# Think Tank > U.S. Constitution >  A Limiting Document?

## John F Kennedy III

*A Limiting Document?*

by Brion McClanahan


There is a common mantra among those who pursue the old republican principles of freedom and limited government that the Constitution limits the power of the central government, and therefore if we just followed the document everything would be ok; if it were only that simple. They are not entirely wrong, but the characterization of the Constitution as a limiting document is only partly true. 

During the great "sales job" of 1787 and 1788, proponents of the Constitution swore that the powers of the central government, as enumerated in the Constitution, could never be enlarged or enhanced. The Constitution, it was said, differed from the English model because it was a written document, as opposed to the unwritten British model of common law that could fluctuate with the will of ambitious and unscrupulous judges. The only interpretation could be found in the language of the document itself, and if the general government exceeded its constituted authority, the people were no longer duty bound to follow such tyranny. Alexander Hamilton said as much in the Federalist essays, as did other proponents of the document, such as James Iredell of North Carolina, George Nicholas and Edmund Randolph of Virginia, and James Wilson of Pennsylvania, among others. 


Many of the proponents of the document were good, honest men who believed in sound American principles of government. Roger Sherman of Connecticut, John Dickinson of Delaware, and John Rutledge of South Carolina come to mind. Yet, no one would ever accuse Hamilton and Wilson of being anything more than ardent nationalists, but there they were, in 1787 and 1788, defending the Constitution on the basis that its powers were limited by their strict enumeration and that the Constitution would continue the federal republic as under the Articles of Confederation. The States bought it and ratified the document. Unfortunately, the story did not end there nor did all Americans believe such shysters as Hamilton and Wilson. There were holes in their story.

The ratification of the Constitution was a messy business precisely because the opposition understood what the Constitution could and would ultimately do to liberty and good government in the United States. Violence, intimidation, and the suppression of a free press in many States followed. That is the untold story. In Pennsylvania, opponents of the document were forcibly dragged to their seats by a mob in order to secure a quorum to call for a ratifying convention and then once the document was ratified, mobs whipped up on their opponents in drunken jubilation, literally at times. At the same time, the press virtually ignored the opposition and often printed only the speeches and pamphlets written in support of the document. 

The situation was worse in Connecticut. There the opposition  labeled as the "Wrongheads"  was blacklisted from the press, and the only surviving speeches from the January ratifying convention come from the proponents, not by accident. Connecticutter Hugh Ledlie, a veteran of the French and Indian War and the American War for Independence and a member of the Sons of Liberty, wrote shortly after the document was ratified in his State that the Constitution would "in the endwork the ruin of the freedom and liberty of these thirteen dis-united states" and he called the Constitution "a gilded pill." 


Most Americans also probably dont know that Hamilton was taken to task in the New York Ratifying Convention and, in essence, exposed as a liar. After one of his speeches in support of the document, John Lansing produced his notes of the Philadelphia Convention which showed that Hamilton wanted and favored a Constitution unlike the one he supposedly supported. Lansing said Hamilton could not be trusted. New York ratified the document anyway by two votes. As in Pennsylvania, violence then gripped the State as proponents took to the streets in New York City. It was hazardous to your health to be a so-called "Anti-Federalist" in 1788. Of course the famous essays of "Brutus" and "An Old Whig" along with the speeches of Patrick Henry of Virginia (every American should read them) and the close votes in New York, Virginia, and Massachusetts clearly show that the Constitution was not the glorious culmination of wisdom that modern Americans view it to be.

How could people like Ledlie, Henry, "Brutus" and "An Old Whig" describe the Constitution as a document that would subvert liberty when, if the "limiting document" school is correct, the powers of the general government are circumscribed by their enumeration? Simple. Because opponents correctly saw the Constitution and the powers granted to it by the people of the States as a vehicle for unlimited tyranny. The Constitution established a powerful central authority  with the ability to tax, spend, borrow, and wage war  one that if unchecked and unleashed would destroy the "Principles of 76," namely republicanism, decentralization, and liberty. 

To opponents, the only proper check was a bill of rights, and almost every State that submitted a set of proposed amendments placed a "State sovereignty" amendment at the top of the list. These proposed "State sovereignty" amendments were a direct assault on the vague language of the document, namely the infamous "sweeping clauses" now known as the "Necessary and Proper Clause," the "Supremacy Clause," and the "General Welfare Clause." The Constitution only became a "limiting document" with the ratification of the Tenth Amendment, and that is why its enforcement is paramount. Without it, the Constitution as written opens a malleable Pandoras Box for scheming politicians to use to their advantage. It was not sold to the States that way in 1787 and 1788, nor would it have been ratified had the people of the States thought the general government would turn out to be the modern leviathan in Washington D.C., but when arguing that the Constitution is a "limiting document," it must always be remembered that is only the case if we faithfully adhere to the Tenth Amendment and the Constitution as ratified and sold to the States. Otherwise, the opponents of the document who warned against its ratification will forever be proven correct. We were warned.


original article here:
http://lewrockwell.com/orig10/mcclanahan9.1.1.html

----------


## heavenlyboy34

w00t!  Federalism=fail.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

the u.s. constitution was always flawed in binding war powers.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> w00t!  Federalism=fail.


Anti Federalists FTW!




> the Constitution would "in the end…work the ruin of the freedom and liberty

----------


## Travlyr

> Anti Federalists FTW!


For sure. Didn't the Anti Federalists sign onto the Constitution after the Bill of Rights were added?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Anti Federalists FTW!


Indeed! +rep

----------


## Travlyr

One step further. What *if the constitution was obeyed today* as originally written and amended? Would Federalism permit the oppressive police state funded by fiat money that we have to endure?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> For sure. Didn't the Anti Federalists sign onto the Constitution after the Bill of Rights were added?


I don't see any AF's on the list of signatories.

----------


## Travlyr

> I don't see any AF's on the list of signatories.


That signing was pre-Bill of Rights, right? What I meant by signing onto the Constitution, and I may be mistaken, that all but one or two of the Anti Federalists worked for ratification after the Bill of Rights were added.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> One step further. What *if the constitution was obeyed today* as originally written and amended? Would Federalism permit the oppressive police state funded by fiat money that we have to endure?


Sure.  The Federalists generally weren't as concerned about standing armies as the AF's were.  However, the people at that time would have opposed police, as the work of crime prevention was handled very locally and sanely.

----------


## Travlyr

> Sure.  The Federalists generally weren't as concerned about standing armies as the AF's were.  However, the people at that time would have opposed police, as the work of crime prevention was handled very locally and sanely.


How so? Where does the Constitution allow for standing armies? The concept of police did not exist in 1787. Where in the Constitution are they allowed? If it was strictly followed today.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> How so? Where does the Constitution allow for standing armies? The concept of police did not exist in 1787. Where in the Constitution are they allowed? If it was strictly followed today.


Article I, sect 8.  It technically has a time limitation, but rules like that have never limited congress in its history.

----------


## Travlyr

> Article I, sect 8.  It technically has a time limitation, but rules like that have never limited congress in its history.


But it does have a time limit. I am asking if the Constitution was *strictly* followed ... not if it was subverted. I do not see where standing armies, police, or fiat currency are allowed in the Constitution.

----------


## Travlyr

> *Article. I. Section. 8.* The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common *Defence* and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


Defense... Not Offense and to punish Offenses.




> To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
> 
> To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
> 
> To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
> 
> To provide and maintain a Navy;
> 
> To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
> ...


My point is that if we obeyed the Constitution as written, then people would be much more free than they are today. The Federal government would not be the oppressive war machine & police state that it is. If obeyed. That is why they do not want to obey it.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Defense... Not Offense and to punish Offenses.
> 
> 
> 
> My point is that if we obeyed the Constitution as written, then people would be much more free than they are today. The Federal government would not be the oppressive war machine & police state that it is. If obeyed. That is why they do not want to obey it.


Yeah, but your point relies on a very big *IF* conditional clause.  There's no evidence that it would actually happen in history.  Jefferson famously said that the regime should be "bound by the chains of the constitution" (or something to that effect), but went on to bend and break Constitutional rules when he became prez.  See what I'm getting at?  The whole premise of U.S. constitutionalism assumes 1) men are inherently inclined toward evil and must be governed and 2) men are capable, morally and intellectually, of choosing other men to be governors.  These two inherently conflict, making the whole theory flawed and incorrect.

----------


## Travlyr

> Yeah, but your point relies on a very big *IF* conditional clause.  There's no evidence that it would actually happen in history.  Jefferson famously said that the regime should be "bound by the chains of the constitution" (or something to that effect), but went on to bend and break Constitutional rules when he became prez.  See what I'm getting at?  The whole premise of U.S. constitutionalism assumes 1) men are inherently inclined toward evil and must be governed and 2) men are capable, morally and intellectually, of choosing other men to be governors.  These two inherently conflict, making the whole theory flawed and incorrect.


Here is evidence my friend. It is happening now. These patriots are making a difference. Will they win? It's too early to tell, yet they are being bold, and they are standing up for what is right. What I find interesting is that people who want to dismiss the Constitution are supporters of the people currently in power. The Oligarchy does not want to obey the rule of law. 

Urgent Legislative Cure needed for Federal and State Office Holder Defect 

Kenneth A. Gomez
Governor of the State of New Mexico
Executive Order 20120001 - Providing an Order
Creating an Interim Government
August 28, 2012
By authority vested in me as De Jure Governor by the Constitution and the laws of the State of New
Mexico, including 1978 Comp., § 20-2-4, enacted by Laws 1987, ch. 318, § 11, it is hereby proclaimed
and ordered:
Section 1. Subject to the power of Article XXII, Section 19, Constitution of the State of New Mexico, and
the statutory authorities of Section 10-2-5, 6, 7, and 9 NMSA 1978, I, as lawfully elected and De Jure
Governor, proclaim that a state of insurrection exists throughout the State of New Mexico composed of
persons unconstitutionally and statutorily posing as state public officers who:

----------


## Travlyr

Does anybody else think that, if the Constitution was *strictly obeyed* that we would be living in a police state like we are today?

----------


## Seraphim

The US Constitution is a fantastic framework for improving the human condition but it was written in a time, that no different then ours - is limited by the knowledge and understanding put fourth in the realm of discussion.

Jefferson himself was adamant that the Earth belongs to the living.

The US Constitution must be improved for the USA to improve. The very same inalienable rights that The Founders espoused are, in fact, betrayed by their system of governance. 

*The Bill of Rights is INFINITELY more important as a foundation for Liberty, than the US Constitution.*


> Does anybody else think that, if the Constitution was *strictly obeyed* that we would be living in a police state like we are today?


The Constitution is a deeply flawed arrangement that has failed not solely through a lack of will to enforce it, but due to structural weaknesses as well.

The US Constitution was a GIANT leap forward in human governance. It is, in no way, the end game. It MUST be improved towards ever more decentralization.

I'll take a reversion to strict Constitutional governance in a heart beat - but merely as a vehicle towards fulfilling the destiny of this species. That destiny is much greater and eloquent than that of ANY State oriented structure for society.

----------


## Travlyr

> The US Constitution is a fantastic framework for improving the human condition but it was written in a time, that no different then ours - is limited by the knowledge and understanding put fourth in the realm of discussion.
> 
> Jefferson himself was adamant that the Earth belongs to the living.
> 
> The US Constitution must be improved for the USA to improve. The very same inalienable rights that The Founders espoused are, in fact, betrayed by their system of governance. 
> 
> *The Bill of Rights is INFINITELY more important as a foundation for Liberty, than the US Constitution.*
> 
> The Constitution is a deeply flawed arrangement that has failed not solely through a lack of will to enforce it, but due to structural weaknesses as well.
> ...


I agree with all of this. 

My point is simply that by *strictly obeying the Constitution* our society would be producing a rather free, peaceful, and prosperous society for individuals than the oppressive warmongering police state we endure under the Central Bank Oligarchy.

----------


## Seraphim

No doubt :-)




> I agree with all of this. 
> 
> My point is simply that by *strictly obeying the Constitution* our society would be producing a rather free, peaceful, and prosperous society for individuals than the oppressive warmongering police state we endure under the Central Bank Oligarchy.

----------


## pochy1776

> Indeed! +rep


Federalism as in what context? Federalism as in 10th amendement or the federalist party.

----------


## osan

An excellent article.

However, the author evades or otherwise misses the central point. While there is no question that the US Constitution is profoundly flawed in all the ways cited, at the end of the day those flaws are essentially irrelevant because when it comes down to brass tacks WE are the only guarantors of liberty. Only WE are able to apprehend the meaning and nature of proper human freedom. The responsibility lies with US to ensure that this understanding and learning is passed on to our posterity in such manner as to best perpetuate liberty in its pure and proper form.

But we have failed at this in the most spectacularly and wildly egregious manner. We have failed our ancestors who at least made reasonable if yet partly misguided efforts to establish and preserve liberty. Their good work, however flawed, should have served as the starting points from which succeeding generations took the torches they lit and run with them, preserving what good there was, identifying the fallacies, errors, and weaknesses, and refining that initial good work to its inevitably penultimate perfection. But we refused that honor, seeing it rather as toil, chore, and abject drudgery. What fools we have been!


We have failed our children, most of whom are likely never to know liberty even to the limited degrees to which we have enjoyed it. Could there be any greater sin than to relegate our issue to a future of almost certain and abject slavery; to deny them the experiences that allow them the opportunities to become all they might choose and to teach them to reach for the stars? We have, in effect, done to our posterity that to which no other act of murderous cruelty could ever lay claim.

But very worst of all, we have failed ourselves. Most of us... ENOUGH of us held neither the nominal senses of enlightened self interest nor self-respect to educate ourselves properly; to come to love what is right and good; to be fearless in the face of the evil that surrounds us; to embrace Jefferson's vigorous contest; to be utterly INTOLERANT of trespass regardless of the simpering and whining of the crafty, corrupt, and tirelessly determined enemies of liberty. Instead, we chose to believe the words of those parasitically infectious popinjays whose siren's songs of "equality" and "fairness" captured us. We volunteered for the green-switch beatings they doled out to us to the strains of "racist", "sexist", and every other "-ist" imaginable and a few unimaginable except in the rotten and repugnant minds of such scum. And worst of all, rather than forge ahead in our endeavors to perfect the human condition through the endless refinement of our understanding and practice of freedom, we have forged the very chains that bind our own feet.

We cannot even claim good intentions. The only thing to which we may lay legitimate claim is individual personal corruption in sufficient proportions to produce the currently miserable state of our political lives. How can good intentions be attributed to the willful abandonment of intelligence, industry, responsibility, courage, and the principles that are foundational to all human prosperity? How can good intentions be attributed to turning one's back on proper education and the adoption of attitudes that any minimally intelligent being readily identifies as suicidal? How can good intentions be attributed to lassitude so fathomless that even the dead appear industrious by comparison?

No. Good intentions cannot be plausibly credited as a cause or causative element with any of the choices that so great a mob of Americans have made for themselves and, far more sinfully, cheerfully imposed upon their fellows through the instruments of "state". Such intentions may, however, be claimed to cloak the dark and disgusting truth. Nothing less or other than rank, rancid, and reeking corruption of spirit on an individual basis, having been loosed to run wildly amok at the first opportunity and encouragement could have been the root cause of every rotten and unforgivably stupid choice made by the mobs of glazed-over, cow-eyed, and self-made imbeciles in these United States. There are no excuses and there is no forgiving such willful embrace of bald-faced evil as this. We damn ourselves and in so doing damn our posterity and dishonor all who came before us as we render that for which they toiled and suffered and died into the dust, and for no other reason than laziness and the desire to believe and accept lies and evil that are convenient to that lassitude and to our endless avarice to have something for nothing.

God help us all.

Raging ignorance and bottomless personal corruption rule our days and by that means are we each of us paving the broad boulevards that lead one and all straight into the the gaping maw of abject servitude itself. 

Do not fool yourselves into thinking the truth is anything other than this; anything even marginally prettier. 

To those good people of the nation and of the entire world who still believe in freedom and goodness and rectitude, you have my respect, my regard, my affection, and my love as one man to his fellows. Do not be deterred and do not waver from your truth regardless of the threats you may face. Look the tyrants and their endless legions of mindlessly ignorant minions squarely in their faces with utter, complete, and fearless defiance. Give them nothing. Force them to exhaust themselves by having to take from you that which is not theirs to take. Make them toil at their tasks of subjugation. Make the dread you for the dire labor you promise to extract from them through refusal. Hold fast to the good that is within yourself, recognize it in your fellows where you may find it, and bind and bond yourselves as brothers in liberty, come what may. 

Never give up. Never give in. Go to your graves in courage and nobility, shunning the easy paths of corruption dangled before you as so many enticing and shining trinkets offered as ease to your righteous burdens, for you will trade your sacred charge for the agony of the profane.

There may be no winning this war of spirit against the ravages of the tyrant, but press on regardless for the only alternative is to capitulate to evil, thus guaranteeing your future as we;; as those of your progeny. Fight without end these rotten usurpers of your sacred birthright that is freedom. 

Be well, be good, and keep the faith no matter what.

----------


## osan

> Does anybody else think that, if the Constitution was *strictly obeyed* that we would be living in a police state like we are today?


Possibly even then.  The document is not well written at all in the context of its purpose, which is ostensibly to establish a contract of confederation between the states that establishes the benefits and obligations of the parties thereto.  As with any properly written contract, the Constitution should be eminently well written in terms of completeness, accuracy, and clarity.  It is arguably complete and perhaps even accurate, for some definition of "accurate".  It is not, however, clear in many instances.  Many of us know the ugly mess that was the process of ratification.  People are people and back then they were no better than they are now.  There were numerous conflicting points of view, as well as personal agendas and perhaps one or two of a hidden nature at work during that time.

Given the very tough circumstances, it is difficult to fault the authors too greatly because they were trying to please enough people to get the document into an acceptable condition.  Because of this, the document is _very_ open-ended at many points.  To "strictly obey" the document, therefore, can mean VERY different things to different people.  That is why the answer to your question is, "maybe".

Flawed or not, the Constitution is most certainly not to blame for the state in which we find ourselves today.  It is our fault, statistically speaking.  Not enough of us cared enough to get smart and be active in defense of our freedoms and now have a fifth generation circus klown who has issued all manner of insane EOs and will either soon have a second term to go balls to the wall in an effort to extinguish the pathetic remnants of our liberty or will hand the reins over to his bleached-flour twin.  That is what our self-absorbed and narcissistic hubris bought us: manacles slipped about our ankles as we stood before full length mirrors, masturbating.

----------


## TheTexan

> I agree with all of this. 
> 
> My point is simply that by *strictly obeying the Constitution* our society would be producing a rather free, peaceful, and prosperous society for individuals than the oppressive warmongering police state we endure under the Central Bank Oligarchy.


If the Constitution were strictly obeyed, this place wouldn't be half bad, agreed.

However, rebuttal:
"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it."

----------


## Travlyr

> If the Constitution were strictly obeyed, this place wouldn't be half bad, agreed.
> 
> However, rebuttal:
> "But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it."


Indeed. As Osan pointed out it is not the fault of the Constitution that allowed the state of affairs in which we find ourselves ... it is the fault of the people. I remain optimistic that the liberty ship is turning around and running roughshod over anyone standing in the way. Perhaps I hold out hope because our founders proved that liberty can be achieved. Maybe my optimism comes from the hope of the Internet spreading the truth far and wide. It is obvious to me that once again the principles of liberty are worldwide. It is not too late, but the opposition does have an unlimited money supply ... for now.




> The Preamble to The Bill of Rights
> 
> Congress of the United States
> begun and held at the City of New-York, on
> Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
> 
> THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
> 
> RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.
> ...

----------


## TheTexan

> it is the fault of the people.


Agreed

----------


## osan

> w00t!  Federalism=fail.


This is just such a profoundly true statement.

The ostensible goals of federalism, most specifically the common defense, could have and WOULD have been attained in far better fashion by specific agreements between states.  Standards for arms systems, for example, make sense in at least some measure, and would undoubtedly been adopted through consortia.  And even there 100% standardization holds the same weaknesses as monoculture... a vulnerability is discovered and the entire armed force is screwed into the ground.  

A non-federal structure would have looked very similar to what we have today on the positive side, minus virtually all of the negatives.

I am so sorry, but the Framers screwed us right up the tail pipe with that $#@!ty little Constitution.  I wish it were otherwise, but it isn't.  The one gem in the entire document is the BoR.  I would, in fact, approve of  federalism on that line alone: that joining the confederation of states would bind each member to observe the dictates of the BoR as the absolute minimum standard of governmental good behavior.  I would structure and word it differently, but that is another issue altogether.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> This is just such a profoundly true statement.
> 
> The ostensible goals of federalism, most specifically the common defense, could have and WOULD have been attained in far better fashion by specific agreements between states.  Standards for arms systems, for example, make sense in at least some measure, and would undoubtedly been adopted through consortia.  And even there 100% standardization holds the same weaknesses as monoculture... a vulnerability is discovered and the entire armed force is screwed into the ground.  
> 
> A non-federal structure would have looked very similar to what we have today on the positive side, minus virtually all of the negatives.
> 
> I am so sorry, but the Framers screwed us right up the tail pipe with that $#@!ty little Constitution.  I wish it were otherwise, but it isn't.  The one gem in the entire document is the BoR.  I would, in fact, approve of  federalism on that line alone: that joining the confederation of states would bind each member to observe the dictates of the BoR as the absolute minimum standard of governmental good behavior.  I would structure and word it differently, but that is another issue altogether.


I regret that I have only 1 +rep to give you, dear sir. /laments

----------


## TheTexan

> One step further. What *if the constitution was obeyed today* as originally written and amended? Would Federalism permit the oppressive police state funded by fiat money that we have to endure?


I would only ever support a constitution if it included an unconditional right for states to secede

----------


## Travlyr

> I would only ever support a constitution if it included an unconditional right for states to secede


That is the 10th Amendment ... many thanks to George Mason.

----------


## PierzStyx

I'm really tired of the "vague language" line. What bullocks. The document is clear as a cloudless and sunny day. It is a modern progressive line that the Constitution is "vague" and thus the need to "interpret" it in our "modern times." It saddens me so many people on here buy that line, and the false history that goes with it, hook line and sinker.

And lets stop pretending the Articles of Confederation were any better, so lets stop worshiping them. As weak as they were they offered no checks or protections in any form on the individual states. No document can guarantee liberty, and if the American people were unwilling to fight for their freedom that every state government would eventually turn into an authoritarian power. Instead of one tyrannical government today, we would have had thirteen (or more) 150 years ago. One of teh greatest things about The Constitution is that it set the states and the Fedgov at odds for so long and kept them fighting each other so much that it helped preserve freedom for a lot longer than if the competition had not been there, as under the Articles.

----------


## TheTexan

> Instead of one tyrannical government today, we would have had thirteen (or more) 150 years ago.


Pure speculation.  The Constitution directly led to Lincoln's war of aggression, which removed all checks on the constitution (secession was the only thing preventing tyranny) and this created a chain of events that led us here today.

It is impossible to say whether or not all states would have been tyrannical.  Surely some would have been, but your assessment that all would be tyrannical is based on your assessment of _today_'s people's willingness to fight for their liberty.  That will to fight was extinguished over a process of centuries, and not you or anybody else can say that the fires of liberty wouldn't have found a home in at least one of the states had they have not lost the war of oppression

----------


## Travlyr

> I'm really tired of the "vague language" line. What bullocks. The document is clear as a cloudless and sunny day. It is a modern progressive line that the Constitution is "vague" and thus the need to "interpret" it in our "modern times." It saddens me so many people on here buy that line, and the false history that goes with it, hook line and sinker.
> 
> And lets stop pretending the Articles of Confederation were any better, so lets stop worshiping them. As weak as they were they offered no checks or protections in any form on the individual states. No document can guarantee liberty, and if the American people were unwilling to fight for their freedom that every state government would eventually turn into an authoritarian power. Instead of one tyrannical government today, we would have had thirteen (or more) 150 years ago. One of teh greatest things about The Constitution is that it set the states and the Fedgov at odds for so long and kept them fighting each other so much that it helped preserve freedom for a lot longer than if the competition had not been there, as under the Articles.


Exactly. The Articles of Confederation lost their power in less than 10 years. The document was too weak. The problem with the Constitution is that it is not being obeyed. The State is like a shoe store in that people need shoes but people don't need so many shoes that you can't even open the door without shoes crushing you. 

We need a State but we only need a little state. The Supreme Court started $#@!ing it up within a few years after ratification because they saw the power in judicial review. They make the laws. Well they can go to hell. They do not have the power of judicial review. Every one of the Supreme Court's decisions on Constitutionality are void of law. I mean, I like their black robes and all, but every one of their decisions concerning the interpretation of the Constitution are invalid. They do not get to determine who is on the 'kill' list... and neither does the President. None of that $#@! is constitutional.

----------


## TheTexan

> Exactly. The Articles of Confederation lost their power in less than 10 years. The document was too weak.





> We need a State but we only need a little state.


Your idea of a little state is a very strong powerful central government... that protects liberty?  Good $#@!ing luck with that lol

----------


## Travlyr

> Pure speculation.  *The Constitution directly led to Lincoln's war of aggression*, which removed all checks on the constitution (secession was the only thing preventing tyranny) and this created a chain of events that led us here today.
> 
> It is impossible to say whether or not all states would have been tyrannical.  Surely some would have been, but your assessment that all would be tyrannical is based on your assessment of _today_'s people's willingness to fight for their liberty.  That will to fight was extinguished over a process of centuries, and not you or anybody else can say that the fires of liberty wouldn't have found a home in at least one of the states had they have not lost the war of oppression


No it didn't. The Constitution was undermined on July 17, 1861. There is no legal founding for paper money.

----------


## Travlyr

> Your idea of a little state is a very strong powerful central government... that protects liberty?  Good $#@!ing luck with that lol


The little state existed for several years... 87 years to be exact... an entire generation of people understood what liberty was like.

----------


## TheTexan

> The little state existed for several years... 87 years to be exact... an entire generation of people understood what liberty was like.


Unconditional state's right to secession, guaranteed in the first sentence of your new desired constitution, deal?

----------


## TheTexan

> No it didn't. The Constitution was undermined on July 17, 1861. There is no legal founding for paper money.


The Constitution was designed as a centralization of power.  Fighting a war over secession is simply a natural consequence of that precedent.

----------


## Travlyr

> Your idea of a little state is a very strong powerful central government... that protects liberty?  Good $#@!ing luck with that lol


The little state existed for several years... Four Score and Seven Years to be exact... an entire generation of people understood what liberty was like.

Just because you don't understand history doesn't mean they didn't. They held their freedom for an entire generation and even a little more...  until the bankers took over again. It is the way it always has been throughout history... rule by weapon ... win freedom... lose freedom... since the times of Babylon ... except for 87+ years of serious freedom due to the Constitutional Republics.

----------


## TheTexan

I'll let you have your constitution, granted it guarantees an unconditional right of state secession.  Deal?

----------


## Travlyr

> The Constitution was designed as a centralization of power.  Fighting a war over secession is simply a natural consequence of that precedent.


Centralization of power because it was necessary. Virginia was the largest State by FAR in 1780. There was so much territorial dispute the wars would have gone on forever if not for the Constitution. What is the difference if you live under the tyranny of the State of Virginia or the United States of America? Great difference. At least in the United States of America, if one owned land, you had a voice. At least representative government was allowed.

----------


## TheTexan

> Centralization of power because it was necessary.


By that goddamn logic we should have the entire world under 1 Constitution.  Great thinking travlyr!

----------


## Travlyr

> I'll let you have your constitution, granted it guarantees an unconditional right of state secession.  Deal?


Not unconditional. You do not have the right to chattel slavery.

----------


## Travlyr

> By that goddamn logic we should have the entire world under 1 Constitution.  Great thinking travlyr!


Absolutely. It would be a lot better than living under the UN.

----------


## Travlyr

> By that goddamn logic we should have the entire world under 1 Constitution.  Great thinking travlyr!


You are missing a very important point. We endure tyranny because we do not obey the Constitution. Abandoning it does not help.

----------


## TheTexan

> Not unconditional.


Then you are my enemy.  You are an enemy of freedom, liberty, and even your own Constitution.  The threat of secession is the only thing that keeps the Federal government in check to ensure it follows the Constitution.  By making secession "conditional" you are in effect giving the Federal government the ability to dictate the "conditions" and history has proven that quickly becomes "if you secede, we will kill you."  And this guarantees that the Federal government will do whatever the $#@! it wants, because you have zero recourse to enforce the Constitution.

You are ensuring a repeat of history's past failures, and ensuring that your children and grandchildren are enslaved just as you are now.

The right of secession is equally as important as sound money.  They both work together to protect freedom, and prevent tyranny.  Without either piece, the system falls apart.

You may support sound money, but if you don't support the right of secession, you will get neither sound money, nor freedom.

----------


## TheTexan

> Absolutely. It would be a lot better than living under the UN.


The Globalist reveals his true nature

----------


## Travlyr

> Then you are my enemy.  You are an enemy of freedom, liberty, and even your own Constitution.  The threat of secession is the only thing that keeps the Federal government in check to ensure it follows the Constitution.  By making secession "conditional" you are in effect giving the Federal government to dictate the "conditions" and history has proven that quickly becomes "if you secede, we will kill you."  And this guarantees that the Federal government will do whatever the $#@! it wants, because you have zero recourse to enforce the Constitution.
> 
> You are ensuring a repeat of history's past failures, and ensuring that your children and grandchildren are enslaved just as you are now.
> 
> The right of secession is equally as important as sound money.  They both work together to protect freedom, and prevent tyranny.  Without either piece, the system falls apart.
> 
> You may support sound money, but if you don't support the right of secession, you will get neither sound money, nor freedom.


It is not the Constitution that fails you. Is is not obeying the Constitution that fails you. Sorry dude. You don't have the right to slaves. Not in any state.

----------


## Travlyr

> The Globalist reveals his true nature


Honest question. Have you ever read Agenda 21? That was done without a Constitution.

----------


## TheTexan

> It is not the Constitution that fails you. Is is not obeying the Constitution that fails you. Sorry dude. You don't have the right to slaves. Not in any state.


The Civil War wasn't fought over slavery.

Besides, here's how this would work.  Let's say Texas wanted slaves, but the Constitution prevent them.  So they secede.

Texas is then an independent nation.  With slaves.

The USA is disgusted by this, bombs the $#@! out of Texas in a humanitarian war, wins the war, and then either
a) Accepts the surrender of Texas and the promise they will never hold slaves again, and go home
b) Annex Texas and forever keep them under the rule of the Constitution

Do you prefer a), or b)?

----------


## TheTexan

> Honest question. Have you ever read Agenda 21? That was done without a Constitution.


Yes I have.  And all that bull$#@! is done because of people like you who advance the centralization agenda.  That's what your Constitution is.  It's centralization.  Plain and simple.

----------


## Travlyr

> The Civil War wasn't fought over slavery.


I agree. But if a State still embraced slavery, then I would support a military invasion to defeat the State until they gave up slavery.




> Besides, here's how this would work.  Let's say Texas wanted slaves, but the Constitution prevent them.  So they secede.
> 
> Texas is then an independent nation.  With slaves.
> 
> The USA is disgusted by this, bombs the $#@! out of Texas in a humanitarian war, wins the war, and then either
> a) Accepts the surrender of Texas and the promise they will never hold slaves again, and go home
> b) Annex Texas and forever keep them under the rule of the Constitution
> 
> Do you prefer a), or b)?


A & B are the same. My choice is both. As long as Texas obeys the rights of their citizens then there is no reason for the Federal government to intervene.

----------


## Travlyr

> Yes I have.  And all that bull$#@! is done because of people like you who advance the centralization agenda.  That's what your Constitution is.  It's centralization.  Plain and simple.


No it is not. The UN's Agenda 21 is forced upon the world strictly because there is no world Constitution. The globalists are out of control because the only document to stop them is being ignored and because there are too few men standing up for their rights.

----------


## TheTexan

> I agree. But if a State still embraced slavery, then I would support a military invasion to defeat the State until they gave up slavery.


Slavery is a moot issue nowadays.  So what would be an issue that would lead you to declare a humanitarian war on a seceding state?




> A & B are the same. My choice is both. As long as Texas obeys the rights of their citizens then there is no reason for the Federal government to intervene.


They're not the same.  There is no reason for the Federal government to intervene with the secession efforts, of say, Alaska, but it does.  Because it's not explicitly protected.  The only reason we're allowed to own guns at all today is because of the relative clarity of "The right to bear arms *shall not be infringed*."  This is pretty $#@!ing clear language.

The 2nd amendment is still not followed, but relative to the rest of the world, we are #1 in the right to bear arms (excluding third world countries).

The Constitution's words and meanings has been stretched to its absolute limit.  The *only* way for a Constitution to be effective in protecting rights, is to be 100% clear and unconditional.

If you don't want Texas to have slaves, then bomb the $#@! out of them after they secede, until they don't have slaves.  But this idea that you can bomb the $#@! out of them and force them to rejoin the union, that's the dumbest globalist centralized authoritarian bull$#@! I've ever heard you say.

----------


## Travlyr

> Slavery is a moot issue nowadays.  So what would be an issue that would lead you to declare a humanitarian war on a seceding state?


Violation of the rights of their citizens.




> They're not the same.  There is no reason for the Federal government to intervene with the secession efforts, of say, Alaska, but it does.  Because it's not explicitly protected.


If you read the Constitution, then you know that the Federal government is virtually powerless except for enforcing property rights and human rights. Only when the Constitution is not obeyed do they become a monster. Obey the Constitution and you have minimal government. Ignore the Constitution and you end up with the monster we have today.




> The only reason we're allowed to own guns at all today is because of the relative clarity of "The right to bear arms *shall not be infringed*."  This is pretty $#@!ing clear language.


The Constitution nor the Bill of Rights gives you the right to bear arms. You have that right as a human being. The Bill of Rights simply states that right so that people know no government can take that right away. The monster we have today, the monster who doesn't want to obey the Constitution, the monster you want to employ, doesn't give a damn about your rights. I say obey the Constitution and let people keep their rights.




> The 2nd amendment is still not followed, but relative to the rest of the world, we are #1 in the right to bear arms (excluding third world countries).


That is because men are just a bunch of pussies these days. They don't know their rights, they do not understand the Constitution, and they would rather wear hair spray and make-up than stand up for what is right.




> The Constitution's words and meanings has been stretched to its absolute limit.  The *only* way for a Constitution to be effective in protecting rights, is to be 100% clear and unconditional.


Well, then obey it and amend it.




> If you don't want Texas to have slaves, then bomb the $#@! out of them after they secede, until they don't have slaves.  But this idea that you can bomb the $#@! out of them and force them to rejoin the union, that's the dumbest globalist centralized authoritarian bull$#@! I've ever heard you say.


Joining the Union is a benefit not a detriment. Texas wanted to join the Union when people obeyed the Constitution.

----------


## Travlyr

"a & b is not the same, you're no better than Lincoln"

You are getting Nullification and Secession mixed up. No State should be allowed to enslave their citizens or kill them at will. Somebody should intervene with the rule of law to protect the victims of tyrants.

----------


## Travlyr

The problem we have today is not that we do obey the Constitution.... it is that we don't obey it. 

People who advocate to abandon the Constitution must just love the tyranny we endure today because that is the result of ignoring the rule of law.

----------


## osan

> I'm really tired of the "vague language" line. What bullocks. The document is clear as a cloudless and sunny day. It is a modern progressive line that the Constitution is "vague" and thus the need to "interpret" it in our "modern times." It saddens me so many people on here buy that line, and the false history that goes with it, hook line and sinker.
> 
> And lets stop pretending the Articles of Confederation were any better, so lets stop worshiping them. As weak as they were they offered no checks or protections in any form on the individual states. No document can guarantee liberty, and if the American people were unwilling to fight for their freedom that every state government would eventually turn into an authoritarian power. Instead of one tyrannical government today, we would have had thirteen (or more) 150 years ago. One of teh greatest things about The Constitution is that it set the states and the Fedgov at odds for so long and kept them fighting each other so much that it helped preserve freedom for a lot longer than if the competition had not been there, as under the Articles.


I must disagree.  If I have no other talent, I am a capable analyst and can slice and dice the Constitution any of a number of ways without breaking a sweat.  We can go through this exercise for educational purposes, but I warn you up front that by the time I am finished there will be some serious demolition.

----------


## Travlyr

> I must disagree.  If I have no other talent, I am a capable analyst and can slice and dice the Constitution any of a number of ways without breaking a sweat.  We can go through this exercise for educational purposes, but I warn you up front that by the time I am finished there will be some serious demolition.


Okay, I want to see this. Start with the fact that the Supreme Court does not have the power of judicial review and that gold & silver are the only legal tender allowed.

 Slice and dice away.

----------


## TheTexan

> Joining the Union is a benefit not a detriment. Texas wanted to join the Union when people obeyed the Constitution.


You missed the point.  I think you're incapable of grasping it at this point, so /shrug

----------


## Travlyr

> But this idea that you can bomb the $#@! out of them and force them to rejoin the union, that's the dumbest globalist centralized authoritarian bull$#@! I've ever heard you say.


I never made this claim.

----------


## Travlyr

States *voluntarily* joined the Union after the Constitution was ratified and again after the Civil War was fought. Why would they do that if it did not benefit them?

----------


## GeorgiaAvenger

Look, I'll be the first to admit the Constitution is not perfect.

However, if it was followed our way of life would be incomprehensible (in a good way) compared to today.

The Constitution did not give many powers to the federal government. The federal government has given itself powers. Take the interstate commerce clause. That was put in the Constitution because all 13 states were engaging in mercantilism trade wars with each other, destroying each others economy. The federal government was given the authority to make commerce regular, or uniform.

Now the federal government uses the interstate commerce clause to allow for regulation of inactivity, because it affects interstate commerce. Austrians of course know that all human action is a part of economics, thus any action affects the economy. The feds are not following the meaning of the document. If they actually did what they were supposed to, we could be purchasing health insurance across state lines.

----------


## osan

> Okay, I want to see this. Start with the fact that the Supreme Court does not have the power of judicial review and that gold & silver are the only legal tender allowed.
> 
>  Slice and dice away.


I will start even before the beginning.  Consider structure.  The Constitution of the USA is sadly lacking in several structural elements necessary to make the job of would-be tyrants significantly more difficult.  The prime example of such a deficiency lies in the fact that no dictionary of terms is included in the tractatus, nor is there any statement regarding how terms are to be interpreted.  If nothing else, there should have been included therein a mandate that every element of the work be taken in the originally intended meaning.  That SCOTUS has on occasion been on board with originalist or constructionist views of the document is not very helpful because they have also stood otherwise in other instances.  Add to that that there is nothing _in princple_ that constrains them to originalist views and the basis for easy usurpation sits before you, waving in the wind whilst glowing brightly and making rudely loud noises.

This alone assassinates the document in terms of its solidity of meaning.  I really need go no further, but let us trundle along a bit more just for the sake of morbid curiosity.

The document is in serious trouble in its first three words, "We the People".  The implication here is that the document speaks unanimously for all persons and that clearly is not the case, particularly given the fact that it presumes to speak at a level of conceptual address above that of what I term the "principia fundamentalia".  These fundamental principles are those that may be comfortably said to apply commonly to all people.  These are the principles of liberty as have been very well described and discussed in various places such as isil.org, the Shire Foundation, and http://freedomisobvious.blogspot.com...ee-living.html .  It is my contention that the ONLY level at which one-size-fits-all thinking validly applies to humanity is way down in the basement.  The moment you move above this fundamental level of conceptual abstraction, differences between individuals begin to show themselves and you are already in rapidly warming waters if your purpose is to declare universal dos and don'ts.

If "We the People" was then followed by the Bill of Rights and forsaking the rest of the document I would have far fewer negative things to say about the Constitution.  That the document specifies a legislative, judicial, and executive structure for the entire nation is very troublesome because I am confident when I assert that there is at least one person within these shores with whom this structure is disagreeable, yet he is forced to toe this line that exists up on the conceptual stratosphere, far removed from the fundamental principles of innate human liberty.  This is a serious problem, unless of course you wish to argue in favor of the additive nature of rights, which will get you into some serious trouble with me. 

Next, what exactly does it mean to "form a more perfect Union"?  Why should a union be formed at all?  What about those of us uninterested in such a union or in any unions for that matter?  The presumption of consent flows well past Reason's skin.

What does it mean to "promote the general Welfare"?  These four innocuous seeming words have paved the way for much of the misery, loss of freedom, and sublimation of our prosperity.  There are numerous SCOTUS rulings and opinions that address the meaning of the phrase.  Why was it necessary to figure out the meaning?  Was it?  To many of us, the answer is clearly "no", yet to others it was most decidedly "yes".  The SCOTUS seized the low hanging opportunity for power and was able to easily do so PRECISELY because the structure and content of the Constitution failed to deny them the pretext for doing so and in fact provided them with a very plausible one instead.  The document is SILENT on the meaning, the framers either naively assuming nobody would question the original meaning as being obvious and the only one that anyone would ever take as rightful, or they purposely left the wording vague so as to leave things as open-ended as possible while still appearing pure and noble in the naive  and insufficiently critical eyes of the citizens.

And so we arrive at the goal of "secur[ing] the Blessings of Liberty".  If ever there had been a need for a complete and precisely correct definition of a term, here it was.  What, exactly, defines "Liberty"?  Yes, it seems so obvious to us, does it not?  Yet we can dig up cite after cite of court rulings based on opinions so barking mad as to utterly defy credulity.  Without an unmistakably unequivocal, clear, and complete definition of "Liberty", the term then means whatever SCOTUS says it does and without an explicit prohibition on judicial review (an admittedly two-edged sword), there is absolutely nothing to stop a newer court from reversing the rulings of previous ones.  It has happened more times that I find comfortable and it will happen again.

The Constitution in these ways fails to protect the rights of the individual in any substantively meaningful way.  A ctiizen may assert his rights and a court may respond with, "BWAAAAAAA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA... your rights are what WE say they are, piss-ant."

Just so we can say I went past the Preamble, A1S1 similarly starts with trouble: "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."

Granted?  By whom?  The "people"?  Who the hell are the people and what about those who neither agree nor consent to such a structure and such grants of power?

We can go on and on like this throughout the document, which is built upon a set of assumptions that prove themselves supremely rotten when taken in the context of the Liberty they presume to recognize and protect.  Even those protections are most often vaguely defined or poorly worded.  The Second Amendment is a good case in point.  The prefatory clause was wholly extraneous and as we have seen, served only to confuse issues on the street with imbeciles such as those found at VPC claiming the protection applies only to the National Guard.  The Amendment could and should have been worded far more directly with less eye toward "art" and in a more comprehensive and explicit manner.  It was the single most important right to be enumerated and they fagged out on their responsibility to their posterity, either naively assuming or intentionally crafting.  Congress has repeatedly made the hay of oppression based on their idiotic "interpretation" of what the 2A means.  The proof of this can be seen in NFA34, GCA68, the bans from 86, the prohibition on bearing arms in authoritarian $#@! holes like NJ, CA, IL, MA, NY, MD, and so forth.  My 2A rights mean NOTHING when I visit friends in NJ because if I elect to exercise my inborn right to the means of self-defense which derives directly from my right to defend myself, others, and property, I may call myself fortunate to come away in handcuffs and not in a body bag.

No Constitution, regardless of how well crafted can guarantee that tyranny will not rise, but it can provide reasonable mechanisms for making the tyrant's job far and away more difficult even where there is but a relatively small minority of citizens who actively stand guard at Liberty's step.

Do we really need to do more of this or has the point been made sufficiently?  Personally, I see no point in continuing because we will only succeed in pointing out the same sorts of flaws over and over again until we reach the end.

----------


## Travlyr

> I will start even before the beginning.  Consider structure.  The Constitution of the USA is sadly lacking in several structural elements necessary to make the job of would-be tyrants significantly more difficult.  The prime example of such a deficiency lies in the fact that no dictionary of terms is included in the tractatus, nor is there any statement regarding how terms are to be interpreted.  If nothing else, there should have been included therein a mandate that every element of the work be taken in the originally intended meaning.  That SCOTUS has on occasion been on board with originalist or constructionist views of the document is not very helpful because they have also stood otherwise in other instances.  Add to that that there is nothing _in princple_ that constrains them to originalist views and the basis for easy usurpation sits before you, waving in the wind whilst glowing brightly and making rudely loud noises.
> 
> This alone assassinates the document in terms of its solidity of meaning.  I really need go no further, but let us trundle along a bit more just for the sake of morbid curiosity.
> 
> The document is in serious trouble in its first three words, "We the People".  The implication here is that the document speaks unanimously for all persons and that clearly is not the case, particularly given the fact that is presumes to speak at a level of conceptual address above that of what I term the "principia fundamentalia".  These fundamental principles are those that may be comfortably said to apply commonly to all people.  These are the principles of liberty as have been very well described and discussed in various places such as isil.org and http://freedomisobvious.blogspot.com...ee-living.html .  It is my contention that the ONLY level at which one-size-fits-all thinking validly applies to humanity is way down in the basement.  The moment you move above this fundamental level of conceptual abstraction, differences between individuals begin to show themselves and you are already in rapidly warming waters if your purpose is to declare universal dos and don'ts.
> 
> If "We the People" was then followed by the Bill of Rights and forsaking the rest of the document I would have far fewer negative things to say about the document.  That the document specifies a legislative, judicial, and executive structure for the entire nation is very troublesome because I am confident when I assert that there is at least one person within these shores with whom this structure is disagreeable, yet he is forced to toe this line that exists up on the conceptual stratosphere, far removed from the fundamental principles of innate human liberty.
> 
> Next, what exactly does it mean to "form a more perfect Union"?  Why should a union be formed at all?  What about those of us uninterested in such a union or in any union for that matter?  The presumption of consent flows well past Reason's skin.
> ...


Very good. It is fairly easy to find all the negatives and flaws. Does this mean that we should just give up trying to restore the rule of law as structured in the Constitutions? At least representatives of individual States each ask to be a republic form of government under the U.S. Constitution. Is the UN charter better? It has never been ratified and it is much more tyrannical than the U.S. or State Constitutions. My point being that if we don't construct or respect a government by agreement (Constitution), then we get an unstructured government by default (UN).

----------


## Travlyr

One more point I would like to emphasize on the Constitution. That Constitution did not create the tyrannical monster we put up with today. The tyrannical monster comes with fiat money. That is why wars come with fiat money. War Is A Racket and pays insiders big bucks. It is all about control over society.

I agree with Ron Paul that returning to sound monetary principles, fully redeemable, undermines big government tyranny.

----------


## osan

> Very good. It is fairly easy to find all the negatives and flaws. Does this mean that we should just give up trying to restore the rule of law as structured in the Constitutions? At least representatives of individual States each ask to be a republic form of government under the U.S. Constitution. Is the UN charter better? It has never been ratified and it is much more tyrannical than the U.S. or State Constitutions. My point being that if we don't construct or respect a government by agreement (Constitution), then we get an unstructured government by default (UN).


I do not believe you can infer from anything I have ever written in these fora that would suggest we give up on liberty.  Quite the contrary, I have very explicitly and strenuously emphasized the need to press on regardless of the fact that we are almost certainly doomed.  Giving up is not in the equation for me and IMO should not be for any decent person who sees, understands, and agrees with the concept of freedom.

I would have to reread the UN charter, which I have somewhere in my effects, to say whether it is "better", but I suspect it is not so in any way I would personally find meaningful.  As for your final assertion, I must disagree.  A constitution is not required, nor is "government" per se.  What counts is how the function of GOVERNANCE is discharged and I assert unequivocally that this can and should be done locally and can only be legitimate when it operates pursuant only to the most basic principles upon which proper human relations are based.

----------


## Travlyr

I did not intend to infer that you were suggesting giving up on liberty at all. I know you are a freedom fighter... one of the best. My question specifically addressed whether we should be fighting to restore the Constitutions. I work toward that goal but maybe I'm wrong. I do believe they were designed as tools for strong local governments, weaker State governments, and weaker still Federal governments. 

Not obeying the Constitutions has proven to allow for strong world government weaker national governments weaker still state governments and very weak local government.

Until someone convinces me otherwise, I will continue to fight strongly to restore the Constitutions because I believe obeying them is preferable to redesigning government which MUST exist in a society of land ownership.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I agree. But if a State still embraced slavery, then I would support a military invasion to defeat the State until they gave up slavery.


Terrible, evil, disgusting plan.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/ghost-of-...ver-civil-war/
The late, great Tim Russert asked Paul about remarks he made to _The Washington Post_. “I was intrigued by your comments about Abe Lincoln. ‘According to Paul,* Abe Lincoln should never have gone to war; there were better ways of getting rid of slavery.’”*
*“Absolutely,” Paul replied. “Six hundred thousand Americans died in a senseless civil war. No, he shouldn’t have gone to war. He did this just to enhance and get rid of the original intent of the republic. I mean, it was that iron fist…”*
“We’d still have slavery,” Russert interjected.
*“Oh, come on,” Paul replied, dismissively. “Slavery was phased out in every other country of the world. And the way I’m advising that it should have been done is do like the British empire did. You buy the slaves and release them. How much would that cost compared to killing 600,000 Americans and where the hatred lingered for 100 years? Every other major country in the world got rid of slavery without a civil war. I mean, that doesn’t sound too radical to me. That sounds like a pretty reasonable approach.”*

----------


## Galileo Galilei

Federal spending in 1912 was only 1.75% of GDP.  That's 125 years after the Constitution was ratified.  Yes, the Constitution is a limiting document.  But it was radically changed in 1913.

Yet even now, the US government is much smaller than those in Europe.  The European governments will all collapse as the baby boomers hit their 70s and 80s.  But the US will survive and perhaps return to glory.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *Federal spending in 1912 was only 1.75% of GDP.  That's 125 years after the Constitution was ratified.  Yes, the Constitution is a limiting document.  But it was radically changed in 1913.
> *
> Yet even now, the US government is much smaller than those in Europe.  The European governments will all collapse as the baby boomers hit their 70s and 80s.  But the US will survive and perhaps return to glory.


So?  By that time, the regime had already violated the supposed "rules" of the Constitution numerous times.  If an assault victim "only" suffers broken ribs instead of brain damage or death, does that make the act of assault less wrong?

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> So?  By that time, the regime had already violated the supposed "rules" of the Constitution numerous times.  If an assault victim "only" suffers broken ribs instead of brain damage or death, does that make the act of assault less wrong?


Most people in the US in the 1800s had no contact whatsoever with the federal government.

Why don't you go study the Revolution in Mexico.  None of their Constitutions were ever followed at all.  The Constitution of 1812 was written and ignored, as was the Constitution of 1824.  Even if they were followed, they weren't very good.

----------


## TheTexan

> States *voluntarily* joined the Union after the Constitution was ratified and *again after the Civil War was fought*


Ha.  Ha haaha!

You're a funny guy.

No, Travlyr.  The states did not "voluntarily" rejoin the union after they lost the civil war.

The whole point of the war was to make sure the Union stayed intact.  In fact, they were never even recognized of ever even leaving the union, the whole thing was regarded as an "insurrection"

----------


## Travlyr

> Ha.  Ha haaha!
> 
> You're a funny guy.
> 
> No, Travlyr.  The states did not "voluntarily" rejoin the union after they lost the civil war.
> 
> *The whole point of the war was to make sure the Union stayed intact.*  In fact, they were never even recognized of ever even leaving the union, the whole thing was regarded as an "insurrection"


Baloney. The whole point of the war, was the same reason for all wars, war economy is profitable for insiders. There was plenty of cause on both sides. High level insiders agitated the war because they knew the discord was great. Slavery was a huge issue. 

Read the 14th amendment.



> Section. 4. 
> *The validity of the public debt of the United States*, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, *shall not be questioned.* But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.


See that? President Grant promised to pay the war debts in gold rather than Greenbacks. 

I didn't say the Southern States rejoined the Union voluntarily. Read carefully. Many many States voluntarily joined the Union after the Constitution was ratified and after the Civil War. I live in one of them. All the Western States including Alaska and Hawaii. 

You are so prejudiced against the State you can't read carefully.

----------


## TheTexan

> Baloney. The whole point of the war, was the same reason for all wars, war economy is profitable for insiders. There was plenty of cause on both sides. High level insiders agitated the war because they knew the discord was great. Slavery was a huge issue. 
> 
> Read the 14th amendment.
> 
> 
> See that? President Grant promised to pay the war debts in gold rather than Greenbacks. 
> 
> I didn't say the Southern States rejoined the Union voluntarily. Read carefully. Many many States voluntarily joined the Union after the Constitution was ratified and after the Civil War. I live in one of them. All the Western States including Alaska and Hawaii. 
> 
> You are so prejudiced against the State you can't read carefully.


The bottom line is, the Confederate states were forced into the Union because of the Civil War.  You for some reason don't have a problem with this.

----------


## Travlyr

> The bottom line is, the Confederate states were forced into the Union because of the Civil War.  You for some reason don't have a problem with this.


I do have a problem with that but I can't change it. What I can say is that I have studied Abe Lincoln for many years. I know everybody here hates him but he was not the monster as portrayed. He had plenty of faults, but why do you think they killed him before Reconstruction could take place? It is my opinion that history following the Civil War, Reconstruction, and Rehabilitation would have been much more favorable to the South if Lincoln had lived. His main issue was slavery. Abraham Lincoln favored the Declaration of Independence over the Constitution.

----------


## TheTexan

> I do have a problem with that but I can't change it.


Then why are you against the unconditional right of secession?  Note, I'm not saying the unconditional right to not be at war




> His main issue was slavery.


False.  That only became an issue later on in the war.

----------


## Travlyr

> Then why are you against the unconditional right of secession?  Note, I'm not saying the unconditional right to not be at war


There are some severe violations committed by evil that unconditional right of secession is just not an option. For example, the leaders in the United States who are calling for false flag events in order to go to war on Iran need to be stopped. Somebody has to intervene and stop them. I don't know how it will happen but we can't just let them enforce sanctions on the people of Iran and then let them bomb them to oblivion. Humanity is more important than that.




> False.  That only became an issue later on in the war.


No, that is bad history.

Read Lincoln's House Divided Speech
Springfield, Illinois
June 16, 1858

Abe's father Thomas Lincoln was against slavery. While they were not active in the abolitionist movement, Abe Lincoln grew up in a home who deplored slavery.

----------


## TheTexan

> There are some severe violations committed by evil that unconditional right of secession is just not an option. For example, the leaders in the United States who are calling for false flag events in order to go to war on Iran need to be stopped. Somebody has to intervene and stop them. I don't know how it will happen but we can't just let them enforce sanctions on the people of Iran and then let them bomb them to oblivion. Humanity is more important than that.


Alaska can't secede because it is its duty to stop Washington D.C. from doing evil $#@!?

Is that what you're saying here?




> No, that is bad history.
> 
> Read Lincoln's House Divided Speech
> Springfield, Illinois
> June 16, 1858
> 
> Abe's father Thomas Lincoln was against slavery. While they were not active in the abolitionist movement, Abe Lincoln grew up in a home who deplored slavery.





> I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races – that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.


The bottom line is, whether or not the bankers are the ones who started the war - I won't get into that, the cause Lincoln and his men thought they were fighting for at the start of the war was the preservation of the union.  That's simply historical fact

----------


## Travlyr

> Alaska can't secede because it is its duty to stop Washington D.C. from doing evil $#@!?
> 
> Is that what you're saying here?


No, that is not what I am saying. What I am saying is that Alaska benefits too much from the Union to even want to secede.






> The bottom line is, whether or not the bankers are the ones who started the war - I won't get into that, the cause Lincoln and his men thought they were fighting for at the start of the war was the preservation of the union.  That's simply historical fact


Lincoln wanted to put a stop to slavery. That is also a historical fact. That is what he was saying in 1858... two years before he became president.

Later in that speech,



> My understanding is that I can just let her alone. I am now in my fiftieth year, and I certainly never have had a black woman for either a slave or a wife. So it seems to me quite possible for us to get along without making either slaves or wives of negroes. 
> 
> ...
> 
> Now my opinion is that the different States have the power to make a negro a citizen under the Constitution of the United States if they choose.

----------


## TheTexan

> No, that is not what I am saying. What I am saying is that Alaska benefits too much from the Union to even want to secede.


Then can you please give a straight answer to this question: "Then why are you against the unconditional right of secession?"

Because "I am against the unconditional right of secession because states benefit too much to even want to secede" is not a valid answer






> Lincoln wanted to put a stop to slavery. That is also a historical fact. That is what he was saying in 1858... two years before he became president.


His declared purpose of going to war was not to end slavery, though.  Also a historical fact.

----------


## Travlyr

> Then can you please give a straight answer to this question: "Then why are you against the unconditional right of secession?"


The reason I am against unconditional right of secession is because there could be some instances where a State so violates the rights of its citizens that it warrants invasion. It is a humanitarian cause.




> His declared purpose of going to war was not to end slavery, though.  Also a historical fact.


He was in office one month before the Confederates fired on Fort Sumter.




> In the presidential election of 1860, the Republican Party, led by Abraham Lincoln, had campaigned against expanding slavery beyond the states in which it already existed.


Pretending that the Republican Party, in 1860, was not against slavery is very convenient, but not true.

----------


## GeorgiaAvenger

The Emancipation Proclamation was part of war strategy, announced 2 years into the conflict.

It was done because the British were contemplating entering on the side of the British; the Emancipation Proclamation stopped this because it would make the British appear to be defending slavery. The Emancipation Proclamation did not apply to the non-aligned border states.

Lincoln was against slavery, but that is not why he invaded the South. He did not hold a very high opinion of blacks, whom he wanted deported.

----------


## Travlyr

> The Emancipation Proclamation was part of war strategy, announced 2 years into the conflict.
> 
> It was done because the British were contemplating entering on the side of the British; the Emancipation Proclamation stopped this because it would make the British appear to be defending slavery. The Emancipation Proclamation did not apply to the non-aligned border states.
> 
> Lincoln was against slavery, but that is not why he invaded the South. He did not hold a very high opinion of blacks, whom he wanted deported.


Right. Lincoln deplored slavery.

----------


## TheTexan

> The reason I am against unconditional right of secession is because there could be some instances where a State so violates the rights of its citizens that it warrants invasion. It is a humanitarian cause.


That still doesn't make sense though.  A state doesn't have to be in the union for you to declare a humanitarian war against it.  Why not allow unconditional secession, and declare your humanitarian wars as necessary, regardless of if that state or nation is or is not in the union?

----------


## TheTexan

> Right. Lincoln deplored slavery.


I think you missed his point

----------


## Travlyr

> I think you missed his point


I think maybe you miss the point. Lincoln campaigned in 1858 for a Senate seat so he could work to end the expansion of slavery. He lost. He became president and accomplished his goal.

----------


## Travlyr

> That still doesn't make sense though.  A state doesn't have to be in the union for you to declare a humanitarian war against it.  Why not allow unconditional secession, and declare your humanitarian wars as necessary, regardless of if that state or nation is or is not in the union?


Why would a state want to secede? Answer that and then perhaps I can give you an answer that satisfies you. I do not see any reason a State would want to secede.

----------


## TheTexan

> I think maybe you miss the point. Lincoln campaigned in 1858 for a Senate seat so he could work to end the expansion of slavery. He lost. He became president and accomplished his goal.


His point was that the Emancipation Proclamation was a strategic move, not an objective




> As Lincoln had hoped, the Proclamation turned foreign popular opinion in favor of the Union by adding the ending of slavery as a goal of the war. That shift ended the Confederacy's hopes of gaining official recognition, particularly from the United Kingdom, which had abolished slavery.[58] Prior to Lincoln's decree, Britain's actions had favored the Confederacy, especially in its provision of British-built warships such as the CSS Alabama and CSS Florida.[59] Furthermore, the North's determination to win at all costs was creating problems diplomatically; the Trent Affair of late 1861 had caused severe tensions between the United States and Great Britain. For the Confederacy to receive official recognition by foreign powers would have been a further blow to the Union cause.
> 
> With the war now cast in terms of freedom against slavery, British or French support for the Confederacy would look like support for slavery, which both of these nations had abolished. As Henry Adams noted, "The Emancipation Proclamation has done more for us than all our former victories and all our diplomacy." In Italy, Giuseppe Garibaldi hailed Lincoln as "the heir of the aspirations of John Brown". On August 6, 1863 Garibaldi wrote to Lincoln: Posterity will call you the great emancipator, a more enviable title than any crown could be, and greater than any merely mundane treasure.

----------


## TheTexan

> Why would a state want to secede? Answer that and then perhaps I can give you an answer that satisfies you. I do not see any reason a State would want to secede.


Are you kidding?  Why would a state want to secede, today?  I don't know Travlyr.  Maybe the endless wars.  The Federal Reserve.  The Drug War.  The massive police state.  The megalithic Federal government. 

Why oh why would a state want to secede.  This country is just so great, I have no idea why any country would want to secede

----------


## Travlyr

> His point was that the Emancipation Proclamation was a strategic move, not an objective


I appreciate why you would like to paint Lincoln as someone who did not want to end slavery. However, the facts are not on your side. Lincoln grew up in a home who deplored slavery, he campaigned for Senate on an anti-slavery message just two years before becoming president, and he ended slavery as president.

----------


## Travlyr

> Are you kidding?  Why would a state want to secede, today?  I don't know Travlyr.  Maybe the endless wars.  The Federal Reserve.  The Drug War.  The massive police state.  The megalithic Federal government. 
> 
> Why oh why would a state want to secede.  This country is just so great, I have no idea why any country would want to secede


Are you working with the legislature in your state for secession? If not, why not. I have not read anywhere where any state is looking to secede.

----------


## TheTexan

> I appreciate why you would like to paint Lincoln as someone who did not want to end slavery. However, the facts are not on your side. Lincoln grew up in a home who deplored slavery, he campaigned for Senate on an anti-slavery message just two years before becoming president, and he ended slavery as president.


It really doesn't matter if ending slavery was a secret objective of his war.  The fact that his public objective was preservation of the union, and this is what his soldiers believed they were fighting for, created the precedent of the unbreakable union that took secession off the table and made inevitable this tyranny we have today.

You claim that you want the Constitution to be followed, but Lincoln's war was extremely injurious to that cause.

----------


## TheTexan

> Are you working with the legislature in your state for secession? If not, why not. I have not read anywhere where any state is looking to secede.


Alaska can't even put it on its ballot because it's "unconstitutional."

You're dodging the question.

----------


## Travlyr

> It really doesn't matter if ending slavery was a secret objective of his war.  The fact that his public objective was preservation of the union, and this is what his soldiers believed they were fighting for, created the precedent of the unbreakable union that took secession off the table and *made inevitable this tyranny we have today*.
> 
> You claim that you want the Constitution to be followed, but Lincoln's war was extremely injurious to that cause.


Paper money during his administration is the culprit behind the tyranny. Read Ron Paul. Ron Paul tells you who is behind the tyranny. Sound money is what will set you free. Hate of the State is misplaced hate.

----------


## TheTexan

> Paper money during his administration is the culprit behind the tyranny. Read Ron Paul. Ron Paul tells you who is behind the tyranny. Sound money is what will set you free. Hate of the State is misplaced hate.


In your own ignorance you don't realize that secession is an answer to paper money.  You can't have freedom without *both* sound money and the right of secession.  They work together in unison.  Without one, the other is useless.  History has proven this.  

As long as you remain an enemy of secession, you remain an enemy of freedom, and an enemy of mine.

----------


## Travlyr

> Alaska can't even put it on its ballot because it's "unconstitutional."
> 
> You're dodging the question.


 

I've answered it six different ways because I have no clue what you hope to accomplish by secession. Why don't you answer it for me and I'll agree to agree.

----------


## TheTexan

> I've answered it six different ways because I have no clue what you hope to accomplish by secession. Why don't you answer it for me and I'll agree to agree.


The benefits of secession are pretty $#@!ing obvious Travlyr.  But I'll try to spell it out for you.

If a state believes fiat money is unconstitutional theft, it could secede and use a sound currency.

If a state believes undeclared wars are unconstitutional, it could secede and no longer be forced to fund them with its tax dollars.

And so on.

----------


## Travlyr

> The benefits of secession are pretty $#@!ing obvious Travlyr.  But I'll try to spell it out for you.
> 
> If a state believes fiat money is unconstitutional theft, it could secede and use a sound currency.
> 
> If a state believes undeclared wars are unconstitutional, it could secede and no longer be forced to fund them with its tax dollars.
> 
> And so on.


Okay. You start the secession process and I'll back you up.

----------


## TheTexan

> Okay. You start the secession process and I'll back you up.


Can you see now the damage that Lincoln did now, regardless of his intentions?

His declared purpose was the unbreakable union.  The Supreme Court has repeatedly backed him up on this.  Secession is treason.  Period.  His war took secession off the table.  Completely.

In those days people still gave a $#@! about their country.  But once secession was taken off the table, they were powerless to stop the increasing tyranny.  So they just said "$#@! it."  There's nothing they can do about tyranny, so why bother, right?

Had the South been allowed to maintain an independent Confederacy, rather than forced to rejoin the union, it's very possible that the Confederate States would have used sound money and this world as we know it could be a much better place.

Which is why the right of secession is so extremely important.  People may be too dumb now to realize its importance, but that's only because of 150 years of tyranny and being told secession is treason.  That, together with Fiat money, are the two big lies that have destroyed the constitution, destroyed our liberties, destroyed this country, and destroyed this world

----------


## Travlyr

> Can you see now the damage that Lincoln did now, regardless of his intentions?
> 
> His declared purpose was the unbreakable union.  The Supreme Court has repeatedly backed him up on this.  Secession is treason.  Period.  His war took secession off the table.  Completely.
> 
> In those days people still gave a $#@! about their country.  But once secession was taken off the table, they were powerless to stop the increasing tyranny.  So they just said "$#@! it."  There's nothing they can do about tyranny, so why bother, right?
> 
> Had the South been allowed to maintain an independent Confederacy, rather than forced to rejoin the union, it's very possible that the Confederate States would have used sound money and this world as we know it could be a much better place.
> 
> Which is why the right of secession is so extremely important.  People may be too dumb now to realize its importance, but that's only because of 150 years of tyranny and being told secession is treason.  That, together with Fiat money, are the two big lies that have destroyed the constitution, destroyed our liberties, destroyed this country, and destroyed this world


Sorry. I just cannot buy into "it was Lincoln's war" propaganda. He was president for less than a month before the war started. The shadow government was already in place agitating for war years prior. Gerrit Smith had been funding John Brown's terrorism and the entire stage was set for war the moment Abe Lincoln was elected. It was all set up and he was the fall guy. I do not claim him completely innocent, but the shadow government was the real culprit behind the war. Paper money. That is why they had to kill him when the war was over.

----------


## TheTexan

> but the shadow government was the real culprit behind the war. Paper money. That is why they had to kill him when the war was over.


Maybe so.  Even still, the unconditional right of secession remains important, and would have limited the power that the shadow government and their paper money would have had.

----------


## GeorgiaAvenger

The South had paper money and far greater inflation than the North.

If the goal was paper money, the "shadow government" should have supported the South.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> Can you see now the damage that Lincoln did now, regardless of his intentions?
> 
> His declared purpose was the unbreakable union.  The Supreme Court has repeatedly backed him up on this.  Secession is treason.  Period.  His war took secession off the table.  Completely.


Not true.  In fact, the civil war reinforces the notion that secession is legal and constitutional.  None of the three post civil war amendments banned secession.  Lincoln has provided a precedent that secession is legal.

----------


## TheTexan

> The South had paper money and far greater inflation than the North.
> 
> If the goal was paper money, the "shadow government" should have supported the South.





> Once again the need to finance a war provided the impetus for a change in the monetary system. In 1861, to finance the Civil War, Congress authorized Demand Notes--the first issue of paper money by the government since the Continentals. These Notes were printed in $5, $10, and $20 denominations, redeemable in coins on demand, and green in color--hence the name "greenbacks." A total of about $10 million was issued, a relatively small series. These notes, and all paper money issued since 1861, are still valid and redeemable in current cash at face value. While most early money is now in the hands of collectors or museums, it is important to note the record of currency stability which this represents.
> 
> In 1862, Congress discontinued issuing Demand Notes and issued Legal Tender Notes, also known as United States Notes. These new notes--issued in denominations from $1 to $1,000 (later $5,000 and $10,000)--were the first national currency used as legal tender for most public and private debts. The design of these notes incorporated a Treasury seal, fine-line engraving, intricate geometric lathe work patterns, and later incorporated various forms of distinctive cotton and linen papers with embedded red and blue fibers. Confidence in the notes waned somewhat when the Treasury stopped redeeming them in coins during the Civil War to save gold and silver. However, redemption resumed in 1879 following the war.
> 
> Coin hoarding and the need to use metals for war purposes created a shortage of coin during the Civil War and led to the circulation of small change substitutes. In some cases these included tickets, bills, and even postage stamps. From 1862 to 1876 the government issued more than $368 million in Fractional Currency in three-to fifty-cent denominations. These "paper coins," which were much smaller in size than our present currency, were nicknamed "shinplasters," as the hardships of war often forced troops to line their worn-out boots with them. These fractional notes are still redeemable today.
> 
> Between 1861 and 1865 Confederate currency was being issued to millions of Southerners, gambling that a Confederate victory would ensure the currency would be redeemable. In an effort to debase this currency, the North printed counterfeit Confederate money and circulated it in the south. Inflation was soon rampant in both the north and south, but far worse in the Confederacy. As the end of the war neared, Confederate citizens completely lost confidence in their currency and came to rely on barter or black-market greenbacks. In some cases Confederate soldiers were even paid in Northern greenbacks. By the end of the war, Confederate notes were totally worthless.


Interesting bit of history.  Wonder how much is true (source: Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco)

http://www.frbsf.org/publications/fe...istory.html#A6

----------


## TheTexan

> Not true.  In fact, the civil war reinforces the notion that secession is legal and constitutional.  None of the three post civil war amendments banned secession. * Lincoln has provided a precedent that secession is legal.*


hahahahaha

hahahahaha

lol

omg

you're funny. I like you.  you're my favorite troll

----------


## Travlyr

> The South had paper money and far greater inflation than the North.
> 
> If the goal was paper money, the "shadow government" should have supported the South.


You would throw your support behind a newly formed government before you would an established government of nearly 100 years? 

The South was supporting slavery... a very unpopular institution of the time ... and the North was the industrial powerhouse. Looking back it seems to me the profiteers of war made the right choice. They paid for the war in Greenbacks and got paid back in gold. That was a pretty nice deal for them.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> hahahahaha
> 
> hahahahaha
> 
> lol
> 
> omg
> 
> you're funny. I like you.  you're my favorite troll


I meant that because Lincoln's agenda failed.  the precedent was set because Lincoln failed to amend the Constitution.  If Lincoln had succeeded, then he would not have set the precedent.  I was not making the comment to compliment Lincoln, and I hope you did not construe it that way.

----------


## TheTexan

> I meant that because Lincoln's agenda failed.  the precedent was set because Lincoln failed to amend the Constitution.  If Lincoln had seceded, then he would not have set the precedent.  I was not making the comment to compliment Lincoln, and I hope you did not construe it that way.


The precedent was set regardless of any amendment.  The Supreme Court effectively ruled that they didn't need an amendment, and instead declared that secession is illegal by definition of a union.  This is thanks in large part to Lincoln, though Hamilton and Madison get their share of the blame as well.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> The precedent was set regardless of any amendment.  The Supreme Court effectively ruled that they didn't need an amendment, and instead declared that secession is illegal by definition of a union.  This is thanks in large part to Lincoln, though Hamilton and Madison get their share of the blame as well.


Once a state has seceded, the Supreme Court no longer has jurisdiction.  The Court only has jurisdiction if a state is in the Union.

----------


## Travlyr

> The precedent was set regardless of any amendment.  The Supreme Court effectively ruled that they didn't need an amendment, and instead declared that secession is illegal by definition of a union.  This is thanks in large part to Lincoln, though Hamilton and Madison get their share of the blame as well.


Again, Lincoln was killed right after the war ended. You are making claims that his intentions were carried out after he died. Let me offer a different scenario. Perhaps Reconstruction was what the shadow government wanted and Lincoln would have stood in their way so they killed him.

----------


## TheTexan

> Once a state has seceded, the Supreme Court no longer has jurisdiction.  The Court only has jurisdiction if a state is in the Union.


The Supreme Court of the United States didn't share this view.  The Confederate States were declared still in the Union because the Supreme Court said it was still in the Union.

----------


## TheTexan

> Again, Lincoln was killed right after the war ended. You are making claims that his intentions were carried out after he died. Let me offer a different scenario. Perhaps Reconstruction was what the shadow government wanted and Lincoln would have stood in their way so they killed him.


You might be right, that Lincoln was just a puppet.  Probably true.  I really don't know.  But I don't think it's relevant to my point of secession.  When I talk about or blame Lincoln, I blame both him and the puppeteers that he represents.  If it makes you feel better, I can address Lincoln as "Lincoln and his shadow puppeteers" but its so much easier to just say "Lincoln."  In the same way that Obama is just a puppet, it's so much easier to just say "Obama" than "Obama,  and his banker puppeteers, his Israeli puppeteers, and so on."

It's just pretty much assumed at this point that anyone who is in office is simply a puppet.

The bottom line is, the unconditional right of secession is absolutely critical, and Lincoln and his puppeteers took that option away, which removed the only real recourse in making sure the constitution is followed

----------


## Travlyr

> The Supreme Court of the United States didn't share this view.  The Confederate States were declared still in the Union because the Supreme Court said it was still in the Union.


That is not a legitimate Constitutional government ... is it?

----------


## TheTexan

> That is not a legitimate Constitutional government ... is it?


You tell me.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *I appreciate why you would like to paint Lincoln as someone who did not want to end slavery*. However, the facts are not on your side. Lincoln grew up in a home who deplored slavery, he campaigned for Senate on an anti-slavery message just two years before becoming president, and he ended slavery as president.


He didn't.  (RP even pointed that out in the '08 primary debates) 

A lot of inconvenient facts about the civil war era for you here: http://creoleneworleans.typepad.com/...ivil-war-.html

Also,
by Kelly Snell-
http://www.civilwarhome.com/lincolnabolitionist.htm
Lincoln's views on race were motivated and influenced greatly by his own political ambitions. Though Lincoln was a "political" abolitionist is personal views of the Negro question prevented him from adhering to the views of the moral abolitionists. The main influence driving Lincoln's desire to liberate the slaves was political and his fist priority was to preserve the "great experiment." *Lincoln's attempt to ban the expansion of slavery was for the benefit of the superior whites and was not a first step towards Negro liberation and suffrage.* On the eve of the war of secession Lincoln viewed the slaves as a labor force that was essential to the southern resistance.

Lincoln famously wrote to Horace Greely:

*I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.
*

----------


## Travlyr

> You tell me.


Okay. Prior to 1861 Constitutional governance was enjoyed by the people. It wasn't perfect but peace and prosperity were enjoyed by many free people.

After 1861, the Constitution was undermined and was loosely followed until 1913 when international bankers took over completely. The American people have endured increasing tyranny. We have been in a perpetual state of war ever since along with an increasing debt society.

In other words, Constitutional governance works to free people.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> The Supreme Court of the United States didn't share this view.  The Confederate States were declared still in the Union because the Supreme Court said it was still in the Union.


It doesn't matter what the Supreme Court thinks once a state has left the Union.  After the confederate states left the Union, the Supreme Court was part of a foreign country.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> Okay. Prior to 1861 Constitutional governance was enjoyed by the people. It wasn't perfect but peace and prosperity were enjoyed by many free people.
> 
> After 1861, the Constitution was undermined and was loosely followed until 1913 when international bankers took over completely. The American people have endured increasing tyranny. We have been in a perpetual state of war ever since along with an increasing debt society.


Not true.  The federal government was very small from 1866 until 1912, having little impact on the lives of most people, except as to maintain order and secure free trade & property rights.  The average federal spending as a percent of GDP was about 2%, and in 1912, it was only 1.75%.

----------


## TheTexan

> Okay. Prior to 1861 Constitutional governance was enjoyed by the people. It wasn't perfect but peace and prosperity were enjoyed by many free people.
> 
> After 1861, the Constitution was undermined and was loosely followed until 1913 when international bankers took over completely. The American people have endured increasing tyranny. We have been in a perpetual state of war ever since along with an increasing debt society.


If in the Constitution it said, "A state may leave the Union at any time for any reason, as it so wishes.  If there are unsettled debts, that will not be settled, or egregious assaults on personal liberties that are unacceptable, war may so be declared to resolve such things, but cannot be used to force the state back into the union", 

Do you think Lincoln [ and his shadow govt ]'s arguments outlined in HB's post above would have worked?  And would you be for or against including such text in the Constitution?

----------


## Travlyr

> Not true.  The federal government was very small from 1866 until 1912, having little impact on the lives of most people, except as to maintain order and secure free trade & property rights.  The average federal spending as a percent of GDP was about 2%, and in 1912, it was only 1.75%.


Actually, Knox v. Lee (1871) overturned Hepburn v. Griswold (1870) immediately after Justice Grier was replaced by Justice Strong and Justice Bradley was added to the court. It seems to me that somebody powerful didn't like the Hepburn v. Griswold decision which was decided by strict adherence to the constitution. The Supreme Court started violating the Constitution on a regular basis after the Civil War.

----------


## Travlyr

> If in the Constitution it said, "A state may leave the Union at any time for any reason, as it so wishes.  If there are unsettled debts, that will not be settled, or egregious assaults on personal liberties that are unacceptable, war may so be declared to resolve such things, but cannot be used to force the state back into the union", 
> 
> Do you think Lincoln [ and his shadow govt ]'s arguments outlined in HB's post above would have worked?  And would you be for or against including such text in the Constitution?


I have no idea what HB posts. He is on my ignore list. 

There is no reason to force any State into the Union. Most States wanted to join the Union because the benefits outweigh the detriments.

----------


## TheTexan

> The Supreme Court started violating the Constitution on a regular basis after the Civil War.


This is true.  These violations of the Constitution were essentially just precursors, practice you might say, for the violations of 1913

----------


## TheTexan

> I have no idea what HB posts. He is on my ignore list. 
> 
> There is no reason to force any State into the Union. Most States wanted to join the Union because the benefits outweigh the detriments.


Are you then still against the unconditional right of secession?

----------


## Travlyr

> Are you then still against the unconditional right of secession?


Perfect secession for any of us is death. It is my opinion, as a general rule, that anyone should be able to do virtually anything they want as long as they do not violate the rights of others. If anyone does claim the right to violate the rights of others, then they need to be suppressed.

----------


## TheTexan

> Perfect secession for any of us is death.


Huh?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Huh?


Looks like he's just randomly putting sentences together to me.

----------


## Travlyr

> Huh?


Perfect secession is death. Do you disagree?

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> Actually, Knox v. Lee (1871) overturned Hepburn v. Griswold (1870) immediately after Justice Grier was replaced by Justice Strong and Justice Bradley was added to the court. It seems to me that somebody powerful didn't like the Hepburn v. Griswold decision which was decided by strict adherence to the constitution. The Supreme Court started violating the Constitution on a regular basis after the Civil War.


When the federal budget is only 2% of GDP, its impossible for the federal government to do a whole lot.  Whatever it was doing, it had little negative effect on most people.  For the vast majority, it preserved a society with free trade and property rights.  You can't find another extended era in world history in any other nation that approaches the freedom and prosperity from 1866 to 1912 in the US.

----------


## TheTexan

> Perfect secession is death. Do you disagree?



I'll pretend like I know what you mean.  Sure.  This is my cue to find something better to do lol

----------


## Travlyr

> I'll pretend like I know what you mean.  Sure.  This is my cue to find something better to do lol


If you die then you have successfully and permanently seceded... no?

----------


## Travlyr

> When the federal budget is only 2% of GDP, its impossible for the federal government to do a whole lot.  Whatever it was doing, it had little negative effect on most people.  For the vast majority, it preserved a society with free trade and property rights.  You can't find another extended era in world history in any other nation that approaches the freedom and prosperity from 1866 to 1912 in the US.


How about the advancements from 1750 to 1861?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> If you die then you have successfully and permanently seceded... no?

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> How about the advancements from 1750 to 1861?


The golden age of the US was from 1815 until 1912.  1750 to 1814 was the rise.

The key was the War of 1812 which set the stage for glory because it established free trade for the US on the Great Lakes, Mississippi river, gulf of Mexico, West Indies, Atlantic ocean, and Mediterranean Sea.  The military after 1815 was big enough to protect the US, but still very small by world standards.

President James Madison set the standard in war and in peace.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> The golden age of the US was from 1815 until 1912.  1750 to 1814 was the rise.
> 
> The key was the War of 1812 which set the stage for glory because it established free trade for the US on the Great Lakes, Mississippi river, gulf of Mexico, West Indies, Atlantic ocean, and Mediterranean Sea.  The military after 1815 was big enough to protect the US, but still very small by world standards.
> *
> President James Madison set the standard in war and in peace.*


 lolz 



Capo 3
Bm, A, G, D/F#

In 1812 James Madison, he had a great idea
War, war
Let’s go up, seize Canada, steal their syrup and their deer
War, war
A sweet and simple victory
Restoring peace upon the seas
You’ll see, you’ll see

But with no plan, the war went bad
And 2200 moms went sad
When their boys died

James Madison
Can you bat again?
another try
Another less 2200 lives this time

James Madison
Can you bat again?
Maybe give Dolley a try
and sweeten your reign with some cup cakes snack sized

And even then, we didn’t receive
Our neutral standing on the seas
Our boats harassed
Until Napoleon’s victory

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> lolz 
> 
> 
> 
> Capo 3
> Bm, A, G, D/F#
> 
> In 1812 James Madison, he had a great idea
> War, war
> ...


Less people died in the War of 1812, than in single battles in the Civil War or Napoleonic wars.

Brave Americans defended our free republic from George III & the evil British military empire that attempted to strangle us to death, and encircle us with a gigantic naval blockade.  After 10 years of naked aggression by the British, James Madison fought back.  Don't F with James Madison, you do that, you lose.

----------


## Paul Or Nothing II

> I agree. But if a State still embraced slavery, then I would support a military invasion to defeat the State until they gave up slavery.





> Violation of the rights of their citizens.


Policeman of the world!

The government should ONLY go to war when the country is attacked, NOT for "humanitarian reasons" of any kind because there's always some country or another in the world where people's rights are being violated, genocides going on & what not so accepting the doctrine of "humanitarian wars" means supporting endless wars & endless war-profiteering & being the policeman of the world! 

Accordingly, when the South seceded, it became a separate country & what they do in their country is their business, it's none of North's business & there's no doubt that if Ron Paul was in Lincoln's position then he would have tried to talk to the South & may be buy out as many slaves as he can to set them free but he would NOT have gone to war just because South had slavery because Paul believes that the government should only go to war when the country is attacked, not for any other reason, & that the government should NOT try to "spread our goodness" in other countries through use of force!






2:45 onwards -

*Stossel : But it's none of our business?
Paul : It's none of our business...
Stossel : Even if there is genocide, terribly suffering places?
Paul : No...because the genocides, the Soviets did it, the Chinese did it, Polpot did it, I think it's a tragedy & we can have a moral statement but you can't use force of arms to invade other countries to make them better people, our job is to make us a better people.*

----------


## Travlyr

> Policeman of the world!
> 
> The government should ONLY go to war when the country is attacked, NOT for "humanitarian reasons" of any kind because there's always some country or another in the world where people's rights are being violated, genocides going on & what not so accepting the doctrine of "humanitarian wars" means supporting endless wars & endless war-profiteering & being the policeman of the world! 
> 
> Accordingly, when the South seceded, it became a separate country & what they do in their country is their business, it's none of North's business & there's no doubt that if Ron Paul was in Lincoln's position then he would have tried to talk to the South & may be buy out as many slaves as he can to set them free but he would NOT have gone to war just because South had slavery because Paul believes that the government should only go to war when the country is attacked, not for any other reason, & that the government should NOT try to "spread our goodness" in other countries through use of force!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I agree that war should not be the first effort made to get a state to comply. And I agree that determining what constitutes a legitimate crime against humanity is difficult and often obfuscated, but sometimes intervention is necessary. 

If you saw a man beating his child in the parking lot at Walmart, then would you just turn your head? I wouldn't.

----------


## Paul Or Nothing II

> I agree that war should not be the first effort made to get a state to comply. And I agree that determining what constitutes a legitimate crime against humanity is difficult and often obfuscated, but sometimes intervention is necessary. 
> 
> If you saw a man beating his child in the parking lot at Walmart, then would you just turn your head? I wouldn't.


As I've said, "humanitarian wars" means endless wars, endless war-profiteering because there's always some group of people or another in one country or another getting persecuted, their rights trampled on or whatever, which means the country will be at perpetual war, perpetual war-profiteering, militarism within the country like Patriot Act, NDAA, TSA & policing the world & everything that the existing government is ALREADY doing. Good luck with that. No wonder you like centralization of power.

And I'm not interested in playing liberal guilt-trip games of appeal to emotions, it's a slippery slope towards communism.

----------


## Travlyr

> The golden age of the US was from 1815 until 1912.  1750 to 1814 was the rise.
> 
> The key was the War of 1812 which set the stage for glory because it established free trade for the US on the Great Lakes, Mississippi river, gulf of Mexico, West Indies, Atlantic ocean, and Mediterranean Sea.  The military after 1815 was big enough to protect the US, but still very small by world standards.
> 
> President James Madison set the standard in war and in peace.


In Democracy In America (1835) Alexis de Tocqueville noted:



> AMONG the novel objects that attracted my attention during my stay in the United States, nothing struck me more forcibly than the general equality of condition among the people. I readily discovered the prodigious influence that this primary fact exercises on the whole course of society; it gives a peculiar direction to public opinion and a peculiar tenor to the laws; it imparts new maxims to the governing authorities and peculiar habits to the governed.


A post Constitutional America was a time of relative peace, prosperity, and refuge for oppressed people from distant lands with the exception of native Americans and slaves. It is just too bad the Constitution didn't end slavery right off the bat as advocated by George Mason, and treat the natives as people rather than savages.

----------


## Travlyr

> As I've said, "humanitarian wars" means endless wars, endless war-profiteering because there's always some group of people or another in one country or another getting persecuted, their rights trampled on or whatever, which means the country will be at perpetual war, perpetual war-profiteering, militarism within the country like Patriot Act, NDAA, TSA & policing the world & everything that the existing government is ALREADY doing. Good luck with that. No wonder you like centralization of power.
> 
> And I'm not interested in playing liberal guilt-trip games of appeal to emotions, it's a slippery slope towards communism.


You know as well as I do that paper money printing funds endless wars. War Is A Racket and it comes with paper money.



> Ron Paul in "Gold, Peace, and Prosperity"
> People fight the gold standard, said Ludwig von Mises, because they want to substitute national autarky for free trade, war for peace, totalitarian government omnipotence for liberty. It is no coincidence that the nineteenth century, a time of gold coin standards for the most part, was an era of peace. Nor is it a coincidence that the twentieth century combines wars with paper money.


Continentals = Revolutionary War. Greenbacks = Civil War. Confederate Notes = Civil War. Federal Reserve Notes = Perpetual Wars. WWI, WWII, Korean War, Vietnam War, Middle East Wars... on and on. War makes for good high paying jobs. Do you claim that those wars had legitimate humanitarian goals?

Humanitarian causes are not evil. Being policemen of the world is not the goal of legitimate humanitarian efforts. Helping the helpless is compassionate and something that humans should embrace. If someone is getting beaten, then somebody needs to step in and stop the beatings. For example, if we don't stop the police from beating innocent people they will simply keep beating and killing more and more. Somebody is going to have to stop the men in blue and the military from beating and killing innocent people someday.

You are not interested in helping the child from his beating, not because it is a liberal guilt-trip game, but because it violates the NAP. You are not the one getting beaten so self-defense does not apply. You would likely be happier if the man giving the beating would take it behind closed doors so that ignorance is bliss. That way it is still none of your business and you don't have to watch it.

That is the difference between Libertarianism and Classical Liberalism.

Classical Liberals do not base their laws strictly on the NAP. We realize that some people (men in blue with badges today among others) will not abide by the rules of life. Intervention is going to be necessary in order to get them stopped. Hopefully, not force, but if it takes force, it must be done.

Mises said it best,



> We call the social apparatus of compulsion and coercion that induces people to abide by the rules of life in society, the state; the rules according to which the state proceeds, law; and the organs charged with the responsibility of administering the apparatus of compulsion, government.


You pretend that following the Constitution is centralization of power when we know that the Constitution, when obeyed, strengthens local governments and weakens the Federal government. That is the design of the republics and it worked that way for many many years.

----------


## AFPVet

Another very important thing to note is that the government does not 'grant' rights... it merely recognizes them. Of course, the Constitution would be so massive if they enumerated every single right that they recognized—that's why we have the 9th Amendment. 

I agree with Travlyr... you should have liberty to do what to wish so long as you don't victimize someone else.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Another very important thing to note is that the government does not 'grant' rights... it merely recognizes them. Of course, the Constitution would be so massive if they enumerated every single right that they recognized—that's why we have the 9th Amendment.* Regarding the all important question about privacy, the 4th Amendment basically covers the right to privacy since your privacy cannot be violated without a warrant (original intent regarding search and seizure); however, it would also be theoretically covered under the 9th as well.*
> 
> I agree with Travlyr... you should have liberty to do what to wish so long as you don't victimize someone else.


SCOTUS and the inferior courts have decided several times that there is no right to privacy in the constitution.

----------


## AFPVet

> SCOTUS and the inferior courts have decided several times that there is no right to privacy in the constitution.


The 4th Amendment covers search and seizure explicitly. Furthermore, SCOTUS can suck my cock if they think that you don't have a right to privacy because it's one of those unenumerated rights in the 9th. This time, the Court is wrong.

----------


## Travlyr

> The 4th Amendment covers search and seizure explicitly. Furthermore, SCOTUS can suck my cock if they think that you don't have a right to privacy because its one of those unenumerated rights in the 9th. This time, the Court is wrong.


Yeah, the Supreme Court does not have the power of judicial review. They have nice robes and very little real power. 

Big Hat ... No Cattle.

----------


## AFPVet

> Yeah, the Supreme Court does not have the power of judicial review. They have nice robes and very little real power. 
> 
> Big Hat ... No Cattle.


Yup

----------


## osan

> If you saw a man beating his child in the parking lot at Walmart, then would you just turn your head? I wouldn't.


Well, while I appreciate the good intention expressed, we must recall that which paves the road to hell.

On a practical note, if you are going interfere in such a situation you had better be loaded for bear because if it was me beating my child and you interfered, you'd get shot right off the bat.  This is because I would never raise a hand to my child. Therefore, if I was indeed raising a hand to them it would have to mean that it was absolutely necessary... probably for the sake of saving said child's life.  That is how I roll, and if you interfere with me in the course of saving my own child's life, I am most certainly going to remove the threat in rapid and unequivocal fashion.

I was at an Eagles show at Roosevelt Stadium in Jersey City in '77.  A drug deal went bad and a kid got stabbed in the neck while I got to watch.  His brother jumped on him and grabbed his neck to staunch the blood flow.  $#@! Jersey City cops showed up and took their billies to the brother, breaking his arms or legs... don't quite recall now... they beat that kid absolutely senseless right in front of me and I got to watch his brother bleed out and die because those scummy cops acted without having any idea what they were walking into.

When I was 18 and in engineering school at USC, I lived in Redondo Beach.  One evening I was standing on the corner of <mumbledypeg> street and PCH.  A couple came out of a bar, the guy slapping the girl around.  I opened my big mouth to the putz and he turned on me to beat my ass.  I produced a Browning HiPower and he chilled out right away.  I got lucky there.  What if he had been a truly mean drunk and had gone after me?  Instant life and death situation because my misguided sense of chivalry sends nasty drunk into attack mode.  Either I die or he does.  Bad move.  Stupid move, well intended as it may have been.  I walked the young miss to her door that never saw her again.  I could easily have ended up in a body bag or in the local jail for having shot some drunken $#@!.  I did, however, learn the lesson instantly, so I guess it was not a total loss. 

IOW, if you have no idea why one person is beating another, any decision on your part to stick your nose in assumes the risk of possible death for yourself.  I am not saying such interference is always wrong, but that it is highly risk laden. As the old saying goes, a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.

One must be very circumspect about such things because you almost never know enough of the story behind the events to which you bear witness.

----------


## PierzStyx

> Pure speculation.  The Constitution directly led to Lincoln's war of aggression, which removed all checks on the constitution (secession was the only thing preventing tyranny) and this created a chain of events that led us here today.
> 
> It is impossible to say whether or not all states would have been tyrannical.  Surely some would have been, but your assessment that all would be tyrannical is based on your assessment of _today_'s people's willingness to fight for their liberty.  That will to fight was extinguished over a process of centuries, and not you or anybody else can say that the fires of liberty wouldn't have found a home in at least one of the states had they have not lost the war of oppression


Some history for you: The Civil War was fought my the Union despite the rights and powers the states retained in The Constitution. The Tenth Amendment gave them the right to succeed. So I don't see how The Constitution lead to the Civil War. Though I have a hard time defending any nation that holds an entire race of people in slavery and denies them their most basic, most humane, most essential rights and freedoms.  There was no "good" side in the Civil War only two different tyrannies.

----------


## PierzStyx

> Then you are my enemy.  You are an enemy of freedom, liberty, and even your own Constitution.  The threat of secession is the only thing that keeps the Federal government in check to ensure it follows the Constitution.  By making secession "conditional" you are in effect giving the Federal government the ability to dictate the "conditions" and history has proven that quickly becomes "if you secede, we will kill you."  And this guarantees that the Federal government will do whatever the $#@! it wants, because you have zero recourse to enforce the Constitution.
> 
> You are ensuring a repeat of history's past failures, and ensuring that your children and grandchildren are enslaved just as you are now.
> 
> The right of secession is equally as important as sound money.  They both work together to protect freedom, and prevent tyranny.  Without either piece, the system falls apart.
> 
> You may support sound money, but if you don't support the right of secession, you will get neither sound money, nor freedom.


I like how you didn't pull his entire quote. He said: "Not unconditional. You do not have the right to chattel slavery." And he is absolutely right. No state or person has the right to own people. Liberty comes with conditions, things you can and cannot do. There is no such thing as "unconditional" freedom.

----------


## TheTexan

> I like how you didn't pull his entire quote. He said: "Not unconditional. You do not have the right to chattel slavery." And he is absolutely right. No state or person has the right to own people. Liberty comes with conditions, things you can and cannot do. There is no such thing as "unconditional" freedom.


What the $#@! is wrong with you people?  Because of the civil war and the propaganda you've been fed through your nostrils you guys have this sick obsession with slavery that is fundamentally affecting your opinions and thought processes regarding secession.  WHICH IS WHY THEY FEED YOU THAT HORSE $#@!.

Secession, and slavery, *are two separate $#@!ing things*.

1) The South seceded because of slavery
2) The North invaded the South to "preserve the union" (or alternately, because the bankers told them to, either way --- not slavery)
3) The slaves were freed
4) The North STILL forced the South BACK INTO THE UNION.  REGARDLESS OF SLAVERY.

The North ended slavery on blacks, and started slavery on EVERYONE.  If your state can't leave the union, YOU AND YOUR STATE ARE SLAVES.

If you want to end slavery, and are willing to start a war to do it.  That's fine.  Do what you got to do.  But this BULL$#@! NONSENSE about attributing secession with slavery and using that as justification to KEEP A STATE IN THE UNION is *HORSE CRAP*

The $#@!ing public education system sure is doing $#@!ing wonders, I expect better from you PierzStyx

----------


## Paul Or Nothing II

> You know as well as I do that paper money printing funds endless wars. War Is A Racket and it comes with paper money.
> 
> Continentals = Revolutionary War. Greenbacks = Civil War. Confederate Notes = Civil War. Federal Reserve Notes = Perpetual Wars. WWI, WWII, Korean War, Vietnam War, Middle East Wars... on and on. War makes for good high paying jobs. Do you claim that those wars had legitimate humanitarian goals?


More like wars lead to paper-money. Notice that after each earlier war, be it Revolutionary, Civil or WWI, each time there was a return to some kind of commodity-money. War leads to paper-money even if you have a commodity-standard. That's why it's better to not get into unnecessary wars in the first place.




> Humanitarian causes are not evil. Being policemen of the world is not the goal of legitimate humanitarian efforts. Helping the helpless is compassionate and something that humans should embrace.


The "goals" are irrelevant, accepting "humanitarian wars" mean endless wars around the world because there's always some group people getting mistreated & their rights trampled on, there's no way around it.

Stealing money from your fellow citizens to fight "humanitarian wars" isn't so great, anybody that wants wars should pay for it themselves!




> For example, if we don't stop the police from beating innocent people they will simply keep beating and killing more and more.


A voluntarily funded police-force is less likely to engage in such acts because of fear of loss of funds while a police funded by robbing & taxing people is capable of pretty much anything.......as is obvious.




> You are not interested in helping the child from his beating, not because it is a liberal guilt-trip game, but because it violates the NAP.


I wouldn't interfere because I don't pretend to have the authority to, I don't think I'm the policeman of the world. As Osan has pointed out, one mayn't know their situation fully. The child, if capable, can always leave the parent(s).




> You pretend that following the Constitution is centralization of power when we know that the Constitution, *when obeyed*, strengthens local governments and weakens the Federal government. That is the design of the republics and it worked that way for many many years.


You keep saying "when obeyed", "when obeyed" but by whom? The people, right? Then it's the people believing in liberty is what matters; if people believe in liberty then there will be liberty whether any piece of paper says anything about it or not.
On the other hand, if people believe in socialism & big government then there will be socialism & big government irrespective of what some piece of paper says, that much should be obvious to anyone who can see reality.

----------


## Travlyr

> Well, while I appreciate the good intention expressed, we must recall that which paves the road to hell.
> 
> On a practical note, if you are going interfere in such a situation you had better be loaded for bear because if it was me beating my child and you interfered, you'd get shot right off the bat.  This is because I would never raise a hand to my child. Therefore, if I was indeed raising a hand to them it would have to mean that it was absolutely necessary... probably for the sake of saving said child's life.  That is how I roll, and if you interfere with me in the course of saving my own child's life, I am most certainly going to remove the threat in rapid and unequivocal fashion.
> 
> I was at an Eagles show at Roosevelt Stadium in Jersey City in '77.  A drug deal went bad and a kid got stabbed in the neck while I got to watch.  His brother jumped on him and grabbed his neck to staunch the blood flow.  $#@! Jersey City cops showed up and took their billies to the brother, breaking his arms or legs... don't quite recall now... they beat that kid absolutely senseless right in front of me and I got to watch his brother bleed out and die because those scummy cops acted without having any idea what they were walking into.
> 
> When I was 18 and in engineering school at USC, I lived in Redondo Beach.  One evening I was standing on the corner of <mumbledypeg> street and PCH.  A couple came out of a bar, the guy slapping the girl around.  I opened my big mouth to the putz and he turned on me to beat my ass.  I produced a Browning HiPower and he chilled out right away.  I got lucky there.  What if he had been a truly mean drunk and had gone after me?  Instant life and death situation because my misguided sense of chivalry sends nasty drunk into attack mode.  Either I die or he does.  Bad move.  Stupid move, well intended as it may have been.  I walked the young miss to her door that never saw her again.  I could easily have ended up in a body bag or in the local jail for having shot some drunken $#@!.  I did, however, learn the lesson instantly, so I guess it was not a total loss. 
> 
> IOW, if you have no idea why one person is beating another, any decision on your part to stick your nose in assumes the risk of possible death for yourself.  I am not saying such interference is always wrong, but that it is highly risk laden. As the old saying goes, a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.
> ...


You took a chance at helping another human being. You may have saved her life. I consider that honorable. Certainly it is better to have all the correct information before intervening, but what you did for that young lady saved her from getting hit again in the moment. That was the right thing to do. Perhaps she dumped that abusive relationship because of what you did. Some people simply will not respect the rights of others. 

I still agree with Mises,



> One must be in a position to compel the person who will not respect the lives, health, personal freedom, or private property of others to acquiesce in the rules of life in society. This is the function that the liberal doctrine assigns to the state: the protection of property, liberty, and peace.

----------


## Travlyr

> What the $#@! is wrong with you people?  Because of the civil war and the propaganda you've been fed through your nostrils you guys have this sick obsession with slavery that is fundamentally affecting your opinions and thought processes regarding secession.  WHICH IS WHY THEY FEED YOU THAT HORSE $#@!.
> 
> Secession, and slavery, *are two separate $#@!ing things*.
> 
> 1) The South seceded because of slavery
> 2) The North invaded the South to "preserve the union" (or alternately, because the bankers told them to, either way --- not slavery)
> 3) The slaves were freed
> 4) The North STILL forced the South BACK INTO THE UNION.  REGARDLESS OF SLAVERY.
> 
> ...


What we have here is a failure to communicate. 

You can have almost as much freedom as you want. You do not have the right to beat your girlfriend, you do not have the right to own slaves, you do not have the right to be judge, jury, and executioner except in self-defense.

----------


## Travlyr

> More like wars lead to paper-money. Notice that after each earlier war, be it Revolutionary, Civil or WWI, each time there was a return to some kind of commodity-money. War leads to paper-money even if you have a commodity-standard. That's why it's better to not get into unnecessary wars in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> The "goals" are irrelevant, accepting "humanitarian wars" mean endless wars around the world because there's always some group people getting mistreated & their rights trampled on, there's no way around it.
> 
> Stealing money from your fellow citizens to fight "humanitarian wars" isn't so great, anybody that wants wars should pay for it themselves!
> 
> 
> ...


Paper Money brings tyranny, wars, and poverty.
Sound Money delivers liberty, peace, and prosperity.

----------


## TheTexan

> What we have here is a failure to communicate. 
> 
> You can have almost as much freedom as you want. You do not have the right to beat your girlfriend, you do not have the right to own slaves, you do not have the right to be judge, jury, and executioner except in self-defense.


I agree with you.  However, where does what you just said mean a state doesn't have an absolute right to secede?

If a modern state seceded because it wanted slavery, would you force them to re-join the union after you won the war to end slavery?

If Mexico began institutionalized slavery, would you force them to join the union after you won the war to end slavery?

Nowhere in the definition of secession does it mean by seceding it somehow grants you the right to own slaves, so I'm not sure where your problem with it is.

----------


## Travlyr

> I agree with you.  However, where does what you just said mean a state doesn't have an absolute right to secede?
> 
> If a modern state seceded because it wanted slavery, would you force them to re-join the union after you won the war to end slavery?
> 
> If Mexico began institutionalized slavery, would you force them to join the union after you won the war to end slavery?
> 
> Nowhere in the definition of secession does it mean by seceding it somehow grants you the right to own slaves, so I'm not sure where your problem with it is.


I agree with you on secession. However, it is a dangerous road to hoe. It is much better to work in each State house for sound money than it is to work toward secession. 

Dr. Edwin Vieira Jr. shows us the way in "The Purse and The Sword"

----------


## PierzStyx

> What the $#@! is wrong with you people?  Because of the civil war and the propaganda you've been fed through your nostrils you guys have this sick obsession with slavery that is fundamentally affecting your opinions and thought processes regarding secession.  WHICH IS WHY THEY FEED YOU THAT HORSE $#@!.
> 
> Secession, and slavery, *are two separate $#@!ing things*.
> 
> 1) The South seceded because of slavery
> 2) The North invaded the South to "preserve the union" (or alternately, because the bankers told them to, either way --- not slavery)
> 3) The slaves were freed
> 4) The North STILL forced the South BACK INTO THE UNION.  REGARDLESS OF SLAVERY.
> 
> ...


You cannot talk about the Civil War, or Southern secession, separated from slavery. Secession as a general right is absolutely necessary. In fact I'm a micro-secessionist. But that doesn't mean secession protects the rights of a slave owner. That is because a slave owner HAS NO RIGHT TO OWN PEOPLE. And he can't simply leave a government that might tell him otherwise. As a proud Mississippian, born and raised, the South was just as wrong as Lincoln. _If_ the war had been based solely off ending slavery it would have been justified.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> A post Constitutional America was a time of relative peace, prosperity, and refuge for oppressed people from distant lands with the exception of native Americans and slaves. It is just too bad the Constitution didn't end slavery right off the bat as advocated by George Mason, and treat the natives as people rather than savages.


That's why Madison wanted Canada to join the Union, to outvote the slave states and end slavery.  The problem was that way too many wealthy Tories, loyalists, and monarchists had moved to Canada.

----------


## TheTexan

> But that doesn't mean secession protects the rights of a slave owner.


Never said it did.  That's what I've been saying for the past 5 or so pages

----------


## osan

> You cannot talk about the Civil War, or Southern secession, separated from slavery. Secession as a general right is absolutely necessary. In fact I'm a micro-secessionist. But that doesn't mean secession protects the rights of a slave owner. That is because a slave owner HAS NO RIGHT TO OWN PEOPLE. And he can't simply leave a government that might tell him otherwise. As a proud Mississippian, born and raised, the South was just as wrong as Lincoln. _If_ the war had been based solely off ending slavery it would have been justified.


If what you assert here is to be taken as true, then one cannot argue against our foreign aggression in places such as Afghanistan because the root premise in your argument is that I am justified in violating YOUR rights in order to protect the rights of others even though you are committing no trespass against those others.  By your argument you imply the justification of the draft in order to send people to fight and die in a presumably "good cause" regardless of whether a given conscript consents to being so drafted.  Given this analytic exposure of the deeper premise I ask whether you maintain your position?

At the end of the day one is either a free man or he is something else.  If it is accepted that men may be externally pressed into service of any sort for any period of time and for any reason whatsoever by other men, then the concept of human liberty is completely, utterly, and absolutely rendered null and void.  Freedom is an all or nothing deal. Freedom and not-freedom cannot coexist. There is no epsilon in between "freedom" and "something else".  Freedom v. SomethingElse is a perfectly exclusive-or relationship  

The Venn diagram would be two circles perfectly disjoint from each other, the distance between them irrelevant.  

We could represent it as programming function in pseudocode as Freedom = not (SomethingElse) or Reality == Freedom xor SomethingElse.

We could define an algebra that states "For all X, if X = Freedom then X != SomethingElse; if X = SomthingElse then X != Freedom"

In other words, one cannot have their cake and eat it.  Therefore, if one is going to live in a rationally principled manner he must be able to clearly differentiate his emotionally-driven preferences and desires from the rational principles by which he claims to live.  The results of rational living are not always wholly palatable because we are also emotional creatures and those results often chafe strongly with those emotions.  However, if we are going to violate our principles due to emotional responses, even only "once in a while", then such principles are reduced to the status of mere suggestions to which we adhere or disregard as the moment may drive us.  There is a fundamental difference between acting pursuant to legitimate application of principle in response to "wrong", for example, and doing so based on one's merely personal disagreement with some circumstance.

Imagine it is some time after the 13 colonies are united into a new nation... perhaps even after the "ratification" of the Constitution.  We now have 13 states come under a common legal framework and let us take the enormous leap of faith and assume it was all done in a morally legitimate way that comported itself properly with the guiding principles of liberty such that all the citizens accepted consented and there is no slavery, etc.  Nobody lives in anything but a proper state of freedom, the extant framework of governance operating ONLY to address issues of interpersonal violations of the rights of some by others.  Next to anarchy, this is the best for which one could hope and it is in fact pretty cool beans because it is actually pretty much anarchy with "the state" painted over someone's door.

Then one day a bunch of people arrive in New Orleans from... I dunno... Frog perhaps and they bring slaves with them and establish a new nation called  Frogiana or maybe Louisiana or something.  They have slaves, and they treat them REALLY badly.  It is appalling.  The completely reliable stories filtering back home to the USA are nauseating - it is utter horror!  And to boot, they have seX with children and hurt kittens and puppies and walk around with their penises and breasts hanging out for the world to see!  It's just the most horrible hell hole on the planet - worse even than Illinois... WOW.  Many people in the USA are horrified and many of them want to do something about it, but not all.  This raises two questions.

First: would those people wanting to act against those in Frogiana be justified in so acting?  The answer depends largely if not wholly upon the premises from which one considers the question.  I believe this can be argued either way pretty effectively, but at the end of the day I would say that "yes" may be the right answer in the cases where those oppressed may ask for help or, barring the ability to do so, would welcome the help. Even this carries its own set of potentially troubling risks, but that is an issue altogether.  Willing slaves, OTOH, should be left to their fates IMNSHO, regardless of how horrifying their plights may seem to one.

Second: are the people who demand action within their rights to force those not interested or openly opposed to such action into service pursuant to their noble-sounding cause?  There the answer is an unequivocal and resounding "NO!".

There is also a third question that derives from the first two: is a subset of a population morally authorized to act in such ways if such action exposes the rest to direct danger?  In this example, a force of purely volunteer members marches to Frogiana and wars to free the po' slaves.  They get their asses handed to them and retreat.  The Frogs, taking some exception to this and viewing the act as one of aggression by "the people" of the USA and send a huge expeditionary force to our borders and make all manner of horrific warring upon the land.  The death and destruction wreaked upon the rest of us who had no interest in war with Frogiana came as the direct result of the actions of a subset of our own.  Therefore, their actions lead directly to trespass against their peaceable countrymen by third parties as the direct consequence of their actions and as such cannot be morally justified by any sane and rational argument.

Related to this we see that the establishment of "states" or "nations" as commonly taken today carries with it a great host of terrible problems.  This is because the mental gymnastics required to accept the legitimacy of such conceptual constructs perforce treats humanity not as a collection of discrete individuals, but as elements belonging to sets that in group theory are called "equivalence classes".  All people from America are Americans and therefore when an American carrier battle group attacks the place where the equivalence class is called "Iraq" or "Islam" or "communist", etc. then ALL Americans are share equally in the guilt for the such attacks and are therefore accountable for the actions of the comparatively small subsets of the class called "American". In other words, there is no material distinction between one American and another, the assumption being "they all look the same to me".

This is what human beings _do_.  We do it.  Eye-Rack-Eez do it.  Israelis do it.  Chinese and Russians and black Africans and Australians and South Americans all do it.  Very few refrain from it and I would bet they have to work diligently to avoid falling into the trap of doing it.  I know it is the case for me and I catch myself failing at it regularly because it is _difficult as all hell not to do it_.  We are wired to abstract.  It is a mid-brain mechanism that has enabled us to survive the ravages of depredation by other creatures such as big cats.  If we did not so abstract in a REFLEXIVE manner, not a one of us would be able to survive for long.  But in a world of ubiquitous and high level conceptual abstraction, the reflexive mechanism goes awry at times.  Being beaten by a gang of white people likely leads the beaten negro to abstract that all white people are dangerous and violent and must be avoided or killed.  This is a NATURAL reaction to the unpleasant experience, yet it is nevertheless flawed.  The midbrains - our very senses of self preservation - err grossly on the side of caution, and for good reason - but it still makes mistakes and these have lead to all manner of horrors throughout our history.

Given all this yap, methinks you need to rethink your position that the Civil War was justified on the basis of slavery alone because your personal sense of displeasure with the notion of slavery, one in which you and I share along with many others, is NOT justification for inciting the wholesale destruction of entire populations of presumably innocent people just to gain some sense of personal satisfaction.  

Do you not see the self contradictory nature of your position which is basically advocacy of the violation of the rights of man in order to stop the violation of the rights of man?

----------


## robert68

> That's why Madison wanted Canada to join the Union, to outvote the slave states and end slavery.  The problem was that way too many wealthy Tories, loyalists, and monarchists had moved to Canada.


http://home.nas.com/lopresti/ps.htm



> *James Madison: Did he own slaves?*
> ---------------------------------------
> Yes. JM grew up in a slave-owning family and owned slaves all his life. 
> 
> In 1833  JM sold several of his farms but not his slaves.  A year later he sold 16 slaves to a relative - with their permission. (Brant, p637)
> 
> He did not free his slaves in his will. (Brant p640)


But of course he was against slavery.

----------


## Travlyr

James Madison was a quirky man. 

He was both for and against nationalism, central banking, and evidently slavery.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> James Madison was a quirky man. 
> 
> He was both for and against nationalism


nice spin.  The word nationalism is pretty vague.  Probably everybody in the United States is for and against nationalism, depending of what aspect of it you are talking about, or, to what degree you take it.

For example, suppose someone said that secession is legal and Constitutional, but is not a good idea at this time for Rhode island.  then they are both for and against nationalism.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> http://home.nas.com/lopresti/ps.htm
> 
> 
> But of course he was against slavery.


This is distorted, Madison provided in his will that his slaves be freed after his wife Dolley Madison died.  This is the same thing George Washington did.

Another omission; James Madison's mother lived until 1829.  So if Madison were to free his slaves (that his mother partially owned), he would to have kicked his mom off her own property.

More Omissions:

* Madison's slave Paul Jennings was freed.  After the Civil War, he said James Madison was the greatest man who ever lived.  A descendant of Paul Jennings now sits on the Federal Reserve bank of Dallas, Texas.

* When James Madison died in 1836, all of his slaves wept for him.

* James Madison's father, James Madison, Sr. dies in 1801, just as James Madison was going to Washington DC to be Secretary of State under Thomas Jefferson.  This means that prior to 1801, practically all of "Madison's slaves" were actually owned by his father, not by James Jr.  And do you really think it was feasible for Madison to deal with all the crap he had to do Founding our nation from 1801 until he came home again 1817 to free his slaves at the same time?  It wasn't.  And by the time he came home he was a old man 66 years old with his mom still on the plantation.

* In the 1780s, Madison freed his slave Billie.

* Another of Madison's freed slaves, Elizabeth, started a giant slave rebellion in the 1840s and hijacked a boat, based upon ideas taught to her by James Madison.

----------


## Travlyr

> nice spin.  The word nationalism is pretty vague.  *Probably everybody in the United States is for and against nationalism*, depending of what aspect of it you are talking about, or, to what degree you take it.
> 
> For example, suppose someone said that secession is legal and Constitutional, but is not a good idea at this time for Rhode island.  then they are both for and against nationalism.


I'm not!

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> I'm not!


OK, do you think Rhode Island should secede from the Union on Monday?  Or are you in favor of nationalism?

----------


## Travlyr

> OK, do you think Rhode Island should secede from the Union on Monday?  Or are you in favor of nationalism?


What does that have to do with me and my thoughts of "nationalism?"

----------


## robert68

> This is distorted, Madison provided in his will that his slaves be freed after his wife Dolley Madison died.  This is the same thing George Washington did.
> 
> Another omission; James Madison's mother lived until 1829.  So if Madison were to free his slaves (that his mother partially owned), he would to have kicked his mom off her own property.
> 
> More Omissions:
> 
> * Madison's slave Paul Jennings was freed.  After the Civil War, he said James Madison was the greatest man who ever lived.  A descendant of Paul Jennings now sits on the Federal Reserve bank of Dallas, Texas.
> 
> * When James Madison died in 1836, all of his slaves wept for him.
> ...


What's your source for this spin?

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> What's your source for this spin?


multiple sources.  I have over 30 books on James Madison.  Here is a tidbit:

Paul Jennings:




> Mr. Madison, I think, was one of the best men that ever lived. I never saw him in a passion, and never knew him to strike a slave, although he had over one hundred; neither would he allow an overseer to do it. Whenever any slaves were reported to him as stealing or "cutting up" badly, he would send for them and admonish them privately, and never mortify them by doing it before others. They generally served him very faithfully. He was temperate in his habits. I don't think he drank a quart of brandy in his whole life. He ate light breakfasts and no suppers, but rather a hearty dinner, with which he took invariably but one glass of wine. When he had hard drinkers at his table, who had put away his choice Madeira pretty freely, in response to their numerous toasts, he would just touch the glass to his lips, or dilute it with water, as they pushed about the decanters. For the last fifteen years of his life he drank no wine at all.
> 
>         After he retired from the presidency, he amused himself chiefly on his farm. At the election for members of the Virginia Legislature, in 1829 or '30, just after General Jackson's accession, he voted for James Barbour, who had been a strong Adams man. He also presided, I think, over the Convention for amending the Constitution, in 1832.
> 
>         After the news of peace, and of General Jackson's victory at New Orleans, which reached here about the same time, there were great illuminations. We moved into the Seven Buildings, corner of 19th-street and Pennsylvania Avenue, and while there, General Jackson came on with his wife, to whom numerous dinner-parties and levees were given. Mr. Madison also held levees every Wednesday evening, at which wine, punch, coffee, ice-cream, &c., were liberally served, unlike the present custom.
> 
>         While Mr. Jefferson was President, he and Mr. Madison (then his Secretary of State) were extremely intimate; in fact, two brothers could not have been more so. Mr. Jefferson always stopped over night at Mr. Madison's, in going and returning from Washington.
> 
>         I have heard Mr. Madison say, that when he went to school, he cut his own wood for exercise. He often did it also when at his farm in Virginia. He was very neat, but never extravagant, in his clothes. He always dressed wholly in black -- coat, breeches, and silk stockings, with buckles in his shoes and breeches. He never had but one suit at a time. He had some poor relatives that he had to help, and wished to set them an example of economy in the matter of dress. He was very fond of horses, and an excellent judge of them, and no jockey ever cheated him. He never had less than seven horses in his Washington stables while President.
> ...


http://docsouth.unc.edu/neh/jennings/jennings.html

----------


## robert68

> This is distorted, Madison provided in his will that his slaves be freed after his wife Dolley Madison died.  This is the same thing George Washington did.


---------



> *George Washington and slavery:*
> His will provided for freeing his slaves upon the death of his widow Martha Washington, *but she emancipated them about 12 months after his death*.





> Paul Jennings (1799 – 1874) was a personal servant, as a young slave, to President James Madison during and after his White House years. After buying his freedom in *1845* from Dolley Madison,


45 years of slavery for Jennings after Washington's death, but Madison was against slavery.

Central to what makes one a slave is being punished for disobeying the slave master. Madison propaganda can’t change that. And if any of Madison's slaves cried after his death, it's a case of Stockholm syndrome.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> ---------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 45 years of slavery for Jennings after Washington's death, but Madison was against slavery.
> 
> Central to what makes one a slave is being punished for disobeying the slave master. Madison propaganda can’t change that. And if any of Madison's slaves cried after his death, it's a case of Stockholm syndrome.


* Dolley was supposed to free the slaves at her death which turned out to be 1849.  1845 is prior to 1849.

* Dolley did not do everything she was supposed to do because her son (James Madison's stepson) siphoned off $50,000 from Dolley's bank account.  

* Despite tough economic conditions for eastern tobacco farmers, James left his wife plenty of money to keep her lifestyle and free the slaves, had the stepson not cashed in.

* Martha Washington was afraid her slaves would murder her if she did not free the slaves ASAP.  Unlike Washington;s slaves, Madison's slaves loved James Madison.

* Madison's treatment of slaves was very humane despite the fact that Madison's grandfather Ambrose Madison was murdered by slaves in 1732.

* laws against free blacks had become much harsher by the 1830s and 1840s, then they were when Washington died in 1799.

* among Madison's slaves, 1/3 were children, 1/3 were old or infirm.  Only 1/6 were able bodied males who could fend for themselves if freed.  So if Madison freed the able bodied males, the rest would starve to death.

* I will take slave Paul Jennings opinion of Madison over yours.  Paul Jennings said James Madison was the greatest man who ever lived.

----------

