you eventually will be forced to buy a gun, because there will be a point where buying one is less expensive than the rate of penalty.
    2) Gas guzzler tax. Let's say SCOTUS rules that CAFE standards are unconstitutional(they are). Congress responds by passing a law stating if your car doesn't get x miles to the gallon you pay a tax penalty. They can't take your vehicle, but can tax you right out of ownership.
    3) EPA mandatory "tax" on any homes with more than two rooms.
    4) Gym membership "tax" - They want you to exercise, it's not your thing. So they pass a tax saying anyone who doesn't have a gym membership pays 200$/mo.
    5) Unhealthy food tax - They can't force you to eat more vegetables, but they can tax you x%/oz. of every meat product you buy.
    It's endless, you may be coerced to do whatever a politician wants as long as they call it a "tax". This is where Roberts ****ed up.

    I'm assuming you're referring to FDR's attempt to increase the size of the SCOTUS. I wouldn't be surprised if it was just to make the court more liberal rather than to blackmail it into passing the New Deal.
    He dropped the plan to stack the court as soon as SCOTUS reversed itself on the CC, my own logic dictates it was a move to insure he got the outcome he wanted. If he simply wanted to further liberalize the court he would have continued the process IMO.



    Who's to decide if they use it properly? Another Supreme Court? Again, the Constitution is deliberately ambiguous on a lot of important issues, leaving room for it to be interpreted either way in a lot of instances.
    Honestly, when a justice is just obviously violating their oaths of office Congress should engage in impeachment hearings and let the process play out. If the justice is just an idiot then so be it, if they are showing intent to circumvent the constitution it's perjury, and I've come to find out over the years they can be impeached for it.

    To quote Madison:
    That was a reference to natural law. Basically, yes a government must have some authority to protect it's citizens, and sometimes that does require setting certain moral standards, Madison was also giving a warning that unchecked government runs afoul over the governed.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  8. #168
    Whoa, daddy!
    MadLib's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Upstate New York
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,225

    Re: Is state nullification constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    Gotcha. Necessary and proper is not all that difficult in my opinion(for the most part anyway). The federal must prove two things 1) A situation in which it has no authority is serious and a compelling interest exists 2) The federal has within it's enumerated powers a close enough relationship to said power to assume legal authority.
    I agree, but that will always be a highly subjective judgment.
    The president actually did have war powers until Vietnam, the War Powers Act of 1973 took the authority from the president and gave it to Congress, limiting the president to police action powers for 60 days plus a 30 day withdrawal period. That IMO was not constitutional.
    I wouldn't be surprised if WPA was challenged within the next few years. The thing is that most of our wars were never declared, and Congress hoped to get some of its authority in this matter back.
    To the moral issues, I think the founders put enough trust in the states to get it corrected, but of course slavery was a hypocracy according to the preamble.
    They probably would have outlawed slavery if it hadn't been for the Southern States, who would have immediately seceded to preserve their economies. The compromise that occurred was to ban slave importation in 1807 but to hold other states responsible for catching fugitive slaves.


    I don't think anyone will argue the document is "perfect" including constitutionalists like myself. The constitution was written as a protection of the liberties and freedoms of citizens of the U.S. and was done so to insure that a government was just strong enough to do so. The big issue is people trying to find loopholes in the document for what they consider to be important needs. We still fight about many of the same things the founders did, we need to find the same path that they did, "live within the prohibitions of good governance".
    I don't like the term "constitutionalist" - very few liberals advocate outright disloyalty to the Constitution. They attempt to adjust its meaning slightly in accordance with modern society while still preserving its basic meaning. Conservatives tend to be more strict constructionist about the whole thing, although both sides are known to violate some BOR.


    Actually, there is no power of the federal to enforce the union, and no prohibition of the states to secede. In fact many founders, including Madison stated that the federal is served by sovereign states.
    I have Madison on record stating that secession is only permissible if the government is tyrannical, or if all the other states permit it. The Constitution was a binding contract that one party could leave only with permission of the other parties:

    Quote Originally Posted by Madison
    The essential difference between a free Government and Governments not free, is that the former is founded in compact, the parties to which are mutually and equally bound by it. Neither of them therefore can have a greater fight to break off from the bargain, than the other or others have to hold them to it...The fallacy which draws a different conclusion from them lies in confounding a single party, with the parties to the Constitutional compact of the United States. The latter having made the compact may do what they will with it. The former as one only of the parties, owes fidelity to it, till released by consent, or absolved by an intolerable abuse of the power created.
    The Civil War was very complex, and Lincoln himself was not against secession until it served him.
    It never became an issue until it "served him"
    Yes, the court did rule in Lincoln's favor, but then again I'm on record as saying the court gets plenty of things wrong. According to the tenth and enumerated powers, the federal was wrong.
    And according to the Framers and even the Preamble, SCOTUS was correct. The states had too much of their sovereignty taken away by the Constitution for them to be considered mini-nations.
    I don't so much care about suspension of Habeus Corpus, that is part of martial law.
    Really? I wouldn't take issue with it if Congress was the one to take it away, but Lincoln as President had no authority to do so.
    the economic policies that were ninth amendment issues the fed refused to enforce.
    What are you thinking?
    The reason Lincoln set up what would become the next century of unconstitutionality is the defeat of secession powers, it took away a non-violent method for states to assert their sovereignity. But again, the Civil War was incredibly complex, much more so than many history books cover.
    Nonviolent? The only time in our history that states seceded was the time that they then turned around and attacked military installations that were legally federal property even if secession was legal. Hell, Lincoln might have even left the Confederate states alone had they not immediately attacked the United States at Ft. Sumter. I'd even go as far as to argue that the Confederacy paved the way for reduction of state's rights by abusing them

    I agree that it was a complex issue, but I also believe it is one of the few "just wars" in our nation's history. You had an illegal government founded on slavery rebelling against a liberal democracy simply because they were too greedy to give up their barbaric 16th century economic system.
    That, I've just run across things thanks to another poster who suggests the 16th and 17th amendments were not properly ratified by the states and his AG forged documents to "deem" them ratified. Wilson was a known anti-constitutionalist in his professorship days, he was an economic interventionalist, etc.
    I don't put much faith in conspiracy theories in general. I don't know about anti-constitutionalism, the only real problem I have with Wilson was his virulent racism.
    I think you're right. I was typing on little sleep last night and may have had a brain fart. Yes, Plessy, seperate but equal was a constitutional joke.
    I admire the majority opinion on Brown: that institutions that were separate could not be equal, especially in regards to education.
    Here is the problem. Roberts argued that the tax powers held that Obamacare mandates were legal and constitutional, even though the federal had no other powers under the commerce clause to issue any of the law. Literally a thin string of "taxation" upholds the entire bill, IOW, they have no right to enforce mandated commerce but they have the right to tax said non-commerce even so. IOW they have tax powers where they have no powers. Here is the problem in a nutshell, the government now has carte blanche to pass commerce bills requiring actions or purchases, even though they have no right to do so, they may simply tax the refusal to do so and it is now constitutional. So choose any given thing you care about, and do not want to have choices forced or limited to you and apply someone disagreeing with your choice and passing a law against it. Could be anything;
    1) You do not want a firearm, Congress passes a law mandating ownership, president signs. You refuse, but because they tax non-ownership with graded annual increase in penalties you eventually will be forced to buy a gun, because there will be a point where buying one is less expensive than the rate of penalty.
    2) Gas guzzler tax. Let's say SCOTUS rules that CAFE standards are unconstitutional(they are). Congress responds by passing a law stating if your car doesn't get x miles to the gallon you pay a tax penalty. They can't take your vehicle, but can tax you right out of ownership.
    3) EPA mandatory "tax" on any homes with more than two rooms.
    4) Gym membership "tax" - They want you to exercise, it's not your thing. So they pass a tax saying anyone who doesn't have a gym membership pays 200$/mo.
    5) Unhealthy food tax - They can't force you to eat more vegetables, but they can tax you x%/oz. of every meat product you buy.
    It's endless, you may be coerced to do whatever a politician wants as long as they call it a "tax". This is where Roberts ****ed up.
    That's one of the parts of ACA that I'm struggling with. I support universal healthcare and the elimination of the preexisting condition BS, but I don't really know how I feel about taxing employers to extend their insurance policy to cover birth control.
    He dropped the plan to stack the court as soon as SCOTUS reversed itself on the CC, my own logic dictates it was a move to insure he got the outcome he wanted. If he simply wanted to further liberalize the court he would have continued the process IMO.
    I'm pretty sure FDR did it to get what he wanted, but I don't see it as blackmail. It allowed the New Deal, there was no reason after that for him to liberalize the court.

    Honestly, when a justice is just obviously violating their oaths of office Congress should engage in impeachment hearings and let the process play out. If the justice is just an idiot then so be it, if they are showing intent to circumvent the constitution it's perjury, and I've come to find out over the years they can be impeached for it.
    The commerce clause has been extended far past its original intent IMO, but I don't see anything that SCOTUS has done to be blatant enough for impeachment.
    That was a reference to natural law. Basically, yes a government must have some authority to protect it's citizens, and sometimes that does require setting certain moral standards, Madison was also giving a warning that unchecked government runs afoul over the governed.
    I see that, but it also points to a fact that I'm sure the Framers recognized: that any man-made and man-ruled government is going to have its flaws, no matter how much natural law and common sense is applied.
    Quote Originally Posted by ecofarm View Post
    Hah. If someone put me in their sig, I'd never know. I have sigs off.

  9. #169
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,534

    Re: Is state nullification constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by MadLib View Post
    I agree, but that will always be a highly subjective judgment.
    Fair point. IMO if anything looks in the least questionable then constitutionality should be considered suspect. I think the government must prove it's case, not the people being charged with proving it unconstitutional, if a government cannot both prove without a doubt the necessity of a power they want and prove that it is connected to a power they already have then the law should be assumed unconstitutional. Really, I would prefer that Congress just act properly and try for an amendment first, failing that then they should prove their case absolutely.

    I wouldn't be surprised if WPA was challenged within the next few years. The thing is that most of our wars were never declared, and Congress hoped to get some of its authority in this matter back.
    I'm not sure, it hasn't really been something that presidents have shown much concern over but the constitution specifically granted the executive war powers. However, the catch, and best check is that Congress could simply defund a war, this would force a president to either have an underfunded/unfunded bloodbath on his hands(pretty much a fatal scandal for any president) or he would have to withdraw. It's not like Congress had no power prior to that act, and really, it should have been offered as an amendment.

    They probably would have outlawed slavery if it hadn't been for the Southern States, who would have immediately seceded to preserve their economies. The compromise that occurred was to ban slave importation in 1807 but to hold other states responsible for catching fugitive slaves.
    The slavery issue was botched all around, no compromises worked for anyone, and the fallout from the war and especially Reconstructed created a serious fallout that many scholars have stated led to the vile racism of the late 1800s all the way into the mid 1900s. There are a few pieces out there speculating that advancements in farm technology would have made slavery inefficient by comparison and that southern owners would have pretty much ended the practice within twenty years anyway, but obviously that is pure scholastic speculation and obviously the CW and Reconstruction made such musings moot.


    I don't like the term "constitutionalist" - very few liberals advocate outright disloyalty to the Constitution. They attempt to adjust its meaning slightly in accordance with modern society while still preserving its basic meaning. Conservatives tend to be more strict constructionist about the whole thing, although both sides are known to violate some BOR.
    Okay, fair enough. I am an originalist, I think the document is sufficient to address stated needs by all sides if we follow it as written, it just takes doing things the right way creatively. I'm not a fan of constitutional interpretism, and the reason isn't so much resisting change, it's not even about disagreeing that some people may need assistance programs, or protections, the big problem comes with the additional questions of who would remove protections, unintended consequences, and how far the federal is willing to take the interpretations. It's fine to interpret if people aren't in danger of being harmed at any time, but even the smallest chance of seeing more or worse changes than the last century lead me to call for more originalism. We can't forget at any time that first and foremost the constitution was written to protect the citizenry from government.


    I have Madison on record stating that secession is only permissible if the government is tyrannical, or if all the other states permit it. The Constitution was a binding contract that one party could leave only with permission of the other parties:
    I get that, but also remember that tyranny is subjective as a general rule, and when you put the actual language of the constitution out, the tenth amendment specifically and the enumerated powers, it's clear that secession is legal under proper interpretation. While Madison was in favor of upholding the union the constitution was actually quite clear about the scope of government power and enforcing the union was not granted.


    It never became an issue until it "served him"

    And according to the Framers and even the Preamble, SCOTUS was correct. The states had too much of their sovereignty taken away by the Constitution for them to be considered mini-nations.
    The preamble is not legally binding, I think that's the one thing about the constitution that most sides admit when being honest. SCOTUS using it would be an example of "judicial activism", think about it like this, I am said to have the right to life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness, but there are obvious limits. My life, liberty, and happiness cannot be used to violate the rights of others, like murder, endangerment, slander, etc.

    Really? I wouldn't take issue with it if Congress was the one to take it away, but Lincoln as President had no authority to do so.
    I'll have to brush up on martial law, but constitutional powers are somewhat limited during a time where martial law is declared. Congress IMO would have even less right to suspend it than Lincoln, looking back on it, here is my expansion. I actually think Lincoln was morally wrong for suspending Habeas Corpus, and I don't think he had a valid reason to do so, however because he had martial law declared I think he actually did have a legal right to do so.

    What are you thinking?
    Tariffs against the south, taxes, unfair trading rates favorable to European partners versus southern states for same raw materials and goods. The problem is that the commerce clause gives the responsibility and power of the federal to regulate interstate commerce, or, to "make it regular". This doesn't mean regulating goods, services, or business itself but regulating trade to insure that rates are equitable for all U.S. business, whether state-state, state-federal, etc. The federal was charged with settling interstate trade disputes. The beginning of the secession sentiments started with federal refusal to end unfair practices.

    Nonviolent? The only time in our history that states seceded was the time that they then turned around and attacked military installations that were legally federal property even if secession was legal. Hell, Lincoln might have even left the Confederate states alone had they not immediately attacked the United States at Ft. Sumter. I'd even go as far as to argue that the Confederacy paved the way for reduction of state's rights by abusing them
    Fort Sumter, as I've discussed here before was a complete political ****up. The north could not convince the south to remain in the Union, however they refused to acknowledge the secession. The south should have compensated the north for Fort Sumter, of course, but the Union was warned ahead of time that the south would attack should union troops remain. It could have been nonviolent, both sides went to aggression, but realistically had the Union cooperated and worked on further talks, and the Confederacy listened in same the whole thing could have ended peacefully.
    I agree that it was a complex issue, but I also believe it is one of the few "just wars" in our nation's history. You had an illegal government founded on slavery rebelling against a liberal democracy simply because they were too greedy to give up their barbaric 16th century economic system.
    We can't really call the Confederacy "illegal", and I'm basing that on the tenth amendment grounds as stated before. Slavery was actually the "last straw" issue, granted it was a big one. The problem is that the Federal(Union) asserted "illigitimacy" of the Confederate governments but there was no standing on their behalf to do so, obviously the southern states disagreed. SCOTUS, using judicial review, and IMO a very CYA decision upheld the Union position, but IMO they had to twist quite a bit to do so.

    I don't put much faith in conspiracy theories in general. I don't know about anti-constitutionalism, the only real problem I have with Wilson was his virulent racism.
    I'm still looking into the charges of the fraudulence of the 16th and 17th, but ever since man has had government structure there have been those willing to cheat to gain power. It's plausible, not confirmed obviously. However, as to Wilson, he actually did show open contempt for the constitution in his writings pre presidency.

    I admire the majority opinion on Brown: that institutions that were separate could not be equal, especially in regards to education.
    Yes, don't know why I got that confused. It's pretty simple, citizens have rights in full, either you are at liberty to exercise your rights or you are not, there is no "almost free".

    That's one of the parts of ACA that I'm struggling with. I support universal healthcare and the elimination of the preexisting condition BS, but I don't really know how I feel about taxing employers to extend their insurance policy to cover birth control.
    I used to sell insurance. This thing is bad, but using the taxation powers to uphold it was not a good precedent.

    I'm pretty sure FDR did it to get what he wanted, but I don't see it as blackmail. It allowed the New Deal, there was no reason after that for him to liberalize the court.
    I dunno. He could have had his way with anything after that. I would have continued would I want to get more things upheld. It's speculation though.


    The commerce clause has been extended far past its original intent IMO, but I don't see anything that SCOTUS has done to be blatant enough for impeachment.
    I disagree, simply for the fact that so much bad law has stemmed from those expansions.


    I see that, but it also points to a fact that I'm sure the Framers recognized: that any man-made and man-ruled government is going to have its flaws, no matter how much natural law and common sense is applied.
    Absolutely, and many warned about those concerns.
    Last edited by LaMidRighter; 06-28-13 at 12:40 AM.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  10. #170
    Whoa, daddy!
    MadLib's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Upstate New York
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,225

    Re: Is state nullification constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    Fair point. IMO if anything looks in the least questionable then constitutionality should be considered suspect. I think the government must prove it's case, not the people being charged with proving it unconstitutional, if a government cannot both prove without a doubt the necessity of a power they want and prove that it is connected to a power they already have then the law should be assumed unconstitutional. Really, I would prefer that Congress just act properly and try for an amendment first, failing that then they should prove their case absolutely.
    The reason that they don't go for amendments is that amending is a very tedious process, and for good reason.
    I'm not sure, it hasn't really been something that presidents have shown much concern over but the constitution specifically granted the executive war powers. However, the catch, and best check is that Congress could simply defund a war, this would force a president to either have an underfunded/unfunded bloodbath on his hands(pretty much a fatal scandal for any president) or he would have to withdraw. It's not like Congress had no power prior to that act, and really, it should have been offered as an amendment.
    The power to declare war could easily be interpreted as Congress authorizing a war. What's the point of a declaration if the President is going to take military action with or without Congressional approval?
    The slavery issue was botched all around, no compromises worked for anyone, and the fallout from the war and especially Reconstructed created a serious fallout that many scholars have stated led to the vile racism of the late 1800s all the way into the mid 1900s. There are a few pieces out there speculating that advancements in farm technology would have made slavery inefficient by comparison and that southern owners would have pretty much ended the practice within twenty years anyway, but obviously that is pure scholastic speculation and obviously the CW and Reconstruction made such musings moot.
    It's important to remember that other advances in farm technology, like the cotton gin - which Whitney hoped would reduce slavery - only serve to make cotton production more efficient, and therefore created a boom in the slave industry. The only way I could foresee slavery ending on its own would be British India becoming "King Cotton" rather than the southern states, therefore making the whole plantation system obsolete. I highly doubt that racism would have been tamer after slavery ended, because an apathetic policy from the North would only serve to encourage discrimination.

    But if it were to come down to slavery ending on its own due to economic reasons, or a military conflict that would end it abruptly, I'd take the latter in a heartbeat. Who knows how long it would take for slavery to die out on its own? Twenty years? Fifty years? A hundred? In the meantime thousands upon thousands of children would be born into slavery, and adults would die never knowing a life beyond the lash. Even though a great deal of Americans died during the Civil War, their deaths ensured freedom for a greater number of people.
    I get that, but also remember that tyranny is subjective as a general rule, and when you put the actual language of the constitution out, the tenth amendment specifically and the enumerated powers, it's clear that secession is legal under proper interpretation. While Madison was in favor of upholding the union the constitution was actually quite clear about the scope of government power and enforcing the union was not granted.
    Tyranny is subjective, but I'd hardly consider slight economic marginalization to fit under even the loosest definition of the word. Here's just an outline of why secession isn't constitutional:

    1. Madison's aforementioned opinion on secession - that it binds every state to it, and that only through the consent of the other states or abject tyranny may a state leave the Union
    2. The Articles, more decentralizing than even the Constitution, openly stated that the US could not be dissolved. Maybe this was implied when carried on to the Constitution, since it was designed to place greater controls upon the states, not less.
    3. States cannot not form "confederations" and do not have the sovereignty that independent nations have. This suggests that, unlike the leagues set up by the EU and UN, the Constitution was not intended to set up a league of countries but instead a whole, sovereign nation.
    4. Being a manner that affects the entire nation rather than just that state alone, secession would be a federal manner rather than a state manner - similar to the admission of new states.

    The preamble is not legally binding, I think that's the one thing about the constitution that most sides admit when being honest. SCOTUS using it would be an example of "judicial activism", think about it like this, I am said to have the right to life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness, but there are obvious limits. My life, liberty, and happiness cannot be used to violate the rights of others, like murder, endangerment, slander, etc.
    There are limits to every right. The First Amendment does not permit shouting fire in a theater, the Second does not permit one to fire their guns into the air or point them at people. The Preamble isn't legally binding like the rest of the Constitution, but it does give insight into what kind of a government the Framers intended to set up.
    I'll have to brush up on martial law, but constitutional powers are somewhat limited during a time where martial law is declared. Congress IMO would have even less right to suspend it than Lincoln, looking back on it, here is my expansion. I actually think Lincoln was morally wrong for suspending Habeas Corpus, and I don't think he had a valid reason to do so, however because he had martial law declared I think he actually did have a legal right to do so.
    I don't see anything in the Constitution that would permit the President to suspend habeas corpus; on the contrary, it blandly states that suspending habeas corpus may be used in a time of war by Congress. Only they would have the legal right to do so.
    Tariffs against the south, taxes, unfair trading rates favorable to European partners versus southern states for same raw materials and goods. The problem is that the commerce clause gives the responsibility and power of the federal to regulate interstate commerce, or, to "make it regular". This doesn't mean regulating goods, services, or business itself but regulating trade to insure that rates are equitable for all U.S. business, whether state-state, state-federal, etc. The federal was charged with settling interstate trade disputes. The beginning of the secession sentiments started with federal refusal to end unfair practices.
    I'm pretty sure that those policies began under the previous administrations and that Congress was mostly to blame. The slave states could cry me a river over their economic woes, but I digress :p

    Fort Sumter, as I've discussed here before was a complete political ****up. The north could not convince the south to remain in the Union, however they refused to acknowledge the secession. The south should have compensated the north for Fort Sumter, of course, but the Union was warned ahead of time that the south would attack should union troops remain. It could have been nonviolent, both sides went to aggression, but realistically had the Union cooperated and worked on further talks, and the Confederacy listened in same the whole thing could have ended peacefully.
    It wasn't up to the Union to kowtow to the Confederacy. Again, whether secession was legal or not, Sumter was US military property and therefore would not belong to the Confederacy. They had a lot of gall to secede in the first place, but to attempt to coerce the US into giving up lawful property was adding insult to injury. It was their fault for attacking, not the Union's fault for not bowing down to their every whim.
    We can't really call the Confederacy "illegal", and I'm basing that on the tenth amendment grounds as stated before. Slavery was actually the "last straw" issue, granted it was a big one. The problem is that the Federal(Union) asserted "illigitimacy" of the Confederate governments but there was no standing on their behalf to do so, obviously the southern states disagreed. SCOTUS, using judicial review, and IMO a very CYA decision upheld the Union position, but IMO they had to twist quite a bit to do so.
    I wouldn't consider slavery a last straw issue, everything political in the South was at least indirectly tied to slavery.

    Even if secession was totally legal, and if the Confederacy never aggressively attacked the Union, I would be totally fine with the Union invading the Confederacy and the Civil War happening the way it did. I agree with Henry David Thoreau's belief: that if violence, breaking the law, and even treason are necessary to end an institution as evil as slavery, then they should be carried out to their fullest extent. What bothers me is revisionists who try to whitewash the Confederate side of history by portraying them as victims who had every right to do everything they did. Even though a lot of their claims are irrelevant, for truth's sake they must be countered.
    I'm still looking into the charges of the fraudulence of the 16th and 17th, but ever since man has had government structure there have been those willing to cheat to gain power. It's plausible, not confirmed obviously. However, as to Wilson, he actually did show open contempt for the constitution in his writings pre presidency.
    Oh well. Opinions do change over time. He also presided over a nation at war, so civil liberties are bound to be restricted.
    I used to sell insurance. This thing is bad, but using the taxation powers to uphold it was not a good precedent.
    Taxation powers can only be used to an extent. It's similar to how the commerce clause was used to expand the government right up until it was used to further gun control. Certain things have nothing to do with either commerce or taxation.
    I dunno. He could have had his way with anything after that. I would have continued would I want to get more things upheld. It's speculation though.
    There was a lot of other stuff going on at the time for anything else constitutionally-speaking to be at the forefront of his mind.

    I disagree, simply for the fact that so much bad law has stemmed from those expansions.
    The New Deal and ACA aren't bad laws, from my point of view as an economic liberal

    Absolutely, and many warned about those concerns.
    He did his best.

    God damn it, it took me over an hour to respond to your post
    Quote Originally Posted by ecofarm View Post
    Hah. If someone put me in their sig, I'd never know. I have sigs off.

Page 17 of 18 FirstFirst ... 715161718 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •