Title: JEB BUSH CALLS FOR ERASING THE CONFEDERATE FLAG - S.C. statehouse fights over Confederate flag controversy Source:
[None] URL Source:http://atlanta.cbslocal.com/2015/06 ... rolina-confederate-flag-brawl/ Published:Jun 30, 2015 Author:cbs Post Date:2015-06-30 17:45:25 by HAPPY2BME-4UM Keywords:confederate flag, FIRST AMENDMENT, jeb bush, civil war Views:379 Comments:13
Poster Comment:
===============================================
Note how the CBS announcer begins the story with how "The South started the civil war.'
No. Apparently, employees of the Park Service were lawlessly ordered by their Federal commandants to remove the flags, including the State flag of South Carolina. Going all the way back to before the "Civil War", the Federal government had failed to legally fulfill its agreed terms for utilization of Fort Sumter.
Most Americans believe that the federal government stands absolutely supreme.
Nobody can question its dictates.
Nobody can refuse its edicts.
Nobody can resist its commands.
This is simply not true.
Laws passed in pursuance of the Constitution do stand as the supreme law of the land. But that doesn’t in any way imply the federal government lords over everything and everybody in America.
First off, as James Madison asserted in Federalist 45, the powers of the federal government are “few and defined.” So federal power actually extends into only a few spheres. Most power and authority was left to the states and the people.
Second, even within those areas that the federal government does exercise authority, it cannot force state or local governments to cooperate in enforcement or implementation. The feds must exercise their authority on their own, unless the state and local governments choose to assist.
Simply put, the federal government cannot force state or local governments to act against their will.
This is known as the anti-commandeering doctrine, and it is well established in constitutional jurisprudence. Four Supreme Court opinions dating back to 1842 serve as the foundation for this legal doctrine.
Going all the way back to before the "Civil War", the Federal government had failed to legally fulfill its agreed terms for utilization of Fort Sumter.
It was one of a number of special forts planned after the war of 1812, combining high walls and heavy masonry, and classified as Third System, as a grade of structural integrity. Work started in 1829, but was incomplete by 1860, when South Carolina seceded from the Union.
Named after [Brigadier] General Thomas Sumter, Revolutionary War hero [of South Carolina's Militia], Fort Sumter was built following the War of 1812 as one of a series of fortifications on the southern U.S. coast to protect the harbors. Construction began in 1829 and the structure was still unfinished in 1861, when the Civil War began.
What is not generally known is that South Carolina had freely ceded property in Charleston Harbor to the federal Government in 1805 [My note: for defense of the States and their Freedom, not the unified-in-fealty to D.C. autocrats], upon the express condition that "the United States... within three years... repair the fortifications now existing thereon or build such other forts or fortifications as may be deemed most expedient by the Executive of the United States on the same, and keep a garrison or garrisons therein." Failure to comply with this condition on the part of the Government would render "this grant or cession... void and of no effect." The State then appointed commissioners and paid for the land to be surveyed out of its own treasury. Work on Fort Sumter did not begin until 1829 and had still not been completed by 1860. Unfinished and [essentially] unoccupied for over thirty years [except for a few laborers/inspectors at times and, iirc, a lighthouse operator], the terms of the cession were clearly not fulfilled.