Author Topic: Hawaii a sovereign nation? (Read 1310 times)

Toad · « **Reply #60 on:** July 21, 2005, 11:37:34 AM »

Quote

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.

vorticon · « **Reply #61 on:** July 21, 2005, 11:37:36 AM »

Quote

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.

Toad · « **Reply #62 on:** July 21, 2005, 11:39:54 AM »

Quote

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?

Toad · « **Reply #63 on:** July 21, 2005, 11:45:47 AM »

Quote

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?

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #64 on:** July 21, 2005, 11:47:19 AM »

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.

vorticon · « **Reply #65 on:** July 21, 2005, 11:48:24 AM »

Quote

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.

Toad · « **Reply #66 on:** July 21, 2005, 11:51:20 AM »

So Boosh was only following Lincoln's precedent?

Again... the Declaration is not the law of the land. The Constitution is.

Toad · « **Reply #67 on:** July 21, 2005, 11:53:04 AM »

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

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>

vorticon · « **Reply #68 on:** July 21, 2005, 11:56:27 AM »

Quote

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.

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #69 on:** July 21, 2005, 12:01:15 PM »

No, it doesn't vort.

The Declaration tells us how and why the Government exists. Without this standard, government means nothing.

Toad · « **Reply #70 on:** July 21, 2005, 12:02:28 PM »

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.

Toad · « **Reply #71 on:** July 21, 2005, 12:06:09 PM »

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.

vorticon · « **Reply #72 on:** July 21, 2005, 12:08:06 PM »

Quote

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.

Hangtime · « **Reply #73 on:** July 21, 2005, 12:16:04 PM »

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.

Toad · « **Reply #74 on:** July 21, 2005, 12:18:05 PM »

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.