Every so often ANOTHER GIANT STEP BACKWARDS.

[TaiPan]

If anyone in this country wonders about the danger created by Richard Nixon and his legacy of "Strict Constructionism" as the original litmus test for packing the Supreme Court with idiots, well you got an excellent example in the commentary of Justices Scalia and Roberts today. To hear their words just shy of the 150th anniversary of the battle of Gettysburg is possibly the greatest insult to the men on both sides who died there, and the thousands who died thereafter in American uniform under the discredited ideal that we were fighting for the rights of all men to live under a government of their choice that guaranteed their right to self-determination, and the promise of governmental protction of their right to freedom and equality.

Millions of Americans have died on a battlefield or in the streets and forests of this country in defnse of the ideal so ably if disingenuously expressed in the Declaration of Independence, that "All men are created equal". One almost wants to uproot and flea to a country where those sacred word actually have real and committed meaning, for certainly when a red state government picks the day that a statue is erected in the Capital of the United States of America to a pioneer of the civil rights movement in this country (Rosa Parks) to advocate before the Supreme Court of the US that the cornerstone that broke the 100 plus year logjam that allowed disenfranchisement to an entire sector of the citizenry of the United States, is now somehow illegal because it guarantees access to the most powerful tool of citizenship, the free and unfettered access to his/her right to vote somehow suggests to m that the days of this country are numbered for w have forgotten who we are and are willing to travel backward in time to an era where we really were less than who we are.

This should not be, but is the product of a country where corporations become by judicial fiat people with unalienable rights who can influence elections and buy without fear the outcome of elections, all the while hiding their composition/control without fear of exposure of identity or motivation.

When a civilized nation is given a choice between health care and aircraft carriers and it chooses the later, death over life,how can we expect that nation to choose protection of the most basic right of its citizenry over the fiscal health of it financial institutions ?

What amazes me most of all, is that the people who are pushing these agendas claim the anointment of the most devote of religious intent, yet somehow they manage to forget some of the most poignant words of their acknowledged savior, "that which you do for the least of my brethren, you do for me."

TaiPan

 

[trapdoor]

If anyone in this country wonders about the danger created by Richard Nixon and his legacy of "Strict Constructionism" as the original litmus test for packing the Supreme Court with idiots, well you got an excellent example in the commentary of Justices Scalia and Roberts today.

Richard Nixon wasn't as strict constructionist. He wouldn't have even recognized the term -- he favored a government run health care sysem. How strict constructionist is that?

To hear their words just shy of the 150th anniversary of the battle of Gettysburg is possibly the greatest insult to the men on both sides who died there, and the thousands who died thereafter in American uniform under the discredited ideal that we were fighting for the rights of all men to live under a government of their choice that guaranteed their right to self-determination, and the promise of governmental protction of their right to freedom and equality.

Oh, please. How was Gettysburg an example of people fighting to live under the government of their choice? The Southern states made a choice -- they didn't want to live under the U.S. government, and the choice was denied them by military force.

Millions of Americans have died on a battlefield or in the streets and forests of this country in defnse of the ideal so ably if disingenuously expressed in the Declaration of Independence, that "All men are created equal". One almost wants to uproot and flea to a country where those sacred word actually have real and committed meaning, for certainly when a red state government picks the day that a statue is erected in the Capital of the United States of America to a pioneer of the civil rights movement in this country (Rosa Parks) to advocate before the Supreme Court of the US that the cornerstone that broke the 100 plus year logjam that allowed disenfranchisement to an entire sector of the citizenry of the United States, is now somehow illegal because it guarantees access to the most powerful tool of citizenship, the free and unfettered access to his/her right to vote somehow suggests to m that the days of this country are numbered for w have forgotten who we are and are willing to travel backward in time to an era where we really were less than who we are.

How long does a state have to be penalized for the actions of the past?

This should not be, but is the product of a country where corporations become by judicial fiat people with unalienable rights who can influence elections and buy without fear the outcome of elections, all the while hiding their composition/control without fear of exposure of identity or motivation.

I as an individual will never have the dollars of George Soros or the Koch brothers. As a member of a corporation, I can pool my resources with millions of fellow members of the NRA or the ASPCA and have as much influence as those rich individuals -- but only so long as my corporation has the same rights as those individuals.

When a civilized nation is given a choice between health care and aircraft carriers and it chooses the later, death over life,how can we expect that nation to choose protection of the most basic right of its citizenry over the fiscal health of it financial institutions ?

When a civilized nation sets a rulebook (constitution) that provides for defense, but doesn't provide for health care, it is hardly surprising that it will spend its dollars on defense and not healthcare.

What amazes me most of all, is that the people who are pushing these agendas claim the anointment of the most devote of religious intent, yet somehow they manage to forget some of the most poignant words of their acknowledged savior, "that which you do for the least of my brethren, you do for me."

What amazes me most of all is that people look at the abuses of government power throughout the history of this nation and other nations, and then walk away saying, "We need to give the government more power to do things like health care." If "what you do for the least of my brethren, you do for me," I would ask that you leave the least of my brethren the hell alone.

 

[fairsheet]

My state's Supreme Court just ruled (today), than a voter-passed initiative requiring a 2/3rds vote for tax increases, was unconstitutional. All's I can say to that is....NO SHIT! Democracy is and always should be about a plurality or a simple majority. I mean what's next...should I forward an initiative that would require 2/3rds of the vote, in order for a GOP to win election? Most EVERYONE knows that that would beyond our constitutional and democratic pale.


Yet..the majority of voters in my state, actually voted FOR this initiative. Presumably, they were inclined to oppose tax increases, so they voted THEIR posistion an advantage. Good God people, no matter what our position on taxes might be, don't we know that this sort of thing is untenable? And then..in a variety of swing states with GOP Governors and Statehouses, we see and obvious and concerted effort to give the GOP and unfair advantage. Yet obviously, all too many people in those states don't appear to give a shit. I can only imagine they're GOPs, and that in their minds, the only thing that matters is what might advantage the GOP.

 

[Dino]

I never heard of the people of this country voting for something that was then ruled unconstitutional. The will of the people violated the constitution?

That's such a Bizarro world statement it defies reason.

 

[Dino]

Was this a top-post about the eeevils of checking ID to vote?

I think the concept of one man, one vote is worth preserving. You?

 

[fairsheet]

I never heard of the people of this country voting for something that was then ruled unconstitutional. The will of the people violated the constitution?

That's such a Bizarro world statement it defies reason.

I'm not sure where you're trying to go with that incoherent mish mash. Point of order though, my thread went to my State's Constitution, not that of "this country". It really doesn't make much difference but....it's just a point of order.

 

[fairsheet]

Was this a top-post about the eeevils of checking ID to vote?

I think the concept of one man, one vote is worth preserving. You?

I can see you weren't responding to me with this one but, I have to say that your reference to "one man, one vote", is a very succinct and poignant affirmation of my original post. Thank you for that.

 

[Dino]

Is this Washington or Califonia? Do you have a link to such a ruling. That might explain it better than you did.

 

[Texas_Jack]

God may have created all men equal but the Voting Rights Act sure did give more clout to some while taking away the rights of others..!!

 

[TaiPan]

Richard Nixon wasn't as strict constructionist. He wouldn't have even recognized the term -- he favored a government run health care sysem. How strict constructionist is that?

Warren Burger vs Earl Warren ? I don't recall exactly when in the Nixon years the term, but I do recall its introduction and explanation, which pretty basically was "reign in the "activist Warren Court" and thus preserve and expand the migration of the conservative Democrats to their proper colors, the Republican Party. It's never just this simple in totality but for a basic explanation this will suffice

Oh, please. How was Gettysburg an example of people fighting to live under the government of their choice? The Southern states made a choice -- they didn't want to live under the U.S. government, and the choice was denied them by military force.

Its not just a matter of pure opinion, there is historic justification for the premise. In 1862, the "victory" at Antietam provided Lincoln his "opportunity" to issue his preliminary Emancipation Proclamation to take efffect in January 1963. However the issue had yet been decided with any kind of precision as to the ultimate no of the war At stake were two major battles yet to b fought, one at Vicksburg and one ultimately between the Army of the Potomac and the Army of Northern Virginia. As Early as May/June 1963 Grant's siege at Vicksburg was having the desired political and military effect on the South. The Confederate victory at Chancellorsville not withstanding, it was clear to Lee and Jefferson Davis, that the pressure on Vicksburg had to be relieved.
Lee marched north. But regardless of the military necessities, General Meade's Army , indeed the whole of the United States, recognized that there was a change in the reasoning for the war. Preservation of the Union was still and outright purpose, but slavery and its abolition had become officially the underlying moral purpose of the war.

Economic and political justifications by the South for the continuation of slavery had by 1863 far outlived their were no longer viable. Rejection by Europe of the South's continuing petitions for alliance had exhaust their viability. The South had to win both Vicksburg and Gettysburg in order to survive as a potentially independent nation. With a new "moral" imperative for the war in the North, no other path to viability presented itself.


How long does a state have to be penalized for the actions of the past?

So long as it continues to commit the same acts that put it in that osition in the first place.

I as an individual will never have the dollars of George Soros or the Koch brothers. As a member of a corporation, I can pool my resources with millions of fellow members of the NRA or the ASPCA and have as much influence as those rich individuals -- but only so long as my corporation has the same rights as those individuals.

Do you feel so represented ? Can you really make a case for the position you are postulating. Let's put it more concretely in the words of the amendment itself. Are you a member of a well organized militia ? Are your intents and actions guided by and amicable with the intent of the document that gives you the right you so desperately intend to protect as well as all of the preceding and proceeding rights that the document is supposed to guarantee ? If they are than you have an unassailable position, if not rethink your position. In the context of corporation as a person, I think we are almost back to the issue of ownership, since this country has completely and irrefutably rejected the issue that a person may be the property of another. The very issue of a corporation being a person dissolves in its very existence. A person cannot be owned, a corporation is the economic property of its shareholders, therefore a corporation cannot be a person, otherwise its very existence is unconstitutional.

When a civilized nation sets a rulebook (constitution) that provides for defense, but doesn't provide for health care, it is hardly surprising that it will spend its dollars on defense and not healthcare.



What amazes me most of all is that people look at the abuses of government power throughout the history of this nation and other nations, and then walk away saying, "We need to give the government more power to do things like health care." If "what you do for the least of my brethren, you do for me," I would ask that you leave the least of my brethren the hell alone.

I'm going to focus only on your closing remarks, and ask you one question, "Why ?" Why is it mutually exclusive ? Why should w focus so myopically on "Defense" ( a much misused adjective and noun which primarily concerns the application of OFFENSIVE force to the purose of moulding the opinions , actions and political, actions of other along the lines an d purposes of the "offensively" defensive nation ?

Have some fun with this, but I need to take a break here, and let my had rest awhile.

Tai Pan

 

[EatTheRich]

I never heard of the people of this country voting for something that was then ruled unconstitutional. The will of the people violated the constitution?

That's such a Bizarro world statement it defies reason.

Surely you've heard of the people's representative in Congress voting for things that were declared unconstitutional ... not a lot is passed by plebiscite at the national level, but surely you've also heard of the voters of various states voting for things that were declared unconstitutional, not to mention their state legislators. Anyway, the constitution is written so as to be intentionally undemocratic.

Now, let's talk about Gettysburg for a minute. The people of Texas elected a governor who was anti-secession. Secession was only carried in Texas through an unconstitutional (forcible) coup d'etat against the elected governor, Sam Houston. In Missouri as well, the elected unionist government was replaced by force with a Confederate puppet regime. Kentucky's elected government was eliminated and it was placed under military rule. The Confederacy also attempted to invade Maryland and Delaware, with their legislature's unionist majorities. Tennessee, Arkansas, and Alabama had secessionist majorities in the legislatures, but there was widespread resistance by pro-union guerrillas. Georgia had a secessionist majority in its legislature, but only because of gerrymandering which diluted the voting strength of the majority who voted against secession. And then, of course, when you talk about the southern states making their choice, you're referring only to those who can vote--not to the slaves (and disfranchised poor whites) who were overwhelmingly unionist.

So it would be more accurate to say that a handful of states made their choice--against the wishes of the majority in South Carolina (where the majority was Black) and Georgia (where the majority voted for anti-secession candidates), in violation of the state constitution in Texas and the U.S. constitution everywhere, with strong opposition nearly everywhere--not only to secede from the union, but also to invade other states and impose Confederate rule on them. There were also pro-Confederate conspiracies operating in New York, Pennsylvania, and Ohio, and of course Gettysburg was an attempt to carry the Confederate banner onto Pennsylvania's soil. So all the people who resisted the Confederacy--in W. Virginia, in Alabama, in Tennessee, in Pennsylvania--were fighting to live under the government of their choice, against an aggressively expansionist conspiracy.

 

[gabriel]

good post

 

[trapdoor]

I'm going to focus only on your closing remarks, and ask you one question, "Why ?" Why is it mutually exclusive ? Why should w focus so myopically on "Defense" ( a much misused adjective and noun which primarily concerns the application of OFFENSIVE force to the purose of moulding the opinions , actions and political, actions of other along the lines an d purposes of the "offensively" defensive nation ?

Have some fun with this, but I need to take a break here, and let my had rest awhile.

Tai Pan

Because the Constitution provides a defense authority, I suppose.

 

[trapdoor]

Now, let's talk about Gettysburg for a minute. The people of Texas elected a governor who was anti-secession. Secession was only carried in Texas through an unconstitutional (forcible) coup d'etat against the elected governor, Sam Houston.

True, so far as it goes.

In Missouri as well, the elected unionist government was replaced by force with a Confederate puppet regime.

Not true. Missouri Gov. Claiborne Jackson was the elected governor of the state, and called Congress into session to vote on session. A majority of Congress was present, and voted in favor of secession -- but although a majority was there, it was not a large enough majority to make up a quorum, and its vote was therefore not binding. There effectively were two governments in Missouri during the Civil War, the elected administration of Jackson, and a military government put in place by the Union Army and enforcing martial law.

Kentucky's elected government was eliminated and it was placed under military rule. The Confederacy also attempted to invade Maryland and Delaware, with their legislature's unionist majorities. Tennessee, Arkansas, and Alabama had secessionist majorities in the legislatures, but there was widespread resistance by pro-union guerrillas.

All true, although it ignores the fact that there were Union states, such as Kansas and Kentucky, where there were highly active confederate guerillas.

Georgia had a secessionist majority in its legislature, but only because of gerrymandering which diluted the voting strength of the majority who voted against secession. And then, of course, when you talk about the southern states making their choice, you're referring only to those who can vote--not to the slaves (and disfranchised poor whites) who were overwhelmingly unionist.

I am talking about those elected to office under the laws extant at the time of the Civil War, who therefore had authority to enact laws.

So it would be more accurate to say that a handful of states made their choice--against the wishes of the majority in South Carolina (where the majority was Black) and Georgia (where the majority voted for anti-secession candidates), in violation of the state constitution in Texas and the U.S. constitution everywhere, with strong opposition nearly everywhere--not only to secede from the union, but also to invade other states and impose Confederate rule on them.

You're saying the state government of South Carolina was not a legitimate government because it had slaves? By that reasoning, for the preceding 87 years, the U.S. government was illegitimate for allowing slaves -- and it would remain illegitimate past the turn of the 20th century because it allowed Jim Crow laws.

I'd like to see your source, too, for the statement that a majority of Georgia voters favored anti-secession candidates.

There were also pro-Confederate conspiracies operating in New York, Pennsylvania, and Ohio, and of course Gettysburg was an attempt to carry the Confederate banner onto Pennsylvania's soil. So all the people who resisted the Confederacy--in W. Virginia, in Alabama, in Tennessee, in Pennsylvania--were fighting to live under the government of their choice, against an aggressively expansionist conspiracy.

The Gettysburg campaign had two strategic goals, neither of which involved entering into battle at Gettysburg, and a tactical goal, which did. The strategic goals were to cut the railroad at Harrisburg, Penn., to damage the east-to-west supply network for Union forces in the Trans-Mississippi theater, and to take the war away from the Viriginia farm country during harvest season. The tactical goal was to meet the Army of the Potomac on some ground and have a victory of the same scale experienced at Chancellorsville and 2nd Bull Run, with a possible strategic outcome that would bring the Lincoln administration to the peace table.

The elected governments of the Confederate states chose to secede. They made the arguable case that a union they had joined voluntarily, they could leave voluntarily.

 

[EatTheRich]

I'm saying the state government of South Carolina did not represent the will of the people, since most of the people were slaves who had no say in the election of the government. And, again, the governments of the Confederate states did not just choose to secede--they carried the war into states that did not choose to secede--Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, Delaware, and Pennsylvania.

 

[TaiPan]

Was this a top-post about the eeevils of checking ID to vote?

I think the concept of one man, one vote is worth preserving. You?

Quite frankly I favor the concept, but the states have not thought it out completely. If the state requires voter id, then let them provide it free of charge to the registrant. A very simple proicess already exists in that most states have a mandated state id card. I would cross check one agaisnt the other, ie., the voting rolls and make the the card available to the registrant as a combination State ID and voter Resgistration card, without charge. So simple, public transport coul;d also be made available for transort if necessary.

Voter ID is a good idea, it is just being used the wrong way.


Tai Pan

 

[TaiPan]

I'm saying the state government of South Carolina did not represent the will of the people, since most of the people were slaves who had no say in the election of the government. And, again, the governments of the Confederate states did not just choose to secede--they carried the war into states that did not choose to secede--Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, Delaware, and Pennsylvania.

Sorry history doesn't rewrite that easily. Enfranchisement was different in those days, whether Louisiana, South Carolina or New York. And since especially in the south, it was a small clique, the legislatures were in full comportment with the desires of the majority of the voters.

However if you look at South Carolina today with an 8.4/8.5 unemployment rate, and you look at Nikki Haley turning down the Medicaid expansion, you have to wonder what state she lives in. IMHO its a state of mind somewhere between Oz and Pluto.

TaiPan

 

[EatTheRich]

So, to put it another way, South Carolina--the first state to secede--had its secession spearheaded by a small clique, and that the majority of the voters wished to secede, but the majority of the people (yes, Blacks are people too whether they are enfranchised or not) probably didn't understand the dispute but certainly were not rabid secessionists? The secessionists in South Carolina allied themselves with other small cliques in Louisiana, Texas (where they overthrew the governor elected by a majority of voters because he disagreed with them), etc., to invade states where a majority of voters and their representatives in the legislature opposed secession (Kentucky, Delaware, Pennsylvania). At Gettysburg in Pennsylvania, they met an army that included people--white and Black--from the Southern and border states who were determined to stop them.

Yes, I'd say that's an example of people fighting to live under a government of their choice.

 

[TaiPan]

So, to put it another way, South Carolina--the first state to secede--had its secession spearheaded by a small clique, and that the majority of the voters wished to secede, but the majority of the people (yes, Blacks are people too whether they are enfranchised or not) probably didn't understand the dispute but certainly were not rabid secessionists? The secessionists in South Carolina allied themselves with other small cliques in Louisiana, Texas (where they overthrew the governor elected by a majority of voters because he disagreed with them), etc., to invade states where a majority of voters and their representatives in the legislature opposed secession (Kentucky, Delaware, Pennsylvania). At Gettysburg in Pennsylvania, they met an army that included people--white and Black--from the Southern and border states who were determined to stop them.

Yes, I'd say that's an example of people fighting to live under a government of their choice.

Exactly, the right to vote was restrict to a small clique, universal male sufferage was not even the rule, so to say that the legislature did not reflect the views of the voters is technically incorrect, and thus is wrong. On the other hand those without a voice may have held differing opinions. Considering that the black population at that time was disenfranchised, and calculated at a 3 for 5 ratio, ( and only for the purpose of US House representation) well arguing about the political opinions of blacks in the south at that time and place is like arguing over the power of the Poles after Hitler invaded. Remember South Carolina had attempted or at least threatened to secede once before during Andrew Jackson's term. He on th other hand put that insanity to rest by threatening to march down to SC and hang every secessionist he found.

It should not escape notice though that at least one Senator in SC had some common sense as well as a sense of humor. He describe SC at the time of secession as "to small to be a nation and too large to be an insane asylum.

Don't see too many statues of him in Charleston.

TaiPan

 

[trapdoor]

I'm saying the state government of South Carolina did not represent the will of the people, since most of the people were slaves who had no say in the election of the government. And, again, the governments of the Confederate states did not just choose to secede--they carried the war into states that did not choose to secede--Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, Delaware, and Pennsylvania.

Then neither did the government of the United States as it had, since its inception, not allowed the votes of slaves or women.

The first invasive moves were not done by the CSA or its troops -- unless you count the internecine activities of guerillas on both sides in Missouri and Kansas.