That was the intent of the original drafters of the Cosntitution. Your laughter indicates you do not understand the purpose of the Constitution. It was written with the express purpose to grant it specific powers that would allow the states to defend themselves and to promote their economic well being. The drafters feared a strong central government and also wished to limit its power to only those objectives mentioned just above. When they put the word CONGRESS in the first amendment they meant ONLY congress was prohibited in making laws regarding religion. If they had meant state legislatures could not do so they could have said so. They did not. Furthermore, if you look at what the states actually were doing before and after the Constituion was established they were, in some instances, passing those types of laws. Other states specifically adopted laws similar to the first amendment because the first amendment only applied to the FEDERAL government and not state government.So I guess the State Legislatures can pass laws banning free speech too. They could have prior to the Supreme Court ruling based on the 14th Amendment. Consider this: Had the 14th amendment not been adopted would the federal courts have any authority to strike down such state laws? I do not see that authority. They may be able to come up with some type of commerce clause violation but it would very tenuous.
I didn't say that I was an expert. I have read a considerable amount on the issue and believe that I understand what their objectives were. One of their intents was to avoid a federal government that would ovrshadow state government. Basically they tried to stike a balance between federal power intended to provide for the defense of the states and to regulate interstate commerce with the authority of the states over most other issues. If you believe that I am incorrect you are welcome to explain you reasoning.
i'm not saying you're incorrect. i don't know one way or the other. as you're fond of saying, i wasn't there. what i have read is you spewing information about the 14th without a single shred of evidence to support it. so, as you're also fond of saying, back it up with some evidence.
First you can read the 14th amendment. Second you must realize when the 14th amendment was written. It is also helpful to understand the political climate of the time it was written. The political climate was that the abolitionist had prevailed and had a firm control over the federal government. There were conditions in the south that did prevent the newly freed slaves from participating in the political process. If you want an "experts" opinion read section 19 of Rotunda's and Nowak's Treatise on Constitutional Law.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
now, i haven't taken time to read the expert opinion you provide, mostly because its not conveniently at my fingertips, but damned if the "no state shall...." sentence isn't plain english.
The amendment is so broad that it could mean anything. That is the problem with it. The later courts determined that it meant that the states couldn't impose their own laws regarding school prayer and other issues. How they jump from CONGRESS not having power to make laws on religion to states being prohibited from such action surely is obvious. But the important point here is that before the 14th Amendment the states were free to do such things. The reason they can't do so now is the broad interpretation given the 14th amendment although it was intended to prevent states only from discriminating against former slaves and free blacks. The court's interpretation was taken out of historical context in order to achieve a goal that had not been obtained through the legislative process. That is called judicial legislation or activism.
To put it another way the 14th amendment was intended to let blacks participate in the political process of states that were trying to keep them out of that process. It was not intended to take issues such as religion out of the political process of the states. The intrepetation that the court has given the amendment has actually reduced freedom on certain issues.
jethro, jethro, jethro. perhaps you missed the word any in there. which, to me, and i'd imagine most intelligent people, includes more than just laws regarding the political process.
anylaw which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall anyState deprive anyperson of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any
"However, you must remember that the 14th amendment was not passed until the late 1860's and was not always part of the Constitution. "
"remember that my point is not what the status of the law is NOW but what was intended at the time "
Hey dude. The founding fathers did not give us a 10 commandments set in stone.
Thats why you should read some of those books I told you to read. Particular the "The Rights of Man". The Bill of rights T.Jefferson put as ammendments is right out of that book.
Here is the Premises that the founding fathers used to frame the constitution.
1. No Generation can make laws for another generation. Thats why they did not accept the concept of Monarchy or the English Laws as they inherited them. Each Generation has to subscribe to their own laws.
Of course you can leave your house to your children and hope they will make the best use of it. But once the transfer is done, its the Children's whish what they do with the house. Its their house now.
We inherit the laws that our parents subscribed to. If we don't like something,we make changes to it by throwing stuff what we don't like and putting stuff we like. Then this becomes "our" constitution and our laws and we will in turn pass this along to our progenies.
The Founding Fathers gave us a system and a set of laws (They made some laws more difficult to change than others )...but they neverthelss did not put it in stone. They gave us a way out..They believed in the judgement of their progenies....cause, if they don't do this, then the only natural way to subscribe to your own laws is revoultion.
Our laws and our constitution is ours ...not the future generation who are yet to be born. We can give it to them.. and I am sure most of them will take it gladly.. but the preorgative is theirs. Item by Item, they can change it (hopefully after a vigerous debate and after they convince a whole lot of their generation and thier representatives).
Dude, today we can theoritcally pass a constitutional ammendment if 2/3 majority of both the houses agree, the Presidents signs, and the 50 states ratifies it. It becomes the law of the land.
Thats how the 14th ammendment came to be, So who cares what the Founding fathers wanted at their time? Different Generation had different values and set that into the constitution. Its their preogrative.
If you feel strongly against it, convince both the houses, the President and the 50 state legistlature and make it void.
these are not God's words in stone...these are man made laws.
Got it?
"Yes look at that word CONGRESS. It meant the U.S. Congress. How you can possibly get state legislatures out of that without resorting to the Court's "
Hmmmm..So if all the states make differnt laws? for whom is the Congress making all these laws?
You like to follow some God written rules don't you.
Thats why you are a such a right wing conservative...You are sheep that like to follow some Holy rules.
It was people like you (Most likely IMO) who would have wanted Monarchy in America. And yes. You had your patron saint to argue your position. His name was "Edmound Burke". You would love this man and his sense of rationale.
But Thomas Paine discredited him so throughly in that "the Rights of Man", he (Burke) never recovered in the last 200 years.
BTW. Taking responsibility for your own actions is a morally superior position than following rules cause of "Founding Fathers" said so or "God" said so..Thats abdication of responsibility. The Founding fathers probably knew that. They believed and wanted us to be responsible. So they gave us a system and process not a set of laws written in stone. Big difference.
Hey dude. The founding fathers did not give us a 10 commandments set in stone. Did I say that? No. The point was that the 14th Amendment had a specific purpose but that the Supreme Court did not recognize this for whatever reason and gave the amendment an interpretation that was never intended. The Court could have just as well said the amendment did not cover the issue of religion. The result would have been the issue would have returned to the political arena where the people, if they so chose, could have enacted a provision prohibiting such action. Such action could have been taken at the federal level or at the state level depending on the desires of the people. Instead the unelected and unaccountable members of the Court decided what they wanted.
Here is the Premises that the founding fathers used to frame the constitution.
1. No Generation can make laws for another generation. Thats why they did not accept the concept of Monarchy or the English Laws as they inherited them. Each Generation has to subscribe to their own laws. Ah! But that is just what the Supreme Court did with their unfounded interpretation of the 14th Amendment.
Of course you can leave your house to your children and hope they will make the best use of it. But once the transfer is done, its the Children's whish what they do with the house. Its their house now. That is not entirely true. A person can put restrictions of the use of the home and if those restrictions are violated they can lose whatever rights in the home that were given by that person.
We inherit the laws that our parents subscribed to. If we don't like something,we make changes to it by throwing stuff what we don't like and putting stuff we like. Then this becomes "our" constitution and our laws and we will in turn pass this along to our progenies. My point was that the Supreme Court took the issue out of the political arena without historical justification.
The Founding Fathers gave us a system and a set of laws (They made some laws more difficult to change than others )...but they nevertheless did not put it in stone. They gave us a way out..They believed in the judgment of their progenies....cause, if they don't do this, then the only natural way to subscribe to your own laws is revolution. And the Supreme Court took an issue that was not intended to be addressed by the 14th Amendment and took it out of the process where your children could change it without a HUGE amount of difficulty.
Our laws and our constitution is ours ...not the future generation who are yet to be born. We can give it to them.. and I am sure most of them will take it gladly.. but the preorgative is theirs. Item by Item, they can change it (hopefully after a vigerous debate and after they convince a whole lot of their generation and their representatives). Another example of you missing my point. I am saying that the Court made it MORE difficult for the next generation to control their laws.
Dude, today we can theoritcally pass a constitutional amendment if 2/3 majority of both the houses agree, the Presidents signs, and the 50 states ratifies it. It becomes the law of the land. Yes I know. But for some unknown reason you seem to believe that I don't. You could explain why.
Thats how the 14th amendment came to be, So who cares what the Founding fathers wanted at their time? Different Generation had different values and set that into the constitution. Its their preogrative. Another example of you missing my point. The founding fathers wanted the states and the people to decide religious issues not the federal government. The drafters of the 14th amendement did not want to change this. The INTENT of the drafters was to prevent states from discriminating against blacks under the states own laws as well as the federal law. They had no intent to give the federal government the power to prevent the states from enacting any laws on religion. That was never the debate or the goal of the drafters of the amendment. What happened is that a Court took the broadest possible interpretation of the amendment and gave the federal government more power than ever was intended. The reason why laws and the Constitution need to be narrowly construed is because if they are not narrowly construed issues are taken out of the political arena without due consideration by the people.
If you feel strongly against it, convince both the houses, the President and the 50 state legislature and make it void. That is what needs to be avoided. It is a very difficult thing to do. That is why the court should narrowly construe a statue and constitution so that the Congress, the President and the state legislatures that are elected by the people can make those decisions. It would help if they would draft the statutes and proposed amendments narrowly but that is the price of our system where most people have some input. Maybe I can say it this way: If a court is not absolutely sure what was meant by a statute or an amendment they should allow the issue to go back to the legislature and people. In that way the people decide not unelected and unaccountable judges.
these are not God's words in stone...these are man made laws.
Got it? Do you get what I am saying?
Hmmmm..So if all the states make different laws? for whom is the Congress making all these laws? I can throw that one back in your face. If Congress is making all the laws why do we even have state governments? It is because that is the way the system was designed. The question has always been what should be the balance of power between the states and the feds. Again my point has been that the Courts have determined the 14th amendement too broadly that in doing so it shifted that balance of power in a way that was never the intent of the people that drafted the amendment. The Courts should try to make the laws accomplish what its drafters intended. I agree that if the next generation wants to change it they can do so through the political process.
You know you have no basis to make such a statement. That statement has nothing to do with what we have been discussing and the topic of God has not come up until now.
"What happened is that a Court took the broadest possible interpretation of the amendment and gave the federal government more power than ever was intended. "
Yes. I agree with you Jethro in the courts do abuse their position.
Like the time when they snubbed the Florida Judges. and made Bush the President.
thats the only time in the recent years , I know the Federal Supreme court justices went overboard.
Thanks for reminding me of that...Keep up the good work Citizen.
Funny how some will pick and choose when they feel that the courts are legislating from the bench. But hey as long as it's a decision you like then o.k.
BTW M&M , Take a look at the Democratic primary. That one went smooth didn't it ? Oh yea, it must have still been a republicans fault. I know it was Jeb's fault, yea, that's it. Sure.
About that FL problem still not solved...well, who is the governor there who is not doing his Job even after that Presidential election Fiasco...What is that dude doing? and what about that Bitch..election commisionor or something...Ugly face...Orange Juice Rich lady doing? Wasn't she and the Governor supposed to clean up their acts?
why does the problem still exist?
Sigh!
Don't these Republican do their jobs? after taking our taxes, they sit on their fat stinky asses and don't do any work. They are what I call thieves. No morals whatsoever. What religion do they belong to anway? Wahabbi Islamists?
The voting problems have nothing to do with a R or a D not doing their job. It has to do with people either being too stupid too fill out a ballot or screwing up the count. The DEMOCRATIC primary proved that point exactly, they encountered the same troubles and the R's had nothing to do with the D, primary.
what? So the election commisioner and the governor have nothing to do with how the state elections are run? I mean, the malfunctioning of equipment etc....
The equippment has been around for years and is used elsewhere without the scale of problems these people seem to have. The democratic primary is run by guess what ? democrats, after all the problems they had, one would think they would be a bit more careful. It's an all to typical approach of blaming the wrong people. Who screwed up the counts in the D primary ? Republicans ? Please give me a break.
those blasted machines bought on the approval of the election commisioner.
Right and the Democrats oversaw the election of the Democratic election. as the R's do their primary. It's up to the party whose election it is to get the count right. Reno lost and it's a machines fault. No, Reno lost because not enough people voted for her. The machines were bought years ago, if they were bought by an R or D I can't tell you.
"The machines were bought years ago, if they were bought by an R or D I can't tell you. "
If you were the election commisioner, after the last fiasco. wouldn't you try to improve the system by throwing away those machines and finding a better system. Instead of sitting on you ass and saying....Oh yeah..they were bought by some one before my time and this is going to continue,,until a sensible person becomes the election commisioner (That will happen only when a more sensible person becomes the governonr since the Governor appoints the Election commisioner).
I am a systems consultant. I wouldn't last a day, if I go and install a system that is ineffective and If I blame it on the user and call them stupid users.
My clients will chew my ass. If I said that. It's my job to install, train and educate the users. If still the system fails, I need to change the system. Period.
No amount of ducking, wiggling, and squiggling can take the responsibility away from the election commisioner and the State Governor.
The election problems were in areas controlled by democrats. The persons that are in-charge of administrating the elections are usually elected and I believe that is the case in Florida. So it was the democrats that screwed it up. Either those in charge didn't know what they were doing or it was the democrat voters. Proabably both. Either way it is not a Jeb Bush problem.
If you were the election commisioner, after the last fiasco. wouldn't you try to improve the system by throwing away those machines and finding a better system. Instead of sitting on you ass and saying....Oh yeah..they were bought by some one before my time and this is going to continue,,until a sensible person becomes the election commisioner (That will happen only when a more sensible person becomes the governonr since the Gover appoints the Election commisioner).
Oooh, sorry to shoot your whole argument down M&M but the bad news is that they DID they spent 32 million on new machines !
The State of Florida wasted no time in spending an estimated $32 million over the past two years to design, buy and install thousands of computerized voting machines with colorful multi-lingual displays and simple to use ATM-style touchscreens. An Omaha, Nebraska-based firm called Election Systems and Software was contracted to provide the State of Florida with these new voting machines and have been installing and testing the systems in smaller Floridian counties since February 2002. The machines cost $2,500 to $3,000 apiece and run off a proprietary system developed internally by ES&S that allows for handicapped voters to use either Braille or sound cues through headphones to cast their vote. ES&S made the machines portable so that the voters in wheelchairs will be able to cast their electronic ballots privately and easily without too much stress. ES&S thought about everything, except for how to combat one problem: Florida’s incompetent poll workers in Democrat-heavy counties
Florida’s Republican governor Jeb Bush allowed state polls to close at 10pm EST on Tuesday due to the voting mess. In Broward County, where there are over 960,000 (mostly Democrat) registered voters complaints about the new voting machines “malfunctioning” were legion. Democrat gubernatorial candidate Janet Reno, the former Attorney General appointed by Bill Clinton who was running a close race against wealthy lawyer Bill McBride, showed up to vote for herself in Miami-Dade County just after 7am on Tuesday morning but was delayed while the voting machines took fifteen minutes to turn on. Gisela Salas, an assistant supervisor of elections in Miami-Dade, noted that many polling places in Miami-Dade were breaking the law by not opening at 7am but that the problem was “primarily due to the fact that a lot of the poll workers were not able to activate all the machines in time.” ES&S claims the machines take six minutes to properly initialize – which means if it took fifteen minutes for poll workers to turn them on in Miami-Dade, they were doing it wrong. Even Ms. Salas noted that “A lot of the poll workers were not patient.”
If that wasn’t enough, election workers in Miami-Dade, Broward and other heavily Democratic counties did not pick up the voter registration books or voter activation cards for the touchscreen voting machines from the county as instructed by the commission before Tuesday. Miami-Dade County had 6,300 machines installed and will spend a total of $24 million on ES&S touchscreen voting systems by 2004. Hopefully some of that 24 million bucks will go towards someone speaking very... slowly... and... clearly... to the poll workers about how the machines work.
Florida lawmakers approved a series of reforms last year, including outlawing punch-card ballots and authorizing $32 million for new equipment and voter education.
Among Florida counties, Broward's efforts at improvements are drawing attention because the county has nearly one million registered voters, the most in the state, and features a diverse population of elderly, suburban dwellers and Spanish- and Creole-speaking voters.
Since taking over 18 months ago, Oliphant has initiated a flurry of innovations.
To introduce voters to the new ATM-style, touch-screen voting machines, Oliphant has held demonstrations at supermarkets and community centers. She is borrowing 144 phone lines from Nova Southeastern University in Fort Lauderdale to handle calls from confused workers and voters on Election Day.
And to recruit 6,000 poll workers, Oliphant has tapped corporations and county employees with backgrounds in customer service and technology. Public employees who volunteer as poll workers will receive a paid day off plus $100 for working the 14-hour day.
Touch-screen machines purchased to replace punchcard ballots, which were the focus of the 2000 election recount, were installed for more than half of Florida's voters. In the 2000 election, some votes were not recorded as the cards were not punched all the way through.
In Broward County, which has more registered voters than the state's other 66 counties, some precincts didn't open on time because poll workers didn't show up and one opened nearly two hours late because workers didn't have the right equipment.
State election law requires that polls open at 7 a.m., but doesn't say anything specific about what happens if they don't. Election laws do say that any official who willfully neglects to perform his or her duties is guilty of a first degree misdemeanor.
Ellen Siegel left her polling place without casting a ballot in Boca Raton, where two candidates sued over Palm Beach County's new voting machines.
"No one had any idea how to get the machines up and running. I didn't get to vote and there are going to be a lot of other people who won't be able to do it," said Siegel, a 15-year resident of the city.
However, Palm Beach County elections chief Theresa LePore said she had seen few problems. Some poll workers didn't show up, meaning some polls had minimal staffing levels, but all opened on time.
"So far, so good," she said.
State elections officials had initially dismissed many of the problems as common and said much of the commotion resulted from the national spotlight shining on Florida after the state held the 2000 presidential election in limbo for 36 days.
"These kind of happenings are not that unusual in every election and, if people will just work together, we'll get through today fine," Smith had said early in the day.
So, the election commisioner and the Governor of the state screwed up again. By installing another ineffective system? so when are they going to do it right? Is the third time a charm? I hope so..otherwise they will be wasting $32 Million every two years. Thats criminal. Â Â
MAybe we need a new Governor and a new Election Commisoner..one who is not a nazi biazed lady...Also, one who doesn't cake her face with garbage.
Wow that was original. And by the way, they have a new election comissioner.
Well M&M you were wrong about not even knowing about having new systems and went on to rant ad nauseum about it without knowing the facts so I will also forgive you since the new systems were approved by representitives from both PARTIES !
The new machines worked fine, it was human error that caused the problems. As a programmer you know that eventually humans have to enter the equation so there will always be errors. On a side note there were more votes thrown out in the 96' presidential election in Florida almost double the number in fact. The governor then in 96' was Lawton Chiles, a Democrat. Wonder why no outcry then ? Probably because your guy won. Hmmm, funny aint it?
It can be of no weight to say that the courts, on the pretense of a repugnancy, may substitute their own pleasure to the constitutional intentions of the legislature. This might as well happen in the case of two contradictory statutes; or it might as well happen in every adjudication upon any single statute. The courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT, the consequence would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body. The observation, if it prove any thing, would prove that there ought to be no judges distinct from that body.
1. Separation of church and state developed so preachers could not tell congregations how to vote....a state can only get you for treason while the church can damn your soul so who are you going to listen to? Also to save the church from the corrupting influence of politics - I am sure you all will agree that politics can be a corrupting influence? Buy a senator could have become buy a priest. 2. What the founders intended is not terribly germane. The world has changed, better or worse also not germane, and new problems will arise for example internet privacy and intellectual rights in the age of the world wide web. Naturally, they had to write a broad instrument capable of guiding the country. They had no idea exactly where the country would end up nor did they know what the country would have to face. So a more flexible document was required. That's just what we got. 3. Jefferson was truly and deeply devoted to his wife even after her death. And he had a relative whose propensities for fornication with slaves was well proven. Most likely, the child wasn't Thomas' but the other guy's who name I cannot immediately recall. 4. Simply freeing the slaves may not have been the best thing and this is a question Jefferson pondered - and could not solve. Where were they to go? What were they to do? Most were illiterate and non-English speaking. Tossing them out into the street was not an option Jefferson was willing to accept. The original draft of the Constitution included abolishing slavery but they cut it in order to keep the South. 5. Seceding from the Union was never an option. I do apologise for mentioning it but the South really should have read the fine print on the contract. As for calling it "The War of Northern Aggression" well, the South shot first. 6. The Supreme Court is doing its job whether you like any particular decision or not. Federal law overrides state law just as federal courts over rule state courts and the Supreme Court rules over all others. For example, if fed law says A and not B, all states still saying B must change to match the new rules.
"4. Simply freeing the slaves may not have been the best thing and this is a question Jefferson pondered - and could not solve. Where were they to go? What were they to do? Most were illiterate and non-English speaking. Tossing them out into the street was not an option Jefferson was willing to accept."
Jefferson came back from five years in Paris deeply in debt. I think his decision to hold onto his slaves could have been one of monetary practicality.
I had heard that most of his neighbors had freed their slaves. The Lord of Monticello was one of the last.
Sorry it is. It is important to the exent that it set the rules and until the rules are changed and cahnged through proper procedures it is relevant.The world has changed, better or worse also not germane, and new problems will arise for example internet privacy and intellectual rights in the age of the world wide web. Naturally, they had to write a broad instrument capable of guiding the country. They had no idea exactly where the country would end up nor did they know what the country would have to face. So a more flexible document was required. That's just what we got. You are full of crap. What we have is some people, usually liberals that don't like the status quo, saying that but that is just a step toward tyranny.^
Separation of church and state developed so preachers could not tell congregations how to vote....a state can only get you for treason while the church can damn your soul so who are you going to listen to?
no. its the other way around. church and state were separated so that the state couldn't favor one religion over another, and persecute those who didn't follow that religion. that's the whole reason a bunch of pilgrims landed on plymouth rock in 1620. to escape religious persecution.
People, if you really looked at history, you will see that POWER, religious and/or political can corrupt people. Or did the sex ridden priests escape your notice? Mullahs send kids off to blow themselves to smithereens - and if that isn't corrupt what is? Notice that those same mullahs ain't going themselves, they're sending others. Power through religion? Oh, yes, dear. It is very real.
And it is this misuse of POWER, by any one group, that is behind the Constitution. Hence all power is divided between branches, between the federal and the states' governments, and which is also why we have the electoral college. No one group has total power. THAT was the founders'intent, pure and simple.
And if you tie religion to nationalism, it only gets more powerful an influence. Your emotions and fears overwhelm your reason. If you NEED to believe, you will and you will do exactly as you are told or you will stand by, silent, and do nothing to stop it. Witness the Nazis' rise to power.
Which is also why our messy, contankerous, noisy system works so very well. In spite of our differences, we each not expect but DEMAND that our system work in an orderly kind of way. As much as it can, of course. We make so much noise and we fuss, fuss, and fume. Ain't it great! Our politicans and religious leaders have to herd cats!
The South fired on Fort Sumpter. They wanted to keep their slaves and put states rights above federal rights - not good positions to take, guy. Consider for a moment what actually happened when the South tried to actually DO anything. They did nothing since each state was above the Confederation and each wanted to come first. All chiefs and no indians. Neither effective nor efficient so why bother? And how in the hell can you support slavery? Life, liberty and the pursuit of happines FOR SOME? Ain't happening. Again it is all a question of POWER and its misuse. Tyranny by jethro or tyranny by Georgia - its all just the same thing - tyranny. And you can keep your grade - and your belief that you have the right to impose one upon me - to yourself.
Consider for a moment what actually happened when the South tried to actually DO anything. They did nothing since each state was above the Confederation and each wanted to come first. All chiefs and no indians. Neither effective nor efficient so why bother?
I think you need to read a little more. The north also had to deal with the northern states for troops and the Union had to appease border states out of fear they would secede and join the confederacy. Furthermore, the south did quite a bit since it continued a war for four years although they were vastly outnumbered and were at a great disadvantage in all resources. And if you really get into it the Confederacy offered to do away with slavery if the British would recognize the confederacy.
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happines FOR SOME? Ain't happening. Again it is all a question of POWER and its misuse. Tyranny by jethro or tyranny by Georgia - its all just the same thing - tyranny. And you can keep your grade - and your belief that you have the right to impose one upon me - to yourself.
I have a right to grade your rantings. You have a right to ignore them. But let me say on second thought I should have given you an F.
Didn't say I was. But you don't believe the Union was defending those rights, do you? You do know Lincoln's position was that if he could preserve the Union by guaranteeing slavery he would do so?
Did the South or did the South not fire upon Fort Sumpter? They fired on Sumpter because he Union troops would not leave Confederate territory. They were asked to leave nicely but Lincoln decide he would resupply. Lincoln wanted the war because it was the only way to keep the Union together. Why he wanted the South to stay is surprising since I thought it was just filled with racist bigots.
So it took the North some time to get its act together. The South had better generals for one thing. Once it did, the South stood no chance whatsoever. Less men, less resources, a decentralized power that was in permanent disagreement, and the war was fought on their land. If England would have recognized the condeferacy there is better than 50-50 chance it would have survived. Just like the colonies did when France recognized them and gave support.
That was the intent of the original drafters of the Cosntitution. Your laughter indicates you do not understand the purpose of the Constitution. It was written with the express purpose to grant it specific powers that would allow the states to defend themselves and to promote their economic well being. The drafters feared a strong central government and also wished to limit its power to only those objectives mentioned just above. When they put the word CONGRESS in the first amendment they meant ONLY congress was prohibited in making laws regarding religion. If they had meant state legislatures could not do so they could have said so. They did not. Furthermore, if you look at what the states actually were doing before and after the Constituion was established they were, in some instances, passing those types of laws. Other states specifically adopted laws similar to the first amendment because the first amendment only applied to the FEDERAL government and not state government.So I guess the State Legislatures can pass laws banning free speech too. They could have prior to the Supreme Court ruling based on the 14th Amendment. Consider this: Had the 14th amendment not been adopted would the federal courts have any authority to strike down such state laws? I do not see that authority. They may be able to come up with some type of commerce clause violation but it would very tenuous.
Again that was not the intent of the drafters of the Constituion nor the drafters of the 14th amendment.
and you're the expert on the intent of the drafters of the 14th amendment, huh?
I didn't say that I was an expert. I have read a considerable amount on the issue and believe that I understand what their objectives were. One of their intents was to avoid a federal government that would ovrshadow state government. Basically they tried to stike a balance between federal power intended to provide for the defense of the states and to regulate interstate commerce with the authority of the states over most other issues. If you believe that I am incorrect you are welcome to explain you reasoning.
i'm not saying you're incorrect. i don't know one way or the other. as you're fond of saying, i wasn't there. what i have read is you spewing information about the 14th without a single shred of evidence to support it. so, as you're also fond of saying, back it up with some evidence.
put up or shut up, man. your ball.
First you can read the 14th amendment. Second you must realize when the 14th amendment was written. It is also helpful to understand the political climate of the time it was written. The political climate was that the abolitionist had prevailed and had a firm control over the federal government. There were conditions in the south that did prevent the newly freed slaves from participating in the political process. If you want an "experts" opinion read section 19 of Rotunda's and Nowak's Treatise on Constitutional Law.
you mean this 14th amendment:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
now, i haven't taken time to read the expert opinion you provide, mostly because its not conveniently at my fingertips, but damned if the "no state shall...." sentence isn't plain english.
The amendment is so broad that it could mean anything. That is the problem with it. The later courts determined that it meant that the states couldn't impose their own laws regarding school prayer and other issues. How they jump from CONGRESS not having power to make laws on religion to states being prohibited from such action surely is obvious. But the important point here is that before the 14th Amendment the states were free to do such things. The reason they can't do so now is the broad interpretation given the 14th amendment although it was intended to prevent states only from discriminating against former slaves and free blacks. The court's interpretation was taken out of historical context in order to achieve a goal that had not been obtained through the legislative process. That is called judicial legislation or activism.
Jethro, is your real name Tom?
To put it another way the 14th amendment was intended to let blacks participate in the political process of states that were trying to keep them out of that process. It was not intended to take issues such as religion out of the political process of the states. The intrepetation that the court has given the amendment has actually reduced freedom on certain issues.
No. Who is Tom?
jethro, jethro, jethro. perhaps you missed the word any in there. which, to me, and i'd imagine most intelligent people, includes more than just laws regarding the political process.
Tom Kelly
anylaw which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall anyState deprive anyperson of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any
"However, you must remember that the 14th amendment was not passed until the late 1860's and was not always part of the Constitution. "
"remember that my point is not what the status of the law is NOW but what was intended at the time "
Hey dude. The founding fathers did not give us a 10 commandments set in stone.
Thats why you should read some of those books I told you to read. Particular the "The Rights of Man". The Bill of rights T.Jefferson put as ammendments is right out of that book.
Here is the Premises that the founding fathers used to frame the constitution.
1. No Generation can make laws for another generation. Thats why they did not accept the concept of Monarchy or the English Laws as they inherited them. Each Generation has to subscribe to their own laws.
Of course you can leave your house to your children and hope they will make the best use of it. But once the transfer is done, its the Children's whish what they do with the house. Its their house now.
We inherit the laws that our parents subscribed to. If we don't like something,we make changes to it by throwing stuff what we don't like and putting stuff we like. Then this becomes "our" constitution and our laws and we will in turn pass this along to our progenies.
The Founding Fathers gave us a system and a set of laws (They made some laws more difficult to change than others )...but they neverthelss did not put it in stone. They gave us a way out..They believed in the judgement of their progenies....cause, if they don't do this, then the only natural way to subscribe to your own laws is revoultion.
Our laws and our constitution is ours ...not the future generation who are yet to be born. We can give it to them.. and I am sure most of them will take it gladly.. but the preorgative is theirs. Item by Item, they can change it (hopefully after a vigerous debate and after they convince a whole lot of their generation and thier representatives).
Dude, today we can theoritcally pass a constitutional ammendment if 2/3 majority of both the houses agree, the Presidents signs, and the 50 states ratifies it. It becomes the law of the land.
Thats how the 14th ammendment came to be, So who cares what the Founding fathers wanted at their time? Different Generation had different values and set that into the constitution. Its their preogrative.
If you feel strongly against it, convince both the houses, the President and the 50 state legistlature and make it void.
these are not God's words in stone...these are man made laws.
Got it?
"Yes look at that word CONGRESS. It meant the U.S. Congress. How you can possibly get state legislatures out of that without resorting to the Court's "
Hmmmm..So if all the states make differnt laws? for whom is the Congress making all these laws?
Jethro, You poor dude.
You like to follow some God written rules don't you.
Thats why you are a such a right wing conservative...You are sheep that like to follow some Holy rules.
It was people like you (Most likely IMO) who would have wanted Monarchy in America. And yes. You had your patron saint to argue your position. His name was "Edmound Burke". You would love this man and his sense of rationale.
But Thomas Paine discredited him so throughly in that "the Rights of Man", he (Burke) never recovered in the last 200 years.
BTW. Taking responsibility for your own actions is a morally superior position than following rules cause of "Founding Fathers" said so or "God" said so..Thats abdication of responsibility. The Founding fathers probably knew that. They believed and wanted us to be responsible. So they gave us a system and process not a set of laws written in stone. Big difference.
Hey dude. The founding fathers did not give us a 10 commandments set in stone. Did I say that? No. The point was that the 14th Amendment had a specific purpose but that the Supreme Court did not recognize this for whatever reason and gave the amendment an interpretation that was never intended. The Court could have just as well said the amendment did not cover the issue of religion. The result would have been the issue would have returned to the political arena where the people, if they so chose, could have enacted a provision prohibiting such action. Such action could have been taken at the federal level or at the state level depending on the desires of the people. Instead the unelected and unaccountable members of the Court decided what they wanted.
Here is the Premises that the founding fathers used to frame the constitution.
1. No Generation can make laws for another generation. Thats why they did not accept the concept of Monarchy or the English Laws as they inherited them. Each Generation has to subscribe to their own laws. Ah! But that is just what the Supreme Court did with their unfounded interpretation of the 14th Amendment.
Of course you can leave your house to your children and hope they will make the best use of it. But once the transfer is done, its the Children's whish what they do with the house. Its their house now. That is not entirely true. A person can put restrictions of the use of the home and if those restrictions are violated they can lose whatever rights in the home that were given by that person.
We inherit the laws that our parents subscribed to. If we don't like something,we make changes to it by throwing stuff what we don't like and putting stuff we like. Then this becomes "our" constitution and our laws and we will in turn pass this along to our progenies. My point was that the Supreme Court took the issue out of the political arena without historical justification.
The Founding Fathers gave us a system and a set of laws (They made some laws more difficult to change than others )...but they nevertheless did not put it in stone. They gave us a way out..They believed in the judgment of their progenies....cause, if they don't do this, then the only natural way to subscribe to your own laws is revolution. And the Supreme Court took an issue that was not intended to be addressed by the 14th Amendment and took it out of the process where your children could change it without a HUGE amount of difficulty.
Our laws and our constitution is ours ...not the future generation who are yet to be born. We can give it to them.. and I am sure most of them will take it gladly.. but the preorgative is theirs. Item by Item, they can change it (hopefully after a vigerous debate and after they convince a whole lot of their generation and their representatives). Another example of you missing my point. I am saying that the Court made it MORE difficult for the next generation to control their laws.
Dude, today we can theoritcally pass a constitutional amendment if 2/3 majority of both the houses agree, the Presidents signs, and the 50 states ratifies it. It becomes the law of the land. Yes I know. But for some unknown reason you seem to believe that I don't. You could explain why.
Thats how the 14th amendment came to be, So who cares what the Founding fathers wanted at their time? Different Generation had different values and set that into the constitution. Its their preogrative. Another example of you missing my point. The founding fathers wanted the states and the people to decide religious issues not the federal government. The drafters of the 14th amendement did not want to change this. The INTENT of the drafters was to prevent states from discriminating against blacks under the states own laws as well as the federal law. They had no intent to give the federal government the power to prevent the states from enacting any laws on religion. That was never the debate or the goal of the drafters of the amendment. What happened is that a Court took the broadest possible interpretation of the amendment and gave the federal government more power than ever was intended. The reason why laws and the Constitution need to be narrowly construed is because if they are not narrowly construed issues are taken out of the political arena without due consideration by the people.
If you feel strongly against it, convince both the houses, the President and the 50 state legislature and make it void. That is what needs to be avoided. It is a very difficult thing to do. That is why the court should narrowly construe a statue and constitution so that the Congress, the President and the state legislatures that are elected by the people can make those decisions. It would help if they would draft the statutes and proposed amendments narrowly but that is the price of our system where most people have some input. Maybe I can say it this way: If a court is not absolutely sure what was meant by a statute or an amendment they should allow the issue to go back to the legislature and people. In that way the people decide not unelected and unaccountable judges.
these are not God's words in stone...these are man made laws.
Got it? Do you get what I am saying?
Hmmmm..So if all the states make different laws? for whom is the Congress making all these laws? I can throw that one back in your face. If Congress is making all the laws why do we even have state governments? It is because that is the way the system was designed. The question has always been what should be the balance of power between the states and the feds. Again my point has been that the Courts have determined the 14th amendement too broadly that in doing so it shifted that balance of power in a way that was never the intent of the people that drafted the amendment. The Courts should try to make the laws accomplish what its drafters intended. I agree that if the next generation wants to change it they can do so through the political process.
You know you have no basis to make such a statement. That statement has nothing to do with what we have been discussing and the topic of God has not come up until now.
"What happened is that a Court took the broadest possible interpretation of the amendment and gave the federal government more power than ever was intended. "
Yes. I agree with you Jethro in the courts do abuse their position.
Like the time when they snubbed the Florida Judges. and made Bush the President.
thats the only time in the recent years , I know the Federal Supreme court justices went overboard.
Thanks for reminding me of that...Keep up the good work Citizen.
:)
Funny how some will pick and choose when they feel that the courts are legislating from the bench. But hey as long as it's a decision you like then o.k.
BTW M&M , Take a look at the Democratic primary. That one went smooth didn't it ? Oh yea, it must have still been a republicans fault. I know it was Jeb's fault, yea, that's it. Sure.
Again you are wrong.
Luv2Fly 9/27/02 8:06am
I was making a point to Jethro ....
About that FL problem still not solved...well, who is the governor there who is not doing his Job even after that Presidential election Fiasco...What is that dude doing? and what about that Bitch..election commisionor or something...Ugly face...Orange Juice Rich lady doing? Wasn't she and the Governor supposed to clean up their acts?
why does the problem still exist?
Sigh!
Don't these Republican do their jobs? after taking our taxes, they sit on their fat stinky asses and don't do any work. They are what I call thieves. No morals whatsoever. What religion do they belong to anway? Wahabbi Islamists?
M&M,
The voting problems have nothing to do with a R or a D not doing their job. It has to do with people either being too stupid too fill out a ballot or screwing up the count. The DEMOCRATIC primary proved that point exactly, they encountered the same troubles and the R's had nothing to do with the D, primary.
Luv2Fly 9/27/02 11:41am
what? So the election commisioner and the governor have nothing to do with how the state elections are run? I mean, the malfunctioning of equipment etc....
Give me a Break?
M&M
The equippment has been around for years and is used elsewhere without the scale of problems these people seem to have. The democratic primary is run by guess what ? democrats, after all the problems they had, one would think they would be a bit more careful. It's an all to typical approach of blaming the wrong people. Who screwed up the counts in the D primary ? Republicans ? Please give me a break.
"Republicans ? Please give me a break. "
Whats the job of an election commissioner?
To step in when the election gets screwed up. Then their opponents can cry bias.
You didn't answer my question, who counted the votes in the Democrat primary ? Republicans or Democrats ?
"who counted the votes in the Democrat primary ?"
those blasted machines bought on the approval of the election commisioner.
It was those rejected votes that required the Democrats and Repubs to fight over the hanging chads.
Right and the Democrats oversaw the election of the Democratic election. as the R's do their primary. It's up to the party whose election it is to get the count right. Reno lost and it's a machines fault. No, Reno lost because not enough people voted for her. The machines were bought years ago, if they were bought by an R or D I can't tell you.
"The machines were bought years ago, if they were bought by an R or D I can't tell you. "
If you were the election commisioner, after the last fiasco. wouldn't you try to improve the system by throwing away those machines and finding a better system. Instead of sitting on you ass and saying....Oh yeah..they were bought by some one before my time and this is going to continue,,until a sensible person becomes the election commisioner (That will happen only when a more sensible person becomes the governonr since the Governor appoints the Election commisioner).
Go figure.
:)
I am a systems consultant. I wouldn't last a day, if I go and install a system that is ineffective and If I blame it on the user and call them stupid users.
My clients will chew my ass. If I said that. It's my job to install, train and educate the users. If still the system fails, I need to change the system. Period.
No amount of ducking, wiggling, and squiggling can take the responsibility away from the election commisioner and the State Governor.
The election problems were in areas controlled by democrats. The persons that are in-charge of administrating the elections are usually elected and I believe that is the case in Florida. So it was the democrats that screwed it up. Either those in charge didn't know what they were doing or it was the democrat voters. Proabably both. Either way it is not a Jeb Bush problem.
M&M
Oooh, sorry to shoot your whole argument down M&M but the bad news is that they DID they spent 32 million on new machines !
Florida’s Republican governor Jeb Bush allowed state polls to close at 10pm EST on Tuesday due to the voting mess. In Broward County, where there are over 960,000 (mostly Democrat) registered voters complaints about the new voting machines “malfunctioning” were legion. Democrat gubernatorial candidate Janet Reno, the former Attorney General appointed by Bill Clinton who was running a close race against wealthy lawyer Bill McBride, showed up to vote for herself in Miami-Dade County just after 7am on Tuesday morning but was delayed while the voting machines took fifteen minutes to turn on. Gisela Salas, an assistant supervisor of elections in Miami-Dade, noted that many polling places in Miami-Dade were breaking the law by not opening at 7am but that the problem was “primarily due to the fact that a lot of the poll workers were not able to activate all the machines in time.” ES&S claims the machines take six minutes to properly initialize – which means if it took fifteen minutes for poll workers to turn them on in Miami-Dade, they were doing it wrong. Even Ms. Salas noted that “A lot of the poll workers were not patient.”
If that wasn’t enough, election workers in Miami-Dade, Broward and other heavily Democratic counties did not pick up the voter registration books or voter activation cards for the touchscreen voting machines from the county as instructed by the commission before Tuesday. Miami-Dade County had 6,300 machines installed and will spend a total of $24 million on ES&S touchscreen voting systems by 2004. Hopefully some of that 24 million bucks will go towards someone speaking very... slowly... and... clearly... to the poll workers about how the machines work.
http://www.worldtechtribune.com/worldtechtribune/asparticles/buzz/bz09112002.asp
Florida lawmakers approved a series of reforms last year, including outlawing punch-card ballots and authorizing $32 million for new equipment and voter education.
Among Florida counties, Broward's efforts at improvements are drawing attention because the county has nearly one million registered voters, the most in the state, and features a diverse population of elderly, suburban dwellers and Spanish- and Creole-speaking voters.
Since taking over 18 months ago, Oliphant has initiated a flurry of innovations.
To introduce voters to the new ATM-style, touch-screen voting machines, Oliphant has held demonstrations at supermarkets and community centers. She is borrowing 144 phone lines from Nova Southeastern University in Fort Lauderdale to handle calls from confused workers and voters on Election Day.
And to recruit 6,000 poll workers, Oliphant has tapped corporations and county employees with backgrounds in customer service and technology. Public employees who volunteer as poll workers will receive a paid day off plus $100 for working the 14-hour day.
http://www.essvote.com/index.php?section=news_item&news_id=56
Touch-screen machines purchased to replace punchcard ballots, which were the focus of the 2000 election recount, were installed for more than half of Florida's voters. In the 2000 election, some votes were not recorded as the cards were not punched all the way through.
In Broward County, which has more registered voters than the state's other 66 counties, some precincts didn't open on time because poll workers didn't show up and one opened nearly two hours late because workers didn't have the right equipment.
State election law requires that polls open at 7 a.m., but doesn't say anything specific about what happens if they don't. Election laws do say that any official who willfully neglects to perform his or her duties is guilty of a first degree misdemeanor.
Ellen Siegel left her polling place without casting a ballot in Boca Raton, where two candidates sued over Palm Beach County's new voting machines.
"No one had any idea how to get the machines up and running. I didn't get to vote and there are going to be a lot of other people who won't be able to do it," said Siegel, a 15-year resident of the city.
However, Palm Beach County elections chief Theresa LePore said she had seen few problems. Some poll workers didn't show up, meaning some polls had minimal staffing levels, but all opened on time.
"So far, so good," she said.
State elections officials had initially dismissed many of the problems as common and said much of the commotion resulted from the national spotlight shining on Florida after the state held the 2000 presidential election in limbo for 36 days.
"These kind of happenings are not that unusual in every election and, if people will just work together, we'll get through today fine," Smith had said early in the day.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techinnovations/2002-09-10-voting-machines_x.htm
You were saying ? :)
Luv2Fly 9/27/02 12:24pm
So, the election commisioner and the Governor of the state screwed up again. By installing another ineffective system?
so when are they going to do it right?
Is the third time a charm?
I hope so..otherwise they will be wasting $32 Million every two years. Thats criminal.
MAybe we need a new Governor and a new Election Commisoner..one who is not a nazi biazed lady...Also, one who doesn't cake her face with garbage.
:)
M&M
Wow that was original. And by the way, they have a new election comissioner.
Well M&M you were wrong about not even knowing about having new systems and went on to rant ad nauseum about it without knowing the facts so I will also forgive you since the new systems were approved by representitives from both PARTIES !
Luv2Fly 9/27/02 12:39pm
:)
BTW M&M,
The new machines worked fine, it was human error that caused the problems. As a programmer you know that eventually humans have to enter the equation so there will always be errors. On a side note there were more votes thrown out in the 96' presidential election in Florida almost double the number in fact. The governor then in 96' was Lawton Chiles, a Democrat. Wonder why no outcry then ? Probably because your guy won. Hmmm, funny aint it?
Luv2Fly 9/27/02 12:54pm
We need to look for a Repub-Dems forum here in PF for continuing this...
But I will concede to you the argument about the Voting goofups.
:)
">THX 1138 "Democrat or Republican, who's to blame?" 9/27/02 8:05pm
It can be of no weight to say that the courts, on the pretense of a repugnancy, may substitute their own pleasure to the constitutional intentions of the legislature. This might as well happen in the case of two contradictory statutes; or it might as well happen in every adjudication upon any single statute. The courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT, the consequence would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body. The observation, if it prove any thing, would prove that there ought to be no judges distinct from that body.
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/const/fed/fed_78.html
Everyone should. It is not surprising that you don't, fold.
to foster further debate...
1. Separation of church and state developed so preachers could not tell congregations how to vote....a state can only get you for treason while the church can damn your soul so who are you going to listen to? Also to save the church from the corrupting influence of politics - I am sure you all will agree that politics can be a corrupting influence? Buy a senator could have become buy a priest.
2. What the founders intended is not terribly germane. The world has changed, better or worse also not germane, and new problems will arise for example internet privacy and intellectual rights in the age of the world wide web. Naturally, they had to write a broad instrument capable of guiding the country. They had no idea exactly where the country would end up nor did they know what the country would have to face. So a more flexible document was required. That's just what we got.
3. Jefferson was truly and deeply devoted to his wife even after her death. And he had a relative whose propensities for fornication with slaves was well proven. Most likely, the child wasn't Thomas' but the other guy's who name I cannot immediately recall.
4. Simply freeing the slaves may not have been the best thing and this is a question Jefferson pondered - and could not solve. Where were they to go? What were they to do? Most were illiterate and non-English speaking. Tossing them out into the street was not an option Jefferson was willing to accept. The original draft of the Constitution included abolishing slavery but they cut it in order to keep the South.
5. Seceding from the Union was never an option. I do apologise for mentioning it but the South really should have read the fine print on the contract. As for calling it "The War of Northern Aggression" well, the South shot first.
6. The Supreme Court is doing its job whether you like any particular decision or not. Federal law overrides state law just as federal courts over rule state courts and the Supreme Court rules over all others. For example, if fed law says A and not B, all states still saying B must change to match the new rules.
Did I miss anything?
"4. Simply freeing the slaves may not have been the best thing and this is a question Jefferson pondered - and could not solve. Where were they to go? What were they to do? Most were illiterate and non-English speaking. Tossing them out into the street was not an option Jefferson was willing to accept."
Jefferson came back from five years in Paris deeply in debt. I think his decision to hold onto his slaves could have been one of monetary practicality.
I had heard that most of his neighbors had freed their slaves. The Lord of Monticello was one of the last.
and able to build a new life and then there's just free 'see ya'! Jefferson was always deeply in debt.
Sorry it is. It is important to the exent that it set the rules and until the rules are changed and cahnged through proper procedures it is relevant.The world has changed, better or worse also not germane, and new problems will arise for example internet privacy and intellectual rights in the age of the world wide web. Naturally, they had to write a broad instrument capable of guiding the country. They had no idea exactly where the country would end up nor did they know what the country would have to face. So a more flexible document was required. That's just what we got. You are full of crap. What we have is some people, usually liberals that don't like the status quo, saying that but that is just a step toward tyranny.^
Separation of church and state developed so preachers could not tell congregations how to vote....a state can only get you for treason while the church can damn your soul so who are you going to listen to?
no. its the other way around. church and state were separated so that the state couldn't favor one religion over another, and persecute those who didn't follow that religion. that's the whole reason a bunch of pilgrims landed on plymouth rock in 1620. to escape religious persecution.
People, if you really looked at history, you will see that POWER, religious and/or political can corrupt people. Or did the sex ridden priests escape your notice? Mullahs send kids off to blow themselves to smithereens - and if that isn't corrupt what is? Notice that those same mullahs ain't going themselves, they're sending others. Power through religion? Oh, yes, dear. It is very real.
And it is this misuse of POWER, by any one group, that is behind the Constitution. Hence all power is divided between branches, between the federal and the states' governments, and which is also why we have the electoral college. No one group has total power. THAT was the founders'intent, pure and simple.
And if you tie religion to nationalism, it only gets more powerful an influence. Your emotions and fears overwhelm your reason. If you NEED to believe, you will and you will do exactly as you are told or you will stand by, silent, and do nothing to stop it. Witness the Nazis' rise to power.
Which is also why our messy, contankerous, noisy system works so very well. In spite of our differences, we each not expect but DEMAND that our system work in an orderly kind of way. As much as it can, of course. We make so much noise and we fuss, fuss, and fume. Ain't it great! Our politicans and religious leaders have to herd cats!
The South fired on Fort Sumpter. They wanted to keep their slaves and put states rights above federal rights - not good positions to take, guy. Consider for a moment what actually happened when the South tried to actually DO anything. They did nothing since each state was above the Confederation and each wanted to come first. All chiefs and no indians. Neither effective nor efficient so why bother? And how in the hell can you support slavery? Life, liberty and the pursuit of happines FOR SOME? Ain't happening. Again it is all a question of POWER and its misuse. Tyranny by jethro or tyranny by Georgia - its all just the same thing - tyranny. And you can keep your grade - and your belief that you have the right to impose one upon me - to yourself.
Consider for a moment what actually happened when the South tried to actually DO anything. They did nothing since each state was above the Confederation and each wanted to come first. All chiefs and no indians. Neither effective nor efficient so why bother?
I think you need to read a little more. The north also had to deal with the northern states for troops and the Union had to appease border states out of fear they would secede and join the confederacy. Furthermore, the south did quite a bit since it continued a war for four years although they were vastly outnumbered and were at a great disadvantage in all resources. And if you really get into it the Confederacy offered to do away with slavery if the British would recognize the confederacy.
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happines FOR SOME? Ain't happening. Again it is all a question of POWER and its misuse. Tyranny by jethro or tyranny by Georgia - its all just the same thing - tyranny. And you can keep your grade - and your belief that you have the right to impose one upon me - to yourself.
I have a right to grade your rantings. You have a right to ignore them. But let me say on second thought I should have given you an F.
Didn't say I was. But you don't believe the Union was defending those rights, do you? You do know Lincoln's position was that if he could preserve the Union by guaranteeing slavery he would do so?
Did the South or did the South not fire upon Fort Sumpter? They fired on Sumpter because he Union troops would not leave Confederate territory. They were asked to leave nicely but Lincoln decide he would resupply. Lincoln wanted the war because it was the only way to keep the Union together. Why he wanted the South to stay is surprising since I thought it was just filled with racist bigots.
So it took the North some time to get its act together. The South had better generals for one thing. Once it did, the South stood no chance whatsoever. Less men, less resources, a decentralized power that was in permanent disagreement, and the war was fought on their land. If England would have recognized the condeferacy there is better than 50-50 chance it would have survived. Just like the colonies did when France recognized them and gave support.
Pagination