Ron Paul Claims Sexual Harassment Shouldn’t Be Illegal

N&P: Discuss governments, nations, politics and recent related news here.

Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital

User avatar
Broomstick
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 27089
Joined: 2004-01-02 07:04pm
Location: Industrial armpit of the US Midwest
Contact:

Re: Ron Paul Claims Sexual Harassment Shouldn’t Be Illegal

Post by Broomstick » 2012-01-02 09:41pm

Destructionator XIII wrote:I agree, but it's very common for states to do things like kill people; they tend to think they have that right unless they give it up in writing.
The US States actually do have the right/authority to decide whether or not there will be capital punishment within their borders as there is nothing in the constitutional explicitly forbidding it. For a time in the late 20th Century the Supreme Court suspended capital punishment, but that's because of the manner in which it was imposed was deemed unconstitutional, not that it was inherently unconstitutional as a punishment.

As it happens, some States have capital punishment and some explicitly do not. Michigan and Wisconsin, for example, don't engage in executions regardless of the crime, that punishment does not exist in those States. Texas, as we all know, does execute people. Texas is free to suddenly amend its constitution to forbid such a practice, and Wisconsin and Michigan could, conceivably, re-write theirs to allow it.
A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. Leonard Nimoy.

Now I did a job. I got nothing but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character so let me make this abundantly clear. I do the job. And then I get paid.- Malcolm Reynolds, Captain of Serenity, which sums up my feelings regarding the lawsuit discussed here.

If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. - John F. Kennedy

Sam Vimes Theory of Economic Injustice

User avatar
TimothyC
Of Sector 2814
Posts: 3760
Joined: 2005-03-23 05:31pm

Re: Ron Paul Claims Sexual Harassment Shouldn’t Be Illegal

Post by TimothyC » 2012-01-02 10:53pm

Destructionator XIII wrote:
Patrick Degan wrote:The states never had a right to secede from the Union, and the Federal Government does have the right to put down rebellion against the lawful authority of the Constitution.
Prove it.
The Civil War settled the issue. So I would presume that the issue was considered settled with 100% certainty by April 9th 1865. Why was it settled by then, for that I'm going to quote Sir John Harington:

"Treason doth never prosper: what’s the reason? Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason."
"I believe in the future. It is wonderful because it stands on what has been achieved." - Sergei Korolev

User avatar
Patrick Degan
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 14847
Joined: 2002-07-15 08:06am
Location: Orleanian in exile

Re: Ron Paul Claims Sexual Harassment Shouldn’t Be Illegal

Post by Patrick Degan » 2012-01-02 11:06pm

Destructionator XIII wrote:
Patrick Degan wrote:The states never had a right to secede from the Union, and the Federal Government does have the right to put down rebellion against the lawful authority of the Constitution.
Prove it.
Easily. No clause or paragraph in the Constitution permits the possibility for a recognition of secession, not even the Tenth Amendment which libertards constantly fictionalise to their own convenience. No clause or paragraph in any state constitution authorises secession or grants any pretended right to it. Furthermore, the very condition of statehood is bound inseparably with union to the nation as a whole, as the ratifications of state and Federal constitutions are bound in the same act by the people, from whom sovereignty flows.
<snipping tired quotation of the Tenth Amendment> Where, in that document, does it either a) delegate the right to secession to the United States or b) prohibit the right of secession to the States?
The states cannot delegate to the Federal government a right that doesn't even exist in the first place, which takes care of part b to your question as well.
Moreover, putting aside legalism
You mean putting aside constitutionalism, even if you don't know it.
if government power comes from the consent of the governed, why the fuck should the government have to agree to the governed leaving? If the governed no longer consent, the government has no right to exist at all, much less object to it!
Then it is up to the people to alter or abolish the government and institute a new one, not the states. That is a peoples' ultimate revolutionary right. However, the Southern states did not justify their secession upon that concept, which is central to the Declaration of Independence but upon a fictional doctrine by which they could nullify both the Federal Constitution and the consent of the whole people of the nation under which it is defined.

And as to why the government should "care", well, that's spelled out in Article 1.8.15 of the Constitution, under Powers of Congress:

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

It is actually the responsibility of Congress to suppress insurrections, which the Southern secession certainly was, and to execute the laws of the Union, which do not recognise any right of state secession.
And if you say "we the People", note that individual people are free to leave the United States. If the people exercise their will to leave through a State, why shouldn't they be permitted to do it?
You cannot take any individual person's right to renounce his own citizenship and leave the country and try to extend it to a state or group of states illegally attempting the disintegration of the Union and the breakup of a peoples' government, which is what the Federal government IS.
When ballots have fairly and constitutionally decided, there can be no successful appeal back to bullets.
—Abraham Lincoln

People pray so that God won't crush them like bugs.
—Dr. Gregory House

Oil an emergency?! It's about time, Brigadier, that the leaders of this planet of yours realised that to remain dependent upon a mineral slime simply doesn't make sense.
—The Doctor "Terror Of The Zygons" (1975)

User avatar
RIPP_n_WIPE
Jedi Knight
Posts: 711
Joined: 2007-01-26 09:04am
Location: with coco

Re: Ron Paul Claims Sexual Harassment Shouldn’t Be Illegal

Post by RIPP_n_WIPE » 2012-01-02 11:26pm

Destructionator XIII wrote:In practice, I'll agree that these things are all too often settled with "might makes right". But, that doesn't actually make it legal, nor morally right.
Hahaha. Might makes right and legal go hand in hand. Discounting morality (which you can bullshit to fit your needs ).

How do you make sure someone follows the law? By enforcing it. Once you lack the power to effectively make people follow the law (regardless of why your laws exist or where you derive your authority from) you are no longer an effective legal body. Sure you've got all the logical arguments of why your right and your opponents are wrong but in the end if you don't have the muscle to make your words stick then your laws lack teeth and are useless. That's why the secession was illegal, cut out the bullshit legal arguments and it comes down to the federal government argued within it's laws that it was illegal and made the CSA comply.

Because with your logic, at least as I'm seeing it, the PRC is actually wrong for being in control of and acting as the legal body regulating mainland China and that the government of Taiwan should actually be in control.

I am the hammer, I am the right hand of my Lord. The instrument of His will and the gauntlet about His fist. The tip of His spear, the edge of His sword. I am His wrath just as he is my shield. I am the bane of His foes and the woe of the treacherous. I am the end.


-Ravus Ordo Militis

"Fear and ignorance claim the unwary and the incomplete. The wise man may flinch away from their embrace if he girds his soul with the armour of contempt."

User avatar
RIPP_n_WIPE
Jedi Knight
Posts: 711
Joined: 2007-01-26 09:04am
Location: with coco

Re: Ron Paul Claims Sexual Harassment Shouldn’t Be Illegal

Post by RIPP_n_WIPE » 2012-01-02 11:33pm

Then it is up to the people to alter or abolish the government and institute a new one, not the states.
The states are people, my friend.
But they're not all the people, just the representatives of that state. In this case I believe that he's saying that the people of the United States AS A WHOLE (ie every citizen not just those of the states in question) are the ones who decided obviously via their representatives in congress. If the majority of the people AS A WHOLE do not wish to abolish the government or allow a state to cede than it is infact illegal.


You cannot take any individual person's right to renounce his own citizenship and leave the country and try to extend it to a state or group of states illegally attempting the disintegration of the Union and the breakup of a peoples' government, which is what the Federal government IS.
This is circular, again: you're saying the right doesn't exist because it is an illegal attempt, but it's not illegal if they have the right to self-determination.
Which to a certain degree states don't. Why, because they're subservient to the federal government. It's why they can't print their own money, can't form alliances, can't regulate trade between themselves and another state.

EDIT: For formatting.

I am the hammer, I am the right hand of my Lord. The instrument of His will and the gauntlet about His fist. The tip of His spear, the edge of His sword. I am His wrath just as he is my shield. I am the bane of His foes and the woe of the treacherous. I am the end.


-Ravus Ordo Militis

"Fear and ignorance claim the unwary and the incomplete. The wise man may flinch away from their embrace if he girds his soul with the armour of contempt."

User avatar
RIPP_n_WIPE
Jedi Knight
Posts: 711
Joined: 2007-01-26 09:04am
Location: with coco

Re: Ron Paul Claims Sexual Harassment Shouldn’t Be Illegal

Post by RIPP_n_WIPE » 2012-01-03 12:49am

Destructionator XIII wrote:
RIPP_n_WIPE wrote:If the majority of the people AS A WHOLE do not wish to abolish the government or allow a state to cede than it is infact illegal.
The whole point of representative government is they represent the public will. If people elect pro-secession reps, that does show the majority of people want to secede.
I don't recall the representatives of New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, or every other state except the 11 that try to illegally secede saying "Sure they can go". The United States as a whole as in the people of the United States AS A WHOLE did not vote that those states should be allowed to secede ergo the people didn't. Only the representatives of the states that seceded did either by walking out of congress or voting in their home states.
Destructionator XIII wrote:But, let's put that aside: what about the cases where a popular referendum specifically authorizes secession? That happened in a handful of the Confederate states. (Of course, the slaves were left out, not that Lincoln gave a shit about them anyway.)
Doesn't matter. The right to be in or let out of the Union is not up to the people of the state. They approve a constitution, it's accepted by the congress of the US Government (federal not state). Likewise secession would be the same way, if the Federal, not state government would be the ultimate arbiter if they could leave or not.

Destructionator XIII wrote:
Which to a certain degree states don't. Why, because they're subservient to the federal government. It's why they can't print their own money, can't form alliances, can't regulate trade between themselves and another state.
That's because they agreed to it, by signing on to the new constitution.
But they also could have been denied entry into the union by the Federal government. "Okay we agree to join" isn't enough. Congress lets the state in and if it were legal, congress would release them from the union.

Regardless within the US legal system it has been determined that secession is illegal and that the union was designed to not be dissolved. Texas vs White clinched it.

I am the hammer, I am the right hand of my Lord. The instrument of His will and the gauntlet about His fist. The tip of His spear, the edge of His sword. I am His wrath just as he is my shield. I am the bane of His foes and the woe of the treacherous. I am the end.


-Ravus Ordo Militis

"Fear and ignorance claim the unwary and the incomplete. The wise man may flinch away from their embrace if he girds his soul with the armour of contempt."

User avatar
Patrick Degan
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 14847
Joined: 2002-07-15 08:06am
Location: Orleanian in exile

Re: Ron Paul Claims Sexual Harassment Shouldn’t Be Illegal

Post by Patrick Degan » 2012-01-03 01:27am

Destructionator XIII wrote:
Patrick Degan wrote:Easily. No clause or paragraph in the Constitution permits the possibility for a recognition of secession, not even the Tenth Amendment which libertards constantly fictionalise to their own convenience.
It doesn't have to. I'll quote the 9th Amendment too:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Just because a right isn't specifically listed there, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist or is worth less than the ones that are listed.
And here we go with the equally tired and even thinner "Ninth Amendment argument" —which, BTW, refers to the people, not the states, retaining rights.
And, of course, the 10th amendment is pretty clear, too.
Only in libertard fantasy-land, but not in any real world.
Patrick Degan wrote:Furthermore, the very condition of statehood is bound inseparably with union to the nation as a whole
That's quite circular; you're saying they are inseparable, therefore they cannot separate...

Though, note they existed before the nation as a whole existed...
NOT a circular argument, anymore than it's a circular argument to propose that a living man's body and brain are inseparable and therefore cannot separate, since to do so means death. No, Thirteen, a circular argument would be: "the Southern states had every right to secede from the Union because they claimed that right to do so, therefore they had the right to secede".

And as for the other point: even going back to the original 13 colonies, their entire existence as states only became a reality concurrent with the existence of the nation. The acts of independence and Union were one and the same. Before that point, the colonies had no character as sovereigns but merely as rebellious colonies from the crown and, before that, appendages of that same crown. Past 1783, new states could be created out of territories, which are subject entirely to the jurisdiction of the Federal government. Only in the concurrent act of ratification of state and Federal constitutions —with the former subordinate to the latter as per the doctrine of Federal supremacy— did those territories then exist as states. That is the legal, constitutional argument that denies any pretended right of state secession. It is not explicit in the Federal constitution and not explicit or implicit in any state constitution, which means it is not implicit in the Federal constitution either. The "right" simply does not exist, no matter how much libertarians and Confederacy-wankers dearly wished it did. You can have a popular revolution in this country at any time; the people retain that right at the last extremity. But that extremity did not exist in 1860 and it still came down to an illegal coalition of some states claiming a non-existent constitutional "right" to do a clearly unconstitutional act.
Then it is up to the people to alter or abolish the government and institute a new one, not the states.
The states are people, my friend.
No they are not. They are legal entities, but the people retain ultimate sovereignty under the law.
And as to why the government should "care", well, that's spelled out in Article 1.8.15 of the Constitution, under Powers of Congress:
I really hate it when people put things in quotes that the other person didn't actually say. I call it dishonest debating, and you can quote me on that.
Style over Substance Fallacy and a complete non-rebuttal of the point in question. So you know just where you can shove your "dishonest debating" whinge, don't you?
You cannot take any individual person's right to renounce his own citizenship and leave the country and try to extend it to a state or group of states illegally attempting the disintegration of the Union and the breakup of a peoples' government, which is what the Federal government IS.
This is circular, again: you're saying the right doesn't exist because it is an illegal attempt, but it's not illegal if they have the right to self-determination.
NOT a circular argument, again, since the "right" in question did not and does not exist, no matter how much you keep trying to insist it does. If a thing is illegal, you don't have the right to do it, by definition. The states gave up that level of self-determination by ratifying Union. And no, appeals to the 9th and 10th amendments avail you naught in this, since neither even implicitly recognises a pretend right of state secession anymore than they recognised any pretend right of nullification of Federal law. I'm sorry if that doesn't suit you, but there it is.
When ballots have fairly and constitutionally decided, there can be no successful appeal back to bullets.
—Abraham Lincoln

People pray so that God won't crush them like bugs.
—Dr. Gregory House

Oil an emergency?! It's about time, Brigadier, that the leaders of this planet of yours realised that to remain dependent upon a mineral slime simply doesn't make sense.
—The Doctor "Terror Of The Zygons" (1975)

Duckie
Sith Marauder
Posts: 3980
Joined: 2003-08-28 08:16pm

Re: Ron Paul Claims Sexual Harassment Shouldn’t Be Illegal

Post by Duckie » 2012-01-03 01:42am

Why should I care whether the American constitution allows the federal government to make civil rights laws and sexual harassment laws? Any non-white straight male can tell you that those are good things. If it doesn't allow it, it sounds like you need a new constitution that properly empowers the government to protect its own citizens, not to be removing civil rights protections because the Founding Fathers Surely Thought of Everything.

Any argument which says anything about the American states as sovereign entities surrendering certain rights or debates about other points of 18th century political trivia falls completely flat if the assumption "The US Constitution is the ideal of government that the US Government should tend towards, and any overreach by the Federal Government into State Areas surely must be bad" is not held.

I'd also like to request Destructionator XIII to clarify his opinion viz. Sexual Harassment Laws and Minority Rights:
1. Do you believe Sexual Harassment should be a crime defined by federal statute? A crime at all?
2. Do you believe that the recriminalisation of homosexuality or the stripping of anti-racism protections from the US South would be a bad thing?
3. If you feel civil rights legislation should exist at all but that civil rights is best handled on a sub-national level, without reference to the US Constitution as an arbitor of what is correct, why do you feel it is best handled below a national level?

Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 30156
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: Ron Paul Claims Sexual Harassment Shouldn’t Be Illegal

Post by Simon_Jester » 2012-01-03 02:41am

Duckie wrote:Why should I care whether the American constitution allows the federal government to make civil rights laws and sexual harassment laws? Any non-white straight male can tell you that those are good things. If it doesn't allow it, it sounds like you need a new constitution that properly empowers the government to protect its own citizens, not to be removing civil rights protections because the Founding Fathers Surely Thought of Everything.
Duckie, what I'm saying is that it isn't even permissible under the archaic 19th century statutes of the Constitution. Even those men, unenlightened about many things as they were, understood certain basic realities. They understood that government could not be just if it allowed minorities or disenfranchised groups to be abused by provincial governments. They understood that a government must govern, must be able to say "this you may do, this is forbidden" based on well-understood consequences of those actions. They understood that a government must be able to enforce the law on people who would like to break it, because there are often powerful incentives to break the law, and evil men would be happy to break laws if they could get away with it.

The people who drafted the Constitution and its key amendments had a lot to learn, but they grasped the basic lessons well. It is a great pity that the modern libertarian movement has forgotten so many of these lessons, so that in fear of a single hallucinatory tyrant they would raise dozens of real ones in its place.
Destructionator XIII wrote:
Simon_Jester wrote:Then, of course, we run into the supremacy clause of the Constitution of the United States:
That's irrelevant: the states have their own definitions for murder, and this doesn't affect that. They'd be free to make an exception for unborn persons, even if the current wording didn't have one.
No they're not, because the supremacy clause says that federal law trumps state law, and if Paul's bill passed, federal law would call embryos living people. The states can't just decide "oh wait, they're not people after all." They don't get to do that.

So the only way for a state to call abortion not murder would be for them to declare that it isn't murder when you kill certain classes of living people. Which, if you're on the subject of 'governments starting terrible precedents,' is pretty damn terrible.

Moreover, it would be illegal for them to do that because of the Fourteenth Amendment and the equal protection clause.
In 1860, some of the governed wanted to maintain the right to oppress some of the other governed.
I'm not saying they were in the right, but two wrongs don't make one either.
In this case, the people who decided to secede had no justification for doing so; they were simply violating a pile of legitimate laws.

When you violate a just and legitimate law, you invite punishment. If you raise an army to protect yourself from being punished for breaking the law, so as to continue to oppress and enslave people, then the government is entirely within its rights to acting quite reasonably if it raises an army to bring you to justice.
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov

User avatar
Broomstick
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 27089
Joined: 2004-01-02 07:04pm
Location: Industrial armpit of the US Midwest
Contact:

Re: Ron Paul Claims Sexual Harassment Shouldn’t Be Illegal

Post by Broomstick » 2012-01-03 07:11am

Duckie wrote:Why should I care whether the American constitution allows the federal government to make civil rights laws and sexual harassment laws? Any non-white straight male can tell you that those are good things. If it doesn't allow it, it sounds like you need a new constitution that properly empowers the government to protect its own citizens, not to be removing civil rights protections because the Founding Fathers Surely Thought of Everything.
I don't think the founding fathers thought of everything, but they did, in fact, think of that - which is why we can amend the constitution (and have). That's part of the stupidity of founding father/constitution worship - those guys admitted the document wasn't perfect and added a process for changing it as needed or desired. Instead of realizing that, you've got idiots who treat the constitution like some sort of fucking holy writ that can never be touched.
A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. Leonard Nimoy.

Now I did a job. I got nothing but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character so let me make this abundantly clear. I do the job. And then I get paid.- Malcolm Reynolds, Captain of Serenity, which sums up my feelings regarding the lawsuit discussed here.

If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. - John F. Kennedy

Sam Vimes Theory of Economic Injustice

Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 30156
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: Ron Paul Claims Sexual Harassment Shouldn’t Be Illegal

Post by Simon_Jester » 2012-01-03 12:14pm

More often, these days, you've got people who aren't even willing to follow the document in cases where it makes sense to do so. Or rather, they think it's all about carrots for them and never about sticks, that their "constitutional rights" exist without corresponding duties and obligations.

The Fourteenth Amendment was invented to prevent certain forms of legalized discrimination. It has been interpreted far more widely, to prevent far more discrimination, than its authors would have considered, but the text actually supports that. If you want to institute a two-tier legal system in the US and create a set of second-class citizens, if you want to strip people of lives and livelihood without going through a decent legal procedure, if you want your province to make itself unlivable for minorities by criminalizing their existence, then the Fourteenth Amendment is your enemy... the fact that its authors would have approved of what you are doing notwithstanding.

The best constitutions, and amendments to constitutions, are passed by people trying to create a government that is better than themselves. On that score, at least, the people who drafted the bulk of the US's written constitution succeeded.
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov

Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 30156
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: Ron Paul Claims Sexual Harassment Shouldn’t Be Illegal

Post by Simon_Jester » 2012-01-03 03:24pm

I think a good starting point would be the guidelines for a constitutional amendment. It's the Constitution that is being defied by a state which secedes and does things like raise its own military, sign treaties with foreign countries, and ignore the US legal code. If you can get enough support to amend the Constitution with "Amendment 28: Texas is no longer a state of the union," then as far as I'm concerned Texas is free to go away.

That would release Texas from its obligations to the rest of the nation under the Constitution, fair and square.

But I don't think it's right that a single state, or a small cluster of states, be allowed to tip over the board and walk away from the table rather than follow the rules they signed up for.
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov

User avatar
RIPP_n_WIPE
Jedi Knight
Posts: 711
Joined: 2007-01-26 09:04am
Location: with coco

Re: Ron Paul Claims Sexual Harassment Shouldn’t Be Illegal

Post by RIPP_n_WIPE » 2012-01-03 03:27pm

Destructionator XIII wrote:
RIPP_n_WIPE wrote:Regardless within the US legal system it has been determined that secession is illegal and that the union was designed to not be dissolved. Texas vs White clinched it.
I was waiting for someone to bring this up. Indeed, Texas v White is the law of the land now, but it wasn't in 1860. Justice Chase's (little side) decision is somewhat shakey too: he said the Constitution forms a more perfect union, more perfect being compared to the perpetual union from the articles of confederation.

Marriage is said to be a perpetual union too though ("till death do us part"), but we allow divorces when things don't work out, and it doesn't take both sides to consent to it either. Also, the words perpetual union don't actually appear in the constitution.


Of course, whether you agree with a decision or not, it is the law now. Here's an interesting question though: should it be? If a state wants to go it on their own, why shouldn't they? Let's assume it is a unanimous popular decision to get the question of representation out of there.

One argument that comes to mind is to say the other states rely on them too. It would be like joining a group, using their help to get to the top, then abandoning them afterward. Part of joining the group was some kind of reciprocity.

I think that's a decent argument, and it's basically what the Court said, that secession might be possible with the support of the many states.
I already provided the solution to that. Make the release from the union the same process as admission. 2/3 Majority in congress. But none of that happened. The CSA said "fuck you" to the USA and got curb stomped.

I am the hammer, I am the right hand of my Lord. The instrument of His will and the gauntlet about His fist. The tip of His spear, the edge of His sword. I am His wrath just as he is my shield. I am the bane of His foes and the woe of the treacherous. I am the end.


-Ravus Ordo Militis

"Fear and ignorance claim the unwary and the incomplete. The wise man may flinch away from their embrace if he girds his soul with the armour of contempt."

User avatar
RIPP_n_WIPE
Jedi Knight
Posts: 711
Joined: 2007-01-26 09:04am
Location: with coco

Re: Ron Paul Claims Sexual Harassment Shouldn’t Be Illegal

Post by RIPP_n_WIPE » 2012-01-03 03:36pm

Destructionator XIII wrote:Aye, my concern is more from a more basic philosophy than from the law - I don't like killing.
Why?

I am the hammer, I am the right hand of my Lord. The instrument of His will and the gauntlet about His fist. The tip of His spear, the edge of His sword. I am His wrath just as he is my shield. I am the bane of His foes and the woe of the treacherous. I am the end.


-Ravus Ordo Militis

"Fear and ignorance claim the unwary and the incomplete. The wise man may flinch away from their embrace if he girds his soul with the armour of contempt."

Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 30156
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: Ron Paul Claims Sexual Harassment Shouldn’t Be Illegal

Post by Simon_Jester » 2012-01-03 03:59pm

I'd argue that there is a difference between a just rebellion and an unjust one, and it comes from the nature of what you're rebelling against.

In 1861, the Confederate states were seceding from a government which had not reneged on its constitutional obligations. A government which had positively bent over backwards in years past to avoid trampling on their "peculiar institution" of slavery. A government which had been elected under the same rules that they'd had no problem with since 1800, but could not abide by now. The US government hadn't done anything to them except elect a president they didn't like.

I'd argue that that isn't enough to justify a rebellion. To justify secession, I think there has to be actual, concrete abuse, concrete violations of rules, a failure of the existing political process to provide redress of grievances. Before it becomes just to disobey the law, the law itself must become unjust.
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov

Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 30156
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: Ron Paul Claims Sexual Harassment Shouldn’t Be Illegal

Post by Simon_Jester » 2012-01-03 04:16pm

I don't know, but I do think they shouldn't have- the precedent would make incredibly bad case law, because it boils down to "you can ignore any law you dislike, and any other law too if you think a future government might pass a law you dislike."
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov

User avatar
Panzersharkcat
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1705
Joined: 2011-02-28 05:36am

Re: Ron Paul Claims Sexual Harassment Shouldn’t Be Illegal

Post by Panzersharkcat » 2012-01-03 04:31pm

To be somewhat fair to the South, they had some legitimate grievances, like the burden of tariffs protecting Northern industrialists falling on them. They're still gaping assholes, though.

EDIT: Nullifying a law is a valid way of protecting Constitutionality and the liberty of a state's residents if the law in question violates the Constitution or is outright unethical, like California not enforcing federal drug laws.
"I'm just reading through your formspring here, and your responses to many questions seem to indicate that you are ready and willing to sacrifice realism/believability for the sake of (sometimes) marginal increases in gameplay quality. Why is this?"
"Because until I see gamers sincerely demanding that if they get winged in the gut with a bullet that they spend the next three hours bleeding out on the ground before permanently dying, they probably are too." - J.E. Sawyer

Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 30156
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: Ron Paul Claims Sexual Harassment Shouldn’t Be Illegal

Post by Simon_Jester » 2012-01-03 05:35pm

Panzersharkcat wrote:To be somewhat fair to the South, they had some legitimate grievances, like the burden of tariffs protecting Northern industrialists falling on them. They're still gaping assholes, though.
Compared to their illegitimate grievances, their legitimate grievances were practically irrelevant. "My state suffers more from tariffs on manufactured goods than yours" was not cited as justification for secession. Nor, I would argue, is it justification for secession- every law will affect some people more than others.

Whereas the fear of an end to slavery was explicitly cited as a motive for secession. And in my opinion, when we strip away the revisionism layered on after the fact, that was the really critical motive in general.
EDIT: Nullifying a law is a valid way of protecting Constitutionality and the liberty of a state's residents if the law in question violates the Constitution or is outright unethical, like California not enforcing federal drug laws.
"Valid" is a loaded word- do you mean "yes, it is okay to do this" or "yes, it achieves the desired end?"

Nullification achieves the end of making sure a federal law isn't enforced in your state, assuming the government doesn't enforce the law. But that doesn't mean it's OK to do that. Again, consider the logical endpoint- each state having its own arbitrary version of what "federal law" means that doesn't include any rules they consider inconvenient. What kind of a government would you have at the end of that process?
Destructionator XIII wrote:Simon_Jester:

Eeeeehhh, maybe. The way I see it though is you'd be looking at the whole package, take it or leave it. If you secede and regret it later, there's no guarantee they'd let you back in.

So, if you bitch about, say, a tax increase, you could get rid of that through secession..... but then next year, a disaster hits, and you're on your own. The rest of the country isn't going to help you.

Thus, I say secession is generally irrational, so even if they have the right, there's probably not much fear of them using it to ignore any one law.

You just have to hope they don't make a too short-sighted decision there and hurt a lot of people in the process.
I don't think that's good enough. First of all, there are some state governments in this country whose short-sightedness should never be underestimated- ask Mayabird about Georgia some day.

Plus, if we generalize this concept we end up with a problem- the impossibility of enforcing any law on an unwilling subject. There's no point in having a government make laws if everyone reserves the right to decide to ignore them at any time, whenever the "inconvenience points" of following the law add up to more than staying in the community is worth to them. Certainly, you couldn't do it on the individual level, with individual thieves deciding to 'secede' from the legal system because they no longer find it convenient to worry about laws against theft.

And you get the same result with states and slavery that you do with thieves. The states that are most worried about having their applecart upset are always the ones most likely to defy a national resolution.

When we talk about 'government by consent of the governed,' it's ridiculous to expect that consent to be unanimous and eternal. There's always someone who would very much rather be able to avoid worrying about the law, and they're usually the ones who need the laws enforced upon them the most, not the least.
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov

User avatar
Erik von Nein
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1747
Joined: 2005-06-25 04:27am
Location: Boy Hell. Much nicer than Girl Hell.
Contact:

Re: Ron Paul Claims Sexual Harassment Shouldn’t Be Illegal

Post by Erik von Nein » 2012-01-03 09:59pm

What I want to know is why DIIIX is okay with states enforcing laws he finds particularly just but why this is suddenly a bad thing for the federal government to do.
"To make an apple pie from scratch you must first invent the universe."
— Carl Sagan

Image

User avatar
Erik von Nein
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1747
Joined: 2005-06-25 04:27am
Location: Boy Hell. Much nicer than Girl Hell.
Contact:

Re: Ron Paul Claims Sexual Harassment Shouldn’t Be Illegal

Post by Erik von Nein » 2012-01-03 10:19pm

Because you defend state's rights to pass whatever laws you think they can while eliminating the Federal government's ability to do the same. Or, at least, you support Ron Paul who wants to do the same.
"To make an apple pie from scratch you must first invent the universe."
— Carl Sagan

Image

User avatar
Patrick Degan
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 14847
Joined: 2002-07-15 08:06am
Location: Orleanian in exile

Re: Ron Paul Claims Sexual Harassment Shouldn’t Be Illegal

Post by Patrick Degan » 2012-01-03 10:42pm

Destructionator XIII wrote:And with the good stuff from reasonable, educated people out of the way, back into the fucking retard.
Poor self-image you have there, Thirteen. You should talk to someone about that.
Patrick Degan wrote:And here we go with the equally tired and even thinner "Ninth Amendment argument" —which, BTW, refers to the people, not the states, retaining rights.
The states are people, my friend. If the people exercise their will through the state - a democratic republic - that is the people exercising their rights.
The people hold rights that are inherent and do not arise as a function of a state's existence —a doctrine which the Southern secessionists denied. The people comprise the population of a state, they may utilise the state as their legal instrument, but ultimate sovereignty flows independently from the people. And when a state turns unjust and even oppressive, it is the people who retain the ultimate right to abolish it at the last extremity. That is why states are not people.
No, Thirteen, a circular argument would be: "the Southern states had every right to secede from the Union because they claimed that right to do so, therefore they had the right to secede".
That's not what I'm saying though. You fail to understand fallacies in almost every thread.
The example I provided was to demonstrate what a circular argument actually is as opposed to your half-assed caricature of one which you offered up, but do rant on...
I'm stating axiomatically that they have the right. In other words, I 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.
Congratulations on your demonstrated ability to copy/paste the text to the Declaration of Independence while completely missing the point of its arguments. You do realise that the Southern leadership did NOT appeal to the premises of the Declaration to justify their illegal secession, don't you? No, of course you don't.
Now, Jefferson then went on to argue that changing government is not something to be done lightly. As time went on, this led to two categories: secession and revolution, with the former generally being frowned upon, but the latter being the bedrock of this nation's foundation
State secession was NEVER a legitimate category for changing government, and revolution is justifiable only at the last extremity, when all other methods of peaceful democratic redress have failed and the people are facing utter reduction and ruin. The fictional doctrine of a voluntary Union of sovereign states, which lies as the root of secessionist theory, finds no support in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, or in any of the writings of Hamilton or Madison in the texts of The Federalist. To wit, from Federalist n.18 in commentaries on the deficiencies of the Articles of Confederation:
AMONG the confederacies of antiquity, the most considerable was that of the Grecian republics, associated under the Amphictyonic council. From the best accounts transmitted of this celebrated institution, it bore a very instructive analogy to the present Confederation of the American States.

The members retained the character of independent and sovereign states, and had equal votes in the federal council. This council had a general authority to propose and resolve whatever it judged necessary for the common welfare of Greece; to declare and carry on war; to decide, in the last resort, all controversies between the members; to fine the aggressing party; to employ the whole force of the confederacy against the disobedient; to admit new members. The Amphictyons were the guardians of religion, and of the immense riches belonging to the temple of Delphos, where they had the right of jurisdiction in controversies between the inhabitants and those who came to consult the oracle. As a further provision for the efficacy of the federal powers, they took an oath mutually to defend and protect the united cities, to punish the violators of this oath, and to inflict vengeance on sacrilegious despoilers of the temple.

In theory, and upon paper, this apparatus of powers seems amply sufficient for all general purposes. In several material instances, they exceed the powers enumerated in the articles of confederation. The Amphictyons had in their hands the superstition of the times, one of the principal engines by which government was then maintained; they had a declared authority to use coercion against refractory cities, and were bound by oath to exert this authority on the necessary occasions.

Very different, nevertheless, was the experiment from the theory. The powers, like those of the present Congress, were administered by deputies appointed wholly by the cities in their political capacities; and exercised over them in the same capacities. Hence the weakness, the disorders, and finally the destruction of the confederacy. The more powerful members, instead of being kept in awe and subordination, tyrannized successively over all the rest. Athens, as we learn from Demosthenes, was the arbiter of Greece seventy-three years. The Lacedaemonians next governed it twenty-nine years; at a subsequent period, after the battle of Leuctra, the Thebans had their turn of domination.

It happened but too often, according to Plutarch, that the deputies of the strongest cities awed and corrupted those of the weaker; and that judgment went in favor of the most powerful party.

Even in the midst of defensive and dangerous wars with Persia and Macedon, the members never acted in concert, and were, more or fewer of them, eternally the dupes or the hirelings of the common enemy. The intervals of foreign war were filled up by domestic vicissitudes convulsions, and carnage.

After the conclusion of the war with Xerxes, it appears that the Lacedaemonians required that a number of the cities should be turned out of the confederacy for the unfaithful part they had acted. The Athenians, finding that the Lacedaemonians would lose fewer partisans by such a measure than themselves, and would become masters of the public deliberations, vigorously opposed and defeated the attempt. This piece of history proves at once the inefficiency of the union, the ambition and jealousy of its most powerful members, and the dependent and degraded condition of the rest. The smaller members, though entitled by the theory of their system to revolve in equal pride and majesty around the common center, had become, in fact, satellites of the orbs of primary magnitude.

Had the Greeks, says the Abbe Milot, been as wise as they were courageous, they would have been admonished by experience of the necessity of a closer union, and would have availed themselves of the peace which followed their success against the Persian arms, to establish such a reformation. Instead of this obvious policy, Athens and Sparta, inflated with the victories and the glory they had acquired, became first rivals and then enemies; and did each other infinitely more mischief than they had suffered from Xerxes. Their mutual jealousies, fears, hatreds, and injuries ended in the celebrated Peloponnesian war; which itself ended in the ruin and slavery of the Athenians who had begun it.

As a weak government, when not at war, is ever agitated by internal dissentions, so these never fail to bring on fresh calamities from abroad. The Phocians having ploughed up some consecrated ground belonging to the temple of Apollo, the Amphictyonic council, according to the superstition of the age, imposed a fine on the sacrilegious offenders. The Phocians, being abetted by Athens and Sparta, refused to submit to the decree. The Thebans, with others of the cities, undertook to maintain the authority of the Amphictyons, and to avenge the violated god. The latter, being the weaker party, invited the assistance of Philip of Macedon, who had secretly fostered the contest. Philip gladly seized the opportunity of executing the designs he had long planned against the liberties of Greece. By his intrigues and bribes he won over to his interests the popular leaders of several cities; by their influence and votes, gained admission into the Amphictyonic council; and by his arts and his arms, made himself master of the confederacy.

Such were the consequences of the fallacious principle on which this interesting establishment was founded. Had Greece, says a judicious observer on her fate, been united by a stricter confederation, and persevered in her union, she would never have worn the chains of Macedon; and might have proved a barrier to the vast projects of Rome.
This theme is expanded in Federalist n.19:
In the early ages of Christianity, Germany was occupied by seven distinct nations, who had no common chief. The Franks, one of the number, having conquered the Gauls, established the kingdom which has taken its name from them. In the ninth century Charlemagne, its warlike monarch, carried his victorious arms in every direction; and Germany became a part of his vast dominions. On the dismemberment, which took place under his sons, this part was erected into a separate and independent empire. Charlemagne and his immediate descendants possessed the reality, as well as the ensigns and dignity of imperial power. But the principal vassals, whose fiefs had become hereditary, and who composed the national diets which Charlemagne had not abolished, gradually threw off the yoke and advanced to sovereign jurisdiction and independence. The force of imperial sovereignty was insufficient to restrain such powerful dependants; or to preserve the unity and tranquillity of the empire. The most furious private wars, accompanied with every species of calamity, were carried on between the different princes and states. The imperial authority, unable to maintain the public order, declined by degrees till it was almost extinct in the anarchy, which agitated the long interval between the death of the last emperor of the Suabian, and the accession of the first emperor of the Austrian lines. In the eleventh century the emperors enjoyed full sovereignty: In the fifteenth they had little more than the symbols and decorations of power.

Out of this feudal system, which has itself many of the important features of a confederacy, has grown the federal system which constitutes the Germanic empire. Its powers are vested in a diet representing the component members of the confederacy; in the emperor, who is the executive magistrate, with a negative on the decrees of the diet; and in the imperial chamber and the aulic council, two judiciary tribunals having supreme jurisdiction in controversies which concern the empire, or which happen among its members.

The diet possesses the general power of legislating for the empire; of making war and peace; contracting alliances; assessing quotas of troops and money; constructing fortresses; regulating coin; admitting new members; and subjecting disobedient members to the ban of the empire, by which the party is degraded from his sovereign rights and his possessions forfeited. The members of the confederacy are expressly restricted from entering into compacts prejudicial to the empire; from imposing tolls and duties on their mutual intercourse, without the consent of the emperor and diet; from altering the value of money; from doing injustice to one another; or from affording assistance or retreat to disturbers of the public peace. And the ban is denounced against such as shall violate any of these restrictions. The members of the diet, as such, are subject in all cases to be judged by the emperor and diet, and in their private capacities by the aulic council and imperial chamber.

The prerogatives of the emperor are numerous. The most important of them are: his exclusive right to make propositions to the diet; to negative its resolutions; to name ambassadors; to confer dignities and titles; to fill vacant electorates; to found universities; to grant privileges not injurious to the states of the empire; to receive and apply the public revenues; and generally to watch over the public safety. In certain cases, the electors form a council to him. In quality of emperor, he possesses no territory within the empire, nor receives any revenue for his support. But his revenue and dominions, in other qualities, constitute him one of the most powerful princes in Europe.

From such a parade of constitutional powers, in the representatives and head of this confederacy, the natural supposition would be, that it must form an exception to the general character which belongs to its kindred systems. Nothing would be further from the reality. The fundamental principle on which it rests, that the empire is a community of sovereigns, that the diet is a representation of sovereigns and that the laws are addressed to sovereigns, renders the empire a nerveless body, incapable of regulating its own members, insecure against external dangers, and agitated with unceasing fermentations in its own bowels.

The history of Germany is a history of wars between the emperor and the princes and states; of wars among the princes and states themselves; of the licentiousness of the strong, and the oppression of the weak; of foreign intrusions, and foreign intrigues; of requisitions of men and money disregarded, or partially complied with; of attempts to enforce them, altogether abortive, or attended with slaughter and desolation, involving the innocent with the guilty; of general inbecility, confusion, and misery.

In the sixteenth century, the emperor, with one part of the empire on his side, was seen engaged against the other princes and states. In one of the conflicts, the emperor himself was put to flight, and very near being made prisoner by the elector of Saxony. The late king of Prussia was more than once pitted against his imperial sovereign; and commonly proved an overmatch for him. Controversies and wars among the members themselves have been so common, that the German annals are crowded with the bloody pages which describe them. Previous to the peace of Westphalia, Germany was desolated by a war of thirty years, in which the emperor, with one half of the empire, was on one side, and Sweden, with the other half, on the opposite side. Peace was at length negotiated, and dictated by foreign powers; and the articles of it, to which foreign powers are parties, made a fundamental part of the Germanic constitution.

If the nation happens, on any emergency, to be more united by the necessity of self-defense, its situation is still deplorable. Military preparations must be preceded by so many tedious discussions, arising from the jealousies, pride, separate views, and clashing pretensions of sovereign bodies, that before the diet can settle the arrangements, the enemy are in the field; and before the federal troops are ready to take it, are retiring into winter quarters.

The small body of national troops, which has been judged necessary in time of peace, is defectively kept up, badly paid, infected with local prejudices, and supported by irregular and disproportionate contributions to the treasury.

The impossibility of maintaining order and dispensing justice among these sovereign subjects, produced the experiment of dividing the empire into nine or ten circles or districts; of giving them an interior organization, and of charging them with the military execution of the laws against delinquent and contumacious members. This experiment has only served to demonstrate more fully the radical vice of the constitution. Each circle is the miniature picture of the deformities of this political monster. They either fail to execute their commissions, or they do it with all the devastation and carnage of civil war. Sometimes whole circles are defaulters; and then they increase the mischief which they were instituted to remedy.

. . .

So far as the peculiarity of their case will admit of comparison with that of the United States, it serves to confirm the principle intended to be established. Whatever efficacy the union may have had in ordinary cases, it appears that the moment a cause of difference sprang up, capable of trying its strength, it failed. The controversies on the subject of religion, which in three instances have kindled violent and bloody contests, may be said, in fact, to have severed the league. The Protestant and Catholic cantons have since had their separate diets, where all the most important concerns are adjusted, and which have left the general diet little other business than to take care of the common bailages. That separation had another consequence, which merits attention. It produced opposite alliances with foreign powers: of Berne, at the head of the Protestant association, with the United Provinces; and of Luzerne, at the head of the Catholic association, with France.
Finally, both Hamilton and Madison outline the then-contemporary example of the United Netherlands as object-lesson to the defects of a confederacy comprised of strong sovereignties surrounding a weak central authority in Federalist n.20:
THE United Netherlands are a confederacy of republics, or rather of aristocracies of a very remarkable texture, yet confirming all the lessons derived from those which we have already reviewed.

The union is composed of seven coequal and sovereign states, and each state or province is a composition of equal and independent cities. In all important cases, not only the provinces but the cities must be unanimous.

The sovereignty of the Union is represented by the States-General, consisting usually of about fifty deputies appointed by the provinces. They hold their seats, some for life, some for six, three, and one years; from two provinces they continue in appointment during pleasure.

The States-General have authority to enter into treaties and alliances; to make war and peace; to raise armies and equip fleets; to ascertain quotas and demand contributions. In all these cases, however, unanimity and the sanction of their constituents are requisite. They have authority to appoint and receive ambassadors; to execute treaties and alliances already formed; to provide for the collection of duties on imports and exports; to regulate the mint, with a saving to the provincial rights; to govern as sovereigns the dependent territories. The provinces are restrained, unless with the general consent, from entering into foreign treaties; from establishing imposts injurious to others, or charging their neighbors with higher duties than their own subjects. A council of state, a chamber of accounts, with five colleges of admiralty, aid and fortify the federal administration.

The executive magistrate of the union is the stadtholder, who is now an hereditary prince. His principal weight and influence in the republic are derived from this independent title; from his great patrimonial estates; from his family connections with some of the chief potentates of Europe; and, more than all, perhaps, from his being stadtholder in the several provinces, as well as for the union; in which provincial quality he has the appointment of town magistrates under certain regulations, executes provincial decrees, presides when he pleases in the provincial tribunals, and has throughout the power of pardon.

As stadtholder of the union, he has, however, considerable prerogatives.

In his political capacity he has authority to settle disputes between the provinces, when other methods fail; to assist at the deliberations of the States-General, and at their particular conferences; to give audiences to foreign ambassadors, and to keep agents for his particular affairs at foreign courts.

In his military capacity he commands the federal troops, provides for garrisons, and in general regulates military affairs; disposes of all appointments, from colonels to ensigns, and of the governments and posts of fortified towns.

In his marine capacity he is admiral-general, and superintends and directs every thing relative to naval forces and other naval affairs; presides in the admiralties in person or by proxy; appoints lieutenant-admirals and other officers; and establishes councils of war, whose sentences are not executed till he approves them.

His revenue, exclusive of his private income, amounts to three hundred thousand florins. The standing army which he commands consists of about forty thousand men.

Such is the nature of the celebrated Belgic confederacy, as delineated on parchment. What are the characters which practice has stamped upon it? Imbecility in the government; discord among the provinces; foreign influence and indignities; a precarious existence in peace, and peculiar calamities from war.

It was long ago remarked by Grotius, that nothing but the hatred of his countrymen to the house of Austria kept them from being ruined by the vices of their constitution.

The union of Utrecht, says another respectable writer, reposes an authority in the States-General, seemingly sufficient to secure harmony, but the jealousy in each province renders the practice very different from the theory.

The same instrument, says another, obliges each province to levy certain contributions; but this article never could, and probably never will, be executed; because the inland provinces, who have little commerce, cannot pay an equal quota.

In matters of contribution, it is the practice to waive the articles of the constitution. The danger of delay obliges the consenting provinces to furnish their quotas, without waiting for the others; and then to obtain reimbursement from the others, by deputations, which are frequent, or otherwise, as they can. The great wealth and influence of the province of Holland enable her to effect both these purposes.

It has more than once happened, that the deficiencies had to be ultimately collected at the point of the bayonet; a thing practicable, though dreadful, in a confedracy where one of the members exceeds in force all the rest, and where several of them are too small to meditate resistance; but utterly impracticable in one composed of members, several of which are equal to each other in strength and resources, and equal singly to a vigorous and persevering defense.

Foreign ministers, says Sir William Temple, who was himself a foreign minister, elude matters taken ad referendum, by tampering with the provinces and cities. In 1726, the treaty of Hanover was delayed by these means a whole year. Instances of a like nature are numerous and notorious.

In critical emergencies, the States-General are often compelled to overleap their constitutional bounds. In 1688, they concluded a treaty of themselves at the risk of their heads. The treaty of Westphalia, in 1648, by which their independence was formerly and finally recognized, was concluded without the consent of Zealand. Even as recently as the last treaty of peace with Great Britain, the constitutional principle of unanimity was departed from. A weak constitution must necessarily terminate in dissolution, for want of proper powers, or the usurpation of powers requisite for the public safety. Whether the usurpation, when once begun, will stop at the salutary point, or go forward to the dangerous extreme, must depend on the contingencies of the moment. Tyranny has perhaps oftener grown out of the assumptions of power, called for, on pressing exigencies, by a defective constitution, than out of the full exercise of the largest constitutional authorities.

Notwithstanding the calamities produced by the stadtholdership, it has been supposed that without his influence in the individual provinces, the causes of anarchy manifest in the confederacy would long ago have dissolved it. "Under such a government," says the Abbe Mably, "the Union could never have subsisted, if the provinces had not a spring within themselves, capable of quickening their tardiness, and compelling them to the same way of thinking. This spring is the stadtholder." It is remarked by Sir William Temple, "that in the intermissions of the stadtholdership, Holland, by her riches and her authority, which drew the others into a sort of dependence, supplied the place."

These are not the only circumstances which have controlled the tendency to anarchy and dissolution. The surrounding powers impose an absolute necessity of union to a certain degree, at the same time that they nourish by their intrigues the constitutional vices which keep the republic in some degree always at their mercy.

The true patriots have long bewailed the fatal tendency of these vices, and have made no less than four regular experiments by EXTRAORDINARY ASSEMBLIES, convened for the special purpose, to apply a remedy. As many times has their laudable zeal found it impossible to UNITE THE PUBLIC COUNCILS in reforming the known, the acknowledged, the fatal evils of the existing constitution. Let us pause, my fellow-citizens, for one moment, over this melancholy and monitory lesson of history; and with the tear that drops for the calamities brought on mankind by their adverse opinions and selfish passions, let our gratitude mingle an ejaculation to Heaven, for the propitious concord which has distinguished the consultations for our political happiness.

A design was also conceived of establishing a general tax to be administered by the federal authority. This also had its adversaries and failed.

This unhappy people seem to be now suffering from popular convulsions, from dissensions among the states, and from the actual invasion of foreign arms, the crisis of their distiny. All nations have their eyes fixed on the awful spectacle. The first wish prompted by humanity is, that this severe trial may issue in such a revolution of their government as will establish their union, and render it the parent of tranquillity, freedom and happiness: The next, that the asylum under which, we trust, the enjoyment of these blessings will speedily be secured in this country, may receive and console them for the catastrophe of their own.

I make no apology for having dwelt so long on the contemplation of these federal precedents. Experience is the oracle of truth; and where its responses are unequivocal, they ought to be conclusive and sacred. The important truth, which it unequivocally pronounces in the present case, is that a sovereignty over sovereigns, a government over governments, a legislation for communities, as contradistinguished from individuals, as it is a solecism in theory, so in practice it is subversive of the order and ends of civil polity, by substituting VIOLENCE in place of LAW, or the destructive COERCION of the SWORD in place of the mild and salutary COERCION of the MAGISTRACY.
The defects pointed out by Hamilton and Madison in the two historical and one contemporary examples of weak voluntary confederacies comprised of strong and sovereign component states in their three joint entries in The Federalist amusingly were borne out by the increasing disunity and fragmentation of the Confederate States of America as the trial of the Civil War wore on. Georgia began to threaten secession from the CSA even before Sherman entered that state, and the governor of North Carolina, acting on the principle of States' Rights, hoarded his state's supply of uniforms and rations even as the thinning ranks of Lee's army were starving and shivering in rags in the trenches of Petersburg. Any argument that the Founders favoured the concept of a voluntary union of sovereign states which could retain the option to leave the Union at their pleasure is both dishonest and ludicrous.
(Fun pasttime though: compare the tyranny of Abraham Lincoln with the tyranny Jefferson listed from George III. A good chunk of similarity there! Why do so many presidents ignore the rule of law? IMO, if Lincoln believed the states had no right to go, he should have sued in the court before invading, even with the Fort Sumter incident. I'd be ok with saying the fort could defend itself and have a right to exist, since it was Federal territory to which the states had no claim, so the confederates shouldn't have tried to expel it the way they did and that is arguably an act of war. But, blargh, I would have loved to see a lawsuit but Sumter I guess absolves Lincoln of this bit :( )
And thus speaks the ignorant voice of secession-wankage and the libertard. There is no comparison between Lincoln and George III. Lincoln's "outrage" against the South which drove the secession was his election to the presidency and his commitment to restrict the spread of slavery into Federal territories. The South found it outrageous that Lincoln was prepared to carry out the laws regarding the regulation of territories as outlined in the Constitution! For an entire month, Lincoln made no military move against the seceded states, showing a restraint that was never exhibited by the policy of George III. Finally, as one of his primary duties as president was to "preserve, protect, and defend the Union", the notion that he should have responded to a large-scale insurrection against lawful government, executed by military means with illegally organised armies, with a court suit is, to put it charitably, insane.
What's interesting about that though is that he didn't say "changing government is bad", he said "changing government is bad because"; he said it was prudence to not take it lightly, after asserting the right exists to change government.
He asserted that right for the people, not the states —the ultimate revolutionary right of the people to overthrow a tyranny. This doctrine which the South did not assert as justification for their illegal action. And had they attempted to make that argument, they would had utterly failed to demonstrate "a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object [evincing] a design to reduce them under absolute despotism" to justify any resort to revolution. So invoking Jefferson avails you naught, as by his own standards the South would never have had a legitimate case for their action.
So, this country was founded on the assertion that people have the right to abolish government, and it's just using reason to determine when.... but again, the right exists!
A right held by the people, not states. I don't know how to make this point any plainer to that inadequate brain of yours.
So, I don't think there's a real difference between secession and revolution, and moreover that the distinction was invented as a kind of double-think from people who wanted to expand their central power (Jackson, Lincoln, and others) while at the same time, not invalidating the very power they are seeking to expand. Granted, that's an appeal to motive, but it stands independently of the main point.
Then not only is your alleged point illegitimate as a logical argument, it is unsupported by the views of Madison and Hamilton on the matter.
I'm arguing that, in 1860, secession was not insurrection nor invasion, so the authority to put down insurrection and invasion is irrelevant.
I am not responsible for your fantasies.
When ballots have fairly and constitutionally decided, there can be no successful appeal back to bullets.
—Abraham Lincoln

People pray so that God won't crush them like bugs.
—Dr. Gregory House

Oil an emergency?! It's about time, Brigadier, that the leaders of this planet of yours realised that to remain dependent upon a mineral slime simply doesn't make sense.
—The Doctor "Terror Of The Zygons" (1975)

User avatar
Patrick Degan
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 14847
Joined: 2002-07-15 08:06am
Location: Orleanian in exile

Re: Ron Paul Claims Sexual Harassment Shouldn’t Be Illegal

Post by Patrick Degan » 2012-01-04 11:12pm

Redundant post excised.
Last edited by Patrick Degan on 2012-01-04 11:14pm, edited 1 time in total.
When ballots have fairly and constitutionally decided, there can be no successful appeal back to bullets.
—Abraham Lincoln

People pray so that God won't crush them like bugs.
—Dr. Gregory House

Oil an emergency?! It's about time, Brigadier, that the leaders of this planet of yours realised that to remain dependent upon a mineral slime simply doesn't make sense.
—The Doctor "Terror Of The Zygons" (1975)

User avatar
Patrick Degan
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 14847
Joined: 2002-07-15 08:06am
Location: Orleanian in exile

Re: Ron Paul Claims Sexual Harassment Shouldn’t Be Illegal

Post by Patrick Degan » 2012-01-04 11:13pm

Destructionator XIII wrote:Let's cut out the irrelevant shit and your massive walls of text to get to the points.
Because why should the actual words of the Founders that directly contradict —in detail— libertard bullshit about state sovereignty count for anything, right?
Patrick Degan wrote:You do realise that the Southern leadership did NOT appeal to the premises of the Declaration to justify their illegal secession, don't you?
I don't give a shit about what they appealed to. This is my argument.
Who cares? Your mere opinion is irrelevant to anything. The Declaration of Independence does not support the concept of legal state secession and the Southern leadership didn't even try to justify their insurrection by appealing to it in the day. Attempting to retcon history to say that it could do is dishonest.
Any argument that the Founders favoured the concept of a voluntary union of sovereign states which could retain the option to leave the Union at their pleasure is both dishonest and ludicrous.
I do not care what they favored either. What I do care about is: a) my own abstract arguments, and b) what the text of the legal documents actually says; The Federalist papers aren't binding documents nor are they the last word on morality.
Once more: your mere opinion is irrelevant to anything. The intent of the Founders is part of legitimate constitutional analysis and being that the one founder —Madison— was one of the men who actually drafted the document grants him far more authority on the subject that you. Eat it.
And thus speaks the ignorant voice of secession-wankage and the libertard. There is no comparison between Lincoln and George III.
Lincoln:
  • Used the slaves as pawns. He didn't actually care one way or another - his only concern was preserving Federal power. He said if he could preserve the union without freeing any slaves, he'd do it, and his famous Emancipation Proclamation was just another act of this. He basically said "loyal whites can keep their slaves", not "the slaves are free". Note how it only applied in rebellious states being occupied by the tyrant's armies.

    What do you call it when a leader uses his people as mere pawns (and literal slaves) in his political games to maintain his power?
More dishonesty on your part. Lincoln made clear both his anti-slavery sentiments through the course of his legal and political career and also, at the beginning of his presidency, his initial belief that he didn't have the right to interfere with slavery. When he spoke of preserving the Union even if it meant leaving the slavery question unresolved, he was speaking to a hope to end the war before it reached the scope it ultimately took in terms of destruction in lives and the political fabric of the nation.

As for your equal dishonesty regarding the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln was acting within the scope of his wartime powers and not assuming a power to unilaterally free all slaves wherever they existed within American territory —a power only Congress could express, not the Executive.
I call it tyranny.
Valueless opinion.
[*] If he suspected someone was a Southern sympathizer in the North... he had them jailed, suspending the writ of habeas corpus.

What do you wall it when a leader throws people who disagree with him into political prisons with no redress?
The writ of habeus corpus can be constitutionally suspended during wartime or insurrection. You have no argument. And on the flip-side, Jefferson Davis also not only suspended habeus corpus within the CSA, but allowed Confederate military authorities to unilaterally execute draft resistors or suspected Unionists as they saw fit —acts far more in the character of a tyranny than Lincoln's.
I call it tyranny.
Valueless opinion.
[*] When ordered by the Court to stop the previous tyranny (in Ex Parte Merryman)... he simply ignored it.

What do you call it when a leader ignores the rule of law?
What do you call it when the Supreme Court ignores the rule of law and constitutionality in the first place? Chief Justice Taney's ruling was as incompetent in both areas in Merryman as it was in Dred Scott v. Sanford. While an abuse of power, Lincoln's action is a very far step from tyranny no matter how much you bray idiotically that it is. A tyrant would have had Taney and the other justices summarily executed for even hearing the case, without even waiting for a ruling one way or the other.
I call it tyranny.
Valueless opinion.
[*] He started a god damned war.[/list]
Really? Abraham Lincoln was actually Commander-in-Chief of Confederate forces? He ordered South Carolina batteries to fire on the USS Star Of The West in Charleston harbour a full four months before he was even inaugurated? Lincoln actually ordered the artillery barrage of Ft. Sumter instead of Jefferson Davis? Lincoln it was who organised the Southern militia system and prepared it to fight against the government for the years the Southern leadership were plotting their insurrection? Lincoln ordered the initial Confederate attacks in Missouri, upon other coastal forts in the South which were Federal property and over which no state had any legal claim in any case? Really, go and have a lie-down.
Check out Jefferson's list and you'll find many of those same things.
Only in a parallel universe, perhaps, but not in this one; in which the South were the clear aggressors, initiating attacks upon Federal military facilities, and who planned the forcible inclusion of the Border States as well as the Arizona territory into the CSA. You have no argument.
Finally, as one of his primary duties as president was to "preserve, protect, and defend the Union"
And as he was faced with an actual insurrection threatening the very existence of the Union, he did exactly that. You have no argument.
Article II, Section 1 of a piece of toilet paper:
I'm sorry, did you mean actually to refer to the Confederate constitution here, which did have all the legality of a piece of toilet paper?
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
And as Lincoln was faced with an actual insurrection, the object of which was the destruction of legal, constitutional government which defined the Union of states, he was carrying out his oath to the letter. Again, you have no argument.
, the notion that he should have responded to a large-scale insurrection against lawful government, executed by military means with illegally organised armies, with a court suit is, to put it charitably, insane.
It's always better to settle issues of law with the military rather than the courts.
An armed insurrection threatens the very destruction of law, you drooling imbecile. A military attack can only be resisted through military means.
So invoking Jefferson avails you naught, as by his own standards the South would never have had a legitimate case for their action.
He called it imprudent, not illegitimate.
Jefferson would never have called the South's case anything but illegitimate, and the South had no case. Prior to their illegal initiation of war against lawful government in 1861, they could not point to any example of tyranny by the national government, such as being denied representation in Congress, or of having their own laws and state charters suspended, their state political leaders suspended or even arrested. They could not argue that they were denied participation in national elections or denied the protection of the courts. War was not made upon them in antebellum times. If anything, the national government, held under Southern sway for thirty-plus years, bent itself backwards to cater to the South and was repeatedly blackmailed with threats of secession and civil war if they failed to do so. What was the South's definition of "tyranny", then, which justified the breakup of the Union? A national election that didn't go their way and the prospect that demographics and democratic changes to the law over time would eventually put an end to the Peculiar Institution, upon which the wealth and social and political power of the Southern planter aristocracy was based. In other words, they were threatened by the prospect of majority rule. So they moved to put an end to that threat to their power and began an insurrection dressed up in the dishonest guise of pretended constitutionality, and proceeded to create a government based upon a moral inversion and dedicated to the proposition that All Men were Unequal and some far more Unequal than Others. And this you would call liberty, legalism and constitutionalism? No, the South had no argument and neither do you.
When ballots have fairly and constitutionally decided, there can be no successful appeal back to bullets.
—Abraham Lincoln

People pray so that God won't crush them like bugs.
—Dr. Gregory House

Oil an emergency?! It's about time, Brigadier, that the leaders of this planet of yours realised that to remain dependent upon a mineral slime simply doesn't make sense.
—The Doctor "Terror Of The Zygons" (1975)

Post Reply