DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Bump.So far no Liberal has risen to the challenge and answered the question.
Stupid or subversive?
- Thread starter DamnYankee
- Start date
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Bump
Some alleged conservatives are just as stupid when they ignore the Preamble altogether and thus reach the conclusion that the federal government was created by the states rather than the People of the United States.
The United States is a republic, not a democracy. The Constitution was intentionally designed so that the will of a majority of the People can be thwarted lest that majority make unwise or rash decisions to their and the country's detriment.
What powers does the federal government exercise over and above its constitutionally enumerated ones?
Yes. The Constitution and the laws and treaties made under it are the supreme law of the land. But there would be no supreme law of the land, i.e., the nation-state of the United States of America, if any of the land’s constituent parts could put themselves beyond the jurisdiction of that law by seceding from the land.
Also, according to the Constitution the debts and obligations incumbent on the United States under the Articles of Confederation remained in force under the Constitution. Each of the original 13 states had ratified the Articles of Confederation and perpetual union before they each ratified the Constitution. Thus each state is obligated to maintain its perpetual union with the United States.
Furthermore, it is a myth that each state entered the Union with an opt-out option. The law governing the admission of new states from the Old Northwest Territory, that was enacted by the Confederation Congress before the Constitution was ratified, had a provision that any state that entered the Union had to remain a perpetual part of the Union. (Since the Republic of Texas ceded some of its territory to the federal government upon its admission to the Union, Texas was given the option of dividing itself into as many as 5 separate U.S. states.)
These issues were clarified by the Supreme Court decision in Texas v. Miller and the legal action that Custis Lee took in federal court to reclaim his family’s property that the federal government had seized during the rebellion, i.e., Arlington National Cemetery. If Virginia had legitimately left the Union, then Arlington would have been conquered foreign territory, but federal courts ruled that Virginia had remained part of the Union so the Lee family was owed compensation because their private property had been taken for public use. The Federal government returned Arlington National Cemetery to the Lee family who then sold it to the federal government.
You are certainly one to talk.
In comparison to Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, Indiana and the Great Plains the farmland in the South is garbage- even more so then than now due to 2 centuries of tobacco and cotton growing.
My maternal grandmother's Palantine ancestors have been farming western North Carolina for over 200 years. The Southern colonies/states have likely never had an English majority- a British (English, Scots, Irish) majority maybe, but not an English majority. The same is true for rest of the country as well. Roughly half of the American People have British ancestry and roughly half have Germaneesque ancestry (not German ancestry- the Hun in Europe is a different animal altogether). Furthermore the British did not exercise as much political power as you ascribe to the English. The first Speaker of the House of Representatives was Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg- a first generation Germanic-American.
Historically speaking the South has not been a destination for foreign immigrants- its population comes as much from people who moved in from the rest of the country (as some of mine and likely yours as well) did as it comes from people moving in from overseas. It would be only natural that few foreign immigrants owned slaves in the South since there has always been relative few foreign immigrants in the South- not counting Africans.
Not really. The Palantines that settled in the South were historically opposed to slavery and they often did not support secession, but this didn’t stop them from serving in the Confederate armies- 3 of my Panlatine ancestors in NC served in Robert E. Lee’s army.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
modern liberals today must continue to preach to the masses that the constitution should be ignored, that it was written for another time and we have 'evolved' to a higher status now. This is because at it's written word, the constitution is way too restrictive and doesn't just let modern liberals regulate the whole of society to generate orwells utopian world.
Not really. When the Rebellion started the country's industrial centers were mainly in New England and along the Eastern Seabord. Most of the Union states were just as rural as the southern states were, it's just that in comparison to the Union states the South had no industry at all.
Do you have any documentation that conservatives ever supported things like minimum wage, 40 hour workweeks, civil rights for racial minorities. Restrictions on child labor or pure food and drug laws?
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Go to a list of federal agencies; about 90% or more are not enumerated.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
I said political power not population majority. *shrug*
SmarterthanYou
rebel
department of education, fbi, atf.
I didn’t ask for a list to choose from. I asked a simple question and expected a simple, straight forward answer; the test was not multiple choice. I asked for specifics and you, like all libertarians, gave me rhetoric.
Population majority in a democratic system usually equates to political power, but either way you would likely still be wrong. The British may have exercised political power in the South in that they were ones who held public office, but they did so only with the backing of a mixed non-British majority.
The idiocy of your answer is spoken like a true libertarian anarchist who has no respect for the rule of law; your answer would be laughable if it weren’t so sad.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
maybe you can show a sliver of intelligence and point out where the constitution assigns police power to the federal government, especially considering that pesky part of the 2nd Amendment 'shall not be infringed'. I'm guessing you won't be able to and will just resort to yet another ad hom.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Not before 1850 or so, when property ownership was required. *shrug*
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
I'm a conservative no libertarian. In order to save space and time I gave you a reasonable answer. Here's the list of federal agencies: http://www.usa.gov/Agencies/Federal/All_Agencies/index.shtml
Let's go to the first one: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/
How is the ACF enumerated? It isn't.
Except that the United States had nearly universal manhood suffrage for white men (with or without property) by the 1830s. A property requirement was never any big barrier to voting; America had a lot of land and not enough people to work it. If you had arrived in this country penniless, you could easily find a job that would enable you to acquire any land or other property that may have been necessary to entitle you to vote.