Skip to main content

View Diary: Article I, Section 8 ... gives We the People the Right to ... (54 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Author is more than a bit much as a label for (0+ / 0-)

    Madison as it was a collaborative effort.  The fact that the courts agree or disagree with one person who played a part in it's creation is immaterial - the law as written is the law.

    Of course your position depends that I agree with the result of Marbury which I don't.  Handing any power to define meaning of the Constitution should not belong to any one branch of government but if it must it should be the legislature where the voice of the people is the strongest.

    Supreme Court rulings are in my opinion entirely secondary to the words as listed in the Constitution for that reason.  As the Supremacy clause does say it is the Constitution that is supreme not the decisions of an entity created by it.  In fact it would be organizationally and logically impossible for the meaning of a document to be decided by a creation of the document.

    •  Clearly Supreme Court decisions (0+ / 0-)

      are irrelevant to you.  We get that.  The Supreme Court has declared that states do not have the right to secede, and you insist that your interpretation of the constitution is superior.

      Let me ask you this:  The U.S. built a fort in South Carolina.  South Carolina, acting solely on its own authority, secedes.  Does it get to take federal property with it?  Who, in your opinion, owned Fort Sumter after secession?

      If North Dakota secedes, does she own the nuclear missiles stored there, but paid for by American taxpayers?

      If Colorado secedes, does she own the water rights to the Colorado River?

      If Pennsylvania secedes, does she get to keep the Liberty Bell?

      If Tennessee secedes, does she control the TVA?

      Your view, while no doubt sincerely held, is not only misguided and uninformed, but sheer lunacy.

      I'd rather stand with the down-trodden than lie with the wealthy.

      by Endangered Alaskan Dem on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 09:11:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It is not my interpretation. (0+ / 0-)

        No such power to restrict, approve, decide, weigh, judge - or any other verb you wish was granted to the Federal government in regards to secession.  From there we read the 9th and 10th amendments.  Historically we can look at the Anti-Federalist papers, the secessionist movement in New England long before the Civil War and the personal writings of the Founders.

        The negotiations of the property would have to be done between the US and the new nation of South Carolina.  The property stored within the fort is the property of the US and the land and fortification itself is not.  Now to remain on agreeable terms I feel some remuneration to the US for the actual construction of the facility should be made but that is my personal feeling on the subject.

        All of these issues can be worked out civilly if individuals in question wish to remain civil.  Secession has occurred before and empires have removed themselves from occupation before peacefully (Britain and India was mostly peacefully separated).  

        My view is misguided (no reason given) and lunacy (insult).

        You resort to childish name calling because while such negotiations would be tense, complicated, and long - you realize in your post that they would also be possible.

        Your series of questions is no more than an expanded view that a person who has a few sub-letters as roommates cannot let one of the rent-payers leave because sorting out whose stuff is whose would be "too complicated" and they would rather use violence to subdue them.

        Its not either a nuanced nor moral position and it mandates not only that the idea of self-rule be oppressed but that violence should be used to do so.

        •  Hey dipshit: (0+ / 0-)

          It is your interpretation.  And it flies in the face of a contrary U.S. Supreme Court interpretation.

          Texas v. White is the law of the land.  Your opinion is what?

          I'd rather stand with the down-trodden than lie with the wealthy.

          by Endangered Alaskan Dem on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 02:59:30 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The same as my opinion on Kelo, Raich, Korematsu (0+ / 0-)

            and other Supreme Court decisions where they chose to ignore what is stated in the law.

            You act as if the SC is the definition of truth - it is not and it is evidenced as not by the fact it has reversed its own previous rulings.

            I find that you understand your own argument to be weak since you believe you must use insults so I would suggest you stop using them.

            •  No, the insults are there (0+ / 0-)

              merely to point out that your belief that your interpretation of the constitution supercedes the opinions of the supreme court makes you a dipshit.

              Most people who would argue that their opinion is superior to the court's decision would at least try to rebut the analysis of the supreme court.  You act as if you've never read it.  And why should you?  You know more than anyone.  Which makes you a dipshit.

              I'd rather stand with the down-trodden than lie with the wealthy.

              by Endangered Alaskan Dem on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 12:13:02 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site