Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

WaPo: School bus driver fired over Confederate flag

Rocky21

By Rocky21
in The Tailgate

Recommended Posts

Predicto

Predicto

Posted
Posted

[/color]Yes. And if you can dissolve one union, replace it with another by voting at a convention, you can surely dissolve that union and replace it at convention. It ain't rocket science people. The FFs planned a govt that could be dissolved. We can amend the Constitution with a simple vote....

Umm, no. That does not follow at all. When you sign up for a binding contract, there are benefits and consequences. The states bought into a package deal in 1789, and it had consequences.

The FF's may have planned a govt that ultimately could be dissolved, but they deliberately made it very hard to do so. That is why amending the constitution is such a PITA. One state or a minority of states cannot amend the Federal Constitution. Likewise, one state or a minority of states cannot pull out of the union. If a NATIONAL constitutional convention had been convened, and had voted to let the Confederate States pull out, then the secession would have been legal. But that didn't happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry

Larry

Posted
Posted
No matter what people say about this argument, for many many people, it is a matter of heritage, not secession.

OK, so which heritage?

The heritage of rebelling against the United States, and the Constitution, because you're worried that the evil feds are gonna take away your slaves?

The way it's associated with the KKK?

Or maybe the heritage of it being flown over the state capital of (Alabama?) to signify the state's support for segregated schools? (A heritage continuing to this day.)

One thing's a fact: Whatever heritage is being celebrated, it isn't American heritage, or else they'd be flying this flag:

us.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Destino

Destino

Posted
Posted
Umm, no. That does not follow at all. When you sign up for a binding contract, there are benefits and consequences. The states bought into a package deal in 1789, and it had consequences.

The FF's may have planned a govt that ultimately could be dissolved, but they deliberately made it very hard to do so. That is why amending the constitution is such a PITA. One state or a minority of states cannot amend the Federal Constitution. Likewise, one state or a minority of states cannot pull out of the union. If a NATIONAL constitutional convention had been convened, and had voted to let the Confederate States pull out, then the secession would have been legal. But that didn't happen.

2/3rd majority in both houses of congress to propose a change and approval for 3/4ths of all states to approve it right? My civics is a bit rusty but that's what I remember.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DjTj

DjTj

Posted
Posted
How did one join the union? If you can join anything, you can dis-join. And please, spare me the Lincoln crap that is coming. He suspended habeus-corpus, imprisoned the opposition leaders without charging them or trying them, freed some slaves, and after the war stated that blacks should all go colonize central america because they were notequal to whites. He isn't the romanticized civil rights champion everyone makes him out to be.
That's not true at all. Somebody tell Albert Haynesworth that all he needs to do is dis-join the Redskins, and all his problems will be solved. When agreements are made between parties, whether individuals, corporations, or states, they usually don't allow one side to just walk away whenever they want. There is nothing in the Constitution that allows states to unilaterally join and leave.
Yes. And if you can dissolve one union, replace it with another by voting at a convention, you can surely dissolve that union and replace it at convention. It ain't rocket science people. The FFs planned a govt that could be dissolved. We can amend the Constitution with a simple vote....
Yes, of course we could amend the Constitution to allow states to leave, but that would require three-fourths of the states to agree, not just a single state.

The Supreme Court ruled on secession and found that it was not something that a state could do on its own:

When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.

Considered therefore as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union, and of every citizen of the State, as a citizen of the United States, remained perfect and unimpaired. It certainly follows that the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union. If this were otherwise, the State must have become foreign, and her citizens foreigners. The war must have ceased to be a war for the suppression of rebellion, and must have become a war for conquest and subjugation.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0074_0700_ZO.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry

Larry

Posted
Posted
How did one join the union? If you can join anything, you can dis-join. And please, spare me the Lincoln crap that is coming. He suspended habeus-corpus, imprisoned the opposition leaders without charging them or trying them, freed some slaves, and after the war stated that blacks should all go colonize central america because they were notequal to whites. He isn't the romanticized civil rights champion everyone makes him out to be.

Wow. What a long-winded, ranting, way to say "It's not in there, I made it up."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Spartacus87

Spartacus87

Posted
Posted
OK, so which heritage?

The heritage of rebelling against the United States, and the Constitution, because you're worried that the evil feds are gonna take away your slaves?

The way it's associated with the KKK?

Or maybe the heritage of it being flown over the state capital of (Alabama?) to signify the state's support for segregated schools? (A heritage continuing to this day.)

One thing's a fact: Whatever heritage is being celebrated, it isn't American heritage, or else they'd be flying this flag:

Yeah, that was my next question.

Again, this "heritage," or "Southern Pride," or whatever other term is used for to describe this feeling...that's represented through the Confederate flag how in particular?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
zoony

zoony

Posted
Posted
When I see a Confederate flag, I honestly don't think about secession, slaves, or war. Around here, it's just a symbol for the South. You're saying you're Southern and proud of it. When I see people with Confederate flags, I don't think, "That person wants to secede from the US and reinstitute slaves, and he also hates all black people." I think, "He's from the South."

born in the south and I live farther south than you do. That thing doesn't represent me, or any other educated non-toothless inbred person I know. I resent the notion that it does.

And why are you so proud of the South? Region to region and state to state it couldn't be more different. If you're proud to be from Richmond, just wear an "IHeartRichmond" shirt or something.

....

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ZoEd

ZoEd

Posted
Posted

Had a similar situation at Keesler AFB around 2000. New squadron Commander comes in, African American, looks out his window and sees a confederate flag license plate on the front of a truck parked across the street. Since the parking lot was used by "his" employees he demanded one of his Senior Enlisted go tell them to remove the license plate. Well hell, that went over real well. By the end of the week there was about 12 to 15 vehicles parked facing his window and every one of them had a rebel flag license plate attached to the front. Things got pretty heated, threats of termination were made, union got involved, one guy hired an attorney. When it was all said and done, we had to plant a line of shrubs between the street and the parking lot so the Commander couldn't see the front of the vehicles parked there.

Agree or disagree but people have rights, just like someone wanting to fly a Malcom X flag can fly one too. I used to support the flying of the flag a hell of a lot more than I do today thanks to a couple of folks here on ES who helped me "see the light" but I still don't personally find it offensive, but understand why some do.

I agree with Chicken Fried, I don't think the vast majority of the people who proudly display it do so to offend anyone or because they're racist or think slavery was a good idea. It's merely a symbol for the way of life they choose to live and well, quite frankly as ignorant as some people (zoony) think these people are, it's still their right. There's a lot of ignorant things that people do that offends me but I don't go around chosing to take up a cause against it. Its a ****ing flag, who gives a ****? "Gay and proud" offends me, the people who choose to rag on people who are religious and call them stupid for believing in God offend me, but I don't beat up homosexuals or egg evolutionists cars. It's okay to be different and have different opinions, it's what makes our country great.

Recently, we were doing room inspections and I went into a young Airmans room and found that he had a blanket with a rebel flag on it, a rebel flag hanging from the bed and hat with a rebel flag on it as well, proudly displayed on his bed. I had to "mentor" this young man and explain to him that although its his right to display these things in the privacy of his own home but in the environment he was in, a dormitory where he doesn't really have much privacy, its not the most appropriate thing for him to do. I also explained to him that the USAF is an extremely professional military orginization and we live at higher standards and he might want to reconsider his outlook on what the flag means to him and also how its interpreted by other people. I told him to take the flags down and stow them away until he leaves the dorm. BTW, most military installation don't allow flags of any kind to be flown in dormitories or in base housing and that decision is left up to the Base Commander to determine that policy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pjfootballer

pjfootballer

Posted
Posted
The politically correct times we live in. I support someone's right to say something that offends me in the form of a bumper sticker on their own vehicle.

Yeah, I didn't agree with it. I think most bumber stickers are offensive just for the sheer stupidity and not necessarily what they represent. I don't put them on my vehicles. If I ever had kids, I don't even want to put their school honor roll crap on my vehicles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Henry

Henry

Posted
Posted
How did one join the union? If you can join anything, you can dis-join. And please, spare me the Lincoln crap that is coming. He suspended habeus-corpus, imprisoned the opposition leaders without charging them or trying them, freed some slaves, and after the war stated that blacks should all go colonize central america because they were notequal to whites. He isn't the romanticized civil rights champion everyone makes him out to be.

I was actually happy to see Lincoln was left out of this discussion. However, since you brought him up, I guess I should point out that Jefferson Davis also suspended Habeas Corpus. Jefferson Davis executed loyalists without trial. We still name roads after him down here. Go figure. :)

It was a war. Extreme measures were taken on both sides. That does not mean that those actions would have been taken had the war not occurred. That does not mean that the men who took those actions were evil men.

And no, Lincoln didn't state anything after the war, because he was shot dead before the war ended. Watch out for that mis-information. :) Voluntary colonization was one idea Lincoln supported, but he had given that idea up before the close of the war. It was too expensive, impractical, there weren't enough volunteers and it wasn't as politically necessary as he had initially thought. Also, Lincoln did free all of the slaves. The Emancipation Proclamation was the first step, but the other steps (such as the 13th Amendment) were in motion before he died. That he was killed before the process was finished does not mean he didn't make it happen in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hazel-Ra

Hazel-Ra

Posted
Posted

Check out 3000's belt buckle about 17 seconds in....so is this yet another example of "only WE can use that word, symbol, ect!"?

I seem to recall Little Jon rocking a Stars n Bars shirt in a video once as well....oh well I don't really care as I've never been to the South let alone repped it in any way...I'm more offended by Big Boi's jersey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Predicto

Predicto

Posted
Posted
2/3rd majority in both houses of congress to propose a change and approval for 3/4ths of all states to approve it right? My civics is a bit rusty but that's what I remember.

US Constitution, Article V, provides:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress[.]

So, if the Legislatures of 2/3rd of the states call for it, you can have a new constititonal convention. As a nation we have never done that yet - and the Confederate States didn't even try to do it before they fired on Fort Sumter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Popeman38

Popeman38

Posted
Posted
I was actually happy to see Lincoln was left out of this discussion. However, since you brought him up, I guess I should point out that Jefferson Davis also suspended Habeas Corpus. Jefferson Davis executed loyalists without trial. We still name roads after him down here. Go figure. :)
Well, Jeff Davis didn't believe he was bound by the Constitution, you know, because they didn't recognize Union authority. So technically, he didn't break any laws.
It was a war. Extreme measures were taken on both sides. That does not mean that those actions would have been taken had the war not occurred. That does not mean that the men who took those actions were evil men.
Funny, I don't think Bush was extended the same line of reasoning. It was war. Things happen. It is only acceptable in hindsight. If you agree with the politics of that person. But hey, why bother with truth?
And no, Lincoln didn't state anything after the war, because he was shot dead before the war ended. Watch out for that mis-information. :) Voluntary colonization was one idea Lincoln supported, but he had given that idea up before the close of the war. It was too expensive, impractical, there weren't enough volunteers and it wasn't as politically necessary as he had initially thought. Also, Lincoln did free all of the slaves. The Emancipation Proclamation was the first step, but the other steps (such as the 13th Amendment) were in motion before he died. That he was killed before the process was finished does not mean he didn't make it happen in the first place.
I meant post-proclamation. I know he died. My bad.

---------- Post added March-10th-2011 at 02:10 PM ----------

That's not true at all. Somebody tell Albert Haynesworth that all he needs to do is dis-join the Redskins, and all his problems will be solved. When agreements are made between parties, whether individuals, corporations, or states, they usually don't allow one side to just walk away whenever they want. There is nothing in the Constitution that allows states to unilaterally join and leave.

Yes, of course we could amend the Constitution to allow states to leave, but that would require three-fourths of the states to agree, not just a single state.

The Supreme Court ruled on secession and found that it was not something that a state could do on its own:

When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.

Considered therefore as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union, and of every citizen of the State, as a citizen of the United States, remained perfect and unimpaired. It certainly follows that the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union. If this were otherwise, the State must have become foreign, and her citizens foreigners. The war must have ceased to be a war for the suppression of rebellion, and must have become a war for conquest and subjugation.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0074_0700_ZO.html

Well the CSA did not recognize the authority of the Union Supreme Court. Also, secession was commonly used by states to prevent what they viewed as tyrannical position of the Federal Govt. So obviously, EVERYONE thought secession was an option back then.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimboDaMan

JimboDaMan

Posted
Posted
Believe it or not, I agree with you. I think his Freedom to Express should allow the flying of this flag on his personal property. Maybe the school could have asked him to stow it when he was on school grounds, but otherwise, he should have the right to declare this. It's not such an outrageous symbol or such a violently inciteful symbol that he needs to be immediately banned from public useage.

(Even though it declares him a traitor and hater of the United States of America ;) )

Pretty much agree about the private property, although I'm a bit stronger on the employer's right to tell him to keep it off school grounds and get rid of him if he does not.

Interesting to compare this to the Wisconsin threads and see if right-to-work advocates are claiming this guy should sue for being fired.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...