is the pledge unconstitutional?

@wayne,

wayne wrote:

If that was the case, why did the south feel it necessary to open hostilities against the Union?

Thay did it because there was an ALIEN military presence in the middle of their country.
That violated their sovereignty.
What woud the North have done in the same circumstance ??

wayne wrote:

We'll never know what the union might have done had the South not committed an act of aggression.

I suppose the South coud have starved them out of Ft. Sumter,
but thay overestimated their long-term strength.

wayne wrote:

That action made them rebels, plain and simple.
They went from political strife to armed rebellion in one stupid move.

That is true ONLY if u accept the Union's Roach Motel theory of federalism.

Do we have the right to leave NATO or the UN?
or the Organization of American States?? or the Book of the Month Club ?

In case u missed my post on this point hereinabove,
I will re-iterate it, for your convenience:

"The Founders woud never have intentionally locked their own States
into an inextricable situation. If thay 'd tried to do so,
the States woud have rejected their efforts.

For instance, the will of the Founding States
is expressed in the New York Instrument of Ratification:

" 00/04/17 NY Instrument of Ratification of the Constitution
Record Group 11, The National Archives, Washington, DC

". . . That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people
whensoever it shall become necessary to their happinesss ....

That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms;
that a well regulated Militia, including the body of the People
capable of bearing Arms,
is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State;
That the Militia should not be subject to Martial Law, except in time of
War, Rebellion or Insurrection.

THEN: Be it known that We the People of the State of New York, Incorporated in
statehood under the Authority of The Constitution of the United States of America
by the New York Instrument of Ratification, thus are graced by the
full benefits and liberties predicated under that document; or we are made
and held captive under Unlawful Powers to which Under God we cannot,
must not, and do not submit.” [All emfasis has been added by David.]

* * *
I 've heard that several of the other States' Instruments of Ratification
included similar reservations of rights clauses, escape clauses, tho I have not checked the others.

David "

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

Thay did it because there was an ALIEN military presence in the middle of their country.
That violated their sovereignty.
What woud the North have done in the same circumstance ??

Cuba feels the same way about the alien military presence in their country.
Sovereign US property though. The law.

There was a lot of discussion about secession prior to ratification of the constitution. It seems pretty clear that secession was not part of the bargain.
That the southern states, later, didn't like that, doesn't change it.
There was also a clear intention to phase out slavery, first in the articles of confederation. Again, the cotton states agreed to that too.
This all spells one thing, rebellion, of which they had that right, they lost.

1 Reply

@wayne,

David wrote:

Thay did it because there was an ALIEN military presence in the middle of their country.
That violated their sovereignty.
What woud the North have done in the same circumstance ??

wayne wrote:

Cuba feels the same way about the alien military presence in their country.
Sovereign US property though.

Yes; we acquired property rights from Cuba.
The commies' overthrowing that government
did not undermine OUR rights.

wayne wrote:

The law.
There was a lot of discussion about secession prior to ratification of the constitution.
It seems pretty clear that secession was not part of the bargain.

It seems pretty clear that
holding the States IN against their will
was not part of the bargain.

wayne wrote:

That the southern states, later, didn't like that, doesn't change it.
There was also a clear intention to phase out slavery, first in the articles of confederation.
Again, the cotton states agreed to that too.

Not in the Constitution, thay did not.

wayne wrote:

This all spells one thing, rebellion, of which they had that right, they lost.

The issue was settled by brute force,
which favored one side BY CHANCE.

In addition to the reservations of rights
as set forth in the Instruments of Ratification (showing intention and understanding)
upon which u have not commented, there was the 1Oth Amendment:
"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."

Does the Constitution say that the States r locked in
if thay wanna go ?????

Wayne, woud u freely enter a room
if u knew that u coud never leave it again,
no matter how much u wanted to, for ALL ETERNITY ??
locked in there forever ????

In my objective & dispassionate opinion,
an honest, impartial court woud have found
that the South did not violate the Constitution by leaving the Union.
No one ever promised to stay forever.

David

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

The issue of secession is not directly and clearly addressed by the constitution. However, one issue is--confederation. Another issue clearly dealt with is keeping troops and several issues of making war. Article One, Section Ten reads, in its entirety:

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

When one adds to that that Florida, Alabama and South Carolina had seized Federal property, attempted to seize Federal property and fired on Federal troops, and that in the case of Florida and Alabama, did so before passing an ordinance of secession--the Federal government was clearly within its rights to take military action to both suppress rebellion and enforce the law--both powers granted congress by Article One, Section Eight.

You seem terribly concerned with rights in property. How did the illegal transfer of weapons and munitions in 1860, and the seizure of Federal property in 1861 affects rights in property? Did not all the states pay for those arms, munitiions, real estate and other property? Did those seceding states have the right to unilaterally decide to steal (which without proviiding compensation is surely what happened) from the other states that property? Or do you only view rights in property from certain prespectives convenient to your argument?

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

The south's attack on Fort Sumter wasn't about sovereignty anyway, it was a political move to swing the border states.

I don't see how the instruments of ratification fit in, that's just a process.

As far as the 10th amendment, Patrick Henry thought the power transfered to the people with the ratification of the constitution.
The cotton states didn't have the clear support of the people in the case of secession. The planters controlling the state government pretty much acted on their own, while the people were largely divided.

Comparing the issue to being locked in a room is specious, if there was any locking in rooms going on, the south did it to themselves. Their shaky economic system of borrowed money and an ever increasing need for fresh land to support their monoculture was the room they were locked in.
They didn't want out of the room, they wanted everybody else locked in too.

1 Reply

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

Quote:
Preserve the economic advantage over the South??? The South was a millstone on the neck of the American Economy.

Quote:
Earlier, in December 1860, before any secession, the Chicago Daily Times foretold the disaster that Southern free ports would bring to Northern commerce: "In one single blow our foreign commerce must be reduced to less than one-half what it now is. Our coastwise trade would pass into other hands. One-half of our shipping would lie idle at our wharves. We should lose our trade with the South, with all of its immense profits. Our manufactories would be in utter ruins. Let the South adopt the free-trade system, or that of a tariff for revenue, and these results would likely follow."

True enough, but our coast, the coast of the United States was and is our property, harbors and all, and it is by tax policy that the South destroyed its own ability to defend what it had tried to take... For many years, it was Northern Finance which had reaped the profits of slavery... Then and now, it is never those who produce on the land who see the profits of it, but those who fanace it, those who control the middle men and markets, and all that was out of the hands of the southern planters... They rejoiced at having the market back in their hands, but then they could not deliver the goods, even in payment in kind for the ships and arms they could not produce themselves...

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Fido wrote:
Property rights are more essential to the constitution of this country than are civil or individual rights...
Property rights ARE Individual rights.

David

Fido wrote:
Non sense... First of all, they are unequal since not all own property,
There is nothing rong with that.

Again; the fact all true rights have in common is that they do not favor one above another, and all are necessary to life... The reason property right as an idea was formed was that property, land, real property was so essential to every survival... Now; we see with the closure laws, in England for example that taking away those property rights was possible, but it killed many, and threw many into dire poverty such as England never before knew...That was a property right, inalienable, hereditable to the commons that people simply could not live without, and the rich changed it for their own benefit, and the benefit was only to a small extent, general...

Compared to true rights, property rights have never been fixed though they can exist unchanged for hundreds or perhaps over a thousand years at a time... It is because as people's abilities change, and their technology increases they find their forms can change and property rights are mere formality... Personal and individual rights are based upon what no person can live without... Life, liberty, justice, equity from which all the others follow are essential to people, and theough they cannot be specifically defined, they exist as moral forms...

Where property is essential to life it is essential that property rights be given the protection of society... We see that most people have no property to speak of, and some times no chattels or liquid wealth... They live by the protection of their rights which at least one philosopher called a property, in the words of Jefferson: Inalienable... But; do people really have the right to protection from society for more property than they need when the having of it is the denial of it to others... People once supported the nation through property tax, and for that reason the nation was correct in supporting their rights; but taxes are now so cheap, and property contributes so little to the support of the society that many people can hold vast estates producing virtually nothing of value, and yet the people must defend their property and their rights to it at their own cost, though it gains them nothing...

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

The issue of secession is not directly and clearly addressed by the constitution. However, one issue is--confederation. Another issue clearly dealt with is keeping troops and several issues of making war. Article One, Section Ten reads, in its entirety:

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

When one adds to that that Florida, Alabama and South Carolina had seized Federal property, attempted to seize Federal property and fired on Federal troops, and that in the case of Florida and Alabama, did so before passing an ordinance of secession--the Federal government was clearly within its rights to take military action to both suppress rebellion and enforce the law--both powers granted congress by Article One, Section Eight.

You seem terribly concerned with rights in property. How did the illegal transfer of weapons and munitions in 1860, and the seizure of Federal property in 1861 affects rights in property? Did not all the states pay for those arms, munitiions, real estate and other property? Did those seceding states have the right to unilaterally decide to steal (which without proviiding compensation is surely what happened) from the other states that property? Or do you only view rights in property from certain prespectives convenient to your argument?

In one of the earliest rulings of the Supreme Court, which the states welcomed because the United States claimed title to the whole land within its possession by the oldest principal of law, that we had it, what is known commonly as the fast fish principal... And it is because the federal government owns it, and holds the ultimate title to it, that it can tax it, and pass the titles to individual areas first, to the states, and then to individuals... As far as I know, the Federal government did not make such a claim regarding chattels, or chattel slaves...

1 Reply

@wayne,

wayne wrote:

The south's attack on Fort Sumter wasn't about sovereignty anyway, it was a political move to swing the border states.

I don't see how the instruments of ratification fit in, that's just a process.

As far as the 10th amendment, Patrick Henry thought the power transfered to the people with the ratification of the constitution.
The cotton states didn't have the clear support of the people in the case of secession. The planters controlling the state government pretty much acted on their own, while the people were largely divided.

Comparing the issue to being locked in a room is specious, if there was any locking in rooms going on, the south did it to themselves. Their shaky economic system of borrowed money and an ever increasing need for fresh land to support their monoculture was the room they were locked in.
They didn't want out of the room, they wanted everybody else locked in too.

Your point here is well made, and it is very much the problem our form of government still gives to us, that the majority can take the minority where it does not want to go but does not bring about perfect union in that fashion, and never will... Even when the majority must go somewhere ideologically or make some physical change in nature, it must, should, and is well advised to bring along the minortiy by every means, and make certain of its full support... To think as Mr. Bush did, that you can contrive a majority with false information, and take advantage of a wave of patriotism to engage in foreign wars of great expense and proportion is nuts... Wars are fought by whole countries, and should have 100% support going in... The whole South suffered the Civil War...If it did not have the support of the whole people, and it never did, then it should not have been done... Majority rule is only useful to a point... If the majority is doing what is best for all, and if something must be done in a hurry... Concensus is what makes democracy...

0 Replies

@Fido,

Fido wrote:

Property rights are more essential to the constitution of this country than are civil or individual rights...

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Property rights ARE Individual rights.

David

Fido wrote:

Non sense... First of all, they are unequal since not all own property,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

There is nothing rong with that.

Fido wrote:

Again; the fact all true rights have in common is that they do not favor one above another, and all are necessary to life...

What FOOLISHNESS. There r many rights that r not necessary to life; that 's obvious.

If I buy a stick of bubblegum from u
it has no relation to my survival, but I have a contractual right to have it.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Fido wrote:
Property rights are more essential to the constitution of this country than are civil or individual rights...
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Property rights ARE Individual rights.

David

Fido wrote:
Non sense... First of all, they are unequal since not all own property,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
There is nothing rong with that.

Fido wrote:
Again; the fact all true rights have in common is that they do not favor one above another, and all are necessary to life...
What FOOLISHNESS. There r many rights that r not necessary to life; that 's obvious.

If I buy a stick of bubblegum from u
it has no relation to my survival, but I have a contractual right to have it.

David

Contract law is not specifically property law, but it has almost always followed the demands of property owners...

Going right back to Justinian, which was the beinning of European Feudalism as far as I can tell, not only an individual, but his children and their children were bound by his word.... Our feeling is not so extreme today, but if you look at the constitution as a contract, then we are bound to it in the same fashion though none of us have a vote on the matter... There is support left and right for the constitution, but not one person likes the whole thing... Many parts of it, like the income tax were a complete ruse... The poor absolutely wanted the rich to pay their fair share for example... At first the thing only affected 11 to 13% of the population... Now, it has be pushed down to affect nearly 50% of the population, and that still does not satisfy the rich or the right for that matter, because they see themselves supporting with income tax the needs of the poor...

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

The issue of secession is not directly and clearly addressed by the constitution.

That is very true;
accordingly, the 10th Amendment is put into operation.
All rights (e.g., secession) not granted to the US government
r reserved to the States, or to the people.

Setanta wrote:

However, one issue is--confederation.
Another issue clearly dealt with is keeping troops and several issues of making war. Article One, Section Ten reads, in its entirety:

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Yes; I am very acutely aware of Article I Section 10.
I ofen argued it pre-2008.

Setanta wrote:

When one adds to that that Florida, Alabama and South Carolina had seized Federal property, attempted to seize Federal property and fired on Federal troops, and that in the case of Florida and Alabama, did so before passing an ordinance of secession--the Federal government was clearly within its rights to take military action to both suppress rebellion and enforce the law--both powers granted congress by Article One, Section Eight.

YES, indeed. That is very clear,
for the reason that u have indicated.
As a matter of fact, and of Constitutional law, u 'd be justified
in pointing out that it is clearly within the definition of treason:
levying war against the United States,
because thay had not yet left the Union. Your point is superbly well taken.

Setanta wrote:

You seem terribly concerned with rights in property.

Yes, this is true, but what I deem to be
of even greater importance is rendering, as close as possible,
a literal & precise interpretation of the social and political contract, with no deviations.

Setanta wrote:

How did the illegal transfer of weapons and munitions in 1860,

I responded to your post on this point earlier. Did u see my Post: # 4,622,671 on Page 6 hereof ?

I said that I don't see what is legally in violation
qua moving military assets from one place to another in America.

I questioned any interference from Article I Section 8.
The Secretary of War coud do that in furtherance
of the power of the President.
He was lawfully in possession of federal military assets.
He had and has Constitutional authority to move them
from one federal installation to another one.
I fail to see any cause for objection.

Setanta wrote:

and the seizure of Federal property in 1861 affects rights in property?

If thay stole federal chattel,
then thay had a duty to return it.

Setanta wrote:

Did not all the states pay for those arms, munitiions, real estate and other property?

Before the secession, all States of the Union financed the assets.

Setanta wrote:

Did those seceding states have the right to unilaterally decide to steal
(which without proviiding compensation is surely what happened)
from the other states that property?

I accept your reasoning qua the duty to re-imburse for chattel; good point. U 'd have been a good lawyer.
I reserve decision qua the need to re-imburse for real estate.

Setanta wrote:

Or do you only view rights in property from certain prespectives convenient to your argument?

No.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

I said that I don't see what is legally in violation qua moving military assets from one place to another in America. I questioned any interference from Article I Section 8. The Secretary of War coud do that in furtherance of the power of the President. He was lawfully in possession of federal military assets. He had and has Constitutional authority to move them from one federal installation to another one. I fail to see any cause for objection.

The one example you provided was based on a congressional act. Article One, Section Eight very clearly grants to Congress the right to provide for arming the militia--to me, that is an unequivocal statement of where the power resides. A subsequent congressional investigation found that Secretary Floyd had acted illegally. Applying the historiographic principle of cui bono, i'm willing to concede that the Congress as it existed subsequent to secession and before 1865 might have been conducting a biased investigation. However, that Congress may have reached that conclusion on a questionable basis does not constitute evidence that the conclusion is false.

1 Reply

@Fido,

As usual, your response is not relevant to the point i was making to David.

Idiot.

3 Replies

@Setanta,

why do you call people stupid?

0 Replies

@Setanta,

im just curious because its unnecessary, mean, and seems like a waste of time.

0 Replies

Why do you obsess about the word stupid?

1 Reply

@Setanta,

fine. why do you call people [insert mean condescending word of your choice here]?

0 Replies

This is a particular case. Not long after Fido arrived, he was telling me what he claimed i didn't understand, and was using foul language, and in a particular case in which his ignorance of the subject was breathtaking. I told him i'd rather not see him respond to my posts at all. For a very long time, he held to that. Now he has started posting his drivel again in response to what i write, and quoting me in the process. I've told him that for as long as he does that, this is the kind of response he can expect.

Why do you whine about how i respond to other people? It's tedious, you know, especially given the nasty way your responded to me in your first thread here because i questioned your coherence.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

This is a particular case. Not long after Fido arrived, he was telling me what he claimed i didn't understand, and was using foul language, and in a particular case in which his ignorance of the subject was breathtaking. I told him i'd rather not see him respond to my posts at all. For a very long time, he held to that. Now he has started posting his drivel again in response to what i write, and quoting me in the process. I've told him that for as long as he does that, this is the kind of response he can expect.

Why do you whine about how i respond to other people? It's tedious, you know, especially given the nasty way your responded to me in your first thread here because i questioned your coherence.

hmmm...
ok. its just that almost every time you disagree with someone, you seem to be questioning their coherence. im not whining, im asking a question ive been wanting to for a while. btw, are/were you a lawyer? your pretty good at making yourself seem innocent. i just think that whats tedious is the way that you respond to people you don't like. its just mean. it makes no point that isn't established the first time that you say something. if you disagree, just tell them why. dont call them stupid... it achieves no purpose.

1 Reply

is the pledge unconstitutional?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know