Selecting one of Brian's myriad points:

Constitutional amendment was then and is now required when the document is explicit and clear...

I would submit that this is not true. In the first part of the 20th century, it was understood that no existing part of the Constitution allowed the Federal Government to restrict trade in intoxicants. Thus, the Prohibition Amendment (damn my 13-er edukashun. I can't remember the number) was needed to grant the Federal Government a new power.
Fast forward to the middle of the century. Prohibition has been repealed -- the powers granted by it have been legally removed. Yet, the Federal Government continues to exercise (and expand upon) those powers with regards to non-alcoholic intoxicants. The war on drugs is a clear example of the disregard in which the concept of Constitutionally limited government is held.

Also, in a very recent example, the USA PATRIOT act and recent rules handed down by the Attorney General's Office and the President have significantly altered (syn. - Amended) the nature of the protections provided by the fourth and sixth amendments. In this case, some of the powers were appropriated without even legislative review -- much less Constitutional amendment...

We clearly no longer have a situation where due process must be followed with regards to federal powers.

And

The presumption of history is that secession from a government by a portion of the territory it rules is illegitimate and cause for war. That's the way things normally work. If it was going to be different in our case, then the Constitution needed to spell out a right of secession. Thus, the fact that it did not is a prima facie case that no such legal right existed.

The Declaration of Independence States that the legitimacy of a government is "derived from teh consent of the governed". Though not a (small-c) constitutional document, it does provide a framework for justifiable secession -- the withdrawal of consent.

Justin:


While the nation's drug laws are certainly stupid, counterproductive, corrupting, violence-inducing, overly intrusive, disruptive of community, and generally boneheaded and wrong, I must regrettably disagree that they are unconstitutional.


Refer once more to the commerce clause of Article I Section 8. This gives the Congress the authority to "regulate" (without defining that term) all commerce that crosses national or state boundaries, or that is conducted with Indian tribes.


This is an almost unlimited power. Despite the contention of libertarians that the Constitution severely shackles what the federal government is authorized to do, and that we have simply ignored those limitations in recent years, the fact is that the Constitution gives the government sweeping authority over almost all aspects of life with this one bit of language, subject only to the affirmative limits imposed by Article I Section 9 and by the Bill of Rights. One could of course argue that that is not what the framers intended, but the fact remains that's what they did. And if they did not intend for the commerce clause to give the federal government the kind of power that it does, then they made a mistake. (Perhaps because in a preindustrial economy the powers are in fact less sweeping, as the economy was more localized.)


Regarding drugs: Is the trade in illegal drugs not commerce? Does it not cross state and international lines? And that being the case, does Congress not have the authority to "regulate" that trade -- including banning it should they be foolish enough to do so, which regrettably seems to be the case?


No, we have not departed from the enumerated powers in the Constitution. We have simply added powers that were fully enumerated but that were not used in the past. If you want those powers removed from the government, then it is you, not their advocates, who must amend the Constitution.


Regarding the anti-terrorism act, I agree with you that many provisions of this are probably unconstitutional. That being the case, I fully expect them to be challenged in court by the ACLU and interested parties. Hopefully they'll go down. There's much precedent to support this optimism, as this is far from the first time the government has attempted such a move, and all prior attempts have been overthrown or repealed. Regrettably, this is the kind of thing one must expect in a 4T.


Regarding the Declaration of Independence, I think it's useful to quote the early passage that contained the expression you used in full:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.


Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.


But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Please note the general thrust of Jefferson's rhetoric. It is a good deal more conservative than you were suggesting, in that it recognizes a positive good to accrue from preserving governments rather than overthrowing them for "light and transient causes." Certainly he was not suggesting that whenever a minority under a government finds itself in disagreement with that government, and happens to be a local majority in a contiguous geographic area, it has the right to separate and sunder the union.


Unless, of course, the government "evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism," and that is not something to be judged lightly, nor is it something that has ever been done in America. Certainly the threat of tarriffs on industrial goods or what the south saw (probably rightly) as the coming abolitionist consensus does not qualify as "absolute Despotism."


As a practical matter, and in terms of law, the right to secede from a government should be assumed not to exist. Secession requires the overthrow of existing law, and cannot be in compliance with it, unless the law so specifies, which the Constitution certainly doesn't. (Neither did the Confederate Constitution, I hasten to point out.)

_________________
"And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches toward Bethlehem to be born?"

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Brian Rush on 2001-11-20 13:31 ]</font>

On 2001-11-20 13:30, Brian Rush wrote:


As a practical matter, and in terms of law, the right to secede from a government should be assumed not to exist. Secession requires the overthrow of existing law, and cannot be in compliance with it, unless the law so specifies, which the Constitution certainly doesn't. (Neither did the Confederate Constitution, I hasten to point out.)

_________________
"And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches toward Bethlehem to be born?"

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Brian Rush on 2001-11-20 13:31 ]</font>

Here's a question (and I ask because there are many people her far more versed in Constitutional lawthan me) - Had the Confederacy won the Civil War what would the current political map of the North American continent look like? Would it be 2 hostile nations staring at each other or would the precedent of Southern Secession result in 45 or 50 independent nations in North America, possible loosely allied to protect themselves against Canada?

Is there in fact any legal way to secede or dissolve a political union? Or even to change the form of that union once it's established? The Dakotas, the Virginias and the Carolinas were once one territory that divided up into 2 states- if they wanted to combine into Dakota, Virginia or Carolina again, is there a way to do that? If Puerto Rico becomes a State, is that joining permanent? If California north of Bakersfield decides to form it's own state of Northern California - is that possible?

To Madscientist:
Since you agreed with the Buchannan quote, here is the cite for him, indexed to current events, articles and archives. FYI

http://www.theamericancause.org/

_________________
And what is good, Ph?drus,
And what is not good...
Need we ask anyone to tell us these things?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: sv81 on 2001-11-20 16:32 ]</font>

Delsyn-One possible glimpse of North America after a Confederate victory can be gotten by reading Harry Turtledove's series of alternative history books on the post-Civil War Americas. I've only glanced at them but one fascinating idea was that a disillusioned Abraham Lincoln went into exile and became an ardent follower of Karl Marx! He also proposed that there would be a second war between the Confederacy and the Union a generation later, which in his books the Confederacy won again, I believe helped by an alliance with various Indian tribes and Mexico.(I may be mistaken on this detail)
As far as the legalities of secession, I recall from high school civics class long ago that the practical result of the Union victory was that secession is not legal. I don't know if the Constitution now explicitly says so but no one has seriously wanted to make the attempt since 1865.
While that is the case, its an historical curiousity that when Texas joined the Union, before the Civil War,(remember, they were the Republic of Texas) the Texas state constitution said that they retained the right of secession and also that if they wished, they could divide into four smaller states. Any savvy Texans out there are invited to educate me on what the status of this provision of their constitution is at present.

Brian:

I may come back later and respond in greater detail to some of your points, but as you know we will never agree about much of this. It would appear that your entire worldview comes down to 'might makes right' and you will have no part of natural law. I'll give you one thing: you are consistent. And that is a lot more than I can say for any "conservative" or "constitutionalist" who idolizes Lincoln. For this reason, I can easily drink a beer with you even though I would fight you to the bitter end. Cheers.



Delsyn:

Technological advance would have soon rendered slavery less efficient in the South. Many would argue that North and South would have reunited once machinery displaced slavery. However this misses the central point that the real grating issue between North and South had always been, not slavery, but high tariffs spawned by Northern industrialization. Therefore I do not see North and South reuniting until the South had an incentive to industrialize and thus to derive benefit from those tariffs. Perhaps Mike or somebody has a sense of when it might have been cost-effective for the South to abandon staple agriculture and pursue industrialization. I would have expected reunification between North and South soon after.

On 2001-11-20 17:50, Stonewall Patton wrote:
Perhaps Mike or somebody has a sense of when it might have been cost-effective for the South to abandon staple agriculture and pursue industrialization. I would have expected reunification between North and South soon after.

For sure economics had a major influence between the North and South, more than any other issue. It's an error though, IMHO to think a reunification would occur if a split would have permanently happened.

Look a Quebec, its been a part of Canada forever, yet its citizens grumble against unification.

The ecomomy, culture and even settlers (see the book: Albion's Seed)were different North to South, Time wouldn't have made the difference go away.

Diversification, a characteristic of nature, shows up in culture as well. Had the Civil War not drawn a close to the rift between North and South, I'd expect we would have two separate countries today.

Who knows, the South might even be akin to Ireland, and the North; England. That would make Texans "Ulsterman" - (from Northern Ireland).

And no, I'm not smoking anything.

Stonewall:

It would appear that your entire worldview comes down to 'might makes right' and you will have no part of natural law.

Natural law, no. But not "might makes right" either. Right and wrong are subjective value judgments, and those judgments are made independently of might.


I suppose you could say that "might makes right" in the sense that a community consensus generates "might" and also generates "right." But then again, it is just as often true that "right makes might," when a community is persuaded to change its views, not by force but by cogent arguments or appeals to a sense of justice.


What I don't believe, though, is that the rights we cherish arise from nature. They arise from us.

However this misses the central point that the real grating issue between North and South had always been, not slavery, but high tariffs spawned by Northern industrialization.

Please read the declarations of secession by the various states. It is clear from those documents that their authors did not agree with you as to what the real grating issue was.


Where I think we may find congruence is in the fact that the issues were economic. But slavery, too, was an economic issue.

Is it just my paranoia, or am I justified in feeling a hunch that, with the big Shopping Season about to start, and the Taliban in either a strategic retreat (stratfor.com) or collapse, we are about to see Phase III of the New Terrorism?

I guess our generation is best described as Scandinavian in its approach to sex and "modesty". We don't go around flaunting sexuality or trying to make a show out of sex appeal like Madonna, but we're not prudish on sexual matters either and feel contempt for social conventions that curse sexuality. Sex is a matter-of-fact issue that has us asking "What's the big deal?", and we can happily view it as a part of life. There isn't the extra "mystique" or excitement about sex that older generations have us attach to it. We do what we want to do, but making sex into a show-biz scandal story isn't something that interests us, unlike with Ken Starr. We wear what we wear because we like the clothes we wear, not because it makes a hooker statement. When we want to have sex we have it (even though we're not inherently ultra-horny), but there's no comprehension of the fascination the Boom generation has with "spicy details" in other individuals' sexual lives. Of course, the Scandinavian attitude also contains none of the arbitrary fears and conventions that "traditional" or "conventional" Americans have about talking with sex. Most teens are not embarrassed to see someone's naked body or look at a picture of how the male reproductive system works, and have no problems with homosexuality, lesbianism, sodomy, sex with objects, all sort of living arrangements, sex outside marriage, polyamory or the sight of breasts in public. Nor do we buy into a social pressure to marry and have children early. And this whole "modesty" word sounds like another one of Boomers' silly concerns. Most of the time you don't see a kid emphasizing sex or reaching out for capturing the sexual side. And the few times you do, it's usually out of anger directed towards the repression of sex by social conventions . . . just to show how much of a rebel some kid is against rules that should never have been placed there in the first place. That's the general feel.

On 2001-11-20 18:26, sv81 wrote:

For sure economics had a major influence between the North and South, more than any other issue. It's an error though, IMHO to think a reunification would occur if a split would have permanently happened.

Look a Quebec, its been a part of Canada forever, yet its citizens grumble against unification.

The thirteen colonies were settled by people who uniformly spoke English, attended Protestant churches (and mostly Calvinist at that), and shared a generally common heritage even if factions were occasionally at each other's throats. Above all, they were united (ultimately) in their opposition to British rule and no overwhelming antagonisms existed between the colonies at the time.

Canada, on the other hand, was originally settled by two different empires: the French and British. Lower Canada was French and Catholic while Upper Canada was English and Protestant. It was hard to find two more hostile factions in the eighteenth century. In 1759, Wolfe defeated Montcalm on the Plains of Abraham and, from that point forward, the French settlers of Lower Canada found themselves ruled by their bitterest of enemies, the English. There never has been any real unity north of the border at any point in the history of European settlement. Nor has there ever been a time when real antagonisms did not exist. I do not see how you can compare Canada to the United States in this respect.

The ecomomy, culture and even settlers (see the book: Albion's Seed)were different North to South, Time wouldn't have made the difference go away.

They came predominately from different areas of England and the British Isles. But most were still English and not overly antagonistic toward each other. First the Puritans came, mostly from the East of England, and settled New England as well as much of Virginia. In the 1640s, the Cavaliers came to Virginia, predominately from the South and West of England, and compelled most of the Puritans there to join their cohorts in New England -- yes, there was real antagonism here. In the 1680s, the Quakers came to Pennsylvania, mostly from the English Midlands, and the Quakers were antagonistic toward no one. Between 1717 and 1776, the Scots-Irish came from Ulster, the Scottish Lowlands, and the English border region, and were settled as a buffer on the frontier between the English and the Indians. Yes, the Scots-Irish hated the English, but they settled apart in their own wilderness and there was little friction. The only applicable difficulty in coexistence was between Anglicans and Puritans (and all other non-Anglicans). But apart from this, the settlers were in no way worlds apart.

Leading up to the Revolution, the four elements were uniting in their opposition to British rule. Religious strife between Anglicans and Puritans fell by the wayside and state churches soon disappeared. The differences largely disappeared excepting the legacies of four different regional British accents which produced the four dominant American linguistic categories. The American example runs at direct odds with the Canadian example. I do not see the similarity.

Diversification, a characteristic of nature, shows up in culture as well. Had the Civil War not drawn a close to the rift between North and South, I'd expect we would have two separate countries today.

I guess my point is that the diversity you claim never existed in the first place, at least not to a degree sufficient to produce this sort of division. I suspect that every relevant force would have drawn as back together as one nation as soon as the South industrialized and thus the root of sectional difference disappeared.

Who knows, the South might even be akin to Ireland, and the North; England. That would make Texans "Ulsterman" - (from Northern Ireland).

I don't see it.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Stonewall Patton on 2001-11-20 20:24 ]</font>

On 2001-11-20 09:17, Brian Rush wrote:



Now -- perhaps that wasn't the case in 1788. At that time, most commerce was local. There was little migration of capital from one part of the country to another, since our industrial infrastructure was only beginning to develop. But today, most commerce is interstate, and we'll soon cross a line if we haven't already where most commerce will be global. That being the case, the clause could legally justify much more drastic regulation than has taken place, right up to the imposition of a socialist economy (assuming that can be done within the bounds of the Fourth Amendment, which, using the principle of eminent domain, it could, although at quite a high monetary cost).

To say nothing of the cost in social strength, goodwill, and bloodshed.

On 2001-11-20 11:20, Lis '54 wrote:
With regard to our Arab oil dependence, I think that despite the current low prices, we are looking forward to some serious deprivation in that area over the next twenty years. I saw a man interviewed last night who said that bin Laden is trying to get back to Saudi Arabia where his return will have the same effect as Khomeini's return to Iran 20+ years ago, and I believe he is probably correct.

As I've said elsewhere, I expect the entire Mideast to go up in flames at some point over the next twenty years, and when it does, whatever oil we have now (and whatever our new buds, the Russians, can get to us) will be all. I don't expect it to be very pleasant having to deal with oil shortages, but such 4T things are not generally pleasant. However, it's a bitter pill we're going to have to swallow sooner or later, so it may as well be sooner.

When Texas started their power deregulation pilot program in June, I chose to go with the company that offered 100% wind power because I felt that no matter what happened with oil prices and the Mideast, I'd still have a power supply, I'd be paying a stable price, and best of all I wouldn't be raping the environment. Most people I know around here went with "the best price" and they'll probably laugh at me...for a while.

I agree with you about the probability of disaster in the Middle East (an interesting question relevant to the current situation is what the exact definition of 'Middle East' would be.)

As for power, I think my personal preference under the circumstances would by nuclear.

Here's a question (and I ask because there are many people her far more versed in Constitutional lawthan me) - Had the Confederacy won the Civil War what would the current political map of the North American continent look like? Would it be 2 hostile nations staring at each other or would the precedent of Southern Secession result in 45 or 50 independent nations in North America, possible loosely allied to protect themselves against Canada?

That is essentially impossible to answer, because so much would depend on the individual decisions made just after the breakup. In the South, I suspect that the Confederates would have faced two choices: face total disintegration into separate sovereign States, or alter their system to make is more like that of the Northern Union (that would not be a very palatable choice under those circumstances).

In the North, either Lincoln and the unionist movement would be utterly discredited, and disintegration would follow, or a determination might set in that this disaster was not going to repeat, and in that case the remaining Union States might integrate even more tightly than before.

Of course, with the U.S. splintered, the temptation for the European colonial powers, still very strong then, to reassert control over large parts of South or even North America might have proven irresistable. I think it's even just possible that a breakup of the U.S. in the 1860s might have led to a continental European war not long afterward, depending in part on the Cycle state and in part on simple continental politics.

Is there in fact any legal way to secede or dissolve a political union?

The short answer for the U.S. is yes. There is a legal procedure that would permit a State to secede from the Union in theory even today, though in practice it would be all but impossible to make it happen.

The simpler (but still nearly impossible) way would be for 2/3 of each House of Congress to propose an Amendment granting either a general right of secession, or a specific right to one particular State, which could then be granted when 3/4 of the State legistatures approved of it.

A harder way also exists. Under the U.S. Constitution, it can be argued that all fifty State legislatures collectively make up the supreme national authority. At any time that 2/3 of the State Legislatures so direct, a Convention must be called. Since it would be up to the State Governments to appoint the members of the aforesaid Convention, they could appoint themselves, and thus grant themselves the power to rewrite all or part of the Constitution. Since under this very weird circumstance, the same people would also be in charge of ratification, it would be a done deal.

Obviously, before any such activity is likely to occur, the public would have to be so fed up or alarmed that it's hard to imagine the circumstances. But the legal mechanism does exist.

Or even to change the form of that union once it's established? The Dakotas, the Virginias and the Carolinas were once one territory that divided up into 2 states- if they wanted to combine into Dakota, Virginia or Carolina again, is there a way to do that?

That one's not even hard, legally. All it would take is a majority vote in each State legislature (or a vote of the public in each State, depending on the specific State Constitutions), plus the approval of Congress, and it's a done deal. Specifically Article 4 Section 3.

If Puerto Rico becomes a State, is that joining permanent? If California north of Bakersfield decides to form it's own state of Northern California - is that possible?

Once a State joins the Federal Union, it's permanent under U.S. law unless the above procedure I described is used.

Yes, North California could secede from California, if both the California Legislature and the U.S. Congress consented to such action.

One oddity: in the act of union bringing Texas into the United States, the right of splitting at all into five smaller States was recognized. I don't know if technically that means that Texas already has Congressional approval for such an action, or if Congress would still legally have to approve it today.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: HopefulCynic68 on 2001-11-20 21:09 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: HopefulCynic68 on 2001-11-20 21:11 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: HopefulCynic68 on 2001-11-22 21:24 ]</font>

On 2001-11-20 21:02, HopefulCynic68 wrote:
Here's a question (and I ask because there are many people her far more versed in Constitutional lawthan me) - Had the Confederacy won the Civil War what would the current political map of the North American continent look like? Would it be 2 hostile nations staring at each other or would the precedent of Southern Secession result in 45 or 50 independent nations in North America, possible loosely allied to protect themselves against Canada?

That is essentially impossible to answer, because so much would depend on the individual decisions made just after the breakup. In the South, I suspect that the Confederates would have faced two choices: face total disintegration into separate sovereign States, or alter their system to make is more like that of the Northern Union (that would not be a very palatable choice under those circumstances).

In the North, either Lincoln and the unionist movement would be utterly discredited, and disintegration would follow, or a determination might set in that this disaster was not going to repeat, and in that case the remaining Union States might integrate even more tightly than before.

Of course, with the U.S. splintered, the temptation for the European colonial powers, still very strong then, to reassert control over large parts of South or even North America might have proven irresistable. I think it's even just possible that a breakup of the U.S. in the 1860s might have led to a continental European war not long afterward, depending in part on the Cycle state and in part on simple continental politics.

Is there in fact any legal way to secede or dissolve a political union?

The short answer for the U.S. is yes. There is a legal procedure that would permit a State to secede from the Union in theory even today, though in practice it would be all but impossible to make it happen.

The simpler (but still nearly impossible) way would be for 2/3 of each House of Congress to propose an Amendment granting either a general right of secession, or a specific right to one particular State, which could then be granted when 3/4 of the State legistatures approved of it.

A harder way also exists. Under the U.S. Constitution, it can be argued that all fifty State legislatures collectively make up the supreme national authority. At any time that 2/3 of the State Legislatures so direct, a Convention must be called. Since it would be up to the State Governments to appoint the members of the aforesaid Convention, they could appoint themselves, and thus grant themselves the power to rewrite all or part of the Constitution. Since under this very weird circumstance, the same people would also be in charge of ratification, it would be a done deal.

Obviously, before any such activity is likely to occur, the public would have to be so fed up or alarmed that it's hard to imagine the circumstances. But the legal mechanism does exist.

Or even to change the form of that union once it's established? The Dakotas, the Virginias and the Carolinas were once one territory that divided up into 2 states- if they wanted to combine into Dakota, Virginia or Carolina again, is there a way to do that?

That one's not even hard, legally. All it would take is a majority vote in each State legislature (or a vote of the public in each State, depending on the specific State Constitutions), plus the approval of Congress, and it's a done deal. Specifically Article 4 Section 3.

If Puerto Rico becomes a State, is that joining permanent? If California north of Bakersfield decides to form it's own state of Northern California - is that possible?

Once a State joins the Federal Union, it's permanent under U.S. law unless the above procedure I described is used.

Yes, North California could secede from California, if both the California Legislature and the U.S. Congress consented to such action.

One oddity: in the act of union bringing Texas into the United States, the right of splitting at all into five smaller States was recognized. I don't know if technically that means that Texas already has Congressional approval for such an action, or if Congress would still legally have to approve it today.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: HopefulCynic68 on 2001-11-20 21:09 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: HopefulCynic68 on 2001-11-20 21:11 ]</font>
[/quote]

I love smart people :smile:

I love smart people :smile:

Good questions bring good answers.

:smile: :smile:

On 2001-11-20 19:36, Jesse Manoogian wrote:
I guess our generation is best described as Scandinavian in its approach to sex and "modesty". We don't go around flaunting sexuality or trying to make a show out of sex appeal like Madonna, but we're not prudish on sexual matters either and feel contempt for social conventions that curse sexuality.... That's the general feel.

Do Millennials and younger Xers now practice social bathing in the manner of Scandinavians? Has the badstu/sauna taken the place of the coffee bar/bookstore as a place of social convenience? Do advise on this Nordic norming in these troubled times.

On 2001-11-21 07:15, Virgil K. Saari wrote:

On 2001-11-20 19:36, Jesse Manoogian wrote:
I guess our generation is best described as Scandinavian in its approach to sex and "modesty". We don't go around flaunting sexuality or trying to make a show out of sex appeal like Madonna, but we're not prudish on sexual matters either and feel contempt for social conventions that curse sexuality.... That's the general feel.

Do Millennials and younger Xers now practice social bathing in the manner of Scandinavians? Has the badstu/sauna taken the place of the coffee bar/bookstore as a place of social convenience? Do advise on this Nordic norming in these troubled times.

After reading Jesse's post, I would have to think that a guy with a name like Saari from Minnesota would have his own harem. Whatcha got goin' on up there, Virgil?

[quote]
On 2001-11-20 18:34, Brian Rush wrote:

Please read the declarations of secession by the various states. It is clear from those documents that their authors did not agree with you as to what the real grating issue was.

Those declarations emphasized the Northern states' failure to enforce the fugitive slave law, correct? That is because this provided the strongest legal argument for secession. Unfortunately, the Northern states were obligated to return fugitive slaves under the Constitution, above and beyond the actual congressional act. The Northern states were not adhering to the terms of the compact and thus the Southern states (sadly) were justified in dissolving the compact.

This does not change the fact that the tariff had been the most galling and grating of the many issues which divided North and South. Astronomical tariffs in no way benefiting the South had been a thorn in the side for 30-40 years, and of course South Carolina nearly seceded 30 years earlier on the basis of the tariff alone. The tariff just made for a weaker legal argument given that the Southern states had agreed to abide by federal tariffs, no matter how high or low. However there was actual breach of contract with respect to enforcement of the fugitive slave law, and this is why the issue was highlighted.

On 2001-11-21 07:30, Stonewall Patton wrote:

After reading Jesse's post, I would have to think that a guy with a name like Saari from Minnesota would have his own harem. Whatcha got goin' on up there, Virgil?

Dear Mr. Patton, we Minnesotans of Nordic/Lutheran heritage are not allowed harems.

We do have feasts of sun-dried cod fish that is refreshed in lye baths and then boiled and served with potato flats in the manner of Tamales. If you get up this way, please do ask for lutefisk & lefse.

Uffda, that there lutefisk. HTH

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Virgil K. Saari on 2001-11-21 08:32 ]</font>

On 2001-11-20 15:20, Delsyn wrote:

On 2001-11-20 13:30, Brian Rush wrote:


As a practical matter, and in terms of law, the right to secede from a government should be assumed not to exist. Secession requires the overthrow of existing law, and cannot be in compliance with it, unless the law so specifies, which the Constitution certainly doesn't. (Neither did the Confederate Constitution, I hasten to point out.)

_________________
"And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches toward Bethlehem to be born?"

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Brian Rush on 2001-11-20 13:31 ]</font>

Here's a question (and I ask because there are many people her far more versed in Constitutional lawthan me) - Had the Confederacy won the Civil War what would the current political map of the North American continent look like? Would it be 2 hostile nations staring at each other or would the precedent of Southern Secession result in 45 or 50 independent nations in North America, possible loosely allied to protect themselves against Canada?




Is there in fact any legal way to secede or dissolve a political union? Or even to change the form of that union once it's established? The Dakotas, the Virginias and the Carolinas were once one territory that divided up into 2 states- if they wanted to combine into Dakota, Virginia or Carolina again, is there a way to do that? If Puerto Rico becomes a State, is that joining permanent? If California north of Bakersfield decides to form it's own state of Northern California - is that possible?

Harry Turtledove has written a series of novels exploring exactly that. The title of the first is HOW FEW REMAIN. They're probably racked as science fiction, since they're alternate history.

On 2001-11-21 08:31, Virgil K. Saari wrote:

On 2001-11-21 07:30, Stonewall Patton wrote:

After reading Jesse's post, I would have to think that a guy with a name like Saari from Minnesota would have his own harem. Whatcha got goin' on up there, Virgil?

Dear Mr. Patton, we Minnesotans of Nordic/Lutheran heritage are not allowed harems.

We do have feasts of sun-dried cod fish that is refreshed in lye baths and then boiled and served with potato flats in the manner of Tamales. If you get up this way, please do ask for lutefisk & lefse.

Uffda, that there lutefisk. HTH

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Virgil K. Saari on 2001-11-21 08:32 ]</font>

Lutefisk....mmmm...yummy!

Whoops, I've outed myself as a Swede.

Half-Swede, anyway. :smile:

Kiff '61

Maybe interest in T4T and the theory is a Scandinavian thing, I'm about half-Swedish, too. Uff-da uff-da! Swedish pancakes with lingonberries, anyone?

Book title I bought once:

"Scandinavian Humor and Other Myths"

"The US media reported that Bush's
use of the word Palestine seemed intended to appeal to an Islamic public that has
grown uneasy with the war in Afghanistan. But it seems that the president can
hardly take a step forward before he is forced to stride two paces back. "

From:

http://www.ahram.org.eg/weekly/2001/560/war52.htm

<Font Color_"brown">

Franklin Delano Bush? See it on:
http://www.sweetliberty.org/index.html

_________________
And what is good, Ph?drus,
And what is not good...
Need we ask anyone to tell us these things?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: sv81 on 2001-11-21 16:55 ]</font>