Was the Confederacy constitutional?

Smarter Than All Y'All said:
Not unless and until all lawful remedies have been exhausted. See, that wasn't so hard.
Click to expand...

so the government is allowed to be unlawful til the courts tell them not to be, but the people MUST follow the law, unlawful or not. yeah, thats kind of hard. I have this thing about equal protection under the law being applied fairly to us as well as the government. I also have this thing about how the constitution was written by we the people and defines the federal government, not written by the government to tell the people what they can and cannot do.

so yeah, thats just too hard.

so let me ask you, do you have a favorite founding father? favorite framer of the constitution? or how about just a historical figure in american history?
 
Smarter Than All Y'All said:
Sure, you can ask.

I'm sorry the rule of law is "too hard" for you, and sincerely hope you will be able to endure it.
Click to expand...

thats just it. I know the rule of law. You apparently don't, especially when you consider that the constitution is the supreme law of the land. I realize that you're sheltered upbringing has you believing that the state is the arbitor of your rights and that the laws are to be obeyed, regardless of whether they are constitutional or not. It's a shame that the blood of freedom doesn't run in your veins, that you'd rather be a slave to the state than to make the state your servant.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
thats just it. I know the rule of law. You apparently don't, especially when you consider that the constitution is the supreme law of the land. I realize that you're sheltered upbringing has you believing that the state is the arbitor of your rights and that the laws are to be obeyed, regardless of whether they are constitutional or not. It's a shame that the blood of freedom doesn't run in your veins, that you'd rather be a slave to the state than to make the state your servant.
Click to expand...

That's a lot of assumption for one statement. Do you need to rest a while?:cool:
 
Smarter Than All Y'All said:
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.
Click to expand...
Disagree - kind of. When an unconstitutional law is passed and enforced, oppression and tyranny are taking place REGARDLESS of what means are - or are not - being used to remedy the situation.

However, lawful means should be used FIRST as a remedy against federal encroachment, and those means COMPLETELY exhausted, before other means are examined, let alone used. IMO the call to secession was premature, as most of the very-valid complaints of the southern states were instigated within only a couple congressional cycles. Of the various unconstitutional interstate trade regulations that were passed, and of the multitude of unconstitutional enforcement practices taking place, only a small percentage were challenged in the courts, and of those just a few made it to SCOTUS.

Kind of like what is happening now.
 
Good Luck said:
Disagree - kind of. When an unconstitutional law is passed and enforced, oppression and tyranny are taking place REGARDLESS of what means are - or are not - being used to remedy the situation.

However, lawful means should be used FIRST as a remedy against federal encroachment, and those means COMPLETELY exhausted, before other means are examined, let alone used. IMO the call to secession was premature, as most of the very-valid complaints of the southern states were instigated within only a couple congressional cycles. Of the various unconstitutional interstate trade regulations that were passed, and of the multitude of unconstitutional enforcement practices taking place, only a small percentage were challenged in the courts, and of those just a few made it to SCOTUS.

Kind of like what is happening now.
Click to expand...

Are you serious?
 
With a stronger federal government, the automatic corollary is that some of the sovereign powers of the states were diminished.
Click to expand...

How can that be when that's not what they agreed on? The States RETAIN SOVEREIGNTY! ALL parts of this article of confederation still APPLY... perpetually... forever! There is no "automatic corollary" you are claiming, there is no basis for such. How can sovereign powers be diminished when they were never on the table? The State RETAINS sovereignty... it means something, or they wouldn't have put it in there, don't you think?
 
Good Luck said:
Disagree - kind of. When an unconstitutional law is passed and enforced, oppression and tyranny are taking place REGARDLESS of what means are - or are not - being used to remedy the situation.

However, lawful means should be used FIRST as a remedy against federal encroachment, and those means COMPLETELY exhausted, before other means are examined, let alone used. IMO the call to secession was premature, as most of the very-valid complaints of the southern states were instigated within only a couple congressional cycles. Of the various unconstitutional interstate trade regulations that were passed, and of the multitude of unconstitutional enforcement practices taking place, only a small percentage were challenged in the courts, and of those just a few made it to SCOTUS.

Kind of like what is happening now.
Click to expand...


Concur with all but the last sentence.
 
Dixie said:
How can that be when that's not what they agreed on? The States RETAIN SOVEREIGNTY! ALL parts of this article of confederation still APPLY... perpetually... forever! There is no "automatic corollary" you are claiming, there is no basis for such. How can sovereign powers be diminished when they were never on the table? The State RETAINS sovereignty... it means something, or they wouldn't have put it in there, don't you think?
Click to expand...
That was the AoC. So what? Going to bring up something from the Magna Carta next? How about Hammarabi's Code? The agreement to a perpetual union is referenced from the AoC because it is one of many "debts or engagements" that the Constitution affirms in Article VI.

The AoC was VOLUNTARILY supplanted by the Constitution. Or did you forget that little fact? The relationships and the balance of powers between the states and the federal government were significantly and deliberately altered. Debts and engagements agreed to under the AoC were validated in the Constitution under Article VI. That include the states' agreement to a perpetual union - agreeing to a perpetual relationship is an obligation, a commitment, a debt to each other and the union. What obligation or debt is described in your section of the AoC? Nothing: it is a statement of powers retained, not a statement of obligation, engagement, or debt of any type. therefore it is NOT affirmed in the Constitution.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Did the Bill of Rights apply to slaves? Native Americans? immigrants? women? non-property owners? Did it protect their rights as it does today? How do you suppose we got from THERE to HERE? Wasn't it because (mostly) the Supreme Court ruled on their interpretation of the words used in the Constitution?

Whether you support originalist interpretations or not, the simple fact of the matter is, our SCOTUS has indeed changed and altered the meaning of "freedom" and "equality" throughout our nation's history. I mean, as much of a strict constitutionalist as I am, I have to admit the court has done this over the years, and sometimes for the greater good. That's not me endorsing the "living document" viewpoint, it's merely recognizing it has been historically a part of SCOTUS decisions. I feel like you are trying to turn this into a philosophical argument over the merits of 'originalist' vs. 'living document' viewpoints, and that's not where I am coming from here. If you witness a car wreck, doe that mean you caused it? When you give your statement of what you saw, does that mean you are "taking sides" or trying to promote one perspective over another?

I think we should remain honest about history, the perspective we use to evaluate history, should be considerate of the perspectives of the day, what was the perceptions of the times. It is absolutely pointless and really dishonest, to attribute a modern understanding and perspective, to something that happened in a different era, when a completely different social temperament prevailed. By today's standards and from a modern understanding of what "racism" is, about 99.8% of white Americans were "racist" in 1860. Is it fair to apply that perspective to them, as if they held the same understandings, the same cultural changes, the same enlightenment, as people of today? Because that is what it seems we are inclined to do, and it's just not honest and truthful, and can't help us better understand our history. It is in fact, a form of Denial.
 
Smarter Than All Y'All said:
Convince me. I respond to facts.
Click to expand...
Do you? Your repeated "no-thanks for your unhelpful post" say other wise.

However: Health care reform - there is NO provision in the Constitution granting the federral government the power to require individual citizens to purchase the product of a private company. They cannot constitutionally enforce that portion of the bill.

Health care reform: Article 1, section 8, paragraph one states that "but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States". Therefore the exceptions and special considerations granted certain states is unconstitutional. And the fact that the bill would not have passed without the unconstitutional addition of special considerations, that makes the passage of the entire bill unconstitutional.

FISA - As written, they can invade your personal communications for upwards of two weeks before getting court approval. Warrants issued AFTER the fact is not what the 4th amendment says.

Patriot Act: Surveillance and interference without warrant with free electronic communication based on SUSPICION of terrorist activities. The ability to remove the citizen status of a United States Citizen without due process and hold them indefinitely. The ability to use federal law enforcement to usurp local jurisdiction under the blanket, and undefined term "terrorist activities".

The assault weapons ban. (yes, it sunset, but doesn't mean it was constitutional while in place.)

Is that enough, or do you want more? Or are you intellectually honest enough to look for some yourself?
 
Last edited:
Dixie said:
Did the Bill of Rights apply to slaves? Native Americans? immigrants? women? non-property owners? Did it protect their rights as it does today? How do you suppose we got from THERE to HERE? Wasn't it because (mostly) the Supreme Court ruled on their interpretation of the words used in the Constitution?
Click to expand...
No, it actually was not. The majority of real change in constitutional protections were brought about as the writers of the Constitution intended: amendments. Amendments that were added in response to social changes in how we expanded the brotherhood of mankind to include all races and genders instead of being focused only on males of European descent.

It was the amendment process that outlawed slavery for all time. It was an amendment that prohibits discrimination based on race (though it took a long time to actually APPLY that one....). It was an amendment that prohibits state governments from violating U.S. Constitutional protections (though it was not really needed since most state constitutions included those same protections). It was an amendment that granted suffrage to women. (And additional womens' rights have been gained by writing of new law, not court mandate.)

I do not disspute that changes have taken place. But your use of the facts of change to then claim that a given action by the government or the states is only unconstitutional when SCOTUS says so is pure BS. It is unconstitutional because the CONSTITUTION says so. If the courts do not uphold what the Constitution says (which has happened many times in our history), then they are derelict in their duties. But that does not make what the Constitution says different, it simply means the courts got it wrong. Nor does it change what the Constitution says if/when they change their minds - it simply means the courts recognize and correct a previous mistake. (or, in some cases, submit to PC pressures and wrong what was once right.)
 
I do not disspute that changes have taken place. But your use of the facts of change to then claim that a given action by the government or the states is only unconstitutional when SCOTUS says so is pure BS. It is unconstitutional because the CONSTITUTION says so. If the courts do not uphold what the Constitution says (which has happened many times in our history), then they are derelict in their duties. But that does not make what the Constitution says different, it simply means the courts got it wrong.
Click to expand...

The courts ALWAYS uphold what they interpret the Constitution to say. I can't think of one singe example where the Majority Opinion admitted it did not uphold the Constitution, yet the Court ruled in favor of it! Every decision they make, whether YOU personally agree with it or not, is made on the basis of Constitutionality. How that court interpreted Constitutionality.

The Constitution does SAY what the Constitution SAYS, I have not disputed that or claimed it not to be the case. However, our understanding of what it says, has changed with the times. Clearly, the 4th Amendment protects us against illegal searches and seizures, but did this apply to the Native Americans? They had their lands stolen and were marched to reservations. Seems to me, if it was so clear what the Constitution said, that wouldn't have happened, someone (like you) would have stood up and said... hey guys, we can't do this because the Constitution prohibits it! But that didn't happen, obviously. When Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus, or FDR interned Japanese-Americans, where were the Constitutional scholars pointing out that our Constitution said they couldn't do that? Seems if it were so clear the Constitution forbade this, it wouldn't have happened, because someone would have stepped forward and said... uhm, sorry, against the Constitution... can't do it! But that did not happen!

You seem to be claiming the absurd while calling me absurd, you are saying we don't really even need a Supreme Court! The Constitution says what it says, and things are either Constitutional or they're not, so why do we need a Court to decide anything? Any SCOTUS ruling is an interpretation of the Constitution, whether right or wrong, it is always based on someone's opinion of what the Constitution is saying. Generally, SCOTUS cases are between two sides, one feels their Constitutional rights have been violated, the other side feels no Constitutional violation has occurred. Both sides believe they are right, that they have interpreted the Constitution correctly. Before the Justices rule, neither side can claim their position to be "constitutional" because the case has not been decided. Constitutionality rests with the Justices interpretation of what the Constitution says. If they do not rule as you see fit, it doesn't mean they "got it wrong" it means you don't interpret the Constitution the same way they do.

One thing about application of the Constitution, it is sometimes very complicated. You take a very simplistic approach... heck, it's right there in black and white, this is constitutional, and that ain't, couldn't be any clearer! But often times, it is a matter of TWO Constitutional rights, and which one takes precedent. Yes, it's Constitutional to have the right to Free Speech, it's not Constitutional to endanger the lives of others by yelling Fire in a theater. Sometimes it's not so clear as to which right trumps the other, or which Constitutional guarantee is more important and significant, whether it adversely effects society or endangers the public... It's why they invented a thing called Constitutional Law.
 
I do not disspute that changes have taken place. But your use of the facts of change to then claim that a given action by the government or the states is only unconstitutional when SCOTUS says so is pure BS. It is unconstitutional because the CONSTITUTION says so. If the courts do not uphold what the Constitution says (which has happened many times in our history), then they are derelict in their duties. But that does not make what the Constitution says different, it simply means the courts got it wrong.
Click to expand...

The courts ALWAYS uphold what they interpret the Constitution to say. I can't think of one singe example where the Majority Opinion admitted it did not uphold the Constitution, yet the Court ruled in favor of it! Every decision they make, whether YOU personally agree with it or not, is made on the basis of Constitutionality. How that court interpreted Constitutionality.

The Constitution does SAY what the Constitution SAYS, I have not disputed that or claimed it not to be the case. However, our understanding of what it says, has changed with the times. Clearly, the 4th Amendment protects us against illegal searches and seizures, but did this apply to the Native Americans? They had their lands stolen and were marched to reservations. Seems to me, if it was so clear what the Constitution said, that wouldn't have happened, someone (like you) would have stood up and said... hey guys, we can't do this because the Constitution prohibits it! But that didn't happen, obviously. When Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus, or FDR interned Japanese-Americans, where were the Constitutional scholars pointing out that our Constitution said they couldn't do that? Seems if it were so clear the Constitution forbade this, it wouldn't have happened, because someone would have stepped forward and said... uhm, sorry, against the Constitution... can't do it! But that did not happen!

You seem to be claiming the absurd while calling me absurd, you are saying we don't really even need a Supreme Court! The Constitution says what it says, and things are either Constitutional or they're not, so why do we need a Court to decide anything? Any SCOTUS ruling is an interpretation of the Constitution, whether right or wrong, it is always based on someone's opinion of what the Constitution is saying. Generally, SCOTUS cases are between two sides, one feels their Constitutional rights have been violated, the other side feels no Constitutional violation has occurred. Both sides believe they are right, that they have interpreted the Constitution correctly. Before the Justices rule, neither side can claim their position to be "constitutional" because the case has not been decided. Constitutionality rests with the Justices interpretation of what the Constitution says. If they do not rule as you see fit, it doesn't mean they "got it wrong" it means you don't interpret the Constitution the same way they do.

One thing about application of the Constitution, it is sometimes very complicated. You take a very simplistic approach... heck, it's right there in black and white, this is constitutional, and that ain't, couldn't be any clearer! But often times, it is a matter of TWO Constitutional rights, and which one takes precedent. Yes, it's Constitutional to have the right to Free Speech, it's not Constitutional to endanger the lives of others by yelling Fire in a theater. Sometimes it's not so clear as to which right trumps the other, or which Constitutional guarantee is more important and significant, whether it adversely effects society or endangers the public... It's why they invented a thing called Constitutional Law.
 
Maybe what the framers meant by perpetual was that the Union would last one third longer than it otherwise would have?
 
@ Dixie:
Diversionary tactics will not work.

With regard to how Native Americans were treated, you don't have to tell me a damned thing. Fucking pale faces screwed us from the word go.

But as has been pointed out, laws protecting human rights are perfectly consistent when the tactic used is to simply define certain groups as not human. That is what happened with blacks and NAs in the past. That is what is happening with unborn children today. Define them as not human, then any human rights in the Constitution do not apply.

And not once did I imply in any manner that SCOTUS is not needed. Planting a strawman argument does your position no good either. SCOTUS is obviously needed, because with them the people would have no recourse when congress passes a law that violates the Constitution.

That history is rife with examples of misinterpretations, bad decisions based on social views instead of reality cannot be denied. But the fact that mistakes have been made, some of them still ongoing, is NOT justification for claiming that an action by the government is not unconstitutional until declared so by the courts. If something is unconstitutional, it is so because of what the CONSTITUTION says, and NOT because of what the courts say.

And yes, sometimes the courts are needed to determine which right has precedence. Yet, like most, you misunderstand the yelling fire in a crowded theater example. What he court determined in that case was that a person cannot hide behind constitutional protections in order to defend themselves from harm they have caused in exercising their rights. IOW, it is still constitutional to yell fire in a crowded theater, but do not expect your right to protect you from consequences for the harm such actions cause.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top