GenSeneca
Well-Known Member
Is Self-Defense an oxymoron?A just war? Now there is an oxymoron.
Is Self-Defense an oxymoron?A just war? Now there is an oxymoron.
Just to be clear, you're saying that if a state feels the FEDERAL government has overstepped it's bounds their only recourse is FEDERAL court. Do you not see the problem with this argument?
Do states have Rights? It would appear from your argument that states do NOT have Rights, only privileges subject to the whims of the federal government.
And I do agree, the resolutions should be binding. The non-binding resolutions have the right spirit but lack the necessary balls to back it up.
Is Self-Defense an oxymoron?
This is one of the most absurd things I have ever read...Let's take a look at a real time line shall we?
Dec. 1860 - South Carolina convention passes ordinance of secession.
Dec. 1860 - South Carolina troops occupy Fort Moultrie and Castle Pinckney.
Dec. 1860 - South Carolina seizes the Charleston Arsenal.
Jan. 1861 - South Carolina seizes Fort Johnson, in Charleston Harbor.
Jan. 1861 - Shots fired at the Star of the West as it enters Charleston Port with supplies and reinforcements.
Feb. 1861 - Washington Peace conference held. Lincoln is present only at final day and offers to evacuate Fort Sumter if the Virginia secession convention adjourns.
April 1861 - Fort Sumter attacked.
So, according to you...South Carolina occupying forts, seizing weapons, and firing at relief ships... all before Lincoln even took office mind you... is irrelevant, and it was Lincoln who caused/started the war?
Just one example; FDR threatened to stack the SP if they did not vote his actions as being constitutional. If the States are forced to put their Rights in the hands of a court system subject to coercion from the Executive branch, and must have permission from the federal government before their case can even be heard, yeah... I do see a serious risk in States placing their Rights in the hands of the federal court system.I see what you would argue is the problem...but legally, such a case has to be in federal court....
See above. In a situation where the SP is being coerced and/or the federal government refuses to allow the SP to hear the complaints of the State against the federal government, what recourse is left to the State?States do have rights...and when the federal government infringes on those rights, their recourse should come through the courts...after all, the US Constitution is a federal document (ie federal law), and therefore federal courts have jurisdiction.
You are arguing implied consent. That aside... You have argued States do not have the Right to withdraw consent outside of the federal court system, exactly what, in your opinion, would be the legal standing of a state unilaterally withdrawing consent through a binding resolution rather than through the federal court?In the absence of such binding resolutions, can you really argue that states have not "given consent" to be governed in a form?
He took office in March, they were in negotiations on how to address forts and such and as you point out Lincoln sends reinforcements, a clear provocation. Even the union commander admitted this.
Just one example; FDR threatened to stack the SP if they did not vote his actions as being constitutional. If the States are forced to put their Rights in the hands of a court system subject to coercion from the Executive branch, and must have permission from the federal government before their case can even be heard, yeah... I do see a serious risk in States placing their Rights in the hands of the federal court system.
See above. In a situation where the SP is being coerced and/or the federal government refuses to allow the SP to hear the complaints of the State against the federal government, what recourse is left to the State?
I am not denying that as a federal document, complaints of the States do fall under the jurisdiction of the federal courts but when its the federal government violating the constitutional Rights of the States, and those violations are wrongly upheld in the SP as constitutional, the States need another avenue for redress of grievances.
You are arguing implied consent. That aside... You have argued States do not have the Right to withdraw consent outside of the federal court system, exactly what, in your opinion, would be the legal standing of a state unilaterally withdrawing consent through a binding resolution rather than through the federal court?
Apparently it is to morons.
If he were a Jew in Europe in WWII, he would've become pretty lamp shade.
Is Self-Defense an oxymoron?
Secession is not a provocation in your opinion?
Seizing forts and weapons, and firing on ships is not a clear provocation?
I think that depends on what the federal law is, and how it has been crafted.
Gipper your ignorance is leaking again.
Self defense would imply an agressor and the agressor would be unjustified.
Big Rob, I have quoted the good Dr. but I am addressing my statements to both of you:But the way things are going if things get a lot worse the states will have no choice but to "alter" their relationship to the fed. Would it be through a peaceful legal process or through armed conflict? If the peaceful process were not an option then the stage would be set for what would have to be an armed conflict.
No and neither did most of the public as evidenced by countless newspaper reports.
Forts are no longer located in the United States, how is it seizing ? The Confederacy was at work from the start to sort this out for obvious reasons. The ships carried reinforcements secretly dispatched by the commander in chief.