Was the Confederacy constitutional?

[Canceled.LTroll.28]

Slow down there, bucko. A smart man picks his battles and then wages them carefully, using the enemy's strength against them rather than trying to bucck it head on. Violent reaction only get you dead, and the political philosophy you believe in another black eye. Taking the smoking gun way out is doing this society, and your Consitutionalist bretheren more of a disservice than mere capitulation because it gives the opposition more proaganda against us.

It takes a full blown, all out revolution for violence to work against a tyrannical government - and we are not nearly to the point where such an action is necessary enough to gain the following it needs. At this point, I would not support any such action, nor would the vast majority of those who agree with me on political principles.

Civil disobedience - which is what your are generally describing - works only when it is peaceful. Didn't I see you quote Ghandi on another thread? The quote used is not the only piece of wisdom to come from that great man. Pick a law with the least popular support and break it, then let them put you on trial, and make as loud a noise as possible from there. Shed light on the wrongs. When enough people do that, then is when changes are made. Ghandi did it in India. It was not the violent reactions that made the British empire back away. It was the peaceful civil disobedience which led to British over reacting, that in turn showed the people of Britain the wrongs of their government.

Martin Luther King Jr. and his followers did it here in the 60s. and again, it was not the riots and violence that led to change. Riots and violence only got the black population negatively labeled, giving the racists an excuse to say "see, told you these n**** bastards are no damn good." But the peaceful sit ins, civil disobedience protests, willingness to be arrested and put on trial - THAT is what got the public's attentions AND sympathies, AND, eventually, a loud enough call for justice that the politicians had no recourse but to make the desired changes.

Nothing but bluster. Nothing to see here, folks.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

"On topic"? Go look at the topic, then tell me you've stayed on it.

Was secession constitutional? No it was not. That is because the states committed themselves to a perpetual union in the AoC, a commitment which was affirmed by Article VI of the Constitution. You argued that perpetual does not mean permanent which was proven dead assed wrong. Then you started claiming that it was only unconstitutional after SCOTUS ruled on its constitutionality after the war had ended. Again, wrong because constitutionality depends on what the Constitution says. Courts rule according to the cases brought before them, which sets precedence. But it is the word of the Constitution which the courts compare the laws and make their determination.

Regardless of how the SCOTUS rules, it is using a determination made through interpretation. Whether you believe they should do this, or not, is completely irrelevant to the fact that they do this. The states did not commit to a permanent irrevocable arrangement that could never be broken. They agreed to a perpetual arrangement, whereby, they retain their sovereignty and the federal government leaves them the hell alone, perpetually! What you are arguing is the same as saying a wife doesn't have the right to divorce her husband who is beating her, because she vowed to love him for better or worse! The perpetual arrangement had been broken, the 10th Amendment had been violated, and the Confederate states had every right in the world to declare separation.

So now you start pulling in how NAs were screwed over because the definition of human did not include us, so human rights did not apply to us. What the fuck does that have to do with secession?

It has to do with what is "constitutional" and what is not. It doesn't matter HOW they determine it, or WHY they did so, the fact is, they DID determine it wasn't unconstitutional to steal Native American lands and put them on reservations. We can argue about whether or not that was "right" or "wrong" but the fact of the matter is, it WAS constitutional, because the SCOTUS so ruled.

Bottom line: The Constitution is what defines what laws are constitutional. Period. I do not care if our history is full of examples where the courts fucked up. History is also full of examples where the government took away the rights of the people and subjugated them to complete tyranny. Because that is history, do we say "oh, well" when it happens here?

Here is where you seem to think we are having a philosophical argument over the role of the SCOTUS, and we're really not. I agree, the court has often misinterpreted what the Constitution says, and ruled erroneously. nevertheless, their ruling becomes law of the land, and what we go by when we say something is or isn't "constitutional." That's just the world we live in, like it or not.

I do not need some twinky in a black robe to tell me when my rights are being violated. Some do.

Actually, you do. Our laws do not allow you to be the decider of what is and isn't your Constitutional right, sorry! You are welcome to "believe" something is against your Constitutional rights, and if you have a strong enough case, perhaps the SCOTUS will hear it and agree with you, but you do not have the right to interpret the Constitution as you like and establish your own personal laws according to that.

Some like government telling them which way is up, and what color the sky is supposed to be. And then there are some who don;t like it, but don't care enough to bother with it ass long ass it doesn't affect them too much. For me, I do not like it, and I will not sit around saying "that's the way it is" either. A law tells me I have to ask the state for permission to purchase a firearm, I know my rights are being violated because the implied power to deny me that right is itself an infringement. Yes, I am aware that such laws exist, and that previous courts have erroneously upheld those laws. It does NOT make those laws constitutional no matter WHAT the damned courts say, because that is NOT what the Constitution says.

This has nothing to do with whether you like government telling you what to do or which way is up, it's the way we have structured a civilized society. We appoint men who have spent their lives studying the law and the constitution, to hear cases brought before them and determine whether the issue is or is not constitutional. We do this because everybody doesn't trust Good Luck to decide for us, even though he is so smart and wise! I'm sorry it's that way, if I were King of the USA, I would change the way we do things and put you in charge of deciding what is Constitutional, but I doubt I will ever be the King.

But here's the real kicker, even YOU, in all your profound glorious wisdom about the Constitution and what it says, must interpret what it says to apply it to any circumstance. As smart as you are, the words of the constitution are interpreted by you to mean certain things, and everyone doesn't always agree with what you interpret. That is why we have a Supreme Court, that is what they are charged with doing, not Good Luck!

If a law is passed (which it has been) saying the federal government has the right to hold me without trial by simply labeling me a terrorist without due process, I know that law is unconstitutional. Period. Some black robes tell me it IS constitutional, that only tells me those black robes are part of the tyranny. It does NOT make these bull shit totalitarian laws constitutional. You want to fold your tent and say "Yes sir. Thank you sir. May I have another, sir?" while wiping their jism off your chin, hoping that some later court won't do the same to your progeny, have at it. But I'll continue to call a spade a spade. What the Constitution says is what determines those actions which are or are not constitutional. Trying to claim that the courts, and not the Constitution, are what determine constitutionality is simply inviting the tyrants in for dinner.

Again, we aren't having a philosophical conversation over how the Constitution is interpreted. You and I both favor "originalist" interpretations, and that is fine, but to claim that no one needs to interpret the Constitution, and it just says what it says in black and white, and we can call things "constitutional" or "unconstitutional" on the basis of our personal interpretations, is crazy. The LAW doesn't go by what YOU think the Constitution says! Again, if I get to be King of the USA, we'll do something about that, but until then, I am afraid you have to live with the system our society has established.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

On buses and trains. And park benches. And in public meetings.

You blustered some more. Is that it?

whatever. you're way less impressive now than you were before. i've done something, you've done nothing. you lose.

 

[Good Luck]

@ Dixie:
You sound like the typical brain dead liberal. Which is unusual for you. The only reason is taking the "interpret" route is the only defense you have left for supporting the incorrect notion that constitutionality is 100% up to the courts. And the only reason for that is you do not want to recognize the fact that secession is, was, and always has been unconstitutional.

"Interpret" the constitution my ass. You read the words and phrases. Words and phrases have established meanings. If they did not, communication would be impossible. The word "perpetual" has a specific meaning - and it is not the meaning you are trying to place on it. That has been proven more than once.

Like wise the phrase "shall not be infringed" has a specific meaning. When a law violates the prohibition described by that specific phrase, then the Constitution has been violated no matter what a bunch of black robes, liberal puss heads, and "I can't admit I'm wrong" pundits have to say about it.

Ditto for the statement "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." When a warrant iss issued AFTER the search or seizure, it violates that protection, because the warrant can ONLY be issued upon probable cause. Probable cause does NOT mean find the stuff, then use it to justify the search. As such FISA violates the 4th amendment. Period. There is no "interpretation" needed except to justify to pinheads the violation.

The Constitution was written for the PEOPLE. Remember the first phrase of the preamble? "We, the PEOPLE" written in large, proud lettering. Since it was written for the PEOPLE, then how is it that only a bunch of politically motivated lawyers have the ability to "interpret" it to know how it should be applied? It's a bunch of horse shit. It is a document for the PEOPLE, and therefore was written in a language the common people can understand, so they can recognize when it is being tossed aside for the pleasure of a ruling elite, and in so recognizing, do something about it.

That is also why the entire "interpret" and "living document" crap was invented - because the totalitarians see that it is, indeed, an easily read and understood document, and therefore the public must be hoodwinked into accepting their false meanings.

You want to get into the "depends on what you think the word 'is' is." interpretation route, print a copy on soft paper, because you're wiping your ass with it.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

@ Dixie:
You sound like the typical brain dead liberal. Which is unusual for you. The only reason is taking the "interpret" route is the only defense you have left for supporting the incorrect notion that constitutionality is 100% up to the courts. And the only reason for that is you do not want to recognize the fact that secession is, was, and always has been unconstitutional.

I sound that way because you continue trying to make this a philosophical debate rather than a discussion of reality. Constitutionality, at least as far as the law recognizes in this country, is indeed established by SCOTUS interpretations of the Constitution. Right or wrong, good or bad, originalist or living document, their interpretation of what the Constitution says and how it applies, are what we go by in America, not individual understandings, not personal viewpoints and interpretations.

Secession was not found to be unconstitutional until 1869, well after states seceded! It is intellectually dishonest to claim they did something unconstitutional, because the question of constitutionality had not been determined in 1860. You can assert they did something that would one day be unconstitutional, I'm fine with that, but at the time, it was not considered unconstitutional, and many argued it was well within their rights (and a moral obligation) to declare separation.

"Interpret" the constitution my ass. You read the words and phrases. Words and phrases have established meanings. If they did not, communication would be impossible. The word "perpetual" has a specific meaning - and it is not the meaning you are trying to place on it. That has been proven more than once.

You've not "PROVEN" a goddamn thing! You keep arguing and claiming things, but this is a matter of OPINION not tangible fact. Communication would be impossible if we didn't INTERPRET what words mean! Obviously, we both have a different interpretation of the use of "perpetual" here, that should tell you that people can sometimes disagree on interpretation of words and phrases. You want to argue that "perpetual" means the same as "permanent and irrevocable, even if one party breaches the agreement!" and I think if they had intended that meaning, they wouldn't have used appropriate wording to convey that interpretation. From my viewpoint, "perpetual" means what Merriam Webster says it means, "continuing forever" and "continuing" means, "no need for renewal." So, there was no need to renew the arrangement, it was "perpetual" so long as both parties were honoring their commitments. You've not proven me wrong, you've not established I have not defined or interpreted "perpetual" accurately, you just have a difference of opinion.

Like wise the phrase "shall not be infringed" has a specific meaning. When a law violates the prohibition described by that specific phrase, then the Constitution has been violated no matter what a bunch of black robes, liberal puss heads, and "I can't admit I'm wrong" pundits have to say about it.

Again, from a real-world legal standpoint, ALL that really matters is what those black robes have to say. You can "believe" the Constitution has been violated, but when the body our society has charged with deciding this, decides you are incorrect, it doesn't really matter what your opinion is.

Ditto for the statement "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." When a warrant iss issued AFTER the search or seizure, it violates that protection, because the warrant can ONLY be issued upon probable cause. Probable cause does NOT mean find the stuff, then use it to justify the search. As such FISA violates the 4th amendment. Period. There is no "interpretation" needed except to justify to pinheads the violation.

Oh, but there most certainly IS an interpretation needed, because the Constitution says a lot of other things as well. As I said before, SCOTUS cases are almost always between two sides, with conflicting constitutional rights in question. In times of war, the Federal government is responsible for keeping us secure and protecting our property and life, they are given the constitutional authority to wage war on our behalf, and in the process of execution, they may need to inconvenience our rights to some extent or to some degree. Other presidents have done this, other people squawked about the constitutionality of it, and the SCOTUS has ruled on it, several times now! They simply didn't "interpret" the constitution the same way you do!

The Constitution was written for the PEOPLE. Remember the first phrase of the preamble? "We, the PEOPLE" written in large, proud lettering. Since it was written for the PEOPLE, then how is it that only a bunch of politically motivated lawyers have the ability to "interpret" it to know how it should be applied? It's a bunch of horse shit. It is a document for the PEOPLE, and therefore was written in a language the common people can understand, so they can recognize when it is being tossed aside for the pleasure of a ruling elite, and in so recognizing, do something about it.

Well now, just a few posts back, you said I was being absurd to claim you were arguing we didn't need a Supreme Court, and here you are, making that exact same point again! Are you going to again respond with the defense that you aren't saying this? Because it's right here in black and white, it's exactly what you are saying! The Supreme Court represent the People! We elect presidents who appoint the Supreme Court justices!

That is also why the entire "interpret" and "living document" crap was invented - because the totalitarians see that it is, indeed, an easily read and understood document, and therefore the public must be hoodwinked into accepting their false meanings.

You want to get into the "depends on what you think the word 'is' is." interpretation route, print a copy on soft paper, because you're wiping your ass with it.

Regardless of whether a justice uses an "originalist" approach or a "living document" approach, he is still INTERPRETING what the Constitution says! You seem to think the Constitution is some mystical altruistic document we can just turn to like a magic 8-ball for an answer! And when we do, we will get the same altruistic interpretations and meanings as YOU get! That's just not the case in the real world. I wish I could make it the case! I wish I could say that we don't need a SCOTUS and we can just call Good Luck whenever we are in question about what the constitution means, but that isn't the system the rest of our society has established, so I can't do that. I have to operate in the real world, where stuff is really happening.

 

[Good Luck]

@Dixie
Poppycock and twibble. YOU are the one trying to make this into a philosophical "that is theory, this is reality" discussion. The TOPIC is whether secession was a constitutional action of the southern states.

FACTS of HISTORY (within the scope of the topic): The Articles of Confederation were written to form an official alliance between the several states of the newly formed United States, which was first named as a cooperative entity in the Declaration of Independence. In this document a union was formed under the general structure of a central government for certain duties, responsibilities, and powers while the states retained their individual identities, sovereign governments, and all those governmental duties and responsibilities not assigned to the central government. And in ratifying the AoC, the states agreed that the union was to be perpetual - lasting for all time. (deny that meaning of the word again and you simply prove yourself to be a deliberately ignorant dufus.)

But the states quickly found out that the central government under the AoC was too weak to perform even those duties assigned it. Luckily for subsequent history, the leadership was, in large part, the same leadership that formed and successfully brought about the American Revolution against the British Empire. So even while recognizing the confederation was not going to work as designed, they also recognized that simply dissolving the union with each state going its own way was not a wise idea. It was because they acted as the UNITED states against Britain that they won the Revolution.

So they called a Constitutional Convention which wrote a Constitution that used the same basic structure of a central government with defined duties, responsibilities and powers, and states which retained their own sovereign governments with defined duties and responsibilities, and all powers not granted the federal government. The difference between the AoC and the Constitution is the Constitution defined a federal government, which by definition has more political power over the Union as a whole. But in general principle, the basic structure outline was of the same type. As such, they wrote one section of the Constitution that accepted all the various duties, responsibilities, and commitments made under the AoC, and REAFFIRMED them in the Constitution under the NEW and REVISED relationship of federal government and the states. Those who were untrusting of a stronger federal government added their "two cents" (which IMO should have been Article One) which were designed to forever deny the federal government certain powers over individuals, and also deny the federal government any powers that were not SPECIFICALLY assigned them. ALL of the states ratified the Constitution, which obligated them to all agreements held within, whivch INCLUDES the reaffirmation of obligations they agreed to under the AoC, one of which was agreeing to a perpetual union.

What all that means is the states agreed to a perpetual union, both under the AoC AND the Constitution. Perpetual unions can NOT be broken unilaterally, which is what the southern sates did when they declared secession. Since they had agree to the parameters of the Constitution previously, then they were VIOLATING that agreement, which is, by definition, unconstitutional.

You can whine about the courts SAYING it was unconstitutional only AFTER the Civil War was concluded all you want. You can whine (incorrectly) that the courts alone determine constitutionality, and they do so by INTERPRETING it. (Wrong again - their FUNCTION is to COMPARE the power and effects of a law or action to the limitations of government defined by the Constitution, and from that comparison determine if the law or action violates said limitations.) You can whine more about interpretation being a part of the reading process. (Wrong AGAIN. Words have SPECIFIC AGREED meanings. If a person uses the adjective "yellow" and another person INTERPRETS that to mean "soft", then communication breaks down. Communication is IMPOSSIBLE unless the participants are using words with standardized meanings. The Constitution is not a piece of poetry with allusions and metaphors and similies to be picked out and analyzed. It is a document with straight forward writing so as to prevent any need of "interpreting" what it is SUPPOSED to mean. People who insist on INTERPRETING the Constitution only do so because it does not say what they want it to say. And you can whine that my "interpretation" is but my opinion. Again, that is because you don't like what the Constitution actually says.

In short, you can belly ache and whine and stomp your feet. It does not change the FACT that the states violated their agreement - that agreement being the Constitution itself. Secession is unconstitutional, and has been so from the moment each state ratified the Constitution.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

We can argue this all you like, it's a matter of your opinion and my opinion, and my opinion is based on reality. The Constitutionality of secession was determined by SCOTUS in 1869, the case was Texas v. White. I have posted the link previously, and it clearly outlines the case and why it was significant in fundamentally changing the viewpoint and law regarding secession of the states. Prior to that, before that case was heard, the answer of Constitutionality was unclear.... hence the reason for Texas v. White to be brought before the court! They simply DO NOT hear cases where Constitutionality is NOT in question! Doesn't happen... has never happened in the history of the court! They reject the case if it doesn't compel them to rule based on an issue of Constitutionality. The fact the SCOTUS heard Texas v. White, is all the evidence needed to support what I said, that it was Constitutionally questionable, not "established" by any stretch.

The Constitution is not a piece of poetry with allusions and metaphors and similies to be picked out and analyzed. It is a document with straight forward writing so as to prevent any need of "interpreting" what it is SUPPOSED to mean. People who insist on INTERPRETING the Constitution only do so because it does not say what they want it to say. And you can whine that my "interpretation" is but my opinion. Again, that is because you don't like what the Constitution actually says.

Again, the issues that arise for SCOTUS are always based on Constitutionality, and they always rule based on their interpretations of the Constitution. Whether it is "originalist" or "creative" interpreting, is not being debated here. I agree with you regarding an originalist interpretation, in most cases, but remember, the original writers of the constitution did not intend it to apply to black people or indians! So do you support THAT original view? I don't, and I think most people realize the position is untenable. Whether it is supportive of "creative" interpreting or something else, the SCOTUS was instrumental in changing society regarding racial equality, and that was not a bad thing to happen. I'm not debating whether originalist or creative interpretations are better, just that the SCOTUS does interpret, they have to interpret, it is their job.

If the Constitution were so fundamentally clear to everyone as it seems to be to you, then there would be no need for the Supreme Court! People could just walk around with a Constitution in their pocket, and whenever some issue arose, they could whip it out and say... yep, it's right here, I have the constitutional right to do this! And the other person would say... Okay, you're right, it's there in black and white, I agree... sorry! And then we would all sit around the campfire drinking a Coca-Cola singing Kumbya! But that isn't the world we live in, is it? Nope... So the other person whips out THEIR copy of the Constitution, and says... Noo... no... no... Right here, see? You don't have the constitutional right to do this, because it says I have THIS right, and it trumps your right! The argument escalates, and it comes down to who's "right" comes first in the constitution, and eventually they determine that "We The People" comes first, so the solution would be, to have We The People hold a national election over who's right was most crucial to be protected by the Constitution... but we can't really have a national election to settle such an obscure dispute! What is our real-world solution to that dilemma? Well... it's not "perfect" but it is the Supreme Court.

 

[cancel2 2022]

LOL I think that question was answered succinctly in 1865! LOL

In some ways it might have been better if they did go their own way, at least you wouldn't have all the good ol' boys constantly going on about it.

 

[Good Luck]

@Dixie
Your opinion is based on the desire to prove a false assumption. Your "reality" is you have to be right whether your are or not.

Nowhere have I ever stated there is no need for a courts system. People can and do understand the Constitution or there would never be any suits filed challenging the constitutionality of a law. But a single person does not have the authority to tell the federal government their law is outside the boundaries of the Constitution, do they? Not to mention that there are those out there who SUPPORT unconstitutional laws, even knowing them to be unconstitutional simply because their political masters have convinced them what is "best". So there goes THAT dumbassed strawman argument. Courts are indeed needed, not to "interpret" the Constitution as you state (the "interpret" philosophy is what is getting us in more and more trouble!), but rather to ENFORCE the Constitution against unjust, unconstitutional laws or actions of the governments. It's called BALANCE OF POWER.

And once again, it is not the concepts of liberty, freedom, and human rights contained in the Constitution that have changed, but rather whom we, as a society, include in the class of people who deserve human rights. Amendments were added to show that race and gender are no longer justification to exclude targeted groups. But the BASE rights as contained in the BOR were NOT CHANGED. The change came in WHOM we call a member of the human race, and/or a member of the body politic. But, also again, that is a side issue that has zero bearing on the issue of debate in this thread. Changes have been made, the most enduring ones being through the amendment process as intended, while more fleeting ones, like the recently cut back exclusionary rule, were made by "interpretation" rulings. But the thing that has NOT been changed is the issue of secession.

Bottom line: secession is unconstitutional. Don't like that basic fact, tough. Pretending otherwise does not change that fact. It did NOT suddenly "become" unconstitutional in 1869 because of a SCOTUS decision. It was ALREADY unconstitutional, and SCOTUS simply AFFIRMED that fact when a case concerning the constitutionality of secession was brought before it. Don't like THAT fact either, double tough.

 

[Good Luck]

In some ways it might have been better if they did go their own way, at least you wouldn't have all the good ol' boys constantly going on about it.

Dealing with "Sons of the South" is puny compared to the likely alternate history that would have occurred had the U.S. been permanently fractured by the Civil War.

Consider first what would have happened if we'd had two competing nations in the westward expansion. Cause for a least one more if not several more wars.

Consider a situation where secession was "proven" by might of arms to be an accepted practice. Result, 4, 5, or more nations, ALL of whom would have then been vying for western territory. Conflicts innumerable, wars likely.

All of which would have dramatically diminished the other areas of development in the U.S. The development of our industrial base, which was a (if not THE) key factor in attaining world power status would have, instead, been a fractured shadow based on international trade agreements of various sorts.

Also, without that industrial capability, what would have happened with the world wars? WWI - probably little or no significant change - just several more years of war before it got settled. WWII, though, would be hugely different. No lend-lease act to Britain. No building war ships faster than the enemy can sink them, or making bombers faster than they can be shot down. No supply train across the Atlantic. Even if Britain managed to hang on without war materials from the U.S., it is highly doubtful they would have been able to wrest continental Europe away from Hitler's Germany. With a much-decreased ability of Britain to wage war from lack of materials, how much more could Germany have poured into the Eastern front of the war? Maybe not enough to take down the Russians (a particularly hardy and STUBBORN people!), but probably enough to force a treaty allowing Germany to keep their conquests.

What of nuclear weapons? Fascist Germany would have come up with them first. If they got them before the end of the much-different WWII, Russia and Britain would certainly have fallen, with North America following at a later date. If they'd developed them after winning WWII, then they simply would have used them in a NEW war of conquest, with similar, possibly worse results.

The end result: a MUCH different Europe than we see today. Could the people of Europe have eventually broken the yoke of fascism? Probably, but after several decades, and at huge cost to the infrastructure leaving scars they's still be trying to rebuild from.

In the Pacific, without any significant challenge to Japan's conquest of expansion, most of Indo China, parts of the Chinese mainland and parts of Russia would have been held under Japanese occupation - if not outright annexation - for a much extended period of time, if not permanent.

A map of the globe would sure look different.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

@Dixie
Your opinion is based on the desire to prove a false assumption. Your "reality" is you have to be right whether your are or not.

Except the "false assumption" is a true fact of life. You keep wanting to say something was "unconstitutional" when the SCOTUS had not ruled it was. The issue was still in question, which is why they heard a case in 1869 on the issue, and made a determination regarding Constitutionality. After 1869, it was unconstitutional because the SCOTUS ruled it was, but prior to that, it had not been determined. That is reality, that is what history shows to be the case, and YOU are the one attempting to deny that!

Nowhere have I ever stated there is no need for a courts system.

Are you fucking on drugs or something? You posted the following shit:

Some black robes tell me it IS constitutional, that only tells me those black robes are part of the tyranny. It does NOT make these bull shit totalitarian laws constitutional.

I do not need some twinky in a black robe to tell me when my rights are being violated. Some do.

When a law violates the prohibition described by that specific phrase, then the Constitution has been violated no matter what a bunch of black robes, liberal puss heads, and "I can't admit I'm wrong" pundits have to say about it.

Since it was written for the PEOPLE, then how is it that only a bunch of politically motivated lawyers have the ability to "interpret" it to know how it should be applied? It's a bunch of horse shit.

Now I am really sorry you don't realize it, but the statements you made would lead the average reader to believe you don't like the Court system, and don't feel it is necessary....In fact, it's a "bunch of horse shit" according to you!

Courts are indeed needed, not to "interpret" the Constitution as you state (the "interpret" philosophy is what is getting us in more and more trouble!), but rather to ENFORCE the Constitution against unjust, unconstitutional laws or actions of the governments. It's called BALANCE OF POWER.

How can they enforce something they aren't allowed to interpret? If they can't determine what it means, they can't enforce anything. You say, well it means what it says, but by who's interpretation? Two people can read the exact same phrase (i.e. "perpetual") and get two completely different meanings from it. What part of that is not computing in your brain? Tell me you are not such a hardheaded bigot that you firmly believe the entire nation reads the Constitution to say exactly the same thing as you believe it says? Because I can tell you this, you'd probably be hard pressed to find ONE person who concurs with your opinion regarding every single detail found in our Constitution! Chances are, someone is going to disagree with your interpretation of something within the Constitution!

And once again, it is not the concepts of liberty, freedom, and human rights contained in the Constitution that have changed, but rather whom we, as a society, include in the class of people who deserve human rights. Amendments were added to show that race and gender are no longer justification to exclude targeted groups. But the BASE rights as contained in the BOR were NOT CHANGED. The change came in WHOM we call a member of the human race, and/or a member of the body politic.

So you think in 1776, they believed slaves were some other life form besides human? And women? They weren't considered part of the human race until 1911? Or are you saying the original Constitution was intended to bestow freedom and liberty only on a certain "class" of people?

No, the "text" of the Constitution and BOR didn't change, I never claimed they did! We changed our interpretation, we changed what we understood the Constitution to mean, and much of this was done through legislation, but also through the Supreme Court. You can't just claim the Founding Fathers, when writing the Constitution, fully intended it to apply to ALL Americans, and we were all just too stupid to realize it at the time! Heck, they didn't even realize it themselves! They wrote it, and it meant what it means today, but they were just not enlightened enough to know it back then! That is about the most INSANE notion I have ever heard!

 

[Socrtease]

Dealing with "Sons of the South" is puny compared to the likely alternate history that would have occurred had the U.S. been permanently fractured by the Civil War.

Consider first what would have happened if we'd had two competing nations in the westward expansion. Cause for a least one more if not several more wars.

Consider a situation where secession was "proven" by might of arms to be an accepted practice. Result, 4, 5, or more nations, ALL of whom would have then been vying for western territory. Conflicts innumerable, wars likely.

All of which would have dramatically diminished the other areas of development in the U.S. The development of our industrial base, which was a (if not THE) key factor in attaining world power status would have, instead, been a fractured shadow based on international trade agreements of various sorts.

Also, without that industrial capability, what would have happened with the world wars? WWI - probably little or no significant change - just several more years of war before it got settled. WWII, though, would be hugely different. No lend-lease act to Britain. No building war ships faster than the enemy can sink them, or making bombers faster than they can be shot down. No supply train across the Atlantic. Even if Britain managed to hang on without war materials from the U.S., it is highly doubtful they would have been able to wrest continental Europe away from Hitler's Germany. With a much-decreased ability of Britain to wage war from lack of materials, how much more could Germany have poured into the Eastern front of the war? Maybe not enough to take down the Russians (a particularly hardy and STUBBORN people!), but probably enough to force a treaty allowing Germany to keep their conquests.

What of nuclear weapons? Fascist Germany would have come up with them first. If they got them before the end of the much-different WWII, Russia and Britain would certainly have fallen, with North America following at a later date. If they'd developed them after winning WWII, then they simply would have used them in a NEW war of conquest, with similar, possibly worse results.

The end result: a MUCH different Europe than we see today. Could the people of Europe have eventually broken the yoke of fascism? Probably, but after several decades, and at huge cost to the infrastructure leaving scars they's still be trying to rebuild from.

In the Pacific, without any significant challenge to Japan's conquest of expansion, most of Indo China, parts of the Chinese mainland and parts of Russia would have been held under Japanese occupation - if not outright annexation - for a much extended period of time, if not permanent.

A map of the globe would sure look different.

I agree with most of this, but I think that Europe might have been different had the US not entered WWI. I believe it would have ended a stalemate, with all sides eventually agreeing to an end of the war without the sanctions that the Treaty of Versaille imposed on Germany. Granted, Germans have always had a superiority complex. Have you ever read any of the Harry Turtledove alternative history books? Very interesting reading on the what ifs of the South winning the civil war. Alliances leading up to the first world war are very different. If you haven't you should.

 

[Good Luck]

1) It does not take a court decision to make something unconstitutional. Period. To say so is assininely stupid. Period. To repeat it is beyond stupid.

2) I never said we do not need the courts. I said I do not need men in black robes to explain or interpret the Constitution for me. You invent a strawman, then try to defend it when called on it. Again, beyond stupid.

3) No, the duty of the courts is to READ the Constitution and defend it against encroachment. Just because that has not always happened (especially recently) does not mean that is not what they are supposed to be doing. It is written in the English language, so no interpretation is needed by anyone who speaks English as their primary language. If one has trouble, it's words are all easily found in dictionaries, though some meanings have changed, so the use of a 1780s dictionary is better.

4) Yes, the society of 1775 viewed blacks as less than human. And NAs. Did they have some scientific defense for the claim, an alternate biological classification? No. They simply stated they were not fully human. And it was THAT which changed, the views of common law with respect to whom is deserving of human rights. It was NOT the "reinterpretation" of the Constitution. Claiming so is, again, beyond stupid. Outright submoronic.

 

[Minister of Truth]

I agree with most of this, but I think that Europe might have been different had the US not entered WWI. I believe it would have ended a stalemate, with all sides eventually agreeing to an end of the war without the sanctions that the Treaty of Versaille imposed on Germany. Granted, Germans have always had a superiority complex. Have you ever read any of the Harry Turtledove alternative history books? Very interesting reading on the what ifs of the South winning the civil war. Alliances leading up to the first world war are very different. If you haven't you should.

This.

The author of The Confederate States of America predicted that the CSA would have sided with the Entente and that the USA would have sided with the Central Powers. Of course, it was in the epilogue, which was the lamest part of the book.

 

[Minister of Truth]

GL, I want to point out that the CSA would have lost ALL claims to the West, and could never have competed with the USA for it. Not without rail and industry, an equal size of population, and a whole host of other problems.

 

[Good Luck]

GL, I want to point out that the CSA would have lost ALL claims to the West, and could never have competed with the USA for it. Not without rail and industry, an equal size of population, and a whole host of other problems.

They definitely would have been at a disadvantage, but I doubt they would have lost ALL claims to settling the western territories. The Union would have gotten the far greater share, that is certain, which is one of the reasons that a split nation back then would have resulted in additional conflicts in the alternate future.

The south probably would have been able to spread into New Mexico Territory (or at least some of it) and Oklahoma. The North would have had the additional advantage of being able to push eastward from California and Oregon. In any case, I believe any push westward by either side would have been bitterly contested by the other, which would have led to more conflicts if not outright war, and delayed the development of the West significantly, as well as taken a large portion of the industry that was used to build the United States and put it to keeping the CSA "in their place".

Meanwhile, the CSA would have been faced with the competition of industrialized agriculture against their slave economy - and lost big time. They would have ended up every bit as dependent on Northern industry but instead of forced reconstruction (what some to this day call "occupation"), it would have taken the form of severely lopsided trade agreements and forced concessions to the point that they'd be faced with either starting yet another war, or allow themselves to be kept at 3rd-world status.

There are actually a whole bundle of possible alternate histories from a split Union in 1861. The outlooks are entirely different depending on whether a civil war was fought and won by the south, or whether secession was granted rather than fight a war. The latter would have left a far stronger South which in turn would have led to greater westward expansion by the CSA until the first conflict over the unsettled territories. And believe it, there WOULD have been conflicts, and probably a full blown war even if they'd avoided the Civil War.

But the point is the comparative alternate history, had the Union been permanently split, is not very pleasant to contemplate.

 

[Good Luck]

I agree with most of this, but I think that Europe might have been different had the US not entered WWI. I believe it would have ended a stalemate, with all sides eventually agreeing to an end of the war without the sanctions that the Treaty of Versaille imposed on Germany. Granted, Germans have always had a superiority complex. Have you ever read any of the Harry Turtledove alternative history books? Very interesting reading on the what ifs of the South winning the civil war. Alliances leading up to the first world war are very different. If you haven't you should.

Without the Treaty of Versaille, Germany would have been VERY different. But the economic collapse caused by the treaty was not the only factor that led to the rise of the Nazis. Do not underestimate Hitler's charisma, even in the absence of a collapsed economy to organize around. Imagine Nazi Germany, headed by Adolf Hitler and his cronies, but starting without the need to rebuild a shattered economy first. More time AND more ability to rebuild their military without needing to do the diplomatic sleight of hand shuffle they did due to treaty sanctions.

In short, I do not believe the difference a split United States would make in the end of WWI would avoid WWII. But the WWII of that history would have been FAR worse for the world. We'd still be trying to recover. Or , even worse, still trying to overthrow the Third Reicht.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

I really think things would've been entirely different without the treaty of Versailles.

One of the biggest things Hitler and other conservatives was able to rally around was the "betrayal" that Germany had endured by the people who had signed the treaty. Without that, conservativism could've been quashed, and we wouldn't have had a conservative uprising in Germany at all. We'd probably be colonizing Mars at this point.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I really think things would've been entirely different without the treaty of Versailles.

One of the biggest things Hitler and other conservatives was able to rally around was the "betrayal" that Germany had endured by the people who had signed the treaty. Without that, conservativism could've been quashed, and we wouldn't have had a conservative uprising in Germany at all. We'd probably be colonizing Mars at this point.

Hitler was not a Conservative as we know Conservatism of today. He was the head of a movement known as Nazism. Nazi's were the "National Socialists" party. Far more in common with modern-day Progressives than "small government" Conservatives.

Things would have been different if Eisenhower had listened to Patton and annihilated the Russians while we were there. It's possible we could have eradicated the world of Socialist Marxism then and there, and fostered a future of Liberty and Democracy for all. Had the rest of the world enjoyed the prosperity of the US all those years, we'd be sending undesirables and Socialist pinheads like you to Mars to live out the rest of your miserable life.

 

[ironhead]

Article VI, Paragraph 1:

Emphasis added for clarity

From the Articles of Confederation:


Conclusion: the states agreed to a PERPETUAL union under the Articles of Confederation, and then agreed that all engagements entered into under the Articles were still valid under the Constitution.

Can not be more clear than that - unless you don't LIKE what the Constitution says, so try to make it complicated and difficult to "interpret". But that fault lies in the one who wants the Constitution to say something different, not in what the Constitution says.

What gives previous generations the right to impose such an arrangement, to make decisions for future generations? What good is any social contract if it is not consensual and cannot be discarded (for reasons obvious and unforeseen) in the future?