Dissolving their Union was tyranny against the people in their state and attacking a federal installation is treason a sedition. Well those people being tyrannized still had the right to vote and they could have voted out the people that voted to secede. But then some of the states actually had a vote and they voted to seced. So much for tyranny.
Unlike you, Jethro, I am not a lawyer. However, I believe it was a case that Texas brought to the Supreme Court. Maybe you could have one of your lacky's over there at "Dewey, Cheatum, & Howe" look it up for you.
but this is all it says: At the time of that outbreak, Texas was confessedly one of the United States of America, having a State constitution in accordance with that of the United States, and represented by senators and representatives in the Congress at Washington. In January, 1861, a call for a convention of the people of the State was issued, signed by sixty-one individuals. The call was without authority and revolutionary.
When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final.
But much question arose as to what was thus done, and the State was not acknowledged by the Congress of the United States as being reconstructed. On the contrary, Congress passed, in March 1867, three certain acts, known as the Reconstruction Acts. By the first of these, reciting that no legal State governments or adequate protection for life or property then existed in the rebel States of Texas, and nine other States named, and that it was necessary that peace and good order should be enforced in them until loyal and republican State governments could be legally established, Congress divided the States named into five military districts (Texas with Louisiana being the fifth), and made it the duty [74 U.S. 700, 708] of the President to assign to each an officer of the army, and to detail a sufficient military force to enable him to perform his duties and enforce authority within his district. The act made it the duty of this officer to protect all persons in their rights, to suppress insurrection, disorder, violence, and to punish, or cause to be punished, all disturbers of the public peace and criminals, either through the local civil tribunals or through military commissions, which the act authorized. It provided, further, that when the people of any one of these States had formed a constitution in conformity with that of the United States, framed in a way which the statute went on to specify, and when the State had adopted a certain article of amendment named, to the Constitution of the United States, and when such article should have become a part of the Constitution of the United States, then that the States respectively should be declared entitled to representation in Congress, and the preceding part of the act become inoperative; and that until they were so admitted any civil governments which might exist in them should be deemed provisional only, and subject to the paramount authority of the United States, at any time to abolish, modify, control, or supersede them.
When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final.
And this is just plain wrong: It is based on no authority whatsoever.
reading the opinion of the case, i find this interesting passage:
This is undoubtedly the fundamental idea upon which the republican institutions of our own country are established. It was stated very clearly by an eminent judge,6 in one of the earliest cases adjudicated by this court, and we are not aware of anything, in any subsequent decision, of a different tenor. [74 U.S. 700, 721] In the Constitution the term state most frequently expresses the combined idea just noticed, of people, territory, and government. A state, in the ordinary sense of the Constitution, is a political community of free citizens, occupying a territory of defined boundaries, and organized under a government sanctioned and limited by a written constitution, and established by the consent of the governed. It is the union of such states, under a common constitution, which forms the distinct and greater political unit, which that Constitution designates as the United States, and makes of the people and states which compose it one people and one country.
especially that "consent of the governed" clause. which actualy disturbs me. they acknowledge on the one hand that the government exists only by the consent of the governed, and yet when the governed no longer conesnt to it, as was the case in texas where the voters also voted on the matter, turn around and say "too bad"?
They wrote this too: It is needless to discuss, at length, the question whether the right of a State to withdraw from the Union for any cause, regarded by herself as sufficient, is consistent with the Constitution of the United States.
Under Radical Republican leaders, the postwar Congress seemed determined to reconstruct the whole American government. One Representative talked of an amendment to abolish the Supreme Court; another warned President Andrew Johnson "that as Congress shall order he must obey."
Striking at Johnson, Congress lowered the number of Justices from ten to eight; and to protect the Reconstruction laws, it limited the Court’s jurisdiction on appeals.
Not to mention that each of the judges that sat on the White case were northerners. Five had been appointed by Lincoln. No wonder you get the result. It was purely political and not based on the law or reason.
Not at all, JT. Now I thought you could make the distinction between what is written into the Constitution and federal statute and what some people say is written there. Roe v. Wade and Texas v. White were what the justices wanted the law to be not what it was. Bush v. Gore was based on what is in the Constitutuion and what was specifically set out in federal law.
The Republican appointed justices had nothing to do with the outcome of the election. There was no partisanship going on there. It was all on the up and up. They weren't legislating? It was all right there in the constitution and that's why all the justices fully agreed?
Ok now, don't states have the right to legalize abortion if they wish? Is there anything in the Constitution prohibiting abortion?
So, you should have no beef with abortion rights and should actually be rather happy that abortion rights are left up to the states to decide.
The states had the right to regulate abortion prior to Roe v. Wade. There was no constitutional protection for the procedure. Blackmun created the idea of privacy being protected it just ain't there. Prohibiting abortion has nothing to do with search and seizure the basis for the decision.
Maybe it was partisanship that opposed the remedy. Remember there were seven justices said there was a problem with what was going on in Florida. It is true only five agreed with the remedy. But the decision was based on the due process clause of the Constitution and the federal statute setting for the procedures for presedential elections. Read the goddamn case. I expect more from you. Instead you pull a fold.
I did read the cases during the time. I have them printed off in my desk here somewhere. It was a bunch of crap and we both know it. The Republican appointed justices pulled their partisan power. I will give you that the Democrat appointees did much the same.
Prohibiting abortion has nothing to do with search and seizure the basis for the decision.
The 4th Amendment was not the only basis for the decision. Included in the argument were the 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th, and most importantly the 14th.
Abortion rights aren't left up to the states.
But you believe they should be, correct? To cut to the chase, if the issue were put to the voters, abortion would be legal in most states.
I have them printed off in my desk here somewhere. It was a bunch of crap and we both know it. The Republican appointed justices pulled their partisan power.
The decsion was logical and reasonable based on the Constitution and the relevant federal statutes. The same can't be said for Roe or the Texas v. White case.
But you believe they should be, correct? To cut to the chase, if the issue were put to the voters, abortion would be legal in most states.
It depends on what the scope of the legislation would be. I can see many states banning abortion on demand. I also see all states keeping it legal if the mother could lose her life.
If the Constitution can define a slave as 3/5 of a person, I don't see why it wouldn't make sense to have an Amendment that declares when someone becomes a person, whichever way it goes.
"Something not yet fully understood, but that could destroy our culture, has occurred during the more than forty years that I have been a college professor. Discrimination against Southerners has always existed, but today in education it is rampant. Trying to find jobs for young Southerners is difficult in a market that favors political correctness and disdains Southerners. No university, not even one in the South, wants to hire a native son, especially one who appreciates Southern traditions. Not only has Jefferson Davis remained unforgiven by his enemies; so have the Southerners who came after him. We are being reduced to the status once imposed on our Celtic relatives -- the Scots, the Welsh, and the Irish -- by their English neighbors. God help us!"
Whine, whine, whine. Has this man ever set foot in Atlanta. Cosmopolitan and international? He's a dying breed.
This is America jethro. You've said discrimination is over.
I'll discriminate against Jeff Davis and Robert E. Lee any time. They're scoundrels and scheming traitors. Shakespearian in their evil cunning.
You following your friend, John Walker Lindh, jethro?
Battle of Gettysburg flag dispute is flying again Associated Press
The long-simmering dispute between Virginians and the Minnesota Historical Society over a Confederate battle flag took another turn Monday when the society said it had no intention of complying with a U.S. Army plan to place the Civil War flag in an Army museum in Virginia.
"We believe Minnesota does rightfully possess the flag and will continue do so until there is a qualified legal ruling stating otherwise," said Ian Stewart, deputy director of the society in St. Paul.
The flag, with the "Southern Cross'' Confederate emblem, was captured by Pvt. Marshall Sherman of the 1st Minnesota Volunteer Regiment at the Battle of Gettysburg in 1863. He later received the Medal of Honor, for which he had to turn the flag over to the War Department.
its a spoil of war and since congress declard that all war artifacts be returned to their home state in the way early 1900s, the statute of limitations has expired on it. its ours dammit.
"when that's what the people themselves wanted? surely you jest."
Are you entirely sure of that? Did they have a referendum? Was secession put to a vote?
You must have a funny interpretation of illegal.
You're a lawyer, right? Check out a thesaurus.
Try: Banned, unlawful, criminal, prohibited, dishonest.......
Was secession put to a vote?
i believe it was tennessee where it was actually voted on by the citizenry.
Dissolving their Union was tyranny against the people in their state and attacking a federal installation is treason a sedition. Well those people being tyrannized still had the right to vote and they could have voted out the people that voted to secede. But then some of the states actually had a vote and they voted to seced. So much for tyranny.
which of course set the precedent that states aren't allowed to secede.
Not a legal precedent but one of force. Talk about tyranny!
nowhere is the right to secede prohibited in the constitution
Well, the Supreme Court ruled that states, once they become states, do not have a right to secede.
I'll go with what the Supreme Court says before I'll listen to Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer.
Well, the Supreme Court ruled that states, once they become states, do not have a right to secede.
before or after the civil war?
Well, the Supreme Court ruled that states, once they become states, do not have a right to secede.
Really? Which case would that be?
before or after the civil war?
I believe it was after (Around 1869).
Really? Which case would that be?
Unlike you, Jethro, I am not a lawyer. However, I believe it was a case that Texas brought to the Supreme Court. Maybe you could have one of your lacky's over there at "Dewey, Cheatum, & Howe" look it up for you.
Maybe it don't exist.
I believe it was after (Around 1869).
in that case, it wasn't in force in 1860, and is thus irrelevant to the topic of whether or not the state had the right to secede.
Jethro, try "Texas v White". Around 1869 I believe.
Thread has been moved.
Or maybe this is the case: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/74/700.html
but this is all it says: At the time of that outbreak, Texas was confessedly one of the United States of America, having a State constitution in accordance with that of the United States, and represented by senators and representatives in the Congress at Washington. In January, 1861, a call for a convention of the people of the State was issued, signed by sixty-one individuals. The call was without authority and revolutionary.
The convention was without authority but the voters approved seccession 3 to 1?
When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final.
This was really what was unconstitutional:
But much question arose as to what was thus done, and the State was not acknowledged by the Congress of the United States as being reconstructed. On the contrary, Congress passed, in March 1867, three certain acts, known as the Reconstruction Acts. By the first of these, reciting that no legal State governments or adequate protection for life or property then existed in the rebel States of Texas, and nine other States named, and that it was necessary that peace and good order should be enforced in them until loyal and republican State governments could be legally established, Congress divided the States named into five military districts (Texas with Louisiana being the fifth), and made it the duty [74 U.S. 700, 708] of the President to assign to each an officer of the army, and to detail a sufficient military force to enable him to perform his duties and enforce authority within his district. The act made it the duty of this officer to protect all persons in their rights, to suppress insurrection, disorder, violence, and to punish, or cause to be punished, all disturbers of the public peace and criminals, either through the local civil tribunals or through military commissions, which the act authorized. It provided, further, that when the people of any one of these States had formed a constitution in conformity with that of the United States, framed in a way which the statute went on to specify, and when the State had adopted a certain article of amendment named, to the Constitution of the United States, and when such article should have become a part of the Constitution of the United States, then that the States respectively should be declared entitled to representation in Congress, and the preceding part of the act become inoperative; and that until they were so admitted any civil governments which might exist in them should be deemed provisional only, and subject to the paramount authority of the United States, at any time to abolish, modify, control, or supersede them.
When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final.
And this is just plain wrong: It is based on no authority whatsoever.
whaddya know, thx. hereit is.
reading the opinion of the case, i find this interesting passage:
This is undoubtedly the fundamental idea upon which the republican institutions of our own country are established. It was stated very clearly by an eminent judge,6 in one of the earliest cases adjudicated by this court, and we are not aware of anything, in any subsequent decision, of a different tenor. [74 U.S. 700, 721] In the Constitution the term state most frequently expresses the combined idea just noticed, of people, territory, and government. A state, in the ordinary sense of the Constitution, is a political community of free citizens, occupying a territory of defined boundaries, and organized under a government sanctioned and limited by a written constitution, and established by the consent of the governed. It is the union of such states, under a common constitution, which forms the distinct and greater political unit, which that Constitution designates as the United States, and makes of the people and states which compose it one people and one country.
especially that "consent of the governed" clause. which actualy disturbs me. they acknowledge on the one hand that the government exists only by the consent of the governed, and yet when the governed no longer conesnt to it, as was the case in texas where the voters also voted on the matter, turn around and say "too bad"?
They wrote this too: It is needless to discuss, at length, the question whether the right of a State to withdraw from the Union for any cause, regarded by herself as sufficient, is consistent with the Constitution of the United States.
And then they turn around and do discuss it.
ya gotta love scotus, dontcha?
I think you should find this interesting. Politics at its worst.
 http://www.supremecourthistory.org/02_history/subs_history/02_c06.html
An excerpt:
Under Radical Republican leaders, the postwar Congress seemed determined to reconstruct the whole American government. One Representative talked of an amendment to abolish the Supreme Court; another warned President Andrew Johnson "that as Congress shall order he must obey."
Striking at Johnson, Congress lowered the number of Justices from ten to eight; and to protect the Reconstruction laws, it limited the Court’s jurisdiction on appeals.
Not to mention that each of the judges that sat on the White case were northerners. Five had been appointed by Lincoln. No wonder you get the result. It was purely political and not based on the law or reason.
It was purely political and not based on the law or reason.
especially when you consider the principles under which this country was itself founded.
So Jethro, I can assume you agrre that the Supreme Court over-stepped it's bounds during the last election by basically deciding the election?
http://www.petitiononline.com/union/petition.html
Here ya go Jethro. Just for you.
"The South's gonna do it again".
Yeehaw!!!
So Jethro, I can assume you agrre that the Supreme Court over-stepped it's bounds during the last election by basically deciding the election?
No that case was based on reason and law. I would say that the Roe v. Wade case is in the same category as Texas v. White.
LOL!
Flip, flop. Flip, flop. Flip, flop.
Not at all, JT. Now I thought you could make the distinction between what is written into the Constitution and federal statute and what some people say is written there. Roe v. Wade and Texas v. White were what the justices wanted the law to be not what it was. Bush v. Gore was based on what is in the Constitutuion and what was specifically set out in federal law.
Uh huh. Sure it is.
The Republican appointed justices had nothing to do with the outcome of the election. There was no partisanship going on there. It was all on the up and up. They weren't legislating? It was all right there in the constitution and that's why all the justices fully agreed?
Ok now, don't states have the right to legalize abortion if they wish? Is there anything in the Constitution prohibiting abortion?
So, you should have no beef with abortion rights and should actually be rather happy that abortion rights are left up to the states to decide.
The states had the right to regulate abortion prior to Roe v. Wade. There was no constitutional protection for the procedure. Blackmun created the idea of privacy being protected it just ain't there. Prohibiting abortion has nothing to do with search and seizure the basis for the decision.
Maybe it was partisanship that opposed the remedy. Remember there were seven justices said there was a problem with what was going on in Florida. It is true only five agreed with the remedy. But the decision was based on the due process clause of the Constitution and the federal statute setting for the procedures for presedential elections. Read the goddamn case. I expect more from you. Instead you pull a fold.
I did read the cases during the time. I have them printed off in my desk here somewhere. It was a bunch of crap and we both know it. The Republican appointed justices pulled their partisan power. I will give you that the Democrat appointees did much the same.
Prohibiting abortion has nothing to do with search and seizure the basis for the decision.
The 4th Amendment was not the only basis for the decision. Included in the argument were the 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th, and most importantly the 14th.
Abortion rights aren't left up to the states.
But you believe they should be, correct? To cut to the chase, if the issue were put to the voters, abortion would be legal in most states.
I have them printed off in my desk here somewhere. It was a bunch of crap and we both know it. The Republican appointed justices pulled their partisan power.
The decsion was logical and reasonable based on the Constitution and the relevant federal statutes. The same can't be said for Roe or the Texas v. White case.
The 4th Amendment was not the only basis for the decision. Included in the argument were the 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th, and most importantly the 14th.
Another of those provisions provide any right to privacy. The first, fifth and the ninth amendments are irrelevant to the privacy issue.
But you believe they should be, correct? To cut to the chase, if the issue were put to the voters, abortion would be legal in most states.
It depends on what the scope of the legislation would be. I can see many states banning abortion on demand. I also see all states keeping it legal if the mother could lose her life.
So, jethro, if individual states decided that abortion -- not just to save the life of the mother -- were legal, you could live with that?
Nothing is forcing you to live in that state.
So, jethro, if individual states decided that abortion -- not just to save the life of the mother -- were legal, you could live with that?
If I lived in a state that allowed abortion on demand I would do what I could to see that that got changed.
The federal government stays out of the issue then? Leaves it up to the states?
I would prefer a prolife amendment to the Constitution but that ain't going to happen in the near future.
If the Constitution can define a slave as 3/5 of a person, I don't see why it wouldn't make sense to have an Amendment that declares when someone becomes a person, whichever way it goes.
More on Jeff Davis
"Something not yet fully understood, but that could destroy our culture, has occurred during the more than forty years that I have been a college professor. Discrimination against Southerners has always existed, but today in education it is rampant. Trying to find jobs for young Southerners is difficult in a market that favors political correctness and disdains Southerners. No university, not even one in the South, wants to hire a native son, especially one who appreciates Southern traditions. Not only has Jefferson Davis remained unforgiven by his enemies; so have the Southerners who came after him. We are being reduced to the status once imposed on our Celtic relatives -- the Scots, the Welsh, and the Irish -- by their English neighbors. God help us!"
Whine, whine, whine. Has this man ever set foot in Atlanta. Cosmopolitan and international? He's a dying breed.
This is America jethro. You've said discrimination is over.
I'll discriminate against Jeff Davis and Robert E. Lee any time. They're scoundrels and scheming traitors. Shakespearian in their evil cunning.
You following your friend, John Walker Lindh, jethro?
Battle of Gettysburg flag dispute is flying again
Associated Press
The long-simmering dispute between Virginians and the Minnesota Historical Society over a Confederate battle flag took another turn Monday when the society said it had no intention of complying with a U.S. Army plan to place the Civil War flag in an Army museum in Virginia.
"We believe Minnesota does rightfully possess the flag and will continue do so until there is a qualified legal ruling stating otherwise," said Ian Stewart, deputy director of the society in St. Paul.
The flag, with the "Southern Cross'' Confederate emblem, was captured by Pvt. Marshall Sherman of the 1st Minnesota Volunteer Regiment at the Battle of Gettysburg in 1863. He later received the Medal of Honor, for which he had to turn the flag over to the War Department.
http://www.twincities.com/mld/pioneerpress/3490103.htm
good I don't think we should return it, it's as much a part of our states history as it is theirs. It was won in battle, we won, they lost. Tough.
Damn Straight!
It was stolen fair and square!
It was stolen?
its a spoil of war and since congress declard that all war artifacts be returned to their home state in the way early 1900s, the statute of limitations has expired on it. its ours dammit.
"It was stolen? "
In the same way lots of things change hands in the heat of battle.
Amid smoke, fire, death and confusion someone from the First Minnesota grabbed it.
Not many from Minnesota survived Gettysburg.
Aren't you supposed to capture the other sides flag?