SARTRE: Return to utopian Articles of Confederation ('Dismantle' Government)?

[Lazarus]

SARTRE recently had published an article that contains the following :



BASIC FLAW IN THE U.S. CONSTITUTION
ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION WAS PREFERABLE

By: SARTRE

Only a systemic dismantling of that central government, returning primacy back to individual states will restore the vision of the American Revolution.



Published in the December 27, 2002 issue of Ether Zone.
Copyright © 1997 - 2002 Ether Zone.



What does "dismantling" mean but overthrow? Every government official everywhere in the country is sworn to defend the U.S. Constitution. What would be the logical result? Would slavery be allowed? Would woman's suffrage no longer be assured? What was so great about 18th centruy America that Sartre thinks returning to that 'utopia' would be a 'good thing' to do?

I think there may be some serious screws loose with those who long for the bad "good old days." ::)

What do you think? Be civil and on-topic! Thanks.

(This was the second try at geting this thread going, it was late and I neglected the link. Sorry. Thanks to Jethro Tull for digging t up). :)

[Jethro Tull]

Here is the link: http://www.etherzone.com/2002/sart122702.shtml

Most Americans no longer understand the intended purpose in the struggle against King George III. They now accept a domestic grown variant that has a Texas drawl while imposing edicts that no 18th century “American Englishman” would ever tolerate. Can the Stamp Act be compared to the Patriot Act? Can quartering red coats be measured by Homeland Security? Hasn’t the dream of the Founding Fathers been transformed into an empire that august Rome would envy? From Cicero to Caesar - from Washington to Bush! Only an idiot would consider the progression an advancement in Liberty, and solely the fool would follow the contrivance of the latest version of ‘duce’.


He certainly uses the language of overthrow.

The rights over which the author frets are not those enumerated in the Constitution. He bemoans the loss of states' rights under the Constitution! And, as Lazarus indicates, "Sartre" expresses a clear preference for the Articles of Confederation.

One of his colleagues might say that Sartre is "ignorant to facts and history." (Sorry, I love that tortured phrasing).

Of course, the entire reason for convening the Constitutional Convention was that our newly independent nation had found the Articles completely unworkable, insufficient in and of themselves, unsustainable. The Articles were a threat to the very survival of the United States as an independent country, with Britain still powerful and smarting over the loss of her prime colonies, and France and Spain still trying to expand their colonial holdings in the New World.

It does seem quite self-contradictory to hold up our Founders as men of great wisdom and dedication to the principles of liberty on the one hand, while summarily dismissing their judgement based on their own contemporaneous experience on the other . . .

"Sartre" fails to appreciate that, without the Constitution, he would likely be a British subject today. And, had the great American experiment at independence and freedom failed in the eighteenth century, how might the history of the world been altered? Might not the monarchies been emboldened, empowered, and less likely to abide the trend toward parlimentary democracy under constitutional monarchy?

There underlies such calls for a return to the Articles of Confederation a streak of anarchy. Those who would so cavalierly discard the Constitution are not so much concerned with human rights under law, as with freedom from authority. They desire not so much freedom as we understand it, but license. As such, they are far more dutiful disciples of Crowley than of Jefferson.

[Jethro Tull]

I did not want the previous post to become too awfully long (and I hear the muffled cries - "Too late!") and so continue my comments here.

From the article:

No doubt the U.S. Constitution, added valuable protections against a tyrannical central government in the Bill of Rights. But, the nature of the expanded roles for the executive and judicial branches in that same - U.S. Constitution - elevating them to a theoretical and dubious co-equal status, created the inevitable usurpation of the legitimate power of the independent states. We all know the tragic history of the unimpeded executive despotism in America. Far fewer understand the catastrophic precedent in the decision of Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury vs Madison - placing the Supreme Court as the arbiter of the constitutionality of congressional legislation. The mere restoration to the constraints in the 1789 U.S. Constitution will not revive the Republic from its demise into an absolutist oppressor. Only a systemic dismantling of that central government, returning primacy back to individual states will restore the vision of the American Revolution.


The author betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the philosophy behind American government. By arguing the primacy of the Legislature, he dismisses the well-considered advantages of the checks and balances of the three branches of our Constitutional government.

To label Marbury a "catastrophic precedent" merely expands his stated desire to "dismantle" the government. Marbury could certainly be construed as an usurpation of power, since it asserts power to the Court not specifically granted in the Constitution. However, Marbury was both logical and necessary, the alternative being chaos (which to some is preferable to government).

In the three co-equal branches, conflicts are bound to arise. In every other case, mechanisms are provided for relief. Congress may pass laws restricting the judiciary, or impeach justices or Presidents. Presidents may veto laws, and have the appointment power (which must in turn be ratified by the Senate). The Courts are the arbiters of disputes between the branches, and between the people and the government.

The Founders failed to envision the effects of politics upon the process. They presumed that all branches and parties would respect the careful phrasing of the Constitution. But, in leaving room in the language for unforeseen contingencies they left also room for dispute. The Court could simply stand its ground and rule upon cases one by one as Congress passed illegal acts, but the time involved in this process would not further the cause of justice, as citizens could be continually oppressed by the same or similar laws passed repeatedly by a Congress bent on defiance of the rights of the people or the other branches.

It was therefore necessary for one branch to be able to assert, for all like acts, whether the legislature was within its Constitutional bounds. The Courts are uniquely positioned to do justice in this respect, since its members are appointed by the Executive and confirmed by the Legislature. If they should err, Justices could be removed for cause, or gradually replaced over time to change their approach. But the doctrine of stare decisis was necessary to prevent tyranny by a continuing flood of illegal acts.

Also, the extension of the Bill of Rights to the states through subsequent Amendments and judicial decision increased the protections of the people in a way impossible under the Articles of Confederation.

In short (well, not really!), the author is wrong in almost every aspect of his understanding of history and the mechanisms of American federal government.

[greginboise]

Hmmm. Just what we need-individual state banks, each issuing their own currency. Checkpoints and customs offices at each state line. Pipsqueak militias unable to defend anything other than a state's boundary.

Sounds like a recipe for disaster.

[Lazarus]

I agree wholeheartedly with all of the comments above. For it seems that it is not enough to scale back the size and scope of the government in everone's every daily lives, for some people what seems to be required is a return the BAD "good old days."

Now my larger question is, given that the Articles of Confederation were so resoundingly cast away in that former day and age, then what kind of mind WANTS to bring them back and foist them on an unsuspecting public? And what self-interested publisher would consider such views worth the cost of the "ink" it takes to publish them? ::)

I know what kinds of "dancing fools" support those ideas...

http://www.etherzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/YaBB.cgi?board=4;action=display;num=1041099183


;D

[Lazarus]

http://www.etherzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/YaBB.cgi?board=4;action=display;num=1041099183;sta rt=20

Just to recap a bit that thread:

Tony praises.

SARTRE thanks him

Arod challanges the premiss of the SARTRE's article

Imp chimes in with an anti-Federalist opinion

SARTRE defends and clarifies his position.

Arod takes him to task, then Arod questions Imp.

SARTRE gets peeved and requests Arod to do homework.

Imp chimes in with a comment about Hamilton.

SARTRE praises the murderer of Hamilton, Aaron Burr, as "a national hero" and wishes that he had only acted sooner.

Arod protests that he won't look for a needle that only may exist in SARTRE's haystack--without a better reason, then adresses Imp.

Then SARTRE offered some insights into his thinking to AROD that deserves a response:


1) The nation is NOT the government and certainly not the internationalist policies of the last century.


True.


2) The correct mindset is that of George Washington, AMERICA FIRST.


Why?


3) The real enemies are domestic.


Does that imply foreign terrorists are "friends" to you?


4) Elections have become meaningless and attempts to work within major parties is pointless.


"Ballots or bullets"?


5) The “neighborhood” has been destroyed intentionally so that government can offer false solutions.


By whom, how?


6) Advocates of an American Empire invite foreign distrust and hatred towards the U.S.


And don't the advocates of Americn isolationism invite domination by foreign powers?


7) Stalin was worst then Hitler, both were bad and FDR and Churchill were in there same league.


In what respect? Sounds like ad hominem.


8) If you believe that ANY good comes out of DC, you live is a fantasy world.


If you believe that there is anything good in this world but God, then you live in a fantasy world.


9) If you continue to live in a large city, work for the government, accept their bribes, support their social programs and foreign policy, you are either: confused, stupid, a fool or one of the enemy OR all of the above.


Why does living in a city automatically make one "...stupid, a fool or one of the enemy OR all of the above"?


10) Educate yourself and study the history. You don’t need to accept what I offer in articles. But you have an obligation to yourself and your fellow citizens to correct the errors in your political orientation.


Why is another point of view necessarily "...errors in...political orientation"? Are you incapable of being in error?

* * *

SARTRE has also claimed that he has no interest in debating opposing points of view and that he is there simply to answer questions about his articles. However, when such muck is thrown into a discussion forum, then how is it going to go unchallanged?

Also, if that is the "rule" of the Etherzone Articles board, then it ought to be prominently displayed.

* * *

SARTRE is very opinionated, but a bit short on facts, and seems unwilling to entertain the notion that he may be in error either with respect to the facts he presents or to the opinions that he has formed based upon his understanding of the facts. However, I think somebody pointed out that there were serious weaknesses in the AoC that prompted some of the greatest political minds in history to scrap it in favor of the Constitution. Does that make the Constitution perfect? Of course not. But do you suppose that the Confederation would have survived the War of 1812-14? If it had, then perhaps the war between the states might have been avoided, but then maybe slavery might still be the law in parts of this land. It is all hypothetical, but so is the notion that we as a nation would have been better off under the Articles of Confederation.

[Jethro Tull]

Just a couple of comments:

1) Aaron Burr was a traitor. He attempted to seize territory including New Orleans and declare himself King, with an eye towards overthrowing the legitimate government - as structured by the people's representatives - of the United States. Can those who idolize him be anything else? Also, is the wish he had "acted earlier" in murdering Hamiliton an endorsement of murder as a legitimate political tool?

2) Washington's admonition against "entangling alliances" with foreign governments, although often cited by isolationists, must be seen in the context of his time. In the eighteenth century, America did not have vital national interests in virtually every corner of the world. Neither were we the sole superpower, with the ability to act to solve threats to our national interests abroad while they remain small. Neither could an ICBM reach our shores in 20 minutes from the other side of the world.

The application of the phrase "America First," popularized by domestic neo-fascists in the 1930s and again in recent years, to Washington is false, demeaning, and insulting.

[ProbePhage]

The rights over which the author frets are not those enumerated in the Constitution.

Ever heard of the 9th Amendment?

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Or, in non-Lawerspeak, just because we're listing a bunch of rights here doesn't mean that's all the rights we have as Americans. But it seems that you and most everyone who's ever held office thinks that way.

This is the reason I think the Bill of Rights was a bad idea. We'd have been better without a Bill of Rights and simply had the words of the 10th Amendment (probably the most widely ignored Amendment) as part of the Constitution's body.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Basically, if the Constitution doesn't say the government CAN do it, then automatically that means the government CAN'T do it. If this Amendment was actually followed, we wouldn't need the other 9 because the Constitution didn't grant the government the right to take away those rights in the first place.

[Jethro Tull]

The rights over which the author frets are not those enumerated in the Constitution.

Ever heard of the 9th Amendment?

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Or, in non-Lawerspeak, just because we're listing a bunch of rights here doesn't mean that's all the rights we have as Americans. But it seems that you and most everyone who's ever held office thinks that way.

This is the reason I think the Bill of Rights was a bad idea. We'd have been better without a Bill of Rights and simply had the words of the 10th Amendment (probably the most widely ignored Amendment) as part of the Constitution's body.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Basically, if the Constitution doesn't say the government CAN do it, then automatically that means the government CAN'T do it. If this Amendment was actually followed, we wouldn't need the other 9 because the Constitution didn't grant the government the right to take away those rights in the first place.


ProbePhage ~ Welcome!

I am quite aware of the 9th Amendment, and support it fully. "Sartre," on the other hand, WANTS TO DO AWAY WITH THE CONSTITUTION altogether, and revert to the Articles of Confederation. How can he in one moment claim the states' rights under the Constitution while simultaneously advocating its abolition? Similarly, he will quote or praise a Founder or two, but then refuse to accept their judgement based upon first-hand experience that the Articles did NOT work at all.

This thread is a discussion of Sartres article, which is linked in the first post above. Reading it (or as much of it as you can stomach) will provide a context for the posts in this thread.

[Lazarus]

The rights over which the author frets are not those enumerated in the Constitution.

Ever heard of the 9th Amendment?

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Or, in non-Lawerspeak, just because we're listing a bunch of rights here doesn't mean that's all the rights we have as Americans. But it seems that you and most everyone who's ever held office thinks that way.

This is the reason I think the Bill of Rights was a bad idea. We'd have been better without a Bill of Rights and simply had the words of the 10th Amendment (probably the most widely ignored Amendment) as part of the Constitution's body.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Basically, if the Constitution doesn't say the government CAN do it, then automatically that means the government CAN'T do it. If this Amendment was actually followed, we wouldn't need the other 9 because the Constitution didn't grant the government the right to take away those rights in the first place.




Have you ever heard of the 14th Amendment? This Amendment was added because certain Southern folk in the 19th Century Could not understand Article 6 and decided to have a little blood bath called "The Civil War" over it.

Here is 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.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,(See Note 15) and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.




And that limits the powers of the states. But IT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN NECESSARY AT ALL (at least not so far as Section 1 was concerned) becuase if Article 6, Clause 2:


This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.


The States surrendered their independent sovereignty to the national central government when they ratified the original Constitution. They did so because the Constitution was preferable to the Confederation.

[Jethro Tull]

Laz ~ You are, of course, absolutely correct. Our friend "Sartre," however, prefers to pick and choose which parts of the Constitution he wishes enforced, even as he rebels against the entire Republic.

"Sartre" stated clearly that he refuses to consider any other point of view on the matter. So, even were we not among The Banned, it is doubtful we could get him to go any further than he already has.

It is not unfair for him to demand to be judged upon his writings alone. In so doing, I find him rather a frighteningly extreme fellow.

[Lazarus]

Indeed. He has expressed anti-government views that stem from the 18th century. The Articles of Confederation were patched together in haste--while the battles for independence yet raged on. It was a government formed of expedience, but who among those who crafted the Articles of Confederation envisioned that it was to be the PERMANENT state of affairs? And if there were some, were they not overruled by wiser heads?

I think you make an excellent point that Sartre and some others only point to the founders when it selectively suits them. No less than Gen. Washington presided over the convention that drafted the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson was elected President under the Constitution. Hamilton served honorably in Washington's administration. The idea that any of those political luminaries--or others of that day-- had serious reservations about the Constitution ESPECIALLY relative to the Articles of Confederation--and did not speak up--is blatently absurd.

That somebody thinks that the Federalist--Antifederalist debate is STILL worth arguing over is just mind boggling.

::)

[ProbePhage]

>How can he in one moment claim the states' rights under the Constitution while simultaneously advocating its abolition? Similarly, he will quote or praise a Founder or two, but then refuse to accept their judgement based upon first-hand experience that the Articles did NOT work at all.

I did not read the article (the only reason I posted was because I read the line "The rights over which the author frets are not those enumerated in the Constitution."), but yes, that is strange. It's fine to debate over a belief against the Constitution and for another potentially workable alternative, but if he's claiming rights under the Constitution then he's contradicting himself.

It just so happens that I am pro-states'-rights (though I also believe in the Constitution and would not go back to the Articles... though I would like to see the Constitution amended in certain ways), so I'm gonna tickle you people for a bit I think.


[Switching gears here and moving on to a different post]

>Southern folk in the 19th Century Could not understand Article 6 and decided to have a little blood bath called "The Civil War" over it.

Actually, all the Southern states did was secede; it was the North that invaded the South to force it to stay in the Union. After secession, the Southern state governments took over military installations all over the South, since they were no longer under the sovereignty of the United States Army. The only conflict occurred when Lincoln decided to fortify Fort Sumter, because he didn't want to lose all the tariff revenue it generated. But this was a skirmish. The South did not initiate open war upon the North; it was the other way around. See http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=952


>This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Actually, this does not detract from States' rights as pro-states'-rights constitutionalists would argue. The Costitution and the Laws of the United States WHICH SHALL BE MADE IN PURSUANCE THEREOF (in other words, they must obey the Constitution), shall be the supreme Law of the Land. All this is really saying is that the Constitution must be obeyed (yes, by both the feds and the States). And if you look at the enumerated powers in the Constitution for the FEDERAL government (most are in Article 1 Section 8 if I'm right) and then look at Amendment 10, you will see that the federal government is definitely overstepping its bounds.

[Jethro Tull]

ProbePhage ~ If your point is that the federal government is exceeding the authority expressly granted by strict reading of the Constitution, and that the cases in which it does so are for the most part manifestly unwise, you will get no argument from me. However, if you take that a step beyond and claim the federal government is therefore acting unconstitutionally, I note exception.

Neither you, nor I, nor "Sartre," nor Lazarus, nor any other individual can authoritatively make that assertion. The proper mechanism for resolving disputes on Constitutionality is the federal court. Many don't like the results; but that is the system we have. There is also a peaceful political mechanism to change both the law and the method of resolving disputes: the amendment process. The alternative is violent revolution and anarchy.

In re: your mention of Fort Sumpter, it was fired upon only when Lincoln reneged upon his promise not to reinforce the garrison there. It was a deliberately provocative act on his part.

Laz ~ Quite so, and it galls me no end to hear Jefferson's name used so often by the radical anti-government folks, as if he would approve of their ravings. Remember Jefferson himself entered into the Louisiana Purchase with no specific Constitutional authority to do so, which he later acknowledged. It was a great deal he would not pass up. I don't hear those self-described purists clamoring to return it to France . . .

[ProbePhage]

>However, if you take that a step beyond and claim the federal government is therefore acting unconstitutionally, I note exception.

>Neither you, nor I, nor "Sartre," nor Lazarus, nor any other individual can authoritatively make that assertion. The proper mechanism for resolving disputes on Constitutionality is the federal court.

I may not be able to authoritatively make the assertion, but I can still believe it nonetheless. I think that the Constitution needs little or no interpretation. That is, it should be "interpreted" exactly as it reads. Some people say it was "loosely constructed" and flexible because it doesn't give the Federal government a whole bunch of far-reaching powers, but to me that just means the government was not intended to have all that power. Remember, the Constitutional Convention was called to "revise" the Articles. The Founders realized more centralization and organization was needed, but were still extremely wary of a large and powerful central government.

Yes, I believe that most of what the Federal government does today is unconstitutional. If the courts disagree, all that means is that there's nothing I can do about it. But I still hold the belief.

[wendy]

I acknowledge, in the ordinary course of government, that the exposition of the laws and Constitution devolves upon the Judiciary. But I beg to know upon what principle it can be contended that any one department draws from the Constitution greater powers than another in marking out the limits of the powers of the several departments.

James Madison, speech in the Congress of the United States, 1789

A little research will show that both Madison and Jefferson (http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/P/tj3/writings/brf/jefl263.htm) suggested the courts would be the downfall of the Constitution.

[Satan]

I have nothing substantial to add to this thread (of course), but I did want to pop in and commend Lazarus and JT on their fine quality threads of late.

http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/notworthy.gif

;D

[Lazarus]

>How can he in one moment claim the states' rights under the Constitution while simultaneously advocating its abolition? Similarly, he will quote or praise a Founder or two, but then refuse to accept their judgement based upon first-hand experience that the Articles did NOT work at all.

I did not read the article (the only reason I posted was because I read the line "The rights over which the author frets are not those enumerated in the Constitution."), but yes, that is strange. It's fine to debate over a belief against the Constitution and for another potentially workable alternative, but if he's claiming rights under the Constitution then he's contradicting himself.

It just so happens that I am pro-states'-rights (though I also believe in the Constitution and would not go back to the Articles... though I would like to see the Constitution amended in certain ways), so I'm gonna tickle you people for a bit I think.


[Switching gears here and moving on to a different post]

>Southern folk in the 19th Century Could not understand Article 6 and decided to have a little blood bath called "The Civil War" over it.

Actually, all the Southern states did was secede; it was the North that invaded the South to force it to stay in the Union. After secession, the Southern state governments took over military installations all over the South, since they were no longer under the sovereignty of the United States Army. The only conflict occurred when Lincoln decided to fortify Fort Sumter, because he didn't want to lose all the tariff revenue it generated. But this was a skirmish. The South did not initiate open war upon the North; it was the other way around. See http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=952


>This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Actually, this does not detract from States' rights as pro-states'-rights constitutionalists would argue. The Costitution and the Laws of the United States WHICH SHALL BE MADE IN PURSUANCE THEREOF (in other words, they must obey the Constitution), shall be the supreme Law of the Land. All this is really saying is that the Constitution must be obeyed (yes, by both the feds and the States). And if you look at the enumerated powers in the Constitution for the FEDERAL government (most are in Article 1 Section 8 if I'm right) and then look at Amendment 10, you will see that the federal government is definitely overstepping its bounds.





Actually IT DOES, and it was ALWAYS there. How CAN the Constitution be the Supreme law of THE land, and allow for a state to say that it is NOT the Supreme law of ITS land by seceding? Logically impossible. Where is the authority vested in the Constitution to allow states to secede? Yet, not only did the Southern states claim independence, BUT FORMED A NEW STATE--the Confederacy, and THAT act was contrary to another Article 4, Section 3 of the Constitution:


New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.


No matter how you slice it, what the Southern States DID was unconstitutional.

[ProbePhage]

>How CAN the Constitution be the Supreme law of THE land, and allow for a state to say that it is NOT yhe Supreme law of the land by seceding?

Are you suggesting that the Constitution is the supreme Law of ALL Land? This is what that statement implies. Since the United States government does not have soverignty over all land, this cannot be true. Thus, it is the supreme Law of Land UNDER UNITED STATES JURISDICTION. Yes, any State in the Union is therefore subject to the Constitution. But if a State secedes, the government does not have soverignty over it.

This part of the Constitution should be reworded, as I am a believer of non-interpretation yet this part does require that tiny bit of interpretation in order for it to be realistic.


>Where is the authority vested in the Constitution to allow states to secede?

That is not necessary. On the contrary, in order to PREVENT States from seceding, authority needs to be vested in the Constitution to the Federal government. Pesky 10th Amendment, eh?


>Yet, not only did the Southern states claim independence, BUT FORMED A NEW STATE--the Confederacy, and THAT act was contrary to another Article 4, Section 3 of the Constitution:

It was only contrary to the Constitution before the States seceded. No two States that are still in the Union, under United States jurisdiction, can form a State from the junction of two or more States, that becomes a new State in the Union, without Congress' approval. Once they secede though, they're independent. Again, this requires the same common sense interpretation of the supremacy clause used above, that the Constitution cannot be the supreme Law of Land that is not under U.S. soverignty.

[wendy]

Laz, the south believed they were upholding the spirit of the founding of our nation. the federal government was supposed to be created as an agent of the states. The south believed the federal government violated the grant of power issued by the states.

The south was right...but their cause was unpopular with the north who had a vested interest in maintaining the flow of money FROM the south to the north.

[Lazarus]

I acknowledge, in the ordinary course of government, that the exposition of the laws and Constitution devolves upon the Judiciary. But I beg to know upon what principle it can be contended that any one department draws from the Constitution greater powers than another in marking out the limits of the powers of the several departments.

James Madison, speech in the Congress of the United States, 1789

A little research will show that both Madison and Jefferson (http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/P/tj3/writings/brf/jefl263.htm) suggested the courts would be the downfall of the Constitution.


Congress and the President have remarkable power to hold in check a runaway Supreme Court, simply by expanding the number of justices and packing those new seats with people who see it the way of the other two branches or "departments" of the government see it. The Court is well aware that it has no power to carry out or execute its judgments, and that it relies upon the President to do so--and Congress for its funding.

Each branch of government is responsible for understanding its authority and responsibility under the text in the Constitution. The Court is no different from the Congress or the President in that respect. BUT, if the Supreme Court did not pass judgment upon the law, then it would be possible (and probably has already happened) that the Congress would enact tyrannical laws. Campaign Finance "Reform" perhaps a recent shining example of tyranny. Now a person who is harmed by that tyranny, what redress would they have if the Supreme Court could not find that the law was unconstitutional--say, violative of the First Amendment? A person says they have a right, but the Congress says they don't. Who wins? Well, if the court could not hold the LAW unconstitutional, then tyranny would ultimately win out.

So far, tyranny is "winning". It is up to the people to make sure that it does not. If the people don't care, then they deserve to be the subjects of a tyrant, IMHO.

[Lazarus]

I have nothing substantial to add to this thread (of course), but I did want to pop in and commend Lazarus and JT on their fine quality threads of late.

http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/notworthy.gif

;D


Next time I need a devil's advocate, I will be sure to call on you. ;D

[wendy]

Laz...first you have to get the court to agree to hear the case. What happens if they decide NOT to hear a campaign finance law case?

Tyranny has already won. Nearly half the voters in this country pay no federal income tax and congress is anxious to absolve them of any responsibilty towards their payroll taxes as well. Will they vote for a politician who will force them into financial responsibility?

Any state or states can succeed from the union .... if they have the military might to back it up.

[wendy]

Any state or states can succeed from the union .... if they have the military might to back it up.

Hey, you're from Texas...didn't they have a secession movement several years ago?

Any state or states can succeed from the union .... if they have the military might to back it up.

Hey, you're from Texas...didn't they have a secession movement several years ago?


I've always heard here and there about it but Texas has changed a lot, we have many people from other states now. I have always believed if Texas wanted to go it alone they could but not likely.

[Persephone]

Ever heard of The Free State of Jones? It is a county in Mississippi that local legend says declared itself to be a free republic during the Civil War in protest against the state seceding from the Union.

[cobe]

lazarus)
So far, tyranny is "winning". It is up to the people to make sure that it does not. If the people don't care, then they deserve to be the subjects of a tyrant, IMHO.

co-be) Well, I'll be! Lazarus finally admits that not all the overfedgov
does is "constitutional" simply because the courts declare it so.

However: while it may be true that those people who don't care "deserve" to be the subjects of a tyrant (which, as Wendy points out, has already won), what of those who do care and live in the same large geographical area?

And from elsewhere around the web...........

Today, upper-middle-class American conservatives cheer when the United States government sends the sons and daughters of the lower classes to die in foreign adventures. Then they complain about high taxes. They sacrifice other people's children to the Moloch State, but worry publicly about high marginal tax rates. Is it any wonder that their political opponents do not take them seriously, and their supposed political representatives regard them as permanent residents of their hip pockets: suitable for sitting on? All it takes to get conservatives to stop complaining about high taxes is another splendid little war, or better yet, a world war. This political strategy has worked every time since 1898: the Spanish-American War.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north150.html

We are somehow not permitted to say this, but the solution to Iraq is at hand. Repeal sanctions immediately. Trade with Iraq. Oil prices would fall dramatically. Hatred of the US would abate. The plight of Iraq could no longer be used as exhibit A in terrorist recruitment drives. The only downside, of course, is that US companies connected to the Bush administration would not be the owners of the oil fields, but instead would have to compete with other producers in supplying consumers with oil.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/capitalistwar.html


I am certainly opposed to local governments. These engage in all sorts of heinous deeds including the maintenance of metropolitan police forces as occupying armies in poor communities, enacting and enforcing repressive economic legistlation in countless areas, using the power of eminent domain to arbitrarily seize private property, robbing local citizens through taxes and squandering the proceeds on favored cronies and countless other wrongs. In fact, I referred to some of the hazards of local government, such as zoning ordinances and the public school system, in my article. I criticize and ridicule "my" local municipal government on television and in print all the time.

That being said, I do regard the battle against the US federal empire to be a matter of primary concern. (I)An-ok hints in his rebuttal that intermediate goals and a hierarchy of priorities are legitimate in the struggle against the state. Whatever else could be said about local governments, they typically do not amass vast nuclear arsenals, maintain four hundred billion dollar standing military forces, invade other countries, incinerate entire cities, subject entire national populations to disease and starvation via blockades and sanctions, plot three-front wars, exterminate millions of people in international counterinsurgency programs (1), consume more than a quarter of annual economic output, debase the currency, accumulate trillions of dollars in public debts, enslave young people through military conscription and send them off to be slaughtered or lay the foundation for a global totalitarian state. The US federal government has done all of these things and will continue to do so as long as it still stands. Local governments do not have the technological resources or the surveillance powers that the feds do. In fact, much local oppression is often carried out at the behest of the federal government and with federal funds. Local paramilitary police forces are often trained by federal police or military agents. As Americans, we are in the unique position of living under the most powerful state in history. This state is the greatest threat to the peace and security of the contemporary world. It is not simply an inconvenient nuisance that sponsors sporadic crimes against individuals the way local governments typically are.

http://anti-state.com/article.php?article_id=364

http://www.majority.com/info/startwars.jpg

[Lazarus]

Laz...first you have to get the court to agree to hear the case.


True.

What happens if they decide NOT to hear a campaign finance law case?


Then the First Amentment is not worth the paper it is written on.


Tyranny has already won.


It has won a battle, but not the whole war. There is still hope, and a fighting chance.


Nearly half the voters in this country pay no federal income tax and congress is anxious to absolve them of any responsibilty towards their payroll taxes as well.
[/quote[

Personally, I wish all might be absolved of all income taxes including the payroll tax income taxes (that being what they really are). But, barring that, I would prefer a low flat rate with no deductions for anything--and everyone required to bear their share of it with no citizen bearing a greater burden than any other as a percentage of total income.


Will they vote for a politician who will force them into financial responsibility?


The problem is that people keep voting for politicians. The politicians game is the acquisition and maintence of power and control over other people's lives. They make the rules that they expect the rest of us to live by--making sure that they exempt themselves from its strictures. In short, most politicians are tyrants.

The political parties have been running a scam where they pretend to be different from each other but once in office, there is not a dime's worth of difference between them. That said, it is still the people that put them there. So it is still the people that get the government they deserve.