See other National News Articles
Title: FREE SPEECH HATERS PISSING THEIR PANTS - FLORIDA - Thousands ride in support of Confederate flag at Marion County complex
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.ocala.com/article/20150712/ARTICLES/150719928?tc=cr
Published: Jul 12, 2015
Author: By Kristine Crane
Post Date: 2015-07-12 23:36:41 by HAPPY2BME-4UM
Keywords: CONFEDERATE, CONFEDERATE FLAG, FIRST AMENDMENT, FREE SPEECH
Views: 1768
Comments: 102
An estimated 2,000 vehicles, mostly motorcycles and trucks adorned with Rebel flags, took part in a rally and ride Sunday afternoon in support of keeping a Confederate flag flying in front of the McPherson Governmental Complex in Ocala. The event was organized by David Stone, of Ocala, and was called the Florida Southern Pride Ride. Police officials estimated participation at a couple thousand vehicles. The ride started about 1 p.m., and by 1:30 p.m. could be seen winding its way through Ocala. Participants were wearing shirts that said “heritage not hate” and talked of defending a way of life rooted in Southern traditions. Danny Hart, of Dunnellon, had two Confederate flags and the American flag in the back of his truck. He pointed out that the U.S. flag was flying higher and said that he had come to participate in the ride to “defend freedom.” Another ride participant, Rick Hart, said, “It's a history thing. The flag is also a military flag. It's not a race symbol.” Phil Walters, a member of the Confederate Sons of America, felt compelled to attend to defend history against what he calls “intellectual dishonesty.” Walters said the NAACP's 1991 resolution “abhorring the Confederate Battle Flag” has set the tone for conflict and hatred. “According to the U.S. Congress, Confederate veterans are war veterans,” said Walters, whose branch of the Sons is named for Judah P. Benjamin, the Jewish secretary of state under Confederate President Jefferson Davis. “The South was fighting for states' rights, and the Northern slaves were freed after Southern slaves. Slavery is a guilt across the human race.” A replica of the General Lee from the 1979-85 “The Dukes of Hazard” TV show led the way during the ride, followed by motorcycles and then pickup trucks. The ride was expected to be 17 miles total and loop back to parking lots north of the city on North U.S. 441. Ocala Police Department Sgt. Erica Hay said the ride was rerouted away from the Northwoods neighborhood after some residents threatened to shoot into the procession. The ride was organized to support the Marion County Commission's decision Tuesday to return the Confederate flag to a historical display in front of the McPherson Governmental Complex. The flag had been removed after a massacre at an African-American church in Charleston. The suspected shooter is a white supremacist who was photographed with Confederate flags. Two small protests were held last week at the county complex in opposition to the Confederate flag — which many see as a symbol of racial hatred. On Sunday, a few black people participated in the ride. One of them, Renee Gore, 34, of Dunnellon, said that to her the flag means “heritage, love and family.” Another black person, Dwayne Webb, 23, of Ocala, said he came specifically “to show people (the flag) is not about prejudice and hate.” For Webb, the flag represents “good living, respect, and honesty,” things that he associates with the South. Webb participated in the ride with his friends, also in their twenties. “I got goose-bumps (during the ride),” said Mike Ponticelli, 29, also of Ocala. They were hanging out in a parking lot with several of the other participants after the ride's conclusion. “We were standing up for what we believe in: manners and common courtesy towards all people, no matter who you are,” Ponticelli said. “It's a positive movement,” Webb added. A handful of people who view the flag as a sign of disrespect also showed up at the ride, holding signs that explained why they are against the flag flying in front of a governmental building. Laila Abdelaziz, 23, who came to the rally from Tampa, held a sign with a quote from one of the flag's defenders in the 1860s, whose defense of the symbol was rooted in white supremacy. “What if your heritage is rooted in hate?” Abdelaziz said. “You have to confront that.” Abdelaziz, who was born in Palestine and came to the U.S. with her parents as a child, said she is very familiar with dynamics of hatred. “I know what hatred does to people,” she said. “America has to confront the fact that someone younger than me killed people out of hatred.” Abdelaziz said she also came to protest the ride to speak for another part of Ocala, where her parents live and she also lived for some time. “This (ride) does not represent all of Ocala,” Abdelaziz said. In the aftermath of the Charleston killings, too much emphasis has been placed on the flag, she added. “Dylann Roof held the flag in one hand, and a gun in the other. We've heard more about the flag than the gun control problem in America.” On Sunday evening, Awake Marion, in conjunction with the NAACP, held a meeting at the Second Bethlehem Baptist Theological Seminary in Ocala. About 75 people attended the meeting, where they discussed how to express their disagreement with the County Commission's decision to raise the Confederate flag. Draft copies of a letter to the Board of County Commissioners were handed out. The organizers also announced that a peaceful sit-in to protest the flag will take place Wednesday at 9 a.m. at the south end of the McPherson Governmental Complex. The sit-in is being sponsored by Brown Memorial Funeral Home. 
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-18) not displayed.
.
.
.
#19. To: HAPPY2BME-4UM (#13)
Your characterization is a bit off. The Corwin amendment did nothing more than bar amending the USCON to end slavery where it was in existence. Lincoln was a supporter of that *idea* prior to secession. It was passed a few days prior to his inauguration and once he assumed office, he never aggressively pursued its ratification. --Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...
The Union has a mechanism for dissolution...the constitutional amendment... --Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...
I can see it now -- "The Amendment to let the Southern states leave the Union has been passed. Mr. Lincoln is not expected to veto."
A proposed amendment, once having been passed by the Congress, goes directly to the State legislatures (unless the Congress decides that the amendment should be decided by state conventions)...it is impervious to Executive action...
--Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...
Your characterization is a bit off. The Corwin amendment did nothing more than bar amending the USCON to end slavery where it was in existence. Lincoln was a supporter of that *idea* prior to secession. It was passed a few days prior to his inauguration and once he assumed office, he never aggressively pursued its ratification. =============================================================== Please be SET FREE! If you cannot be * SET F-R-E-E * then you will live the rest of your days POUNDING SAND. Accept the truth of the matter as recorded down in the archives you refuse to admit exist or accept as fact. Take it to your heart. Let this loosen those shackles that have your mind bound by lies and deceptions. Be set FREE from the SLAVERY than tends to bind thee .. He was the secret author of it, orchestrating the politics of its passage from Springfield before he was even inaugurated. Not only that, but he also instructed his political compatriot, William Seward, to work on federal legislation that would outlaw the various personal liberty laws that existed in some of the Northern states U.S. Constitution - Article IV, Section 4: NO BORDERS + NO LAWS = NO COUNTRY
Corwin had been around in some form or another going back to Calhoun's snit fits. That entire 36th Congress was devoted to addressing the growing issue of secession and war... the fact that Lincoln was *cahootin'* with political allies after his election is hardly a shocking revelation and is fairly well known to anyone who has studied the era. The fact that he was trying to peaceably keep the Union together - as did people like Senator Jefferson Davis, btw - shouldn't be a surprise either. So, if your bold and beautiful response above was done for *shock* value then your FAIL is *epic*. --Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...
Predictive.
U.S. Constitution - Article IV, Section 4: NO BORDERS + NO LAWS = NO COUNTRY
No Amendment was necessary to dissolve State bonds with the Union. Reference the Declaration of Independence. No Amendment was needed either to dissolve America's original government entirely, the establishment of which was called the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. Replacement of the Articles of Confederation with the U.S. Constitution by less than 100% ratification of the States was itself seen as an act of secession by some of those States of the Articles compact and also by some of our founders like John Jay, who became our first U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
You agree with your hero's later violent approach, do you?
The South had been gearing up for a violent confrontation for at least 10 years prior to Lincoln's election. The South did not want to negotiate anything...not the *status* of new states or territories...not compensation for Federal assets in southern states...nor navigation of common waterways... Any objective analysis of history reveal the rests squarely on the shoulder of the intransigent southerners. --Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...
Where is that referenced in the United States Constitution? Replacement of the Articles of Confederation with the U.S. Constitution by less than 100% ratification of the States was itself seen as an act of secession by some of those States of the Articles compact and also by some of our founders like John Jay, who became our first U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice. That's an obvious statement of history...the states which negotiated the USCON agreed that only 9 were needed for the Union... "The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same..." --Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...
The Yankees had been plenty intransigent, grasping, exploitative, abusive, arrogant and tyrannical, just as they were once the war was over -- vastly beyond all proportion. Their behavior was communist in everything but name and had the open backing of Marx himself. A New York newspaper thoughtfully carried his writings on the subject! Southern states left gradually on realizing they had no choice due to the above factors. Everybody knows Lincoln was proud of manipulating Dixie into firing the first shot, everybody knows an emotionally hysterical racial abolitionism heavily drove the Union to war despite Lincoln's sometime protestations to the contrary -- one of the reigning hypocrisies of history. Julia Ward Howe called it "the glory of the coming of the Lord" -- psychiatrists would call it PROJECTION on a cosmic scale.
Comrade Abraham: Was President Lincoln a Closet Marxist? U.S. Constitution - Article IV, Section 4: NO BORDERS + NO LAWS = NO COUNTRY
Happ, you are a never-ending magic genie of good stuff! Yeah, Ape was as race- obsessive as Obongo in his own sanctimonious way. I remember the episode of Disney's Wonderful World of Color where they introduced an audio-animatronic statue of Ape spouting that very "The world has never had a good definition of the word liberty" business. Of course we baby boomers just drank it cluelessly in as the most absolute, ultimate in amerikan greatness. Where has that page BEEN all my life? It's Christmas in July!! I really wish more people knew about 4um, but everybody's totally into Twitter, FB etc...... "To secure each laborer the whole product of his labor" -- uh, is this the same president that gave us our first income tax, which Congress promptly shot down as un-Constitutional? That must be the "as nearly as possible" part, an otherwise very strange thing to say. Lots of Ape's most beloved humanitarianistic quotes are FAKE. isp.netscape.com/whatsnew...? name=fte/lincoln/lincoln There used to be a Lincoln Never Said It site, wonder where it went. He was rightly hated and derided for the aberration he was during his lifetime. Thanks for nothing, Booth!!
Where is that referenced in the United States Constitution? The 9th and 10th Amendments. The secessionist States agreed in violation of the Articles of Confederation: On the other hand, Article VII of the proposed Constitution stated that it would become effective after ratification by a mere nine states, without unanimity ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
I've read them several times and never was the Declaration of Independence referenced. And the Declaration was a culmination of a meeting of the WHOLE of The People...not one delegation. There is a difference between a Confederation and a Republic. As is mentioned in the A/I the Union was to be perpetual. The Preamble of the USCON clearly states that the Union was to be *more* Perfect. I can't see any track of logic that leads me to believe that a Perpetual Union, made more perfect, was one that could be negated by one member. --Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...
And only enforceable between those states... --Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...
I've read them several times and never was the Declaration of Independence referenced. And the Declaration was a culmination of a meeting of the WHOLE of The People...not one delegation. The 9th and 10th Amendments encompass all rights reserved to the States and the people, including: "it is their right, it is their duty" to throw off Despotic Government and to provide new Guards for their future security. The Declaration was a culmination of Patriots who understood their God-given natural right to secede from despotic government without the permission of it. Loyalists to the Crown weren't of that view, so their consultations were soon no longer considered as admissable. It's arguable that the secession of States from the Articles of Confederation wasn't because it was a despotic form of government but because it was more of a wartime provisional system that was too legislature-centralized. A more Perfect Perpetual Union would not be one that's despotically forced to be unfreely amalgamated. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
And only enforceable between those states... Yes, that is correct...those secessionist States. Edit to add: And they were agreeable to substantially downsizing the Union to form and implement their own government. No war was fought over it; just a diplomatic separation of the States and their jurisdictional powers of governance. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
U.S. Constitution - Article IV, Section 4: NO BORDERS + NO LAWS = NO COUNTRY
Sounds like he might be an ancestor of Gus Hall, who was a Chairman of the Communist Party USA. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
As I understand it, the Declaration is considered higher law than the Constitution. Doesn't the "alter or abolish" clause answer this whole thing? Original intent shows freedom, not statism, was the default position in the minds of the founders. The whole weight of the past millennium of history is on that side, going back to "Þorgnýr the Lawspeaker" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_revolution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_revolution Right of revolution - Wikipedia Liberty depended upon the people’s “ultimate” right to resist [despotic government]. ... This right implied a duty on the part of the people to resist As Alexander Hamilton noted in 1775, government exercised powers to protect “the absolute rights” of the people and government forfeited those powers and the people could reclaim them if government breached this nccs.net: The Declaration of Independence Part of American Law "The United States Code Annotated includes the Declaration of Independence under the heading 'The Organic Laws of the United States of America' along with the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution, and the Northwest Ordinance. Enabling acts frequently require states to adhere to the principles of the Declaration; in the Enabling Act of June 16, 1906, Congress authorized Oklahoma Territory to take steps to become a state. Section 3 provides that the Oklahoma Constitution 'shall not be repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and the principles of the Declaration of Independence.' (Christianity and the Constitution, pp. 360-361) What is the Alter or Abolish Clause? - YouTube [2.5 minutes] Published on Jan 8, 2014 Constitutional scholar Dr. Edwin Vieira sits down with Gary Franchi and answers the question... What is the Alter or Abolish Clause? ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Riches, Grey!
============================================= The Constitution is 'higher,' including all of the amendments thereto which are still in effect. That would include the Bill of Rights which is not a separate document but part of that Constitution. The reason for the importance of the Constitution can be found in the preamble where it states that the document was created to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and to our posterity. The Declaration of Independence was more influential since it was the first instance where a people asserted that they were in charge, not some king. The bill of rights is important BUT it is part and parcel of the constitution AND as recently noted in the Heller decision, the Bill of Rights does NOT give any rights, it gives limitations on government for certain rights which we belive all people to HAVE by virtue of being living human beings. The constitution was not ratified until the Bill of Rights was added and would not exist without it BUT our rights WOULD! The Declaration of independence has no legal power or authority. U.S. Constitution - Article IV, Section 4: NO BORDERS + NO LAWS = NO COUNTRY
Amen.
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
But the Constitution was only witnessed, not signed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Treason In any case, we've closed the case. This is supposed to be a free country, and every indicator says that any union is based on voluntary association -- the individual model applied to the corporate.
Glad you found those resources at #41 to be useful, NN. The video speaker, Dr. Edwin Vieira, is an excellent and voluminous reference guide for Patriot studies of Constitutionality issues, sound money matters, American Government History to the present and also regarding the imperative Revitalization of America's Constitutional State Militias in accordance with our Founders' directives for properly securing our nation's Freedoms. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Vieira's well known -- Freedom to Fascism etc. Great man, been at it forever.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Treason ??? United States Constitution - Wikipedia 74 delegates were named, 55 attended and 39 signed. Its final version was taken up on Monday, September 17, at the Convention's final session. Several of the delegates were disappointed in the result, a makeshift series of unfortunate compromises. Some delegates left before the ceremony, and three others refused to sign. Of the thirty-nine signers, Benjamin Franklin summed up, addressing the Convention: "There are several parts of this Constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them." He would accept the Constitution, "because I expect no better and because I am not sure that it is not the best." ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
"In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names" http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html Rather odd, isn't it? Can you think of anything else "signed" that way? Sly dogs!
Rather odd, isn't it? Can you think of anything else "signed" that way? Sly dogs! Pic: Part of page four of the Constitution, showing the signatures of the delegates That's all I have time to research and post about that for today. When I can resume, it will most likely be after I've archived some info on the Corwin Amendment. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
The Framers' intent was to create a government wherein *change* or revolution was accomplished through debate...i.e. warring with words and argument... And keep your eye on the ball here, the tariff argument doesn't fly because, as of 1856, they were actually lower and narrower than what was passed in the 1820's...so...if your future *security* is dependent upon the power of a state government to forcibly enslave human beings then I submit that is hardly a *security* worth saving and perpetuating... The Declaration was a culmination of Patriots who understood their God-given natural right to secede from despotic government without the permission of it. The Declaration was a *culmination* of the realization that the colonists would never be granted a say in how they were governed. The Southern States suffered under no such yoke and, in fact, FREELY entered in to an agreement that bound them to the rules of the Republic. What happened is, that as time progressed on the Republic, what they wished to preserve was no longer tenable. They were also Creator given which, to some I am sure, including Jefferson, could have meant nothing more than having been born. Atheism was hardly unknown in the 18th century and Deism/Unitarianism was a way of being so without saying so. It's arguable that the secession of States from the Articles of Confederation wasn't because it was a despotic form of government but because it was more of a wartime provisional system that was too legislature-centralized. A more Perfect Perpetual Union would not be one that's despotically forced to be unfreely amalgamated. That is very well stated and I have to say, again, that I really admire how it is that you write. This is an open question of history: What would have happened had Annapolis failed or had 9 states not ratified? Would the States have continued to operate under the Articles and tried again? Would the US have fractionated in to 13 Republics or Commonwealths? But when we look, again, at history, we know that it took an actual trail. In 1860, there were 33 states that, again, FREELY entered in to the United States. They FREELY agreed to a the form of government that they all knew could either advance some practices or end them. Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 (3/5's of all other persons) ADVANCED the notion that the South would be best served by INCREASING the slave population. Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 (slave trade) was a timebomb/poison pill that slave states KNEW could go off or be activated any time after 1808. And anyone who had anything to do with Founding or Framing the Confederation and then the Republic, KNEW that the question of slavery was going to be an open ended one that would be debated until either made permanent or ended. Every slave state knew this when they FREELY entered into the United States... --Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...
I would submit that the Declaration is a statement of principles without force of law but a force on the law...
--Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...
The question isn't whether it was lower in 1856 but whether tariffs (and other gouges) were still punishing. I don't happen to have the figures handy, but it's academic in view of "alter or abolish". We've already busted up the slave angle. You look a bit ridiculous trying to form a moral argument against the Confederacy -- there isn't any. The so-called draft riots were in fact a rebellion against Mr. Lincoln's War that stretched all the way over to Ohio. New Yorkers showed what they thought of abolition (and racial equality) by hanging negroes in the streets of NYC. Yeah, negroes, "Martin Luther" King's word for them. The north and South were two completely different societies from the beginning, notably thanks to the narcissistic, messianic, tyrannical New Englanders. The two "sections" as they were called then were no more meant to be glued together forever than the Beatles were (four wildly different personalities that consistently showed through and often clashed during their decade as a unit). If you think Southern secession was wrong you should be calling for the Virginias to be rejoined. Yankee oppression persists today in the Voting Rights Act and many other ways. Their vicious hate campaign against the South never lets up and only increases. "Martin" said the difference between Birmingham and Boston was that Boston would never change. Yankees are collectively incapable of moderation or reason and the Southern states were still paying them for Mr. Lincoln's war into the 1950s. Yankees are in fact psychotic as a group and the world needs to recognize this fast. Why did the Underground Railroad end in Canada? Because yankees refused to have the slaves they had freshly liberated enter their states. I say yankees meaning the evil kind of northerner, but not all northerners, obviously, since many have always been fine people despite mostly being diversity-delusional. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afr..._Ground_National_Monument
It's not moral to enslave human beings. Period. --Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958...
It's not moral to enslave human beings. Period. I meant a special case, obviously. You lose!
Moral, or not, slavery has been part and parcel of the human condition since our existence began; it continues around the world today in one form or another. It's particularly pernicious here with all the welfare slavery going on. “The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
Period. So you are saying I am hereby absolved of any tax assessment which will be used to fund TANF/SECT-8/etc? You see, I feel that paying lazy morons to sit on their asses while I work for a living upsets the fundamental fairness of the social contract. corruptissima re publica plurimae leges - Tacitus
I'm unclear as to what exactly is the "contract" between the makers and the takers. Hep me out, please. “The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
Haven't you ever heard of Newt Gingrich's Contract On America?
Comments (60 - 102) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestAbraham Lincoln attempted to ratify the 13th Amendment for the purpose of legalizing the ownership of human being as property (slavery)?
#20. To: NeoconsNailed (#18)
Is the Union perpetual through the rest of time regardless of what percentage of the people still want it?
#21. To: war (#20)
#22. To: NeoconsNailed (#21)
(Edited)
#23. To: war, katniss, lod, jethro tull, neoconsnailed, greylmist, darkwing, christine, x-15 (#19)
Abraham Lincoln attempted to ratify the 13th Amendment for the purpose of legalizing the ownership of human being as property (slavery)?
THE LIES OF THE ABRAHAM LINCOLN CULT EXPOSED - HE PUSHED FOR SLAVERY TO BE PERMANENT FIXTURE OF U.S. CONSTITUTION
The Lincoln Cult's Latest Cover-Up
Not only did Lincoln support this slavery forever amendment, but the amendment was his idea from the very beginning.
#24. To: HAPPY2BME-4UM (#23)
#25. To: war (#24)
#26. To: NeoconsNailed (#21)
(Edited)
I can see it now -- "The Amendment to let the Southern states leave the Union has been passed. Mr. Lincoln is not expected to veto."
#27. To: war (#24)
#28. To: NeoconsNailed (#27)
You agree with your hero's later violent approach, do you?
#29. To: GreyLmist (#26)
(Edited)
Reference the Declaration of Independence.
#30. To: war (#28)
#31. To: NeoconsNailed, war (#30)
#32. To: HAPPY2BME-4UM (#31)
#33. To: war (#29)
Reference the Declaration of Independence.
the states which negotiated the USCON agreed that only 9 were needed for the Union...
[T]he Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.
#34. To: GreyLmist (#33)
The 9th and 10th Amendments.
#35. To: GreyLmist (#33)
On the other hand, Article VII of the proposed Constitution stated that it would become effective after ratification by a mere nine states, without unanimity
#36. To: war (#34)
The 9th and 10th Amendments.
There is a difference between a Confederation and a Republic. As is mentioned in the A/I the Union was to be perpetual. The Preamble of the USCON clearly states that the Union was to be *more* Perfect. I can't see any track of logic that leads me to believe that a Perpetual Union, made more perfect, was one that could be negated by one member.
#37. To: war (#35)
(Edited)
On the other hand, Article VII of the proposed Constitution stated that it would become effective after ratification by a mere nine states, without unanimity
#38. To: GreyLmist (#36)
#39. To: HAPPY2BME-4UM (#38)
A quote from Hall, a Loyalist
#40. To: GreyLmist (#36)
#41. To: NeoconsNailed (#40)
(Edited)
As I understand it, the Declaration is considered higher law than the Constitution. Doesn't the "alter or abolish" clause answer this whole thing? Original intent shows freedom, not statism, was the default position in the minds of the founders. The whole weight of the past millennium of history is on that side, going back to "Þorgnýr the Lawspeaker"
the right of revolution is the right or duty, previously stated throughout history, of the people of a nation to overthrow a government that acts against their common interests.
"The role of the Declaration of Independence in American law is often misconstrued. Some believe the Declaration is simply a statement of ideas that has no legal force whatsoever today. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Declaration has been repeatedly cited by the U.S. Supreme Court as part of the fundamental law of the United States of America.
#42. To: GreyLmist (#41)
#43. To: NeoconsNailed, greylmist (#40)
(Edited)
As I understand it, the Declaration is considered higher law than the Constitution. Doesn't the "alter or abolish" clause answer this whole thing?
#44. To: HAPPY2BME-4UM (#43)
#45. To: HAPPY2BME-4UM (#43)
#46. To: NeoconsNailed (#42)
(Edited)
Riches, Grey!
#47. To: GreyLmist (#46)
#48. To: NeoconsNailed (#45)
the Constitution was only witnessed, not signed.
Signatories: 39 of the 55 delegates
#49. To: GreyLmist (#48)
(Edited)
#50. To: NeoconsNailed (#49)
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
List of signers of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia
#51. To: GreyLmist (#36)
The 9th and 10th Amendments encompass all rights reserved to the States and the people, including: "it is their right, it is their duty" to throw off Despotic Government and to provide new Guards for their future security.
#52. To: NeoconsNailed (#40)
#53. To: war (#51)
And keep your eye on the ball here, the tariff argument doesn't fly because, as of 1856, they were actually lower and narrower than what was passed in the 1820's...so...if your future *security* is dependent upon the power of a state government to forcibly enslave human beings then I submit that is hardly a *security* worth saving and perpetuating...
#54. To: NeoconsNailed (#53)
You look a bit ridiculous trying to form a moral argument against the Confederacy -- there isn't any.
#55. To: war (#54)
You look a bit ridiculous trying to form a moral argument against the Confederacy -- there isn't any.
#56. To: war, 4 (#54)
#57. To: war (#54)
It's not moral to enslave human beings.
#58. To: Dakmar (#57)
#59. To: Lod (#58)
.
.
.
