Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Gunslinger on July 20, 2005, 11:33:09 AM
-
Isn't it a little late for this? How long does our govt have to be responsible for our past? I saw this and it disturbed me. Lets say I'm a white guy living on Oahu and this passes. Because of this I may have to give up my home and possible livelyhood to a "native" because a minority group wants self govt based on guilt? Reparations? How long is this kind of stuff going to go on for?
I have a fair Idea why not have ONLY the people that were alive at the time get the land and ONLY the people that were alive at the time of colonization pay for it.
Hawaiians Grapple With Self-Government Bill
Wednesday, July 20, 2005
A move to give native Hawaiians the same rights of self-government and home rule currently given to American Indians and native Alaskans may have a shot at passing the U.S. Senate, but it isn't being embraced at home.
The bill, sponsored by Sen. Daniel Akaka (search), is scheduled for a vote Wednesday. Akaka and Hawaii's other Democratic senator, Daniel Inouye (search), said they believe it has enough votes to pass.
But in Hawaii — where some residents say the measure is long overdue but others say it could damage property rights and divide the islands' population along racial lines — a majority oppose it. A new poll shows around 56 percent in Hawaii are against the bill, which would set up the largest sovereign nation in the United States.
The bill would also preserve race-based programs — from health care to education — that serve native Hawaiians only.
The controversy over the sovereignty of native Hawaiian lands dates back to 1893, when businessmen overthrew the monarchy after Lili'uokalani, the Hawaiian queen, surrendered to U.S. Marines. It was a bloodless coup but Hawaiians claim the overthrow was illegal.
Ten years ago, Congress issued an apology to native Hawaiians and agreed to reconciliation. Even though the apology was not necessarily meant to justify claims against the United States, today some native Hawaiians want reparations. Others say the bill is divisive and, because the islands overwhelmingly approved statehood in 1959, obsolete.
"This is a declaration by the U.S. Congress and the administration — and it lays the foundation for the reconciliation process — which must be an engagement of native Hawaiians with the United States," said Haunani Apoliona of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (search).
But Hawaii resident William Burgess said he thought the bill was a "land grab" that would hurt the state. "The bill would have the state of Hawaii surrender its sovereignty over lands, surrender sovereignty over part of population and give away one third to one half of its public lands," Burgess said.
The bill would create a new independent native Hawaiian government that will negotiate with the federal and state governments to transfer native lands and resources. Critics say that up to 40 percent of the island state could be up for grabs and native Hawaiians could sue private landowners for aboriginal homeland rights.
"Instead of them bringing about these issues all individually, there is one governing entity now to represent the native Hawaiian people and we feel that is critically important, it's fair, and it's the right thing to do," said Gov. Linda Lingle (search), a Republican who supports the legislation.
But others disagree.
"When does it stop?" asks Hawaiian historian Rubellite Kawene Johnson. "When do you stop charging people for what was wrong ages ago?"
Click in the box near the top of the story to watch a report by FOX News' William La Jeunesse.
-
Henh..
From what i recall of my early hawaiian history.. the hawaiians were kinda spotty about 'property'.. Cook called 'em the most industrious theives he'd ever seen.
Admittedly, we stole from them.. playing by their rules, it's 'finders keepers'.
-
i am 1/8 native american "injun" to be easier....
that is enough for all legal considerations.
if this happens i say all us american indians should sue the gov. for "reperations" and demand all our land in the whole midwest back.
-
I lived in Hawaii for a year. If I recall correctly, a very small percentage of Hawaiians are pure blood (like less than 1%). The “natives” are typically at best ¼ Hawaiian. This brings up a question in my mind; how much “rights” does one have who is less than half native?
-
exactly eskimo, mustaine this opens up a huge bag of worms and what ifs.
-
Are they going to open casions? That'd be neat.
-
It seems that Samuel Dole, a private entity at the time, took care of all this when he deposed Queen Liliuokalani. He took control of the government as a private citizen, not as a representative of the US government.
Later, the US annexed Hawaii and made him governor. So the US didn't just 'annex' the state without the government's permission, it technically dotted the i's and crossed the t's because a friendly government invited it in.
As such, I don't see a credible legal issue here, instead it's a moral one.
-
if this happens i say all us american indians should sue the gov. for "reperations" and demand all our land in the whole midwest back.
Stole? We conquered man.
It's like one of my favorite quotes.
"Caeser didn't say, 'I came, I saw, I felt really bad.'"
-
Did any of you even bother to read the Akaka bill? And while the issues of reparations and such might be a bit overdone, its just like any negotiation. You start higher than you expect to get, to leave yourself wiggle room. The White House has already told Akaka that if he wants it passed, the military bases have to be protected, reparations have to have a much shorter statute of limitations, etc. Changes to the text are already being made, to get a passable version to the floor. This isnt about giving Hawaii back to the Hawai'ian people, its about giving them back some control of their lives and their heritage.
I happen to be a white male living on Oahu, and I support a realistic version of the bill 100%. So does almost everyone living here. The Governor is white. She supports it. No one expects that the current version is going to pass, but realistically a version WILL eventually pass. Esp. given the wording of the Apology in 1993, this is the next logical step.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Stole? We conquered man.
It's like one of my favorite quotes.
"Caeser didn't say, 'I came, I saw, I felt really bad.'"
even so, I could be wrong about this, but I don't think the reservation land givin to Native Americans belonged to anyone at the time. It was all still territories.
This to me sounds like iminent domain but worse.
Can you imagine if you and your wife retired and bought a beautiful home on the beach. Then one day you are told to move out while some poor schlub gets to move in because he's more that 1/2 Hawaiian and the area was deemed for natives only?
-
Since I've already stated my opinion earlier, I can safely play devils advocate on this.
Gunslinger, speaking hypothetically, apply the concept of receiving stolen property to this. If a car is stolen, then sold to an innocent third party, when the auto is identified, who gets to keep it? The original owner? Or the third party? In the US, the law has established that the innocent 3rd party has no property rights. Possibly, they might be able to pursue legal reparation from the party that sold the hot car to them, but that's a separate matter. If we applied that same model to this, then the couple that bought the land on the beach would need to take up that conversation with the US Government or Dole corporation, right?
-
I DEMAND REPARATIONS!!!
i still suffer aftershocks from nilsens viking ancestors invading my ancestors england.
I WANT BLOOOOD!!!!
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
It seems that Samuel Dole, a private entity at the time, took care of all this when he deposed Queen Liliuokalani. He took control of the government as a private citizen, not as a representative of the US government.
Later, the US annexed Hawaii and made him governor. So the US didn't just 'annex' the state without the government's permission, it technically dotted the i's and crossed the t's because a friendly government invited it in.
As such, I don't see a credible legal issue here, instead it's a moral one.
Chairboy, if you bother to read the rest of the history, it clearly states the US marines helped the private citizens overthrow the Hawai'ian monarchy. Also, there are preserved documents from the US Ambassador at the time and letters showing correspondence with the US Gov. in Washington that show they approved of the plans even if they didnt back them openly.
-
How many times do you think that the word "Stole" is going to get thrown around on this post alone?
-
Everyone should repay everyone else for everything ever.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Everyone should repay everyone else for everything ever.
starting with the oldests unjusts firsts. After the Romans and Egyptions take care of the Jews I want my cut. As a christian my brothers and sisters were thrown to the lions for entertainment. I demand to be compesated for wages that could have been earned plus rougly 2000 years of interest! ;)
-
Can't we just sign a treaty with them, then come back and slaughter them in a couple months? It seems to have worked in the past.
-
Originally posted by rpm
Can't we just sign a treaty with them, then come back and slaughter them in a couple months? It seems to have worked in the past.
they have to violate the treaty first. But either way why should they get a treaty at all?
-
You guys have raced based education?
"The bill would also preserve race-based programs — from health care to education — that serve native Hawaiians only."
That's just so...so...early 20 th. centuary German!...
-
i hope some elk comes on my property to reclaim its land..
*bang*
-
It is time to make the Indians equal with the rest of Americans. No more reservations. We dont need to separate them from us any longer.
-
Originally posted by Seeker
You guys have raced based education?
"The bill would also preserve race-based programs — from health care to education — that serve native Hawaiians only."
That's just so...so...early 20 th. centuary German!...
yea I know. It's ok though because it discriminates against whites. If it were the whites getting the special treatment well then that'd be racism any way you look at it.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
i hope some elk comes on my property to reclaim its land..
*bang*
:rofl :rofl :rofl
-
They should give any living "native hawaii" person who was there in 1893 $5.00 in beads as reparations for the coup by their own countrymen.
-
see rule # 4
-
:rolleyes:
Yer annoyed because we have not sat down and read, line by line, a bill about Hawaii?
Tell us, oh please.. what salient points have we missed? Reparations for wrongs done 10 generations back? Native recognition and enclaves for folks that already have had several advantageous education and health care concessions that other 'white' americans don't have access too?
Want the truth? Think you can handle it?
They are americans now; have been for over 100 years.. no more deserving of special consideration than any other american. White, red, brown, yellow, chartruse.. don't make a bit of difference. No more special considerations for the red man, no more talk of BS reparations for for the black man. No more concession for the japanese Americans transported to Wyoming, no more special free education and health benefits for illegal immigrants.
Franky, this factional special intrest group kow-tow and pow-wow crap has run far enuff... 'bout time we started knockin down the walls the promote 'special' enclaves. English is the language, the constitution the law. How about we spin it around for the hawaiians... If our armed forces spilled blood defending that terrain, then the Hawaiians can start paying reparations to the servicemen's families that died at thier posts defending it from foriegn aggression.
How yah like them Apples?
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
If our armed forces spilled blood defending that terrain, then the Hawaiians can start paying reparations to the servicemen's families that died at thier posts defending it from foriegn aggression
that's pretty good. Send them a bill for services rendered.
-
Hangtime, considering that Hawaiian troops have already lost more people in Iraq than any other state of the union, considering that folks from here have fought and bled and died in every altercation we've had since Pearl Harbor, I think your comments need to be redirected. Also, no one is asking that the entire state of Hawaii be pulled out of the US and made a separate nation again. All they want is some space and the ability to determine their own futures. For those who are of Hawaiian ancestry, the choice will be theirs then as to which way they go. They didnt get that choice the first time. What exactly are you losing in this?
Most times I agree with you, and from your posts in the past I have developed a good deal of respect for your opinions. On this issue though, I think you're just being pig-headed. Sorry, but there's more to this than what you are reading, and less of an impact to the country than what you are making out.
-
Originally posted by StarOfAfrica2
Hangtime, considering that Hawaiian troops have already lost more people in Iraq than any other state of the union, considering that folks from here have fought and bled and died in every altercation we've had since Pearl Harbor, I think your comments need to be redirected. Also, no one is asking that the entire state of Hawaii be pulled out of the US and made a separate nation again. All they want is some space and the ability to determine their own futures. For those who are of Hawaiian ancestry, the choice will be theirs then as to which way they go. They didnt get that choice the first time. What exactly are you losing in this?
Most times I agree with you, and from your posts in the past I have developed a good deal of respect for your opinions. On this issue though, I think you're just being pig-headed. Sorry, but there's more to this than what you are reading, and less of an impact to the country than what you are making out.
Sources on that first sentance pls, kinda tuff for me to swallow that more hawaiian islanders of native ancestry have died in Iraq than 'any other state in the union'.
Next, I just don't get why the Hawaiian natives are more deserving of special consideration than any other ethnic group in this nation?
Lastly, unless there's some unknown (to me) causeality not covered already upthread, I don't buy into ANY ethnic group receiving special treatment not available to any other citizen... and that includes the kindly hawaiian islanders that have never done nobody no harm, nowhow.
But that's just me.. as a cranky old salamander, I do have my foibles.. runnin off half cocked on this board without any data is certainly one of 'em.
-
They arent necessarily more deserving of any specail treatment than any other ethnic group. But then you are talking about people of other ethnic backgrounds who either came to this country of their own free will or are decendants of such. That isnt true of the Hawaiians. The situation is most closely compared to Native Americans, whether indians or eskimos. But its still not the same. We are talking about a place that had a recognized govornment, with a recognized ruler. We had a US ambassador to the Kingdom of Hawaii in the 1800s. US businesses came here and opened up shop yes, but they operated under Hawaiian laws. There were established fire departments and police. Basically there was a fully functional govornment in place here that was overthrown with the knowledge and support of US troops, occupied, and then absorbed. Yes there was a chance to vote in the 50s and yes they voted to become a state. Only because the alternatives offered to them at the time were far less attractive. They never did (and still dont) see a chance for an actual return to "The Kingdom of Hawaii" because the area is too important militarily for the US to simply abandon their bases here. Of course there is also the fact that the royal family is all dead. Small point. Besides, everyone can see that overall Hawaii has benefitted from being part of the US. That doesnt mean things dont need improving.
The Dept. of Hawaiian Homelands has for years tried to buy property, build modest homes and sell them at reasonable prices to those of Hawaiian ancestry (much the same way Habitat for Humanity works to provide low income families with affordable housing). They cant afford to keep up with the prices developers are paying for property here. Prices have skyrocketed and previously undeveloped areas of the islands are being gobbled up. Native Hawaiians cant even afford to rent apartments here anymore. Programs (private ones I might add) run by trusts that provide schools and scholarships for natives are increasingly having to pay to defend themselves in court because other groups want to send their kids to the schools. Other programs (also run by trust funds) are under legal attack as well, from people who have no claims but want a piece of the pie. This kind of recognition would allow them protection from that sort of thing.
Dont get me wrong, there are plenty of native Hawaiians who dont support the Akaka bill and want to see it fail (in its current form anyway). They think it gives away far too much. I think if you actually read it, and see what is being asked for, you'd see its not the issue people are making it out to be at all. Things rarely are in politics.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Sources on that first sentance pls, kinda tuff for me to swallow that more hawaiian islanders of native ancestry have died in Iraq than 'any other state in the union'.
This is from an article in the local paper. Sorry I cant link you to it, requires money I'm afraid. But I'll post this part. Its from the beginning of July, so it's recent enough. I'll try to find some hard facts for you. I remember not too long ago one of the Marine officers here stating that Hawaii had given more than its share of soldiers for the efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and then a reporter just after stating that more soldiers with island ties had died in service in the last 2 years than any other state. I'm still trying to track down a source for that, or at least a copy of the statement.
U.S. Sen. Daniel Inouye, in a statement of condolence, said the 20-year-old soldier from Hawaii was a member of the 29th Brigade Combat Team.
Lee said the three other 29th Brigade Combat Team soldiers who were injured in the car blast are not from the islands.
Although the 29th Brigade Combat Team is based in Hawaii, it has units from California, Minnesota and Oregon assigned during its year-long tour in Iraq.
Family and friends say the dead soldier is a member of the 229th Military Intelligence Company, which belongs to the 29th Brigade. The unit is commanded by Capt. Michael Desmond.
The soldier, friends say, was single and was returning from the village of Al Shyabi, where soldiers had done searches of vehicles and houses with members of Charlie Company, 100th Battalion, 442nd Infantry.
The soldier's vehicle reportedly was the second in a three-vehicle convoy when the homemade bomb was detonated at about 1 p.m. yesterday.
"In Hawaii we are ohana, and the death of this 20-year-old local soldier is like a death in each of our own families," Inouye said in his statement. "While Americans may have different opinions regarding our presence in Iraq, I believe we are all united in support of our troops, who, without hesitation or fear, willingly serve in harm's way.
"I extend my heartfelt condolences to this brave soldier's family, friends and fellow soldiers who had the privilege of serving with him."
U.S. Sen. Daniel Akaka said he wanted to extend his aloha and sympathy to the soldier's family. "We are so proud of our boys and the sacrifices they are making for our country," he said.
Maj. Gen. Eric Olson lost 28 soldiers during the 25th Infantry Division's combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. "We always mourn when we lose any soldier, especially a soldier from Hawaii," he said.
Olson, who stepped down earlier this month as commanding general of the 25th Division, added that "everything I've heard is that they are doing a tremendous job there. This is just a sad, sad thing. We hope that soldiers there continue on with the mission and the folks back here continue to support them the way that they have."
The death will probably weigh heavily as the Hawaii Army National Guard holds a ceremony this morning in Pearl City to honor soldiers of Bravo Company, 193rd Aviation, and Hawaii Air Guard personnel from the 154th Wing and the 201st Combat Communications Groups, which spent all of last year in Afghanistan.
Through yesterday, 22 soldiers, two sailors, 42 Marines and one civilian with Hawaii ties have been killed in Iraq since the war started on March 19, 2003.
Earlier this month the 100th Battalion reported that it had awarded 28 Purple Heart medals for wounds its soldiers received while patrolling the Balad area.
-
Ok.. now, what about Puerto Rico? Guam? Thye American Samoan Islands? The Eskimos in Alaska?
How many central and south american countries had their lawful legitimate govermnets chucked out with the tactict approval of the US governments of the time for American Business Interests of the time?
Yup.. the native hawaiians got a raw deal.. so did the blacks dragged outta africa and sold into slavery here. So did the eskimos when we killed off their food supply, so did the san salvadorans when we stole their country and stuck in a puppet..
Let alone all the other folks that got the shaft from our forebears.. yah know what? It was wrong. And yah know what? More wrongs won't make it right. It's wrong to foster isolated ethnic groups by creating sepearatist enclaves. And, just as it was wrong then to steal property rights, it's wrong now.
The clock can not be rolled back... it's done. We can't recreate the agrarian hunter/gatherer society that existed when Cook sailed in.. and by the time the Royal Hawaiian House was toppled it was embracing western culture and society. Now 'traditionalist' influences on your island would like to re-create the hawaii that vansihed 100 years before it's royal house got deposed.
That's nuts. Is everybody west of the rockies some kinda tree-hugging save the whales and promote the hula nut case?? ;)
Cripes.. what are they gonna do next.. sponsor a bill to pay reparations to the owens river valley ranch owners for the Los Angeles Aqueduct? Is Spain ready to take back Utah?
-
Give Hawaii to Saddam and watch them regret how they ever came up with the bill, because he would just wipe his arse with the bill.
-
I've got a number of 1744 American casulties in Operatrion Iraqi Freedom, 215 more in Afganistan. 163 of 'em were New Yorkers. Toss in 2,405 more for the WTC attack.
Now, yer point again?
-
You forgot to mention Hitler, Fishu, points off.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
I've got a number of 1744 American casulties in Operatrion Iraqi Freedom, 215 more in Afganistan. 163 of 'em were New Yorkers. Toss in 2,405 more for the WTC attack.
Now, yer point again?
Are you just trying to think in too complex ways?
Maybe it could be worse than they have it now..?
Lizking,
Hes not alive, as you very well do know.
Apparently foreigners aren't allowed to throw in rather similar comments as the other americans.
Actually I was first thinking what if americans would've just left the island for japanese, but then thought that they lost.
Then had a very brief thought of giving it to todays japanese, but immediately refused the thought because you could actually complain of it.
Japanese in WWII would've replied to the bill with a bullet...
At least they're able to send such bills, they should be happy for that.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Ok.. now, what about Puerto Rico? Guam? Thye American Samoan Islands? The Eskimos in Alaska?
How many central and south american countries had their lawful legitimate govermnets chucked out with the tactict approval of the US governments of the time for American Business Interests of the time?
Yup.. the native hawaiians got a raw deal.. so did the blacks dragged outta africa and sold into slavery here. So did the eskimos when we killed off their food supply, so did the san salvadorans when we stole their country and stuck in a puppet..
Let alone all the other folks that got the shaft from our forebears.. yah know what? It was wrong. And yah know what? More wrongs won't make it right. It's wrong to foster isolated ethnic groups by creating sepearatist enclaves. And, just as it was wrong then to steal property rights, it's wrong now.
The clock can not be rolled back... it's done. We can't recreate the agrarian hunter/gatherer society that existed when Cook sailed in.. and by the time the Royal Hawaiian House was toppled it was embracing western culture and society. Now 'traditionalist' influences on your island would like to re-create the hawaii that vansihed 100 years before it's royal house got deposed.
That's nuts. Is everybody west of the rockies some kinda tree-hugging save the whales and promote the hula nut case?? ;)
Cripes.. what are they gonna do next.. sponsor a bill to pay reparations to the owens river valley ranch owners for the Los Angeles Aqueduct? Is Spain ready to take back Utah?
Wasn't the Louisiana purchase made through a drunken card game???? are was that Alaska????? EIther way both of those incidents need to be looked at. We may have to give back half of our country.
God forbid if we did anything wrong during the war of 1812 cause there would go the Southwest US.
While we're at it lets explore the legality of the declaration of independence. I bet we had no legal right to break off and form this corrupt and barbaric union we call the USA.
deep down inside I bet this bill has the backing of Casino owners. I bet this is all that's about is making ALOT of money from gaming Casinos.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
Apparently foreigners aren't allowed to throw in rather similar comments as the other americans.
Of course not, you silly Finnlander. Now, if you wuz an Amercian Pseudo Redneck Anti-Christian Kill all Jihadists Activist Rabble Rouser like me, it'd be different.
Really.
;)
-
Wasn't the Louisiana purchase made through a drunken card game????
Wasn't the Louisiana purchase.
Don't know much about Alaska except it was called Seward's folly. (probably wrong about that one too).
-
so does this all boil down to the fact that secession is legal? seems to thats what they are saying.
-
Then The SOUTH, suh, shall RISE agin'!
-
Nah.. more like parity with the indians. lands of their own, big feaderal assistance package, educational grants, medical grants and hospitals, some autonomy on cultural stuff.
A casino would be facetious guess.
They could build more than one.. I don't think they're commies.
-
Secession is perfectly legal...
When the government becomes tyrannical and tries to kill the citizens left and right (coughGERMANYcough).
However, when you're seceding just to retain your slaves? Were sure as hell gonna come down and stomp some sense in you.
-
What if you secede to protect any and all the rights given to the States in the Constitution?
-
It says right in the Declaration of Independence that it's the people's duty to revolt when the government has overstepped it's bounds or become tyrannical.
However, know that if you secede as a single state, chances are you're going to collapse economically and socially. Hard.
The states were originally founded to benefit each other. But it has become to the point where they come to depend on each other (as much as polar opposite states would like to think).
So it's kind of like being hooked up to a few units of blood in a hospital. Sure, you can unhook yourself. You'd gain the freedom to walk around, go wherever the Blood trolley couldn't.
But in a few hours you're going to collapse or die from lack of blood.
-
What if eleven States choose to secede?
Where in the Constitution does it say that a State cannot withdraw from the Union?
-
Guys, before you do any of this take a look at New Zealand. We've gone done this whole white guilt path. Now while the NZ Maori's do deserve reparations to a certain extend the whole things turned into a major cash industry with people milking it for every thing they can.
Now its gone full circle, the general NZ population have become fairly resentful of what is seen as a minority taking advantage of an offer to make amends, of a minority wasting the money and being guilt of wholesale corruption, and of a minority getting carried away and pushing for more. Now the backlash has started, and its not pretty.
You thought lawyers were bad, you ain't seen nothing!
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Guys, before you do any of this take a look at New Zealand. We've gone done this whole white guilt path. Now while the NZ Maori's do deserve reparations to a certain extend the whole things turned into a major cash industry with people milking it for every thing they can.
Now its gone full circle, the general NZ population have become fairly resentful of what is seen as a minority taking advantage of an offer to make amends, of a minority wasting the money and being guilt of wholesale corruption, and of a minority getting carried away and pushing for more. Now the backlash has started, and its not pretty.
You thought lawyers were bad, you ain't seen nothing!
Good example!
Many in the US have been saying this for years. Afirmative action and other social programs geared at helping ONLY minorities only GIVES them a leg up but doesnt actually TEACH them how to get ahead.
There was a news report on the radio recently that Blacks in the LA area are actually worse off now then they were 10 or 15 years ago. This is AFTER all sorts of social engineering programs wellfare and the "villiage" raising the kid so to speak.
now truth be told we are finding out statistically that this doesn't work. No one was taught how to fish.
-
Originally posted by Toad
What if eleven States choose to secede?
Where in the Constitution does it say that a State cannot withdraw from the Union?
What is now combated is the position that secession is consistent with the Constitution -- is lawful and peaceful. It is not contended that there is any express law for it, and nothing should ever be implied as law which leads to unjust or absurd consequences. . . .
The seceders insist that our Constitution admits of secession. They have assumed to make a national constitution of their own, in which of necessity they have either discarded or retained the right of secession, as they insist it exists in ours. If they have discarded it, they thereby admit that on principle it ought not to be in ours. If they have retained it, by their own construction of ours they show that to be consistent they must secede from one another whenever they shall find it the easiest way of settling their debts or effecting any other selfish or unjust object. The principle itself is one of disintegration and upon which no government can possibly endure.
If all the states save one should assert the power to drive that one out of the Union, it is presumed the whole class of seceder politicians would at once deny the power and denounce the act as the greatest outrage upon state rights. But suppose that precisely the same act, instead of being called "driving the one out," should be called "the seceding of the others from that one," it would be exactly what the seceders claim to do, unless, indeed, they make the point that the one, because it is a minority, may rightfully do what the others, because they are a majority, may not rightfully do. These politicians are subtle and profound on the rights of minorities. They are not partial to that power which made the Constitution and speaks from the Preamble, calling itself "We, the people."
It may well be questioned whether there is today a majority of the legally qualified voters of any state, except, perhaps, South Carolina, in favor of disunion. There is much reason to believe that the Union men are the majority in many, if not in every other one, of the so-called seceded states. The contrary has not been demonstrated in any one of them. It is ventured to affirm this even of Virginia and Tennessee; for the result of an election held in military camps, where the bayonets are all on one side of the question voted upon, can scarcely be considered as demonstrating popular sentiment. At such an election all that large class who are at once for the Union and against coercion would be coerced to vote against the Union. . . .
This is essentially a people's contest. On the side of the Union it is a struggle for maintaining in the world that form and substance of government whose leading object is to elevate the condition of men; to lift artificial weights from all shoulders; to clear the paths of laudable pursuit for all; to afford all an unfettered start and a fair chance in the race of life. Yielding to partial and temporary departures, from necessity, this is the leading object of the government for whose existence we contend. . . .
Abraham Lincoln, Address to Congress, July 4 1861
Now, since the the Federal Government has already 'spoken' once on the subject, vis a vis a war of succession wherein the states that attempted said succession were most forcefully not permitted to do so.. would that suffice as 'precedent'?
-
The South is occupied territory.:mad:
-
Originally posted by Xargos
The South is occupied territory.:mad:
It certainly is. Every human being in the South should leave and unoccupy it.:rolleyes:
-
Hang, I'm not sure using the guy that suspended Habeus Corpus is your best choice. ;)
I'm sure you know the 10th:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Where does the Constitution delegate the power to force (militarily) States to remain in the Union to the United States?
I don't need a speech, I need a Constitutional reference.
-
Toad, had you read what he quoted, it would tell you exactly what you want to hear.
It may well be questioned whether there is today a majority of the legally qualified voters of any state, except, perhaps, South Carolina, in favor of disunion. There is much reason to believe that the Union men are the majority in many, if not in every other one, of the so-called seceded states. The contrary has not been demonstrated in any one of them. It is ventured to affirm this even of Virginia and Tennessee; for the result of an election held in military camps, where the bayonets are all on one side of the question voted upon, can scarcely be considered as demonstrating popular sentiment. At such an election all that large class who are at once for the Union and against coercion would be coerced to vote against the Union. . . .
Basically, Lincoln is saying that South Carolina is the only state that voted itself out of the union. All the other people from the other states were forced out by politicians. Whether the people wanted this or not is a seperate matter.
If that's not enough, I'll quote a higher power. The Declaration of Independence.
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
Like he told you, SC is the only state that "Legally" seceded. All the other states "Illegally" seceded against the wishes of the constituents.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Like he told you, SC is the only state that "Legally" seceded. All the other states "Illegally" seceded against the wishes of the constituents.
An entirely different subject.
What I asked is where in the Constitution is the Federal Government delegated the power to use military force on a State to make it remain in the Union.
That hasn't been answered as yet.
-
I just told you, but the answer isn't in the constitution, it's in the Declaration of Independence.
The US obviously has the military right to defend its citizens from harm or danger.
What Lincoln is telling you (and what we'll unfortunately have to repeat 3 times total) is that the people of all the southern states except SC never voted to secede (although some people did vote to anti-secede).
So what he's telling you is there are a bunch of US citizens being held against their will in a foreign country.
-
What you quoted from the Declaration.. which is not the "law of the land", the Constitution is.... SUPPORTS the right of States to secede. It does NOT support the use of Federal troops to keep a State in the Union.
So again, my question has not been answered.
If you like, since you like South Carolina as the "legitimate" example, just show me where in the Constitution the Federal Government was delegated the power to militarily force SC to remain in the Union.
BTW, SC did NOT have a "popular vote" to secede as you seem to imply. They held a convention and the people sent delegates. This is pretty much the same format that was used by all the Confederate States. An "Ordinance of Secession" was passed at a convention. I'm not aware of ANY of the Confederate States that subjected the Ordinances to a popular vote. Correct me if I am wrong.
Then the heroic day of December 20, 1860, came. The Convention adopted the Ordinance of Secession on roll call vote 169-0. At 7:00pm, the delegates signed the Ordinance of Secession declaring their political withdrawal from the United States. The State of South Carolina became the Commonwealth of South Carolina--the Palmetto Republic. During the next days, the Convention passed laws and resolutions a new nation would pass--South Carolina was a new nation.
[edit] Oh, and the idea that the loyal Union populations of the CS were being "held against their will" is totally destroyed by the fact of the armies of the CS. Unless you want to maintain that the CS armies were all drafted against their will and we're unenthusiastic fighters as a result.
-
The Declaration is more important than the constitution. It is the supreme law of the land. The Constitution only exists because the Declaration does.
-
Toad, there is no constitutional refrence to succession as far as I'm aware.
There is a historical refrence to some states that made the attempt tho.. didn't seem to have worked out all that well, the ensuing war was a bitter one that pitted american against american, about 3/4 of a million patriots on both sides of the great question died, another million or so were maimed, quite a few beautiful cities were destroyed.
I would have thought that the Civil War settled the issue of succession.
Now, should you gentlemen living in the south and west be considering (seriously) another attempt at succession, please lemme know, so I can get the hell outta here and ensconce myself on a little island in the bahamas... I really don't wanna participate in a conflict that pits americans against americans.
:(
-
"
I would have thought that the Civil War settled the issue of succession."
you'd think that, but lasersailor (whom im basicly agreeing with, odd) points out that other than 1 state there was (in lincolns eyes) no other state that legally seceeded.
then theres the entire human rights issue, which seems to be a perfectly good reason to invade a completly foreign nation on the other side of the world, let alone a brand new nation on your doorstep.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
The Declaration is more important than the constitution. It is the supreme law of the land. The Constitution only exists because the Declaration does.
LOL!
Yeah, that's right. The Supreme Court interprets the Declaration.
How silly of me. I apologize.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Toad, there is no constitutional refrence to succession as far as I'm aware.
More importantly and more to the point, there is no Constitutional delegation of power to the Federal Government to forcefully (militarily) keep a State from secession or leaving the Union.
That's my point and so far no one has shown otherwise.
-
Originally posted by Toad
LOL!
Yeah, that's right. The Supreme Court interprets the Declaration.
How silly of me. I apologize.
the declaration provides an excellent base to interpret the constitution in the manner the founding fathers intended, however.
-
Originally posted by vorticon
you'd think that, but lasersailor (whom im basicly agreeing with, odd) points out that other than 1 state there was (in lincolns eyes) no other state that legally seceeded.
Again, there is no evidence that South Carolina did anything different than the other Confederate States.
SC did NOT have a popular vote on Secession as far as I can tell. They held a convention that ratified an Ordinance of Secession on a roll call vote.
That's pretty much what the rest of the CS did as well.
Do you have a link that shows otherwise?
-
Originally posted by vorticon
the declaration provides an excellent base to interpret the constitution in the manner the founding fathers intended, however.
I haven't looked, but can you cite one Supreme Court case where the Declaration was used as the support for the decision? As opposed to the Constitution being used?
-
No, the declaration is the most important and it's not even up for interpretation by some liberal pansies in a supreme court robe.
The Declaration tells us how and why a government is set up. It tells us that the people rule the government, not the other way around. It tells us that if the government gets out of hand, its the job of the people to fix it or abolish it.
Once all these things were established, THEN could they move onto (the confederation) the constitution.
Without the Declaratioin, the constitution is nothing. Without the constitution however, the Declaration still stands strong.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Do you have a link that shows otherwise?
"It is ventured to affirm this even of Virginia and Tennessee; for the result of an election held in military camps, where the bayonets are all on one side of the question voted upon"
did lincoln? he thought he knew, and thats what matters isnt it? his intelligence said only SC, perhaps, legally secceeded, and since thats what HE acted on, Thats what matters.
-
So Boosh was only following Lincoln's precedent? ;)
Again... the Declaration is not the law of the land. The Constitution is.
-
Oh, and I'm sure news of these Conventions was available to Lincoln. The "bayonets" remark was pure theater.
Ordinances of Secession of the 13 Confederate States of America (http://www.civil-war.net/pages/ordinances_secession.asp)
Virgina's vote:
Ratified by a vote of 132,201 to 37,451 on 23 May 1861.
Tennessee's vote:
Sent to referendum 6 May 1861 by the legislature, and approved by the voters by a vote of 104,471 to 47,183 on 8 June 1861.
[/edit>
-
Originally posted by Toad
So Boosh was only following Lincoln's precedent? ;)
Again... the Declaration is not the law of the land. The Constitution is.
again, it provides a basis for interpretation of the constitution, as to be true to what the founding fathers intended.
-
No, it doesn't vort.
The Declaration tells us how and why the Government exists. Without this standard, government means nothing.
-
From the 1860 census, total population of white males (only potential voters). Bear in mind this is ALL white males from ages 1-101+.
Virginia 528,842
Tennessee 422,779
Each state had ~35-40% of all white males vote on secession.
-
C'mon guys.. you can do better.
It's quite clear that voters in Texas, Virginia and Tennessee approved secession by huge majorities.
Where's the part of the Constitution that specifially delegates to the Federal Government the power to militarily keep a State from leaving the Union?
Further, show me a case in the SC where the Declaration is used as the primary support for the decision.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
No, it doesn't vort.
The Declaration tells us how and why the Government exists. Without this standard, government means nothing.
and because the government is limited by the constitution, the declaration provides a basis for interpreting that constitution, based on the original reasons for how and why the government exists.
or it should,but partisan politics fediddleed that up a while ago.
toad: if only your powers of research were available to mr. lincoln, you could have helped him dodge a war.
-
nah.. the president was determined to keep the south in the Union, regardless of percieved legalities. Toad's correct; he hopped over the legal hurdles and went to war to 'preserve the union'... something he considered paramount to all other considerations. In the context of global politics of the time 'United We Stand' was tantamount to national survival in his eyes.
..at least that's my take on it.
-
The Constitution was available to Lincoln. He didn't need my "powers of research".
There's those little matters of Habeus Corpus (Ex Parte Merryman (1861)), trying civilians in military court (Ex parte Milligan), suppressing freedom of speech or the press and instituting a national draft.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
I really don't wanna participate in a conflict that pits americans against americans.
:(
no kidding, no one kicks american bellybutton like other americans.
:eek:
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Nah.. more like parity with the indians. lands of their own, big feaderal assistance package, educational grants, medical grants and hospitals, some autonomy on cultural stuff.
A casino would be facetious guess.
They could build more than one.. I don't think they're commies.
I still dont think you are getting it so I'll provide you with some details of what this would entail (not that it matters, the bill most likely wont see a vote before Congress recesses).
If you read or even got quotes from the Apology of 1993, the US govt. formally apologized to the decendants of the Kingdom of Hawaii for basically illegally taking their country by force. They have never been recognized as "indigenous" people, which would put them on a par with indians and eskimos. They have never legally given up their rights as a sovreign nation. Therefore, their actual legal status (other than being US citizens for being born in Hawaii after it became a state) is up in the air.
What the bill seeks is for the US govt. to recognize them as said descendants, legally, and to restore to them the rights of a sovreign nation. In return for this, they would then give Hawaii BACK to the US, as it is currently recognized. I dont think there are any specifications for "reservations" like the indian tribes have, and casinos are going to be specifically barred by the language of the bill (gambling is currently illegal in the state of Hawaii, and no one wanted this to be a way for indian tribes to open their casinos here on Hawaiian land). What Hawaiians want for themselves, is the right to make a choice. To be considered "wards of the state" as indians are (nothing of which is specified, and which no one I've talked to wants) or to be full citizens of the US and the State of Hawaii. They dont want to be un-American, they just want recognition. They want the right to administer programs that are ALREADY IN PLACE to protect Hawaiian heritage and provide services for the people, without bother from groups that want to interfere with the operation of private schools and other trusts. They want a council that will have some say, some legal power, to negotiate with the state govt and the federal govt on protection for places that are sacred to Hawaiians, as indian tribes do in negotiating for what happens to remains or other artifacts recovered.
I dont think any of that is much of a burden on the US or anyone else. They still want to be US citizens. They are just tired of being ignored and stepped on where their history and heritage are concerned.