Abe Lincoln and Thanksgiving

Originally posted by sasquatch672
Liberals hate federalism, hate states' rights, and hate self-determination.

That's a lot of hatred there, man.

Originally posted by shavixmir
That's a lot of hatred there, man.

Liberals love killing babies, smoking dope, same sex marriage, the police state, gun control etc.... See thats a lot of love too

Originally posted by whodey
The original intent of Federalism was to allow states to govern as they pleased. That way citizens could choose to move to a state to their liking. But now it's one size fits all. It's a collectivist Disneyland.

You can also move to a country of your own liking, with few exceptions generally imposed by those countries. How many of them exhibit more diversity than the usa?

Originally posted by shavixmir
That's a lot of hatred there, man.

Shavvy baby, you know I love you bro. I get what the euro is about, what the social welfare state is about, in Europe. It basically boils
Down to one phrase: no more war on the Continent. I respect that. Over here, Baby Boomers of all stripes just think it's ok to sit on their asses for a third of their productive lives and have their grandkids pay for it. It's supposed to work the other way, but those self-loving narcissists don't care.

Originally posted by no1marauder
The name of the agreement between the States that preceded the Constitution was "The Articles of Confederation and [b]Perpetual Union". The Constitution self-declared that it was meant to "form a more perfect union" and greatly enhanced central government power. The idea that secession was allowable was fanciful and had been affirmatively disputed by by Southern apologists would make the entire system of Constitutional government a mockery.[/b]

While I am not in favor of secession, I'm not sure how a legislative act (i.e. voting to join the union) can be viewed as irreversible either inside or outside that state.

Surely if that could be true for legislative acts, it would tie the hands of future legislatures in an unacceptable way? So how can it be argued that it applies to "this sort of legislative act" and no other?

Originally posted by whodey
The original intent of Federalism was to allow states to govern as they pleased. That way citizens could choose to move to a state to their liking. But now it's one size fits all. It's a collectivist Disneyland.

For better or worse, the union was acceptable to the member states precisely because only certain powers were ceded to the Federal government, with all other rights reserved to the states or the people.

If regulating slavery had been a Federal enumerated power from the beginning, e.g. with the power to abolish it throughout the union based on either legislation or by executive order, then southern states might well not have joined.

Originally posted by JS357
You can also move to a country of your own liking, with few exceptions generally imposed by those countries. How many of them exhibit more diversity than the usa?

Generally speaking, you cannot move to a country of your liking. There are lots of requirements for permanent residency in most nations -- marriage, gainful employment, etc.

Originally posted by spruce112358
While I am not in favor of secession, I'm not sure how a legislative act (i.e. voting to join the union) can be viewed as irreversible either inside or outside that state.

Surely if that could be true for legislative acts, it would tie the hands of future legislatures in an unacceptable way? So how can it be argued that it applies to "this sort of legislative act" and no other?

From a scholarly point of view, I have way more questions than answers on this. From a scholarly standpoint, I'd be interested in understanding what a Constitution is classified as. It's not a law or a series of laws; it's the basis for laws. It's legislation in the sense that it got voted on. But it also enjoys supremacy.

No1, this seems like something you'll be able to comment on...then, would you comment on your view of the constitutionality of the individual mandate?

Originally posted by spruce112358
Generally speaking, you cannot move to a country of your liking. There are lots of requirements for permanent residency in most nations -- marriage, gainful employment, etc.

Exactly. Do such requirements encourage or hinder diversity?

Originally posted by sasquatch672
From a scholarly point of view, I have way more questions than answers on this. From a scholarly standpoint, I'd be interested in understanding what a Constitution is classified as. It's not a law or a series of laws; it's the basis for laws. It's legislation in the sense that it got voted on. But it also enjoys supremacy.

No1, this seems like ...[text shortened]... ...then, would you comment on your view of the constitutionality of the individual mandate?

Discussed the mandate here many times.

Opinion: Stupid, but within both the commerce clause and taxing power.

Originally posted by spruce112358
While I am not in favor of secession, I'm not sure how a legislative act (i.e. voting to join the union) can be viewed as irreversible either inside or outside that state.

Surely if that could be true for legislative acts, it would tie the hands of future legislatures in an unacceptable way? So how can it be argued that it applies to "this sort of legislative act" and no other?

IF States can leave whenever they please, then the provisions denying the States power to do numerous things are a nullity. This makes the whole Constitutional scheme incoherent.

Andrew Jackson accurately stated the theory of the Union:

The Constitution of the United States, then, forms a government, not a league, and whether it be formed by compact between the States, or in any other manner, its character is the same. It is a government in which ale the people are represented, which operates directly on the people individually, not upon the States; they retained all the power they did not grant. But each State having expressly parted with so many powers as to constitute jointly with the other States a single nation, cannot from that period possess any right to secede, because such secession does not break a league, but destroys the unity of a nation, and any injury to that unity is not only a breach which would result from the contravention of a compact, but it is an offense against the whole Union. To say that any State may at pleasure secede from the Union, is to say that the United States are not a nation

because it would be a solecism to contend that any part of a nation might dissolve its connection with the other parts, to their injury or ruin, without committing any offense. Secession, like any other revolutionary act, may be morally justified by the extremity of oppression; but to call it a constitutional right, is confounding the meaning of terms, and can only be done through gross error, or to deceive those who are willing to assert a right, but would pause before they made a revolution, or incur the penalties consequent upon a failure.

Because the Union was formed by compact, it is said the parties to that compact may, when they feel themselves aggrieved, depart from it; but it is precisely because it is a compact that they cannot. A compact is an agreement or binding obligation.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/jack01.asp


Only the entire body public can break the Union by the Constitutional means of amendment. This does not make the "legislative act" of forming the Union "irreversible"; it may be reversed, but only by the consent of the same body who did the forming i.e. the whole People of the United States.

Originally posted by whodey
Happy Thanksgiving everyone. In 1863 Abraham Lincoln passed a law making Thanksgiving a national holiday. Previous to this, the holiday was only celebrated in the Northeastern states.

Most would say that the true meaning of Thanksgiving is to give thanks, however, Licoln's motive was to use the holiday in order to bring together a country that was divide ed the Corim Amendment to make slavery Constitutional for the Southern states? If so, why?

It was well worth it. And the traitorous South is to blame. And fortunately in the end, the federal government won, and rightly so.

Originally posted by whodey
Would it have been OK if Licoln and Congress passed the Corim Amendment to make slavery Constitutional for the Southern states? If so, why?

No. Would make the Constitution a sham of a document.

Originally posted by moon1969
It was well worth it. And the traitorous South is to blame. And fortunately in the end, the federal government won, and rightly so.

Was it worth 600,000 lives? Is government that important?

Originally posted by moon1969
No. Would make the Constitution a sham of a document.

Well, at least it would not have set a precedent in that regard. 😛

From my perspective, might makes right. You can twist, ignore, and amend anything away in the Constitution. It's been done time and time again.