Do the Democrats have ANY credibility at all?

[2ndAmendment]

And the 14th was post Civil War. So the states and their sovereignty had been squashed by force. It is because even at the time of the Civil War the Constitution was seen as a NATIONAL, not a FEDERAL act which is exactly opposite of what the founders intended.

 

[Ken King]

And you are too intent on discovering/expressing a specific indviduals intent, which may or may not be the entire intent for the forming of the Union, and such have missed the basics of what is laid out in the preamble;

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

 

[2ndAmendment]

And you are too intent on discovering/expressing a specific indviduals intent, which may or may not be the entire intent for the forming of the Union, and such have missed the basics of what is laid out in the preamble;

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Yeah...and it is people like you that take "promote the general Welfare" and make it mean that the federal government can establish any give away program it wants to.

Carry on. I know how stubborn you are as am I and we will never resolve this.

 

[Ken King]

Yeah...and it is people like you that take "promote the general Welfare" and make it mean that the federal government can establish any give away program it wants to.

Carry on. I know how stubborn you are as am I and we will never resolve this.

Nice argument technique, you might as well take it the religion forums where your form of tolerance is more accepted. Good day.

 

[2ndAmendment]

By the way, do you know who is called the "Father of the Constitution"? It is James Madison, so his writings should be very indicative of the intent of the Constitution.

 

[2ndAmendment]

Nice argument technique, you might as well take it the religion forums where your form of tolerance is more accepted. Good day.

I don't like to argue. You do. I know and accept that. Good day.

 

[Ken King]

I don't like to argue. You do. I know and accept that. Good day.

You like the fight as much if not more then I do.

And as the self-proclaimed "constructionist" on these boards I find it hypocritical that you are declaring that there is a right for the states to secede even though it is nowhere to be found within the Constitution. How can this be?

 

[2ndAmendment]

You like the fight as much if not more then I do.

No. I don't.

And as the self-proclaimed "constructionist" on these boards I find it hypocritical that you are declaring that there is a right for the states to secede even though it is nowhere to be found within the Constitution. How can this be?

Again, it is common sense. An organization has to approve a request to join. On the other hand, if an entity decides to leave an organization, why should the organization have any say in the matter. I think the writers of the Constitution realized that. The loss to the state seceding would be the free trade and common protection afforded.

 

[2ndAmendment]

Actually, I consider myself a "strict constructionist".

 

[Ken King]

Actually, I consider myself a "strict constructionist".

As such, wouldn't the Constitution have to specifically have a provision to cover a states departure from the Union or is it that it is only necessary in the instances that you feel are necessary?

 

[2ndAmendment]

As such, wouldn't the Constitution have to specifically have a provision to cover a states departure from the Union or is it that it is only necessary in the instances that you feel are necessary?

No. As I have posted, it is common sense that an entity choosing to leave would not have to be approved.

 

[Ken King]

No. As I have posted, it is common sense that an entity choosing to leave would not have to be approved.

Just as it is "common sense" that an Air Force would be a necessary portion of our defense network, yet you have stated more than once that an Air Force is unconstitutional.

 

[2ndAmendment]

Just as it is "common sense" that an Air Force would be a necessary portion of our defense network, yet you have stated more than once that an Air Force is unconstitutional.

It is unconstitutional. That is why the air forces were first created under the Army Signal Corps.

http://www.au.af.mil/au/afhra/wwwroot/rso/birth.html ... The National Security Act of 1947 became law on July 26, 1947. It created the Department of the Air Force, headed by a Secretary of the Air Force. Under the Department of the Air Force, the act established the United States Air Force, headed by the Chief of Staff, USAF. On September 18, 1947, W. Stuart Symington became Secretary of the Air Force, and on September 26, Gen. Carl A. Spaatz became the USAF's first Chief of Staff.

Many laws are passed that are not constitutional. This is one of them. The founders provided a way to amend the Constitution, Article V. That is the way the U.S. Air Force should have been created. The Navy and Army are both specifically mentioned, Article I Section 8 and Article II Section 2. I believe the founders would have mentioned an air force and a space administration if there had been a need, but there was not. The amendment process is the right way for the air force, space administration, and other departments and agencies to be properly constituted.

 

[2ndAmendment]

Ken,
You honestly can't see the difference? Let's make this more personal. If I come to your house and knock on the door and ask to be let in, you can let me in or refuse. Once in, I can choose to leave at any time without permission. I may inform you that I am leaving, but I don't need your permission. Now extending this, I am in your house. You allowed me to come in. Do I now have the right to knock a wall out and build a new bathroom? One is a matter of a sovereign right to control my own whereabouts. The other is an extension of your permission to be in your house to making it more to my liking without getting proper permission.

 

[Ken King]

It is unconstitutional. That is why the air forces were first created under the Army Signal Corps. Many laws are passed that are not constitutional. This is one of them. The founders provided a way to amend the Constitution, Article V. That is the way the U.S. Air Force should have been created. The Navy and Army are both specifically mentioned, Article I Section 8 and Article II Section 2. I believe the founders would have mentioned an air force and a space administration if there had been a need, but there was not. The amendment process is the right way for the air force, space administration, and other departments and agencies to be properly constituted.

Well then shouldn't any state choosing to leave the Union first get an amendment to allow them to do so since it is not explicitly covered in the Constitution? Why is it you only need an amendment for certain things that aren't covered?

Ken,
You honestly can't see the difference? Let's make this more personal. If I come to your house and knock on the door and ask to be let in, you can let me in or refuse. Once in, I can choose to leave at any time without permission. I may inform you that I am leaving, but I don't need your permission. Now extending this, I am in your house. You allowed me to come in. Do I now have the right to knock a wall out and build a new bathroom? One is a matter of a sovereign right to control my own whereabouts. The other is an extension of your permission to be in your house to making it more to my liking without getting proper permission.

But that doesn't quite fit. As it was more like a group got together and built a house and now that it is built one person from the group doesn't want to be tied to the group anymore and wants total autonomy over a small section of the house even though they are all wired through the same electric panel and share the same plumbing and heating. It's eating and having your cake too and that doesn't make any sense, common or otherwise.

 

[Larry Gude]

If they had...

If a state had or has the right to accede to the Union then they had or have the right to secede from the Union.

...simply succeeded then the we would have seen how it played out. As it was, they started a war.

That, they had NO right to do.

Lincoln trampled the Constitution so that the Union which it bore might stand, believeing the fabric would and must withstand the shock.

The CSA 'states rights' themselves right out of existence right up to the point where it was too late to save the new nation. Died of an idea, they said towards the end.

 

[2ndAmendment]

Well then shouldn't any state choosing to leave the Union first get an amendment to allow them to do so since it is not explicitly covered in the Constitution? Why is it you only need an amendment for certain things that aren't covered?

But that doesn't quite fit. As it was more like a group got together and built a house and now that it is built one person from the group doesn't want to be tied to the group anymore and wants total autonomy over a small section of the house even though they are all wired through the same electric panel and share the same plumbing and heating. It's eating and having your cake too and that doesn't make any sense, common or otherwise.

The sovereignty of the states was an accepted thing by the writers. All the rights of the states are not listed just as all the rights of citizens are not listed.

Amendment IX (1791)

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

Amendment X (1791)

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.

I don't see where the right to leave the union was delegated to the United States by the states therefore it is retained. A right denied is still retained even if denied through use of force.

I don't think your analogy measures up. The states held nothing in common except some borders. It is more like a community organization. We actually had an example of this happen. A property owner that adjoined the community was friends with most of the property owners in the community. He wanted to be able to use the pier and pool and other facilities. He asked that he be allowed to join his property in the association. The association (a non stock corporation) voted to allow his property to be added to the community association with dues and privileges conveyed. This does not prevent him from leaving the association and loosing the privileges of pier and pool and not paying dues.

 

[Larry Gude]

Couldn't agree more...

Ken,
You honestly can't see the difference? Let's make this more personal. If I come to your house and knock on the door and ask to be let in, you can let me in or refuse. Once in, I can choose to leave at any time without permission. I may inform you that I am leaving, but I don't need your permission. Now extending this, I am in your house. You allowed me to come in. Do I now have the right to knock a wall out and build a new bathroom? One is a matter of a sovereign right to control my own whereabouts. The other is an extension of your permission to be in your house to making it more to my liking without getting proper permission.

...but if Ken had built an arsenal in your home, operated some mining, some ports, railroads and so forth on your property for use by the whole neighborhood, with the neighborhoods money and your consent but then you withdrew your consent because you didn't like the new President of the Homeowners Association and you took physical possession of the improvements, offered no compensation whatsover and prevented use by others and fired upon Ken and/or others when they attempted to use or remove the improvements, you've started a war.

 

[2ndAmendment]

...simply succeeded then the we would have seen how it played out. As it was, they started a war.

That, they had NO right to do.

Lincoln trampled the Constitution so that the Union which it bore might stand, believeing the fabric would and must withstand the shock.

The CSA 'states rights' themselves right out of existence right up to the point where it was too late to save the new nation. Died of an idea, they said towards the end.

I think they succeeded just fine. They did not simply secede.

Actually, Lincoln started the war with a blockade of the harbor which is an act of war. The nation which was to be a federation that we call the United States is nothing like it was designed. And freedom of individuals is what is lost in the loss of state sovereignty. It does little good for people to vote with their feet.

 

[Larry Gude]

How can a nation...

...blockade itself?

Actually, Lincoln started the war with a blockade of the harbor which is an act of war.

The harbor was protected by a Federal fort which was threatened. The blockade was the result of the unlawful demand of surrender of the fort as states property.

In any event, federal aresenals througout the SOuth were siezed before Charleston was blockaded and the first shots fired were from the South.

Also, before the blockade, an attempt to merely supply the fort with food was stopped by force.