Drudge: WAKE UP CALL: TEXAS GOV. BACK RESOLUTION AFFIRMING SOVEREIGNTY

[mhd24]

The Bill of Rights is absolutely applicable to the States. However each state has the right to leave the union and govern itself outside of the US and the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. That is my interpretation of the original intent.

Barron v. Baltimore said that the Bill of Rights is NOT applicable to the States. It was eventually overturned. If you feel that the Bill of Rights are incorporated, then you have to believe in incorporation. Do you believe Liberty is an inherent right to all of us? If not, then every state has the right so say you are not allowed to have contraception between married people (Griswold). Every state can tell you you are no interracial marriages (Loving).

States do dumb crap ALL the time that has to be fixed by the Court. Marbury v. Madison gives the Supreme Court judicial review. Mcchollugh v. Maryland forces all parties to adhere to the Court's decisions. These cases were decided when all the founding fathers were still alive. You knows Marbury v. Madison was decided in FAVOR of Jefferson right?

[Madison Redskin]

The Bill of Rights is absolutely applicable to the States. However each state has the right to leave the union and govern itself outside of the US and the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. That is my interpretation of the original intent.

Let me guess........Abraham Lincoln had it wrong. :doh:

Has the right lost so many of their marbles that they are actually talking about the right of secession? And they wonder why they got their ***** handed to them in the last Congressional and Presidential election?

[armstrong001]

Then the Bills of rights is not applicable at all to states according to you? Who cares about state laws that say you can't send your kids to whatever school you want to? State laws that say you can't teach your kids foreign languages. State laws that ban contraception for the use between maried people. State laws that target a specific religion and forbid them from building a church. State laws that ban interracial marriage. State laws that say you are liable to be hung if you teach a class with white and black kids. We should let the states have these rights?

And this is where State Constitutions come in.

Maryland Constitution:

SECTION 1. The General Assembly, at its First Session after the adoption of this Constitution, shall by Law establish throughout the State a thorough and efficient System of Free Public Schools; and shall provide by taxation, or otherwise, for their maintenance.

SEC. 2. The System of Public Schools, as now constituted, shall remain in force until the end of the said First Session of the General Assembly, and shall then expire; except so far as adopted, or continued by the General Assembly.

SEC. 3. The School Fund of the State shall be kept inviolate, and appropriated only to the purposes of Education.

Some highlights:

We, the People of the State of Maryland, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberty, and taking into our serious consideration the best means of establishing a good Constitution in this State for the sure foundation and more permanent security thereof, declare:

Article 1. That all Government of right originates from the People, is founded in compact only, and instituted solely for the good of the whole; and they have, at all times, the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their Form of Government in such manner as they may deem expedient.

Art. 2. The Constitution of the United States, and the Laws made, or which shall be made, in pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, are, and shall be the Supreme Law of the State; and the Judges of this State, and all the People of this State, are, and shall be bound thereby; anything in the Constitution or Law of this State to the contrary notwithstanding.

Art. 3. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution thereof, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people thereof.

Art. 4. That the People of this State have the sole and exclusive right of regulating the internal government and police thereof, as a free, sovereign and independent State.

Art. 10. That freedom of speech and debate, or proceedings in the Legislature, ought not to be impeached in any Court of Judicature.

Art. 36. That as it is the duty of every man to worship God in such manner as he thinks most acceptable to Him, all persons are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty; wherefore, no person ought by any law to be molested in his person or estate, on account of his religious persuasion, or profession, or for his religious practice, unless, under the color of religion, he shall disturb the good order, peace or safety of the State, or shall infringe the laws of morality, or injure others in their natural, civil or religious rights; nor ought any person to be compelled to frequent, or maintain, or contribute, unless on contract, to maintain, any place of worship, or any ministry; nor shall any person, otherwise competent, be deemed incompetent as a witness, or juror, on account of his religious belief; provided, he believes in the existence of God, and that under His dispensation such person will be held morally accountable for his acts, and be rewarded or punished therefor either in this world or in the world to come.

Nothing shall prohibit or require the making reference to belief in, reliance upon, or invoking the aid of God or a Supreme Being in any governmental or public document, proceeding, activity, ceremony, school, institution, or place.

Nothing in this article shall constitute an establishment of religion (amended by Chapter 558, Acts of 1970, ratified Nov. 3, 1970).

Art. 37. That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution.

Art. 40. That the liberty of the press ought to be inviolably preserved; that every citizen of the State ought to be allowed to speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that privilege.

Art. 43. That the Legislature ought to encourage the diffusion of knowledge and virtue, the extension of a judicious system of general education, the promotion of literature, the arts, sciences, agriculture, commerce and manufactures, and the general melioration of the condition of the People. The Legislature may provide that land actively devoted to farm or agricultural use shall be assessed on the basis of such use and shall not be assessed as if sub-divided (amended by Chapter 65, Acts of 1960, ratified Nov. 8, 1960).

Art. 45. This enumeration of Rights shall not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the People.

Art. 46. Equality of rights under the law shall not be abridged or denied because of sex (added by Chapter 366, Acts of 1972, ratified Nov. 7, 1972. Amended by Chapter 681, Acts of 1977, ratified Nov. 7, 1978).

[DirtyBird]

Let me guess........Abraham Lincoln had it wrong. :doh:

Has the right lost so many of their marbles that they are actually talking about the right of secession? And they wonder why they got their ***** handed to them in the last Congressional and Presidential election?

Yes he was. However history is written by those who win the wars. Personal opinion...but if a state wants to leave the union then they should be allowed to. They joined of their own free will, why are they now bound to stay?

[mhd24]

And this is where State Constitutions come in.

Maryland Constitution:

Some highlights:

You realize that states have to amend their constitutions BECAUSE the Court said their laws were unconstitutional. That church case was very recent. The contraception case? One of the most famous cases in history (Griswold). Without the Supreme Court, states will pass laws that must be overturned.

Do you accept the southern states (AFTER BROWN v. Board) passing laws that call for hanging of any teachers who teach intermixed classes? That's exactly what they did. Virginia said it was illegal for interracial marriage? SHould we just accept it and move on?

[Madison Redskin]

Yes he was. However history is written by those who win the wars. Personal opinion...but if a state wants to leave the union then they should be allowed to. They joined of their own free will, why are they now bound to stay?

And the South which fought for states' rights (i.e., the right to own, beat, and kill slaves) had it right?

[Madison Redskin]

The Bill of Rights is absolutely applicable to the States. However each state has the right to leave the union and govern itself outside of the US and the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. That is my interpretation of the original intent.

So your interpretation of original intent says: (1) the Bill of Rights is absolutely binding on the states and, therefore, the states may not abridge the rights that are protected thereby; and (2) each state has the right to "govern itself outside of .... the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights?" If #2 is true, #1 is totally meaningless. Your interpretation of the Constitution seems like it is about to become engaged in a civil war.

[armstrong001]

The original intent? As in one single intent? Do you really mean to tell me the Founders ALL agreed as to the precise meaning and scope of the Constitution? And, you also mean to tell me that, over 200 years since they died, you can use your Jedi mind tricks to divine what they thought?

It takes no Jedi mind tricks to READ WHAT THEY WROTE ABOUT IT. They all agreed on specific wording of the Constitution, after much deliberation and debate. THEY WROTE EXACTLY WHAT THEY MEANT. No more, no less. If they wanted a stronger Federal goverment, they would not have had enumerated powers. They just got done throwing off an overpowering central government. They did not want to create their own overarching government. This is why Madison, Hamilton, and Jay had to write the Federalist Papers. THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE VOTES TO PASS THE CONSTITUTION. The Federalist Papers were written to alay the fears of the population that this new Federal Government would be the supreme power. They didn't want that. They wanted a strong State government, and a Federal Government just strong enough to fulfull the obligations set forth in the Constitution.

I think Constitutional scholars can uncover a general intent with respect to each provision of the Constitution. But that is an EXCEEDINGLY difficult process. Moreover, I do not think that a layperson should say, "I personally know that, if the Founders were born in 1960, and looked at our present form of government, that they would be shocked and appalled."

When those that were there write these kinds of things:

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." - James Madison criticizing an attempt to grant public monies for charitable means, 1794

"No legislative act … contrary to the Constitution can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 78

"This specification of particulars [the 18 enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8] evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 83

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson, 1798

"[Congressional jurisdiction of power] is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any." - James Madison, Federalist 14

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined . . . to be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce." - James Madison, Federalist 45

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but

an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." - James Madison, 1792

It is very easy to see that they would not be happy with the way things are now.

The Constitution is NOT a laundry list. Nor are all of its provisions subject to one interpretation. To say otherwise is simply nonsense. For example, the Commerce Clause says that Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce between the US and foreign nations and between the states. What the hell does that mean? That could justify a million types of regulations in today's modern world.

It is very much a laundry list of the precise things that the Federal government is allowed to do. Of course there is some interpretation. Since they had no idea of computers and telephones, freedom of speech has been broadened to include modern "things". But, this is completely different than looking at one phrase of the powers of Congress, "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" and ignoring the rest of the enumeration of powers, ie the 18 specific duties of Congress. If these weren't the SPECIFIC limits for Congress, why put them in?

Again, you dismiss the notion that the Constitution is subject to interpretation. That's simply wrong and just about every judge and lawyer would agree with me. I realize that probably doesn't carry much weight with you, but it should.

I realize that "some" interpretation is required to apply to new ideas and challenges (as with the example of communications). But interpretation should not mean changing the Constitution through judicial fiat. This is what the ammendment process is for. Judges and lawyers can be wrong and swayed by political or personal beliefs. They ARE human after all. See Plessy v. Ferguson.

[armstrong001]

You realize that states have to amend their constitutions BECAUSE the Court said their laws were unconstitutional. That church case was very recent. The contraception case? One of the most famous cases in history (Griswold). Without the Supreme Court, states will pass laws that must be overturned.

Do you accept the southern states (AFTER BROWN v. Board) passing laws that call for hanging of any teachers who teach intermixed classes? That's exactly what they did. Virginia said it was illegal for interracial marriage? SHould we just accept it and move on?

Again, look at the State Constitutions.

Virginia's Declaration of Rights

I That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

I can't sit here and tell you that the State was right to make interracial marriage illegal. Somtimes courts get things wrong. Even the Supreme Court gets things wrong. But again, this is an argument for following the Constitution strictly, with as little "interpretation" as possible. If you read Ammendment 14 strictly:

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

These laws shouldn't be allowed to stand. You run in to problems when judges start "interpreting" what was actually "meant" by this.

[armstrong001]

And the South which fought for states' rights (i.e., the right to own, beat, and kill slaves) had it right?

State's rights was correct. Slavery was not. Of course, only about 5% of free persons in the South actually owned slaves. So it doesn't really follow that by "State's Rights" they actually meant "slavery"

[armstrong001]

So your interpretation of original intent says: (1) the Bill of Rights is absolutely binding on the states and, therefore, the states may not abridge the rights that are protected thereby; and (2) each state has the right to "govern itself outside of .... the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights?" If #2 is true, #1 is totally meaningless. Your interpretation of the Constitution seems like it is about to become engaged in a civil war.

Where in the Constitution does it forbid secession? Indeed, Amendment 10 specifically states that if it ISN'T denied by the Constitution, it is reserved as a right to the people or to the states:

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.

And as an example, the Virginia State Declaration of Rights has this to say:

III That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation or community; of all the various modes and forms of government that is best, which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety and is most effectually secured against the danger of maladministration; and that, whenever any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal.

The States have every right to reform, alter, or abolish this government. The only thing truely keeping them from doing it (besides the vast majority of citizens don't want to) is the threat of another beat down by the Federal Government. That doesn't make it right. It just makes it true.

[Predicto]

Armstrong, you can find quotes for all sorts of propositions from a founding father. No individual quote means anything binding.

You also realize, I hope, that the founding fathers themselves became hopelessly divided over the meaning of their Constitution with regard to federal/state power issues almost as soon as the Constitution was enacted. Hamilton and Adams had completely different ideas over what it meant than did Jefferson and Madison. Charles Pickney and Roger Sherman and George Mason probably thought it meant something entirely different than all of the rest of them.

That's why this whole idea of an original intent is so silly. You can't establish THE intent because everyone involved had a different subjective intent. That's is why the document is so vague in so many ways. The delegates smoothed over their differences in order to reach common ground, without resolving a huge number of issues.

"There are several parts of this Constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them. ... I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain, may be able to make a better Constitution" - Benjamin Franklin

So we are left with the document itself, and we do the best we can interpreting it. And that is what the Supreme Court has done for 200 years. You can try to wave your hand and completely dismiss those two centuries of interpretation, but you are wasting your time.

[Madison Redskin]

These laws shouldn't be allowed to stand. You run in to problems when judges start "interpreting" what was actually "meant" by this.

I believe you seriously underestimate how much interpretation is involved in applying ANY given constitution, law, regulation, ordinance, etc. to ANY given fact pattern. When you apply something as vague as the Constitution to every issue, problem, activity, etc. that might confront society, there is a TON of room for interpretation.

For example, only Congress has the power to "declare" war. But, does the President need Congress to declare war in order to engage in ANY hostilities? Does the President need Congress to declare war before he can order Navy SEALs to kill pirates?

Congress has the right to regulate interstate trade. What does "regulate" mean? Does that mean they can impose ANY rules whatsoever on ANY matters affecting foreign trade? What does "interstate" mean? Does it mean that the parties must reside in different states? Does it mean that the business activity must occur in more than one state? What does "trade" mean? Does it mean contracts between parties residing in different states? Does it mean ANY matters substantially relating to trade?

The 8th Amendment bars "cruel and unusual punishment." What the hell is "cruel and unusual?" Is it "cruel and unusual" some objective standard? Does it depend on what the underlying crime was? If it is a subjective standard, who gets to decide what is "cruel and unusual?" The residents of the city in which the crime took place? The residents of the county? The residents of the state? The entire U.S. population? How do you measure what the people of X area would deem "cruel and unusual?"

In short, the Constitution is FAR, FAR, FAR less specific than you think. Each and every one of its sentences is subject to interpretation and, as you know, reasonable minds will differ.

[armstrong001]

Armstrong, you can find quotes for all sorts of propositions from a founding father. No individual quote means anything binding.

You also realize, I hope, that the founding fathers themselves became hopelessly divided over the meaning of their Constitution with regard to federal/state power issues almost as soon as the Constitution was enacted. Hamilton and Adams had completely different ideas over what it meant than did Jefferson and Madison. Charles Pickney and Roger Sherman and George Mason probably thought it meant something entirely different than all of the rest of them.

That's why this whole idea of an original intent is so silly. You can't establish THE intent because everyone involved had a different subjective intent. That's is why the document is so vague in so many ways. The delegates smoothed over their differences in order to reach common ground, without resolving a huge number of issues.

"There are several parts of this Constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them. ... I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain, may be able to make a better Constitution" - Benjamin Franklin

So we are left with the document itself, and we do the best we can interpreting it. And that is what the Supreme Court has done for 200 years. You can try to wave your hand and completely dismiss those two centuries of interpretation, but you are wasting your time.

I'm not going to sit here and believe that I can just "do away" with 200 years of interpretation. But that still doesn't make it right. As I've said, some interpretation is necessary to include what could not have been forseen 200 years ago. But the more you go interpreting it, the more it gets preverted. There was a specific way to deal with changing views and changing the Constitution to more closely follow current ideas. And it is the Ammendment process.

Franklin himeslf in your quote basically says that he doubts they could have made a better Constitution. If he wasn't 100% in complete agreement with every single phrase, he was still in agreement enough to sign his name to it. So why go off "interpreting" something as close to perfection as we are going to get, instead of following the rules set forth in the document? How hard is it to see that the Federal Government has certain rights and responsibilities. Beyond that, the States have certain rights and responsibilities. Beyond that, the people have everything else.

[Springfield]

I wish you luck with this Texas. The same way I wish the Cowboys luck on winning the Super Bowl this season. No matter how hard you try, it just won't work out.

[TheLongshot]

Yes he was. However history is written by those who win the wars. Personal opinion...but if a state wants to leave the union then they should be allowed to. They joined of their own free will, why are they now bound to stay?

If you claim that states have a right to secede, then the remainder also have a right to declare war on the one that did secede. Just like any nation, you have to be able to defend your sovereignty, and the south wasn't remotely able to do so.

[Madison Redskin]

If the states can secede from the Union, why can't I secede from the state?

[Predicto]

I'm not going to sit here and believe that I can just "do away" with 200 years of interpretation. But that still doesn't make it right. As I've said, some interpretation is necessary to include what could not have been forseen 200 years ago. But the more you go interpreting it, the more it gets preverted. There was a specific way to deal with changing views and changing the Constitution to more closely follow current ideas. And it is the Ammendment process.

Franklin himeslf in your quote basically says that he doubts they could have made a better Constitution. If he wasn't 100% in complete agreement with every single phrase, he was still in agreement enough to sign his name to it. So why go off "interpreting" something as close to perfection as we are going to get, instead of following the rules set forth in the document?

Because the document doesn't have any detailed "rules." It is barely a skeleton of general concepts. You cannot possibly tell me what "due process" means without reference to judicial interpretation. It is essentially meaningless as two isolate words.

It is not at all unreasonable to believe that the Founding Fathers understood that their skeleton would take on more flesh over the years, and that they collectively had no problem with that, because otherwise they would have provided much more detail.

Anyhow, what is the point of this exercise? You can examine Magna Carta all you want from a 1215 perspective and say that it was a very limited document, but the British Government operates under Magna Carta as it is TODAY, in light of hundreds of years of history, as the fundamental basis for their government, and that is reality.

So it is with the American Constitution.

[Hubbs]

Madison, the general impression I get from your posts in this thread is that the "interpretation" of the Constitution should generally be accepted. I find certain "interpretations" - such as the mind-boggling expansion of the interstate commerce clause in the last 70 years alone - to be absolutely in conflict with the original intent of the Constitution. If the government tries to tell me that I'm wrong, exactly how would you suggest that I react?

[SnyderShrugged]

Armstrong and Hubbs= Awesome!

[Bang]

Two clichés that are more than appropriate...

Be careful what you wish for.

United we stand, divided.. well, you know.

It's my bet that most of these folks who want to break up this union have no idea what they'd be in store for.

But hey, political agenda = more important than country nowadays. No matter how short sighted and petty it may be.

~Bang

[SnyderShrugged]

I think Perry ruined his "liberty" reputation already in his support of neo-con agenda items that grew government too (just in a different way)

I had posted the growing list of states passing 9th and 10th ammendment resolutions a couple of months ago. I think this brings the list up to 10 or so states that have made their stance "official"

Political pandering? I certainly think so.

Bad Idea? I certainly don't think so.

The Federal monster grows and grows with each new administration. This was NOT the intention of our founders, regardless of whether you believe their internal disagreements paint it otherwise.

States are in the union voluntarily. Even the term State, in the context of the times in the 1700's, referred to a sovereign "State" just as other "states" like England, and france were sovereign.

I see no issue if these State governments actually follow through with what appears to be a simple statement of accountability. Alas, I don't believe for a second that they will ever go to the extreme measures needed to assert the rights of their sovereign state status when push comes to shove.

short story, good thoughts, good initial action, probably wont amount to a hill of beans.

[Zguy28]

Two clichés that are more than appropriate...

Be careful what you wish for.

United we stand, divided.. well, you know.

It's my bet that most of these folks who want to break up this union have no idea what they'd be in store for.

But hey, political agenda = more important than country nowadays. No matter how short sighted and petty it may be.

~Bang

I see what you are saying Bang, and its wise counsel. But I ask you, how far does it go before liberty becomes more important than unity and country?

[SnyderShrugged]

I see what you are saying Bang, and its wise counsel. But I ask you, how far does it go before liberty becomes more important than unity and country?

We dont have a country if Liberty is taken out of the equasion.

Unity must be from the heart and not forced.

[twa]

I think it is important for the States to assert their rights,after all ,they are useless unless exercised.

Just as the different branches of government counterbalance each other,the States have a obligation and right to do so as well to the Feds.

It is not about seceding or breaking the Union,but rather empowering it's member units.