Was the Confederacy constitutional?

SmarterThanYou said:
GL, question about the perpetuality part.

the constitution is a legal binding document that sets up the framework of the federal government assigning a specific set of powers to them from the states, right? So, in your opinion, the states aren't allowed to end their membership in the union, but what happens if the federal government usurps more power than they were given?
Click to expand...
Short answer: that is what the 2nd Amendment was written for, with the Declaration as a guideline. Like I said, the real debate is (or should be if people would quite being deliberately ignorant to support their preconceptions) whether the southern states were justified in violating the agreement they freely entered into, rather than if what they did was "constitutional" or "legal".

Long answer, the people, as much as possible, use their power of vote, voice, and right of redress through the courts. Even the Declaration of Independence advised that taking that road is last result, and only after a "long train of abuses and usurpations". As such, the federal government will not only have to usurp more power than granted, but also significantly abuse those usurped powers before the people (through the states, or as a whole body?) actually revolt to take back their freedoms.
 
Good Luck said:
Ridiculous. You are defining "perpetual" to mean "until someone decides to end it." That is NOT what the word means.
Click to expand...

I am defending "perpetual" to mean exactly what the dictionary says it means, which is not the same thing as "permanent." Again I ask you, IF THE INTENT were to make the arrangement permanent, why didn't they use THAT language? My guess is, because that ISN'T what they intended to say at all!
 
Dixie said:
I'm not "promoting" anything, just being honest about the way things are. When the Constitution was written, freedom, liberty, and equality, meant quite different things than they mean today, or at least, the application was different.
Click to expand...

Holy crap, for some reason I thought you believed in that "strict constructionist" horseshit.

I had no idea you were a proponent of the marxist-leninist, Constitution as a living, breathing document stuff.

Cheers mate.
 
Cypress said:
Holy crap, for some reason I thought you believed in that "strict constructionist" horseshit.

I had no idea you were a proponent of the marxist-leninist, Constitution as a living, breathing document stuff.

Cheers mate.
Click to expand...

I am a strict constructionist, and don't believe in that marxist-leninist living breathing constitution thing. As I explained in a previous post (you obviously missed it), this isn't about what I believe or what anyone thinks the Supreme Court should do, but rather, what the Supreme Court has done historically. Let me give you another example... I believe in smaller government and less spending/taxing... If I say that government has expanded its power and scope, and spent us into near-bankruptcy, that statement doesn't change or alter my viewpoint.

I guess the difference between me and some dishonest bonehead hack like yourself, is that I can be truthful about historic fact, and I don't have to alter or rewrite it to jibe with my personal political viewpoint.
 
Dixie said:
I am a strict constructionist, and don't believe in that marxist-leninist living breathing constitution thing. As I explained in a previous post (you obviously missed it), this isn't about what I believe or what anyone thinks the Supreme Court should do, but rather, what the Supreme Court has done historically. Let me give you another example... I believe in smaller government and less spending/taxing... If I say that government has expanded its power and scope, and spent us into near-bankruptcy, that statement doesn't change or alter my viewpoint.

I guess the difference between me and some dishonest bonehead hack like yourself, is that I can be truthful about historic fact, and I don't have to alter or rewrite it to jibe with my personal political viewpoint.
Click to expand...

It looks to me as if that's exactly what you are doing.
 
Dixie said:
I am defending "perpetual" to mean exactly what the dictionary says it means, which is not the same thing as "permanent." Again I ask you, IF THE INTENT were to make the arrangement permanent, why didn't they use THAT language? My guess is, because that ISN'T what they intended to say at all!
Click to expand...
Because they did not anticipate some bone head insisting that a word they used means something other than the intended meaning. I guess they had faith that people would not deliberately misrepresent the meaning of words in order to defend their political views.

http://thesaurus.com/browse/perpetual

Permanent is a SYNONYM of perpetual.

Therefore your insistence that it's not the same thing is wrong. Period. That they chose the word "perpetual" instead of "permanent" is nothing more than a choice they made from a list of synonyms.
 
Last edited:
Wasting your time. Some people insist they have the right to arrive at an individual interpretation of the Constitution, ignoring all precedent and consensus.

Let 'em, and when they choose to disobey the law based on their judgment that it is an invalid one, the legal system will take care of them.
 
Smarter Than All Y'All said:
Wasting your time. Some people insist they have the right to arrive at an individual interpretation of the Constitution, ignoring all precedent and consensus.

Let 'em, and when they choose to disobey the law based on their judgment that it is an invalid one, the legal system will take care of them.
Click to expand...

dude, we've discussed this before.

if 99% of the american people, all 50 state governments, and the federal government/USSC suddenly decided that the 2nd Amendment no longer guaranteed an individual right, but was for the national guard, would it be correct and constitutional?
 
SmarterThanYou said:
dude, we've discussed this before.

if 99% of the american people, all 50 state governments, and the federal government/USSC suddenly decided that the 2nd Amendment no longer guaranteed an individual right, but was for the national guard, would it be correct and constitutional?
Click to expand...

I'm not a "dude", and your blustering now or in the future won't save you if you're prosecuted, tried, and convicted of violating a law you deemed invalid.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
fine, dudette.

so basically what you're saying is stfu and conform to societies demands and wants, no matter how unconstitutional they may be.

got it. you hate freedom.
Click to expand...

No, what I said is what I posted.

Obey the laws as they stand, work to reform the ones that you dislike, or bluster and threaten.

It's up to you.

Either way, I certainly haven't asked to do anything you feel is wrong, and - unlike many on your side of the argument - I don't seek to silence people I disagree with.
 
Smarter Than All Y'All said:
No, what I said is what I posted.

Obey the laws as they stand, work to reform the ones that you dislike, or bluster and threaten.

It's up to you.

Either way, I certainly haven't asked to do anything you feel is wrong, and - unlike many on your side of the argument - I don't seek to silence people I disagree with.
Click to expand...

that doesn't answer the question I posed. If the government enacts an obviously unconstitutional law, do you have to obey it?
 
Good Luck said:
Because they did not anticipate some bone head insisting that a word they used means something other than the intended meaning. I guess they had faith that people would not deliberately misrepresent the meaning of words in order to defend their political views.

http://thesaurus.com/browse/perpetual

Permanent is a SYNONYM of perpetual.

Therefore your insistence that it's not the same thing is wrong. Period. That they chose the word "perpetual" instead of "permanent" is nothing more than a choice they made from a list of synonyms.
Click to expand...

And I guess they didn't anticipate some bone head taking the word they used and replacing it with his own word and claiming that's what is meant instead? I guess they had faith that people wouldn't deliberately change the intent by changing the words to defend their political view.

Permanent and perpetual are two different words, they have two different meanings and intents, and one was specifically chosen for this application. Had they intended the arrangement to be permanent and irrevocable, they would have said precisely THAT! What would be the point of finding another word? Why would they need to phrase it any other way? The language used in any legislation, is mulled over and painstakingly constructed to convey exactly what is intended. I can't believe they would have chosen a word which requires you to pull the thesaurus off the shelf and determine a synonym to apply instead. It seems a bit convoluted, if you ask me. Why not just use the term and phraseology you really mean?
 
......And then there is the matter of Article II (same document)

Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.

While you have done a great job of hanging the debate up on some absurd parsing of a single word, here is the Article which renders any point you hoped to make irrelevant.
 
Dixie said:
And I guess they didn't anticipate some bone head taking the word they used and replacing it with his own word and claiming that's what is meant instead? I guess they had faith that people wouldn't deliberately change the intent by changing the words to defend their political view.

Permanent and perpetual are two different words, they have two different meanings and intents, and one was specifically chosen for this application. Had they intended the arrangement to be permanent and irrevocable, they would have said precisely THAT! What would be the point of finding another word? Why would they need to phrase it any other way? The language used in any legislation, is mulled over and painstakingly constructed to convey exactly what is intended. I can't believe they would have chosen a word which requires you to pull the thesaurus off the shelf and determine a synonym to apply instead. It seems a bit convoluted, if you ask me. Why not just use the term and phraseology you really mean?
Click to expand...
Give it a fucking break, doughhead. I have shown you that by all stanbdards of the English language, permanent and perpetual are synonyms to each other. Do you even know what a synonym is? My 7 year old grand daughter knows. Synonyms are different words WITH THE SAME MEANING. So you claim "Permanent and perpetual are two different words, they have two different meanings and intents" is either demonstrating sheer utter and willful ignorance, or is a deliberate lie to maintain your equally ignorant views.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
now we're getting somewhere. IF that government enacts an obviously unconstitutional law AND enforces punishment for those that don't follow that unconstitutional law, do we not have the beginnings of oppression and tyranny?
Click to expand...

Not unless and until all lawful remedies have been exhausted. See, that wasn't so hard.
 
Dixie said:
......And then there is the matter of Article II (same document)

Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.

While you have done a great job of hanging the debate up on some absurd parsing of a single word, here is the Article which renders any point you hoped to make irrelevant.
Click to expand...
Total hypocrisy takes over for ignorance.

YOU are the one hung up on what the word perpetual means, trying to change its meaning to deny the type of union the states agreed to under the Articles of Confederation. I have shown the phrase in the Articles of Confederation in which the states agreed to a perpetual union. I have shown the section of the Constitution which validates that previous agreement. I have shown the definition of perpetual, and shown that the words perpetual and permanent are, indeed, synonyms to each other, thus have the same meaning.

You bring up another statement from the Articles, which for all intents and purposes is echoed by the 10th Amendment of the Constitution. It refers to powers retained by the states that are not delegated to the federal government. So what? The AoC statement does not negate the OTHER statement in the very same document which agrees to a perpetual union, does it? Or are you now going to claim the AoC was self-contradictory?

The several states still agreed to a perpetual union with a federal authority that was delegated specific powers. Then under the Constitution, the SAME STRUCTURE was agreed to by the states, but with a significantly stronger federal government designed by the federalists, which INCLUDED prior obligations made under the AoC. With a stronger federal government, the automatic corollary is that some of the sovereign powers of the states were diminished. Yet the states ratified the Constitution because they recognized the federal authority granted under the AoC was not adequate to the task of maintaining a union.

The the anti-federalists got in their say with the BOR which are SUPPOSED to protect the rights, liberties, and powers of both the People and the States. Of course, when people come around claiming "this word means something different now, because we want it to mean something different" then those protections are allowed to erode under the "living document" theory.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top