OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 02, 2014, 03:09:10 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Are all people carrying Confederate Flags Racists or Bigots?  (Read 8959 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #45 on: January 23, 2008, 05:54:50 PM »

Lincoln was not a racist. He was a pragmatist and federal unionist. At the beginning of his presidency, he was not going to sever the national union to end slavery, but he wished for its end. In the end, he DID in fact end slavery, however! Although it is nonetheless true that he went to war to preserve the national union and not to end slavery.

In weighing the actions of Sherman et al, one must weigh the cost of several more years of war and the death and destruction that would have caused vs. a swift and terrible end to a terrible conflict. Sherman also wanted to make sure that no one would ever be tempted again to withdraw from the federal union, so there was the aspect of making an example. William Bennet's History of the US states that Sherman's troups were very disciplined and although they cut their swath to the Atlantic, they did not rape and pillage and did not harm women, children and non-combatant males.

Right. Lincoln was against the extenstion of slavery in the territories, which was the most pro-abolitionist position among the major candidates in 1860.

Also right about Sherman. How many more Antietams and Shilohs would we have gone through? It's not as simple as all that.

 
Logged
Veniamin
Fire for Effect!
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the South
Posts: 3,372


St. Barbara, patroness of the Field Artillery


« Reply #46 on: January 23, 2008, 05:56:46 PM »

Yes. Just like the red flag with hammer and sicle is a symbol of the horrible Soviet Coommunist state, let it be cursed forever, the Confederate flag to me is a symbol of racial discrimination and slavery. If people think that it's just their heritage, etc., in both cases - I don't care.

When you get right down to it, there are very few flags out there that aren't somehow linked to some sort of oppression against another.  Heck, I'm sure there are people who are offended by the Swiss flag since they harbored gold for the Nazis.  Are we next going to claim that the Union Jack is a symbol of racism since the British were involved in the slave trade?  Or that the French tricolor is a symbol of rampant bloodshed?  Do you really want to get me started on the flag of the PRC?
Logged

Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl. ~Frederick the Great
ytterbiumanalyst
Professor Emeritus, CSA
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the Midwest
Posts: 8,790



« Reply #47 on: January 23, 2008, 06:01:14 PM »

It is the inherent right of any state, hell of any county, to secede. Government by the consent of the governed does not mean that I am somehow compelled to submit to washington because of the opinion of some bostonian, or submit to sacramento because of the opinion of someone from L.A. for that matter. These are the principles on which this republic are formed, these principles are the very basis of our declaration of independence from the British crown.

This is not only a right of the Southrons, it is also the right of those in the north or midwest or west. Every group of people has the right to disolve their government and form another.
Exactly! "When in the course of human events...." Jefferson was a Suth'ner.
Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #48 on: January 23, 2008, 06:14:58 PM »

Funny, I hear the British think the same thing when they see ours.  If Boston's rebellion against Britain was justified on grounds of self-determination, it's manifestly hypocritical to deny the South the right to do so on the same justification.

Hey, I don't think we were necessarily justified.

However, it's not the same case. North and South entered into a contract. Both were represented in Congress (thanks to the three-fifths compromise, the South generally dominated). It was not a "loose" confederation of states---that didn't work, and the Constitution was born. The Southern states were not shut out of the government until after their rebellion and defeat. Any secession should have gone through Congress---states can't just unilaterally pull out like South Carolina did and seize federal property. Can you imagine Illinois seceding because Bush was (sorta) elected president in 2000? Preposterous.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2008, 06:16:56 PM by lubeltri » Logged
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #49 on: January 23, 2008, 06:19:34 PM »

When you get right down to it, there are very few flags out there that aren't somehow linked to some sort of oppression against another.  Heck, I'm sure there are people who are offended by the Swiss flag since they harbored gold for the Nazis.  Are we next going to claim that the Union Jack is a symbol of racism since the British were involved in the slave trade?  Or that the French tricolor is a symbol of rampant bloodshed?  Do you really want to get me started on the flag of the PRC?

You are right. But still, even among all flags that all represent some evil, some flags represent more evil than other. Plus, the "evilness" of flags depends on how educated people are about the evil that they represent. Imagine a country where no one has actually heard about Nazism, and fly a flag with the swastika there - no one would react in any way. But it does not make those who fly this flag non-bigots (except they may be severely misguided).
Logged

Love never fails.
Veniamin
Fire for Effect!
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the South
Posts: 3,372


St. Barbara, patroness of the Field Artillery


« Reply #50 on: January 23, 2008, 06:21:19 PM »

Hey, I don't think we were necessarily justified.

However, it's not the same case. North and South entered into a contract. Both were represented in Congress (thanks to the three-fifths compromise, the South generally dominated). It was not a "loose" confederation of states---that didn't work, and the Constitution was born. The Southern states were not shut out of the government until after their rebellion and defeat. Any secession should have gone through Congress---states can't just unilaterally pull out like South Carolina did and seize federal property. Can you imagine Illinois seceding because Bush was (sorta) elected president in 2000? Preposterous.

The Constitution is a treaty among sovereign states, not a contract, and the law of treaties always allows for a party to rescind its participation in it.  The federal government is a creation of the states and what the states created, they can destroy.
Logged

Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl. ~Frederick the Great
Veniamin
Fire for Effect!
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the South
Posts: 3,372


St. Barbara, patroness of the Field Artillery


« Reply #51 on: January 23, 2008, 06:22:47 PM »

You are right. But still, even among all flags that all represent some evil, some flags represent more evil than other. Plus, the "evilness" of flags depends on how educated people are about the evil that they represent. Imagine a country where no one has actually heard about Nazism, and fly a flag with the swastika there - no one would react in any way. But it does not make those who fly this flag non-bigots (except they may be severely misguided).

Well, what about a country where only a minority of citizens owned slaves and where the majority of its soldiers enlisted in order to defend their home?
Logged

Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl. ~Frederick the Great
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #52 on: January 23, 2008, 06:29:07 PM »

Hey, I don't think we were necessarily justified.

However, it's not the same case. North and South entered into a contract. Both were represented in Congress (thanks to the three-fifths compromise, the South generally dominated). It was not a "loose" confederation of states---that didn't work, and the Constitution was born. The Southern states were not shut out of the government until after their rebellion and defeat. Any secession should have gone through Congress---states can't just unilaterally pull out like South Carolina did and seize federal property. Can you imagine Illinois seceding because Bush was (sorta) elected president in 2000? Preposterous.

In the case of the revolution, our ancestors were subjects of the British throne, if a subject has a right to rebel against his lord and king how much more should this right be attributed to free citizens? If we are to believe in the founding principles of this republic, in the ideal of government by consent of the governed; then we cannot be consistent and deny any group of people the right to abolish their government and form their own when they determine this to be necessary.

If Illinois were to secede for any reason, including the election of a disliked president, I would strongly support their right to do so. I'd probably wish them a good riddance but would certainly support their right, quite possibly by supporting them with force of arms, to secede if the citizens of their state determined this to be consonant with their liberty, security, or happiness. A people are not required to gain the consent of a despot to exercise their inalienable right to self-determination.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #53 on: January 23, 2008, 06:34:56 PM »

When you get right down to it, there are very few flags out there that aren't somehow linked to some sort of oppression against another.  Heck, I'm sure there are people who are offended by the Swiss flag since they harbored gold for the Nazis.  Are we next going to claim that the Union Jack is a symbol of racism since the British were involved in the slave trade?  Or that the French tricolor is a symbol of rampant bloodshed?  Do you really want to get me started on the flag of the PRC?

I think they are quite different. The Confederate battle flag was designed and adopted for the rebellion, the purposes of which included protecting the institution of racial slavery in the South. Britain did not adopt the Union Jack to commemorate their entrance into the slave trade.

I find it very interesting and telling that so many of these Southern states put the Confederate flag on their state houses and incorporated them into their state flags only in the 1950s and 1960s, during the civil rights movement. I'm sure Orval Faubus and George Wallace saw themselves as a defiant freedom fighters just like the Confederates of a century before, and I'm sure they saw the flag as symbolic of that.
Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #54 on: January 23, 2008, 06:36:04 PM »

The Constitution is a treaty among sovereign states, not a contract, and the law of treaties always allows for a party to rescind its participation in it.  The federal government is a creation of the states and what the states created, they can destroy.

THEY can destroy, not a handful of states that want out when someone they don't like is elected president.
Logged
Veniamin
Fire for Effect!
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the South
Posts: 3,372


St. Barbara, patroness of the Field Artillery


« Reply #55 on: January 23, 2008, 06:39:15 PM »

THEY can destroy, not a handful of states that want out when someone they don't like is elected president.

Red herring and you know it.  None of the states that seceded attempted to abolish the federal government; they merely attempted to end their participation in it.
Logged

Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl. ~Frederick the Great
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #56 on: January 23, 2008, 06:43:41 PM »

A people are not required to gain the consent of a despot to exercise their inalienable right to self-determination.

And who is to determine that it is a despot? The states came on board. There is nothing in the Constitution that allows a handful of them to pull out by themselves whenever they want to. If anything, it would take an amendment to the Constitution to establish the proper process to do so, and it would most certainly be done through Congress, where the Southern states were well represented. It is significant that the Founders did not envision such a process of secession. A pro-slavery Democrat might very well have won in 1860 if the party were not split. So the South's "rights" were certainly not trod upon.

Logged
Veniamin
Fire for Effect!
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the South
Posts: 3,372


St. Barbara, patroness of the Field Artillery


« Reply #57 on: January 23, 2008, 06:47:43 PM »

And who is to determine that it is a despot? The states came on board. There is nothing in the Constitution that allows a handful of them to pull out by themselves whenever they want to. If anything, it would take an amendment to the Constitution to establish the proper process to do so, and it would most certainly be done through Congress, where the Southern states were well represented. It is significant that the Founders did not envision such a process of secession. A pro-slavery Democrat might very well have won in 1860 if the party were not split. So the South's "rights" were certainly not trod upon.

You don't know much about the Constitution, do you?  Any power, including a power to secede, not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution is reserved to the states.  The Constitution is a listing of the powers the states have given the federal government, not the other way around.
Logged

Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl. ~Frederick the Great
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #58 on: January 23, 2008, 06:52:19 PM »

You don't know much about the Constitution, do you?  Any power, including a power to secede, not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution is reserved to the states.  The Constitution is a listing of the powers the states have given the federal government, not the other way around.

Exactly.

'The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.'
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Simayan
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate - GOA
Posts: 816



« Reply #59 on: January 23, 2008, 07:01:42 PM »

We could spend dozens of pages arguing what the Constitution states regarding states' rights, but in the end, neither side can provide any substantial proof to the other; contradictions abound. So the real question is, was the Federal government acting in a just manner to take back that lost land from a foreign nation?

Logged

"He will wipe every tear from their eyes, and there will be no more death, nor mourning nor crying nor suffering, for the old order of things has passed away."
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #60 on: January 23, 2008, 07:04:50 PM »

You don't know much about the Constitution, do you?  Any power, including a power to secede, not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution is reserved to the states.  The Constitution is a listing of the powers the states have given the federal government, not the other way around.

Don't get condescending. I know that amendment. And the power to secede---in other words, dissolve the Union itself---is not the kind of power that amendment is referring to. There is nothing in the Constitution discussing unilateral succession, so I would not create a "right" where none exists. It is clear from the historical context that the Constitutional Convention envisioned a perpetual Union, one that could only be dissolved by convention (in the same way it was created) and not by the unilateral decision of individual states.

The Supreme Court in Texas v. White (1869) clearly ruled that the Union is indissolvable except by consent of the states. That ruling still stands.
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #61 on: January 23, 2008, 07:11:16 PM »

Don't get condescending. I know that amendment. And the power to secede---in other words, dissolve the Union itself---is not the kind of power that amendment is referring to. There is nothing in the Constitution discussing unilateral succession, so I would not create a "right" where none exists. It is clear from the historical context that the Constitutional Convention envisioned a perpetual Union, one that could only be dissolved by convention (in the same way it was created) and not by the unilateral decision of individual states.

Only dissolved by convention? I don't know where you found that, but it's not in the Constitution or even the federalist papers. The tenth amendment is clear that the states hold all 'powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution', as control over disolving the union is not a power delegated to the United States by the Constitution we can only logically assume that it is a power held by the states.

Quote
The Supreme Court in Texas v. White (1869) clearly ruled that the Union is indissolvable except by consent of the states. That ruling still stands.

Yankee judges immediately following the war made such a ruling; I don't think their opinion carries much weight in this matter. Of course, the right to self-determination is manifested in the Declaration of Independence as an inalienable right, any law which attempts to violate this law is made moot by the very founding principles of this Republic.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #62 on: January 23, 2008, 07:11:44 PM »

Exactly.

'The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.'

Okay---let us first abolish most of our federal departments.

Like I said, secession---in other words, the dissolution of the United States itself---is not the power envisioned by this amendment.

Like I said before, it would be like Illinois deciding to leave the Union after Bush was elected president and seizing federal property along the way. And how about the citizens of Illinois who want to remain Americans?

The Supreme Court decision still stands. However you disagree with it, it's the law of the land until it is overturned unless you don't care about the rule of law.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2008, 07:21:17 PM by lubeltri » Logged
Veniamin
Fire for Effect!
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the South
Posts: 3,372


St. Barbara, patroness of the Field Artillery


« Reply #63 on: January 23, 2008, 07:11:56 PM »

Don't get condescending. I know that amendment. And the power to secede---in other words, dissolve the Union itself---is not the kind of power that amendment is referring to. There is nothing in the Constitution discussing unilateral succession, so I would not create a "right" where none exists. It is clear from the historical context that the Constitutional Convention envisioned a perpetual Union, one that could only be dissolved by convention (in the same way it was created) and not by the unilateral decision of individual states.

I don't do condescending; I go straight for insults.

You have yet to address the point about the Constitution explicitly reserving to the states all rights not expressly delegated to the federal government.  You also have yet to address the law of treaties, which does not provide for a state never being able to withdraw from a treaty.  Finally, you raise historical context, yet somehow seem to (deliberately) forget the fact that the Founding Fathers had just participated in a war to throw off an oppressive government.  That context would seem to indicate their feelings about oppressive governments quite well.

Quote
The Supreme Court in Texas v. White (1869) clearly ruled that the Union is indissolvable except by consent of the states. That ruling still stands.

So does Roe v. Wade.  Are you really trying to argue that a Supreme Court opinion is legally and morally correct on its merits until overturned?
Logged

Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl. ~Frederick the Great
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #64 on: January 23, 2008, 07:13:50 PM »

We could spend dozens of pages arguing what the Constitution states regarding states' rights, but in the end, neither side can provide any substantial proof to the other; contradictions abound. So the real question is, was the Federal government acting in a just manner to take back that lost land from a foreign nation?

The very wording of your question reveals a bias towards an understanding of this federation that was only imposed following the War for Southern Independence. The real question is, was the alliance that made up the northern states acting in a just manner to expand their empire and conquer the sovereign states, subduing them to their several governments?
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #65 on: January 23, 2008, 07:17:32 PM »

I don't do condescending; I go straight for insults.

You have yet to address the point about the Constitution explicitly reserving to the states all rights not expressly delegated to the federal government.  You also have yet to address the law of treaties, which does not provide for a state never being able to withdraw from a treaty.  Finally, you raise historical context, yet somehow seem to (deliberately) forget the fact that the Founding Fathers had just participated in a war to throw off an oppressive government.  That context would seem to indicate their feelings about oppressive governments quite well.

So does Roe v. Wade.  Are you really trying to argue that a Supreme Court opinion is legally and morally correct on its merits until overturned?

And who are you to solemnly decree that the United States was an "oppressive" government? The Southern states were well represented in the federal government---they had dominated all three branches over the first 70 years of the Republic. So are you saying the Southern states were oppressing themselves? The idea that the Southern states were "oppressed" is balderdash. They were upset that the candidate they didn't like was duly and democratically elected president. Well, tough cookies.

As for Roe v. Wade, it is the law of the land until overturned or rendered moot by a constitutional amendment---I disagree with it, but to defy it would lead us to anarchy.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2008, 07:19:45 PM by lubeltri » Logged
Veniamin
Fire for Effect!
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the South
Posts: 3,372


St. Barbara, patroness of the Field Artillery


« Reply #66 on: January 23, 2008, 07:23:27 PM »

And who are you to solemnly decree that the United States was an "oppressive" government? The Southern states were well represented in the federal government---they had dominated all three branches over the first 70 years of the Republic. So are you saying the Southern states were oppressing themselves? The idea that the Southern states were "oppressed" is balderdash. They were upset that the candidate they didn't like was duly and democratically elected president. Well, tough cookies.

As for Roe v. Wade, it is the law of the land until overturned or rendered moot by a constitutional amendment---I disagree with it, but to defy it would lead us to anarchy.

You still have yet to respond to the points made.  Not that I expect that you will.
Logged

Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl. ~Frederick the Great
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #67 on: January 23, 2008, 07:26:19 PM »

Okay---let us first abolish most of our federal departments.

No objection from me. Heck, I even oppose the existence of a peace-time army.

Quote
Like I said, secession---in other words, the dissolution of the United States itself---is not the power envisioned by this amendment.

What in the text of the amendment would lead you to believe this case is a special exemption?

Quote
Like I said before, it would be like Illinois deciding to leave the Union after Bush was elected president and seizing federal property along the way. And how about the citizens of Illinois who want to remain Americans?

If a few individual counties wanted to secede from the state and form their own government in alliance with the other several states I would support their right to do so. But the state still has a right to secede and the local governments much choose between being a member of the state and a member of the federation of states.

Quote
The Supreme Court decision still stands. However you disagree with it, it's the law of the land until unless you don't care about the rule of law.

When it is opposed to the fundamental rights of man, such as self-determination, I have no regard for the rule of law. Should the Jews have had regard for German law when they were being railroaded off to concentration camps?
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #68 on: January 23, 2008, 07:36:41 PM »

When it is opposed to the fundamental rights of man, such as self-determination, I have no regard for the rule of law. Should the Jews have had regard for German law when they were being railroaded off to concentration camps?

That law was enacted without their representation and consent. That was not law but tyranny. Very different here.

Texas v. White is settled law. The Court ruled that states can secede by mutual consent. How that mutual consent is arranged is not determined, because there is nothing in the Constitution providing for the dissolution of the United States. I would expect that we'd need a constitutional amendment to determine this process.

Clearly the Court ruled that the the Constitution was not a treaty but a contract.

« Last Edit: January 23, 2008, 07:40:19 PM by lubeltri » Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #69 on: January 23, 2008, 07:41:16 PM »

When it is opposed to the fundamental rights of man, such as self-determination, I have no regard for the rule of law.

The Jacobites said the same thing.
Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #70 on: January 23, 2008, 07:45:48 PM »

You still have yet to respond to the points made.  Not that I expect that you will.

The requirements of the Tenth Amendment are properly met by a constitutional amendment. A constitutional amendment is not an act of the federal government alone. It is the most fully representative tool we have, involving both Congress and the state legislatures or popular referenda.

Of course, you would rather have an individual state decide something unilaterally when the Constitution is silent on it. That's anarchy pure and simple and not in spirit with the Constitution.
Logged
Veniamin
Fire for Effect!
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the South
Posts: 3,372


St. Barbara, patroness of the Field Artillery


« Reply #71 on: January 23, 2008, 07:51:13 PM »

The requirements of the Tenth Amendment are properly met by a constitutional amendment. A constitutional amendment is not an act of the federal government alone. It is the most fully representative tool we have, involving both Congress and the state legislatures or popular referenda.

So the proper way to exercise a right reserved to the states by the Constitution is to amend the Constitution to give the states permission to do it.  That's completely inconsistent with the text of the amendment itself.

Quote
Of course, you would rather have an individual state decide something unilaterally when the Constitution is silent on it. That's anarchy pure and simple and not in spirit with the Constitution.

No, that's the way our entire government is designed to work, as evidenced by the Constitution itself.  Try reading it.
Logged

Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl. ~Frederick the Great
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #72 on: January 23, 2008, 08:07:35 PM »

No, that's the way our entire government is designed to work, as evidenced by the Constitution itself.  Try reading it.

 Roll Eyes

You seem to prefer childish insults to arguments.

Why don't you read it? The powers are left to the States, not a State. The matter of the dissolution of the Union is not a matter for one State.

The Supreme Court has ruled. It is settled law. Accept it.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2008, 08:08:59 PM by lubeltri » Logged
AMM
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 2,076


« Reply #73 on: January 23, 2008, 08:09:44 PM »

Is it wrong to be a cracker?
Logged
GabrieltheCelt
Hillbilly Extraordinaire
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,983


Chasin' down a Hoodoo...


« Reply #74 on: January 23, 2008, 08:12:04 PM »

Is it wrong to be a cracker?
Huh Huh Huh Why is it OK for you to use this word in this context? 
« Last Edit: January 23, 2008, 08:12:44 PM by GabrieltheCelt » Logged

"The Scots-Irish; Brewed in Scotland, bottled in Ireland, uncorked in America."  ~Scots-Irish saying
Veniamin
Fire for Effect!
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the South
Posts: 3,372


St. Barbara, patroness of the Field Artillery


« Reply #75 on: January 23, 2008, 08:15:46 PM »

You seem to prefer childish insults to arguments.

As do you, which is why you're getting them out of me.

Quote
Why don't you read it? The powers are left to the States, not a State. The matter of the dissolution of the Union is not a matter for one State.

To the states severally, not the states as a collective.  Your idea that all states must act in unison to exercise a right reserved to each of them is preposterous.

Quote
The Supreme Court has ruled. It is settled law. Accept it.

If the fact that SCOTUS has ruled is the final word, then either stop complaining about Roe v. Wade or admit your own hypocrisy.
Logged

Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl. ~Frederick the Great
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #76 on: January 23, 2008, 08:24:50 PM »

Why don't you read it? The powers are left to the States, not a State. The matter of the dissolution of the Union is not a matter for one State.

That's not what the amendment says or what it intended. There is a name for the states collectively, it's referenced in the amendment, it's the 'United States'. The powers not given to the states collectively (the United States) are reserved by the states, that would be the individual states. The amendment does NOT say 'The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the United States'. Your argument also runs contrary to the very intention of the Bill of Rights, they were designed to protect the rights and interests of the individual states from the federal government, from the states acting collectively.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #77 on: January 23, 2008, 08:43:43 PM »

Clearly the Court ruled that the the Constitution was not a treaty but a contract.

The court has made several bad and unconstitutional decisions in the past, do we need to discuss rulings on the internment of American Citizens of Japanese descent? But, ultimately, this entire argument is moot since in the event that a state withdraws itself from the treaty with the other states and in doing so secedes from the union it is no longer subject to federal law and the Supreme Court would lack jurisdiction.

In the end, however, it's not a legal matter though we may be blessed to have a nation with a Constitution founded on the ideals that uphold the right of self-determination. The secession of the American colonies from the English throne may not have been legal at the time under British law, but to do so was an 'unalienable Right'.

And if you want to discuss this from the perspective of social contract it should be noted that Locke himself, who developed the entire theory of social contract, upheld the right of not merely secession but of actual revolution when the government acted against the interests of the citizens.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
AMM
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 2,076


« Reply #78 on: January 23, 2008, 09:01:35 PM »

The North supported the Filioque and Jubal Early was a Nestorian.

Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #79 on: January 23, 2008, 09:03:59 PM »

If the fact that SCOTUS has ruled is the final word, then either stop complaining about Roe v. Wade or admit your own hypocrisy.

You don't hear me denying that Roe is currently the law of the land. Texas v. White is settled law. That's it. You can disagree with it, but you can't deny it.

And don't talk to me about hypocrisy. It is breathtaking that you can defend the Southern states' rebellion as a fight for "liberty" while those same states rebelled for the sake of safeguarding their "right" to enslave millions of human beings. The same goes for GiC, who seems to enjoy tossing out hifalutin rhetoric about the Confederates' cause of "freedom" and "self-determination." What about African-Americans' freedom and self-determination?
Logged
AMM
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 2,076


« Reply #80 on: January 23, 2008, 09:06:05 PM »

Swamp yankee.
Logged
Veniamin
Fire for Effect!
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the South
Posts: 3,372


St. Barbara, patroness of the Field Artillery


« Reply #81 on: January 23, 2008, 09:07:10 PM »

You don't hear me denying that Roe is currently the law of the land. Texas v. White is settled law. That's it. You can disagree with it, but you can't deny it.

And don't talk to me about hypocrisy. It is breathtaking that you can defend the Southern states' rebellion as a fight for "liberty" while those same states rebelled for the sake of safeguarding their "right" to enslave millions of human beings. The same goes for GiC, who seems to enjoy tossing out hifalutin rhetoric about the Confederates' cause of "freedom" and "self-determination." What about African-Americans' freedom and self-determination?

They would have had the same right of rebellion that the South exercised.  It is also breathtaking that you can enjoy the fruits of that liberty while simultaneously castigating the heritage of the people who secure it for you.
Logged

Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl. ~Frederick the Great
AMM
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 2,076


« Reply #82 on: January 23, 2008, 09:11:38 PM »

Northerners fought for the right to be offended by the Swiss flag.
Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #83 on: January 23, 2008, 09:11:50 PM »

And if you want to discuss this from the perspective of social contract it should be noted that Locke himself, who developed the entire theory of social contract, upheld the right of not merely secession but of actual revolution when the government acted against the interests of the citizens.

I put this to you: So do you agree with Roger Taney that black Americans were not citizens and thus could be treated as property? If not, what about government acting against the interests of black Americans? One could argue that it was the federal government that was really acting in the best interests of all citizens.

So the government "acted against the interests of the citizens" by electing Abraham Lincoln? That doesn't make any sense. In truth, the South elected Abraham Lincoln by splitting the Democratic party. The people spoke, but South Carolina and the rest didn't like the result. The South tried its sour-grapes secession blackmail several times before. It was only in 1860 that the Union finally called its bluff.
Logged
Veniamin
Fire for Effect!
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the South
Posts: 3,372


St. Barbara, patroness of the Field Artillery


« Reply #84 on: January 23, 2008, 09:13:30 PM »

Northerners fought for the right to be offended by the Swiss flag.

Northerners fight for the right to be offended by everything.
Logged

Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl. ~Frederick the Great
AMM
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 2,076


« Reply #85 on: January 23, 2008, 09:20:11 PM »

Northerners fight for the right to be offended by everything.

Indeed, they suck.

I might be reading the thread too fast, but so far I got Northerners fought for the right to be offended by the Swiss flag and Southerners fought because they wanted to have abortions in their homes and everybody is all pissed about that.
Logged
Veniamin
Fire for Effect!
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the South
Posts: 3,372


St. Barbara, patroness of the Field Artillery


« Reply #86 on: January 23, 2008, 09:23:17 PM »

Indeed, they suck.

I might be reading the thread too fast, but so far I got Northerners fought for the right to be offended by the Swiss flag and Southerners fought because they wanted to have abortions in their homes and everybody is all pissed about that.

That and a precious Southern commodity (tea) being tossed into Boston Harbor to keep us from making sweet tea with it.
Logged

Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl. ~Frederick the Great
AMM
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 2,076


« Reply #87 on: January 23, 2008, 09:26:36 PM »

Bastards.

I hope the Patriots lose and the Celtics lose and the Red Sox lose.  I'm only rooting for Atlanta teams from here on out.
Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #88 on: January 23, 2008, 09:29:05 PM »

 It is also breathtaking that you can enjoy the fruits of that liberty while simultaneously castigating the heritage of the people who secure it for you.

Well, my friend, it's hard not to castigate it, because I can't help imagining if I were black. Where would that liberty be then?
Logged
Veniamin
Fire for Effect!
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the South
Posts: 3,372


St. Barbara, patroness of the Field Artillery


« Reply #89 on: January 23, 2008, 09:29:27 PM »

Bastards.

I hope the Patriots lose and the Celtics lose and the Red Sox lose.  I'm only rooting for Atlanta teams from here on out.

Because Atlanta's so close to Pennsylvania. Tongue
Logged

Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl. ~Frederick the Great
Tags: confederate flag Southern Heritage northern aggression yankee contempt Southern Hospitality biscuits and gravy crackers white folk 
Pages: « 1 2 3 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.136 seconds with 72 queries.