Video: Who killed the Constitution?
posted at 9:30 am on April 6, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
Do members of Congress even pay attention to the words in the oath of office they take before each session? Rep. Phil Hare may just have been the most honest Congressman on this point when he told a constituent that he didn’t care about the Constitution. As Andrew Napolitano and Thomas Woods discuss, the Constitution has become an afterthought to Democrats in control of Congress now:
Let’s be honest, though; the Constitution has been an afterthought for Congresses controlled by both parties. Where in the Constitution does Congress derive the authority for No Child Left Behind, for instance, or Medicare Part D? In the first case, education is supposed to be under the control of local boards, as far away from Washington DC as it gets on the political spectrum. In the latter, the same Congress that passed Medicare Part D also refused to let private insurers sell policies across state lines for the same purpose.
It’s good to see us talking about the Constitution again, and how much of what the federal government does that falls outside of its boundaries of authority. But let’s not pretend that this is a new problem. It mainly started in the Great Depression, and we haven’t done much to enforce those limitations of power since.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3
No, Clinton never attempted to use the ICC to “circumvent” the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights serves as a limit on Congress’s powers. A bill that violates the Bill of Rights is unconstitutional, even if it is sustainable under the ICC.
Your example is wrong because
1) The “right to bear arms” wasn’t interpreted as an individual right at the federal level in the 1990′s, so you can’t say the bill “restricted” anything in the BOR. You still have failed to address thi point.
2) Even assuming, arguendo that the individual right to bear arms had been recognized by the court at that time, it doesn’t necessarily follow that the law violated that right. The right to bear arms does not mean that all regulations of firearms are per se invalid. Reasonable restrictions and regulations are still allowed.
3) It’s a stupid example anyway because SCOTUS struck down the law. So why are you using it as evidence that the Commerce clause is unlimited, or can be used to circumvent the BOR?
I look forward as always, to your non-reply.
crr6 on April 6, 2010 at 3:20 PM
Let’s review:
There is an apparent contradiction in the logic from the Left:
It is the contention that even though the intent of the Constitution is to limit governmental power, it still has clauses and wordings that allow this power to expand beyond those limits.
The tepid response is that:
And further on:
I cited the Clinton administration’s attempted use of the ICC to circumvent the BOR.
Your response was to distract with irrelevances on the 2nd amendment in an attempt to avoid the central question.
The assertion from the left is that even though the government is limited by the Constitution it isn’t because it has affirmative powers and even though the left has attempted to circumvent the Bill of rights with the Interstate commerce clause it’s still limited by the Bill of rights.
I look forward as always, to your non-reply.
Chip on April 6, 2010 at 3:24 PM
Oh boy, here we go again….Squid Shark on April 6, 2010 at 2:59 PM
Were are you going? Is the Constitution a contract? Can contracts be broken? What founding father ever wrote that the Constitution once ratified could never be rescinded by any state at any time? If new states are allowed to ratify or sign on to the Constitution, which as happened twice in my lifetime, what is to stop them from disavowing that ratification?
Grayzel on April 6, 2010 at 3:25 PM
What an incredible talent! Quick, use your ability to read the minds of the Founder’s to tell me what they think about the Air Force. Or traffic laws. Or universal healthcare. Or WMD’s. Or Medicare Part D. Or Zoning laws. Or abortion, in order to save the life of the mother. Or the level of discretion to give juries in capital cases. Or better yet, what did they think about slavery? Or segregated schools? Or integrated schools? Or remedial programs that are narrowly tailored to produce integrated schools?
(prediction: Grayzel’s mind-reading will produce results that are startlingly in-line with the contemporary Republican platform!
crr6 on April 6, 2010 at 3:26 PM
dude, you haven’t responded to any of my points and you basically just reposted the same bs you said earlier…exactly as I predicted. Let’s try to take this slowly.
How exactly did Clinton attempt to “circumvent” the BOR? More specifically, what right in the BOR was he trying to circumvent?
crr6 on April 6, 2010 at 3:28 PM
Oh sparky, you sure do like to quote out of context.
Grayzel on April 6, 2010 at 3:30 PM
Where in the Constitution is the procedure for a state to leave the union?
Proud Rino on April 6, 2010 at 3:34 PM
….
Circling the drain….
daesleeper on April 6, 2010 at 3:43 PM
“Where in the Constitution is the procedure for a state to leave the union?” Proud Rino on April 6, 2010 at 3:34 PM
That is a great question for a person that thinks the Constitution allows interpretation or grows. I don’t. The Constitution is a contract. In the context that the Constitution is a contract, if it is not spelled out that a state can not leave the union, it can therefore leave if it so chooses.
Grayzel on April 6, 2010 at 3:44 PM
So, which part is it again?
Proud Rino on April 6, 2010 at 3:53 PM
Good then, when parties to a contract break it in bad faith, then the other parties are allowed to force compliance, it is called specific performance. When the States decided to violate a binding contract to which there was no “escape clause” then they acted in bad faith, they furthered this bad faith by the seizure of and firing on federal facilities.
The duly constituted federal government with the consent of the majority of the states enforced specific performance upon the noncomplying parties to avoid further damage to the interests of the states acting in good faith with their contract.
Squid Shark on April 6, 2010 at 3:54 PM
You’re supposed to be the legal scholar, right?
Or have you given up that Lie?
Chip on April 6, 2010 at 3:59 PM
heh. I’d say South Carolina is a “unique good”.
crr6 on April 6, 2010 at 4:00 PM
Answer the question.
Again:
crr6 on April 6, 2010 at 4:00 PM
“escape clause” then they acted in bad faith,” Squid Shark
Let me ask a simple question. If a contract can never be broken why does it happen every day? Why does your cable, dish or even cell phone contract demand a specific time period in your contract? That is to allow the company to legally enforce it. When you point out to me why Lincoln dismissed Congress and had a new one appointed I might believe you know what you are writing about.
“noncomplying parties to avoid further damage to the interests of the states acting in good faith with their contract.” Squid Shark
Another interesting point. You have an understanding of Lincolns argument but now you have to explain how that argument is Constitutional. Just to state an argument does not make it correct.
Grayzel on April 6, 2010 at 4:05 PM
Chip on April 6, 2010 at 4:12 PM
LOL. That was passed under George H.W. Bush, not Clinton.
And again, which right in the Bill of Rights did it violate?
crr6 on April 6, 2010 at 4:17 PM
That’s because we can’t. The commerce clause is all encompassing. It was put in the constitution specifically to grow a massive, overreaching all powerful government. It seems at least some of the framers of the constitution had second thoughts and decided that freedom maybe wasn’t a good idea after all and slipped the commerce clause in.
They knew morally, physically and spiritually diseased politicians would understand it’s power and use it to nullify the very premise of “limited government”.
darwin on April 6, 2010 at 4:32 PM
Try reading the summary, it stated:
The right should be petty obvious.
Chip on April 6, 2010 at 4:39 PM
Then just say it. The Commerce Clause isn’t a right, it’s a power of Congress. The court determined that Congress didn’t have the power to pass that law, under the Commerce clause. That has nothing to do with the BOR.
So again, what right in the Bill of Rights did it violate?
crr6 on April 6, 2010 at 4:44 PM
Unfortunately crr6 and proud rino would agree with on that.
Chip on April 6, 2010 at 4:45 PM
Unfortunately crr6 and proud rino would agree with you on that.
Chip on April 6, 2010 at 4:46 PM
Nothing is obvious to anyone who gleefully twists words and truth. “Having eyes to see they do not see. Having ears to hear they do not hear.”
Out of context, I know, but the principle applies.
pugwriter on April 6, 2010 at 4:47 PM
Yes, sadly I have to agree with you.
I really can’t understand why someone would be against Liberty, freedom and Limited government.
Chip on April 6, 2010 at 4:52 PM
Totally. So hey, which right in the Bill of Rights did the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990 restrict, or violate?
crr6 on April 6, 2010 at 4:53 PM
Okay, can anybody explain to crr6 what part of the Bill of Rights deals with the right to keep and bear arms?
(That’s a little hint for you, in case you want to look it up in the wikipedia)
Chip on April 6, 2010 at 4:55 PM
So the second amendment then? You know that SCOTUS didn’t interpret the 2nd amendment as an individual right until 2008, right? You must, because I’ve said it like 10 times.
crr6 on April 6, 2010 at 5:01 PM
So that examples been shot down. Do you have anything else Chip?
Chip?
crr6 on April 6, 2010 at 5:05 PM
Ed,
I am glad you mentioned Medicare Part D in this. Lets remember that Part D was passed when Republicans controlled congress and the White house. In fact it was done in the dead of night on almost a strick party line vote. Sound simular? The people with the biggest seats at the table were Texas businessman and industry insiders.
If you choose not to sign up to for Part D when you first become eligible, you are financially penalized when you do sign up. It is a stong mandate not unlike the current health bill. In my opinion we should drop the talk and just let the courts decide when the mandate goes into effect.
DStevens on April 6, 2010 at 5:23 PM
I’m just amazed that some people actually don’t have a problem with the federal government taking over the US health care system.
I’m also amazed that these same people don’t understand that it’s government programs, intrusion and regulation that created the problem that the government says they need even more government to fix.
Finally, I’m amazed that these people have no problem with a bill that needs thousands of pages to take over the health care system, but seem to think the US constitution requires imaginative “interpretation” of it’s four pages.
darwin on April 6, 2010 at 5:37 PM
Aren’t you late for “How to sell your soul to the Devil” class?
darwin on April 6, 2010 at 5:46 PM
Oh come on, Ed, there is no comparison to Medicare Part D and this plan from Obama. I know that conservatives feel the knee jerk need to jump all over Republicans and Bush etc just to show how independent they are…but please, you might as well ask where the Constitution justifies the Patriot Act. I know a lot of libertarians swear it does not. But hawkish conservatives are fine with it. The truth is NCLB was something Bush ran on, something that most people supported, besides if conservatives do not get involved in education the liberals are going to completely ruin it. And Medicare Part D is no more anti Constitution than Medicare in general or Veterans benefits for that matter. After all, during the Civil War there was debate as to whether or not soldiers should be paid for fear we would create a mercenary force and many of the medical personnel were actually volunteers. It took us years to develop the kind of benefits we have for veterans today and I know of very few conservatives who would begrudge military men and women any of their benefits.
The truth is the Obamacare legislation is in a world of its own, which is why so many people who could support No Child Left Behind or Medicare Part D do not support.
BTW, I don’t think the Constitution is dead at all.
Terrye on April 6, 2010 at 5:58 PM
That is a recent interpretation – are you telling me that it wasn’t a right until 2008??
Nevertheless I’ve already said that is irrelevant.
You have YET to address the question:
How can the Constitution limit government power when the government can simply expand it’s power by congressional fiat?
How about addressing that?
Chip on April 6, 2010 at 6:04 PM
They don’t seem to care as long as they are part of the ruling elite.
They don’t seem to care that they are going to bring down the best healthcare system.
They don’t seem to care that they are destroying the Constitution.
Chip on April 6, 2010 at 6:06 PM
Yeah, like I said, it wasn’t an individual right until Heller.
Well it’s been fun Chip! I should start charging you for the daily Con law lessons I give you.
crr6 on April 6, 2010 at 6:31 PM
I don’t think you’re actually interested in an answer, but unfortunately for all of us, I’ll give you one anyway.
OK – Congress is limited to its enumerated powers. However, some of those powers, specifically the ones that are in the ICC, have changed over time. Not entirely because of judicial interpretation, either – it’s just changed because the way we conduct commerce in the USA has changed.
So, in 1800, growing your own wheat probably didn’t implicate interstate commerce because your only option was growing your own wheat or buying from the guy who grew wheat next to you. But now, if you want to buy flour, you go to a store that has stores all over the country, and you buy your flour from a corporation that sells foods all over the world. So now, if you start growing your own wheat, well you’re not purchasing your flour which you otherwise would be purchasing, and therefore you’re implicating interstate commerce (albeit in a small way). So Congressional power changed because what implicates interstate commerce has broadened – not by judicial fiat, but by industrialization, economies of scale, improvements in transportation, etc.
And if you think that’s a bad thing, fine, I agree with that to some extent – I don’t like the health care reform bill either. But just because I don’t like something doesn’t make it unconstitutional. That’s a lesson we need to learn all over the political spectrum.
If you want to believe that commerce should only apply to what it implicated in the 1790s, that’s fine, but then it sounds like you don’t want a constitution so much as you want a time machine.
Proud Rino on April 6, 2010 at 6:31 PM
It wasn’t an individual right according to who?
darwin on April 6, 2010 at 6:37 PM
What exactly did it implicate in the 1790′s?
darwin on April 6, 2010 at 6:40 PM
You haven’t done anything a trained monkey couldn’t do. Not once have you looked at the constitution, you merely recited something that someone else wrote.
darwin on April 6, 2010 at 6:52 PM
The length of your answer should tell everyone something.
The fact is the intent of the framers of the Constitution was to create a limited government.
We all know that, but that doesn’t give you the ‘Out’ to create a Statist utopia.
So, you pretend to follow the Constitution when it suits your agenda and ignore it when it doesn’t.
But you can’t come out and say that outright, lest you telegraph what you really want to do.
We all realize that you’ll never give a straight answer to that – my point is that you cannot and you haven’t.
The best crr6 could do is distract into some BS irrelevancies on the right of self defense and then pretend to ask a question that I supposedly couldn’t answer.
Chip on April 6, 2010 at 7:57 PM
So your going to augue that 9 of the first 10 amendments outlined individual rights but the 2nd didn’t? The fact that no one seriously considered challenging the 2nd amendment until Heller doesn’t mean that the right didn’t exist before that ruling. ANd the amendment in the bill of rights most frequently ignored? The 10th beyond doubt. Much of what the federal government does now was never supposed to be. Do you really need to read the minds of the framers to divine what they clearly stated in plain english?
conservativecaveman on April 6, 2010 at 9:01 PM
Well I guess it “existed” beforehand if you want to make some sort of grand natural rights argument. But for all intents and purposes, prior to Heller there was no judicially-enforceable individual right to bear arms at the federal level. Obviously here is now, so I don’t understand why you’re so upset.
crr6 on April 6, 2010 at 9:51 PM
Earlier she said:
She contradicted herself later on, but that doesn’t seem to matter to her.
Anyways, the right to bear arms is the right of self-defense – but it would seem like she doesn’t believe in the BOR anyways so it doesn’t really matter.
It’s hard to fathom that someone would actually think this way, but there is that possibility, I find it more likely that she desperately wants attention or page hits or maybe both and that’s why she makes these outrageous comments.
Chip on April 6, 2010 at 9:58 PM
Chip is having a really bad day.
crr6 on April 6, 2010 at 10:13 PM
daesleeper on April 6, 2010 at 10:44 PM
One of the changes that HotAir management might consider re all those people who post back and forth to each other, calling names, showing brilliance or ignorance–depending upon one’s POV–is to place such posters in a little separate box with their own special color so the rest of us don’t have to wade through their take-over and waste our time. Uber-annoying people should find a way to exchange email addresses and insult each other in the privacy of their own tiny rooms. I know, I know…that’s the price of freedom. But sheesh!
Mae on April 6, 2010 at 11:24 PM
Well it is not in THAT plain of English. Where in the Constitution does it say that you can loose all of your civil rights when you become a Felon?
Squid Shark on April 6, 2010 at 11:40 PM
look up the phrase “without due process of law”
conservativecaveman on April 7, 2010 at 12:29 AM
Upset? No, more amazed that you seem to believe that the courts must affirm our rights before they exist. History is full of examples of the court over stepping it’s roll. Roe V. Wade is the “law of the land” despite never being voted on by any representative. Decided when the court discovered a “right to privicy” in the constitution.
And a “grand natural rights arguement” IS what this is all about!
conservativecaveman on April 7, 2010 at 12:40 AM
Well ok, that’s an entirely different debate. I was talking about the 2nd amendment in the context of whether or not the law passed in 1990 violated it. As a practical matter, it didn’t (I don’t think it would now either, but whatever). As I pointed out, it didn’t violate the 2nd amendment, because the 2nd amendment wasn’t interpreted as an individual right til about 18 yrs later.
Just as state laws outlawing abortion in the 1940′s didn’t violate any “right to privacy”, because Griswold and Roe hadn’t been decided yet, aggressive gun control acts in the 1990′s didn’t violate the 2nd amendment because Heller hadn’t been decided yet.
Now of course we could go on and on over whether the “right to privacy” or the “right to bear arms” are fundamental natural rights that are inherent in our conception of ordered liberty or something, but that’s really not what Chip and I were discussing.
crr6 on April 7, 2010 at 12:55 AM
It’s also worth pointing out that every single Supreme Court decision ever became the law of the land without ever being voted on by any representative. That’s how the system works.
crr6 on April 7, 2010 at 12:57 AM
conservativecaveman, you nailed crr6 exactly. If the courts don’t affirm a right laws can’t violate said right. Nice circular reasoning.
And crr6, please don’t claim that isn’t what you said.
” As I pointed out, it didn’t violate the 2nd amendment, because the 2nd amendment wasn’t interpreted as an individual right til about 18 yrs later.”
The fact you try to argue that the words “the people” means just that for the other amendments and not the 2nd tells me how dishonest and control hungry you are. Typical of the far left you want to tell others what rights they should have. Scratch a liberal find a fascist.
Hard Right on April 7, 2010 at 1:34 AM
I don’t remember seeing anything in either the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution about our “inalienable rights” being derived from the SCOTUS.
Cylor on April 7, 2010 at 3:02 AM
You are an imbecile, Heller affirmed the 2nd as an individual right, it didnt grant that right, the right already existed the SCOTUS simple conceded that that right already existed.
doriangrey on April 7, 2010 at 7:26 AM
Indeed, does that mean you loose your suffrage for the rest of your life afterwards? I know alot of people here support that because they use it as a club against Crist in Florida.
Squid Shark on April 7, 2010 at 8:21 AM
That is pretty much what CC said in a later post.
Squid Shark on April 7, 2010 at 8:21 AM
crr,
I think you fell asleep in the part of class where SCOTUS does not make laws. Roe did not become “the law of the land” it determined that several state laws violated a right inherent in the constitution and consistent with Griswold.
Squid Shark on April 7, 2010 at 8:25 AM
I concur. We are funny creatures. 95% of people will hear a rattle in their car and deep down, will know something is wrong. But they won’t fix it until the darned car stops on the hwy and strands you.
BierManVA on April 7, 2010 at 9:06 AM
It means that it can cause you to lose said rights. It doesn’t necessarily mean that you must. Issues such as these are, for the most part, left up to the states. But then state rights have been trampled since we changed to a direct election of the senate. IMHO this shows how much wiser the framers were than those that followed. The senate was supposed to be a check on the house and the senators were never intended to be selected by popular vote. Much of the blame for the expansion of the federal government can be atributed to the this change.
conservativecaveman on April 7, 2010 at 9:11 AM
My Representative, Mr. Kratovil (MD-D 1st Dist) apparently believes that his oath also does not require him to weigh the constitutionality of his vote and he is a Blue Dog. When I engaged his Bel Air, MD office manager about the unconstitutionality of hate speech/crimes legislation last year, he said that the courts determine the constitutionality of a bill. I did not get such a direct answer from Rep. Kratovil in an earlier one-on-one meeting, but I don’t doubt his staff’s member’s statement reflects his belief. Mr. Kratovil is a lawyer and former prosecutor.
Our 9-12 group leadership met with Rep. Castle (R- DE), Delaware’s former Governor, last summer and he flatly said that we could not defeat ObamaCare on constitutionality grounds because of congress’ attitude on their responsibility towards our Constitution. I have made several speeches at TEA parties and patriotic organization’s meetings explaining to citizens that whatever congress passes IS constitutional until someone with standing challenges the law in the court system; and that can take years as with our Sedition Acts of the past and the challenges to portions of the Patriot Act that inhibit free speech. Meanwhile people’s lives are ruined and freedoms are repressed; one example was President Wilson imprisoning the Socialist Party’s presidential candidate for criticizing Wilson’s policies.
amr on April 7, 2010 at 9:22 AM
Fixed.
Individual rights trump state rights. No state within the Union has the power to deny those individuals within the State rights provided by the US Constitution.
Also, the State of Mississippi is explicitly prevented from disavowing ratification by Article III, Section 7 of its’ State Constitution. If you live there, you should convince the State to change Section 7.
The Confederacy, having:
1. created a foreign nation hostile to the US,
2. established its’ own Constitution,
3. appointed its’ own President,
willfully discarded all rights pertaining to the US Constitution.
The firing upon Fort Sumter gave Lincoln the Constitutional justification required to defend the nation. He rightfully exercised Article II, Section 2, Clause 1.
rukiddingme on April 7, 2010 at 10:31 AM
One can always tell when crr6 doesn’t have a good response to a posting – she comes back with an enraging statement meant to distract.
Clearly the Clinton administration attempted to usurp the Bill of rights by arguing that it was trumped by the ICC.
And if they can do that with National Socialist Healthcare what’s to stop them from doing that with everything else?
Chip on April 7, 2010 at 10:46 AM
Can you find one source that says that Clinton, or anyone in his administration, or anyone arguing Lopez before SCOTUS, or….anyone at all made that argument? Or can you find any language in the Lopez opinion that addresses that argument? No, you can’t.
Because no one made that argument you moron. The ICC doesn’t “trump” the Bill of Rights. The ICC is limited by the BOR. I’ve picked apart your argument in detail, and you’re still bleating. Provide some sort of evidence buzz off.
As always, I look forward to your non-reply.
crr6 on April 7, 2010 at 10:51 AM
Hmmmm.. the court addressed an issue not argued before it, who knew?
Clearly, the National Socialist Left has tried to use the ICC to circumvent the BOR, and they will continue to do so in the future.
Chip on April 7, 2010 at 11:30 AM
lol. Alright then buddy.
And what issue was that?
crr6 on April 7, 2010 at 11:41 AM
Why do some “People” keep on asking the same question and then complain when they get The same answer?
Chip on April 7, 2010 at 12:01 PM
You’re confused buddy. That’s alright though.
I really can’t stick around and give you a lesson today…I should be focusing on my Property final. How’s next week for you though? Let me know.
Oh, and I take payments by cash or check.
crr6 on April 7, 2010 at 12:07 PM
WRONG! I’ve got news for ya; the constitution was stabbed in the back by Lincoln, and the Republican Party between 1860 & 1865. FDR may be the father of “big government”, but it is Lincoln who is the “grandfather”. Most people think that it is the dumb-a-crats that started violating the constitution, but this is NOT true. The Wigs, such as Hamilton really started that (note: the Wig Party was as bad as the Dems are today, and the Wigs became Republicans in the 1850s when they imploded), and please remember that Lincoln was a Wig for far longer than he was a Republican!
Confederate on April 7, 2010 at 12:14 PM
Crr6 is forgetting who’s teach whom.
Oh, and I only take cash – I need to buy ammo don’t ya know.
Chip on April 7, 2010 at 12:49 PM
Crr6 is forgetting who’s teaching whom.
Oh, and I only take cash – I need to buy ammo don’t ya know.
Chip on April 7, 2010 at 12:54 PM
One of the casualties of the ‘War of Federal aggression’ (that’s the way I like to term that – it frames things the closet to reality) has to have been parts of the Constitution.
I recall when they wanted be in you face about it a little while back they were going to erect a statue of Lincoln commemorating his visit to Richmond.
It would have been more appropriate if they had a statue of him tearing up the 10th amendment.
Chip on April 7, 2010 at 1:05 PM
You have a ‘chip’ on your shoulder and are as close to reality as Star Wars.
Here’s reality: the pro-slavery forces fired first on Fort Sumter, signaling that they were willing to risk the possibility of the legitimate, elected government in DC kicking their butts in open warfare. Which they did.
Dark-Star on April 7, 2010 at 1:37 PM
It was partially about slavery, I’ll give you that, but it was also about an overreaching federal government.
And it wasn’t so much of a ‘kicking their butts’ in open warfare as much as overwhelming numbers on the side of the Federals.
Chip on April 7, 2010 at 1:43 PM
‘Overreaching’ in the southern mind meant telling them that they couldn’t hold fellow human beings in lifelong bondage. The southern economy was so tightly tied to the twin demons of Slavery and Mono-Crop Agriculture (cotton) that any real threat to the former was unthinkable.
Dark-Star on April 7, 2010 at 1:47 PM
No amount of revisionist history will change the following facts:
The Confederacy stabbed the US Constitution in the back when they willingly discarded it and created the Constitution of the Confederate States of America.
The Confederacy started the war.
Lincoln defended the US Constitution and ensured its’ future existence.
The Lincoln Memorial is not a tribute to Jefferson Davis.
Now you?
The Confederacy shredded the US Constitution.
The Confederacy was the aggressor.
The Union took up arms in self-defense.
I like to term the Confederacy the ‘War of Denying Individual Rights behind the façade of States’ Rights’ – it frames things closest to reality.
One of the blessings that came from the war was the concept that individual rights applied to all individuals, not just a protected set of individuals.
You know all about individual rights. You have spent two days arguing with crr6 about them.
OMG, save this Dark-Star, we have actually found agreement on an issue.
My respect for you has grown :-).
It was about keeping a certain set of individuals defined as property. All other arguments are a distant second.
rukiddingme on April 7, 2010 at 1:51 PM
Naw. I don’t think Chip is quite sure what he’s arguing about.
crr6 on April 7, 2010 at 1:56 PM
With respect to this thread, he is flailing like a fish out of water.
If Chip has any common sense, he will quickly realize that the Union has the Confederacy outnumbered and make a hasty retreat.
rukiddingme on April 7, 2010 at 2:04 PM
Ummm sure.
I already acknowledged that, okay?
Chip on April 7, 2010 at 2:05 PM
I was wondering when the dilorenzo “historians” would come back.
Squid Shark on April 7, 2010 at 2:06 PM
Which would be why you dont pick a fight with a much larger bully with one hand tied behind your back (not letting the slaves fight till the end).
Squid Shark on April 7, 2010 at 2:07 PM
The CSA seized Federal property with armes, if that is not a full insurrection under the Constituion, I dont know what is.
Squid Shark on April 7, 2010 at 2:08 PM
When a somone abuses alcohol, he needs to have it restricted.
The 10th amendment is a great idea in theory, the CSA abused it heartily with n7llification and then $ece$$ion. The Feds restricted it for a long time therafter. We are slowly getting them back, and everyone seems to be rip roaring to break them again.
Squid Shark on April 7, 2010 at 2:14 PM
I wasn’t defending the underpinnings of the Confederacy, I was just pointing out the adverse effects of the ‘War’ on the Constitution.
And I would agree with you – as some southerners have suggested, they should have freed the slaves first before going to war.
Chip on April 7, 2010 at 2:15 PM
Oh and Confederate:
Hamilton was dead 30 years before the Whigs were even thought up.
Fail.
Squid Shark on April 7, 2010 at 2:16 PM
The only people who would have been OK with that would have been the North Carolinians and maybe a few Virginians (like Lee) and the fellas in Nawlins.
No, it was almost a nonstarter when it happened at the end of the war, even with Richmond about to fall and Sherman running all over the damn countryside.
Squid Shark on April 7, 2010 at 2:23 PM
That is true – but they should have thought ahead and looked at the numbers before going off half-cocked as it were.
They bought into the myth of ‘King cotton’.
The problem is that, as happens when people don’t rationally think things through, they actually made things worse for themselves.
Chip on April 7, 2010 at 2:28 PM
How does arguing that there were adverse effects to the Constitution arguing against individual rights?
Chip on April 7, 2010 at 3:21 PM
You called it the ‘War of Federal Aggression’, later say it was partially due to slavery, and then claim Lincoln shredded the US Constitution.
Before saying these things, you spend two days arguing that individuals were having their rights suppressed with crr6.
When you found agreement with the poster called confederate, you never once mentioned the most important fact that certain individuals were having their rights suppressed because of slavery
It is quite clear you were attempting to minimize the blame that rests solely with the Confederacy, in a fruitless attempt to place it at the feet of Lincoln.
rukiddingme on April 7, 2010 at 4:06 PM
Before saying these things, you spend two days arguing that individuals were having their rights suppressed with crr6.
When you found agreement with the poster called confederate, you never once mentioned the most important fact that certain individuals were having their rights suppressed because of slavery
It is quite clear you are to reading more into, and misinterpreting what I commented, in a fruitless attempt to make you case out of thin air.
Again, How does arguing that there were adverse effects to the Constitution arguing against individual rights?
Chip on April 7, 2010 at 9:41 PM
I believe that’s what I said…or did I misinterpret your statement?
Amendment X on April 8, 2010 at 12:20 AM
Uh, crr6, no they, uh, don’t.
Madison was very reluctant to have the Bill of Rights as he saw:1. That the Constitution, as written, gave only those powers scribed to this new thing called a federal government and was therefore the only guarantee required. He saw the government constrained by the document that gave it its existence. And 2. He was concerned that the Bill of Rights would be misinterpreted as meaning that only those rights were to be allowed, that the Bill of Rights would diminish rights, not ensure them.
The Bill of Rights was added to satisfy the Anti-Federalists who were very, very suspicious of the government about to be formed. It was they that wanted a redundancy list of statements that became amendments to explicitly outline what was and what was not allowed by the government (therefore, the all important and always ignored Amendment X, my nom de plume).
Amendment X on April 8, 2010 at 12:30 AM
Ah yes…
How then do you explain that silly Amendment IX then?
Amendment X on April 8, 2010 at 12:34 AM
Yes, that would be:
If There is no “right of self-defense” in the Bill of Rights as enumerated by the 2nd amendment, then it most certainly would be ‘allowed’ under the 9th amendment.
Maybe crr6 hasn’t gotten to that part yet – most likely she’s spending all her time studying the ICC in the wikipedia.
Chip on April 8, 2010 at 10:45 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3