Michael Rodgers over at "Take Down The Flag" is worried that we are, with S.C. House bill 3509, which seeks a concurrent resolution. And you know, you can easily see why he would think that, given such language as this:
of this State have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves
as a free, sovereign, and independent State, and shall exercise and
enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right pertaining thereto, which is
not expressly delegated by them to the United States of America in the
congress assembled; and
…
I found that "sole and exclusive right" bit interesting, with the way it seemed to brush aside the federalist notion of shared sovereignty. That language seems to go beyond the purpose stated in the summary, which is:
THE PROVISIONS OF THE NINTH AND TENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES
CONSTITUTION.
The point being, of course, that since we do HAVE the Ninth and 10th amendments, every word of this resolution is superfluous unless it means to negate federal authority in some way not currently set out in law.
And a certain neo-Confederate sensibility is suggested with the very first example of the sort of action on the part of the federal government that would constitute an abridgement of the Constitution under this resolution:
the states comprising the United States of America without the consent
of the legislature of that state;…
As Dave Barry would say, I am not making this up: The bill's sponsors are indeed suggesting that this resolution is needed to declare that we won't let Reconstruction be reinstituted.
Because, you know, that Obama is such a clear and present danger. Or something. I guess.
Of course, not everyone is shocked, appalled or amused at the notion of a new nullification movement. Check out this op-ed piece we recently ran online, about Mark Sanford and nullification.
Related Posts
Often in times of crisis, political leaders tend to be short-sighted in their search for solutions. Unfortunately, this usually translates into trading long-term complications for short-term comfort. Many of these long-term complications come in the form of lingering federal mandates, which in this case are attached to stimulus funds and would inevitably haunt the state long after the effects of the stimulus disappear.
Few South Carolinians would be open to making permanent changes to their laws in order to receive temporary relief. One of Sanford’s primary duties as a steward for the state is to protect taxpayers from fiscal waste — especially that which is foisted upon South Carolinians by the federal government. It is this fiduciary duty that fueled Sanford’s misgivings about accepting stimulus funds without a careful review.
This was taken from the above op-ed piece.
You need to read the whole article.
Two weeks ago, the Ohio National Guard cancelled a training exercise in rounding up firearms from civilians, after protest from the civilian community and from within the Guard officers.
Remember when Clinton and Butch Reno had the FBI roping down into Columbia from black helicopters? Brad and other mouthpieces for Big Government were nonstop with the excuses for that, and demonizing anyone who questioned the motives of those who misused the US military against civilians at Waco.
Oh, and just in case you put stock in what Lee claims, I don’t recall having said anything about Janet Reno, much having been “nonstop with the excuses.”
Of course, the fact that I don’t remember it doesn’t mean I didn’t say SOMETHING, although I have no memory of it. Perhaps Lee can refresh me. Nor can I imagine now why I would want to take sides between nuts who want to engage in armed defiance of the government, and club-footed gummint officials who burn down buildings with kids in them. Hard to find a side to cheer for, you know.
1. I remember reading about the Oklahoma bill a few months ago — before the election. So the Take Down The Flag Blog and your assertions that this bill is a result of Obama taking office is disingenuous. In fact, from the CNN article cited on the other blog:
Oklahoma state Sen. Randy Brogdon, a Republican and the first to introduce this type of legislation last year, originally pursued it because he thought then-President Bush and Congress exceeded their authority with the Real ID Act, which required states to include certain information on driver’s licenses.
2. Can someone tell me what this has to do with secession or the Confederate flag on the State House grounds (both of which are horrible things in my opinion)?
To me this bill is just essentially telling the federal government that they need to remember the Bill of Rights. And yes, they do seem to forget about our rights sometimes when it is inconvenient. Show me a time in history where power became more consolidated and people became more free and did not have their rights abused.
3. I cannot believe you actually ran an op-ed from Andrew Davis. This is the same guy who staged a fake anti-war rally and raffled an AK-47 while at Clemson University. Of course, that doesn’t make these statements less true:
The blind acceptance of federal aid without a careful consideration of the long-term consequences should not be an option for anyone in a state with a history of opposing creeping federal authority.
Often in times of crisis, political leaders tend to be short-sighted in their search for solutions. Unfortunately, this usually translates into trading long-term complications for short-term comfort. Many of these long-term complications come in the form of lingering federal mandates, which in this case are attached to stimulus funds and would inevitably haunt the state long after the effects of the stimulus disappear.
Article VI, Sec. 2: the Supremacy Clause to the Constitution. Modern-day states’ rights advocates need to read it and believe it. States cannot nullify or refuse to abide by an act of Congress. The federal government is supreme in the whole territory of the United States.
The federal government is only supreme in matters where it exercises its authority over federal matters, which are limited to those activities enumerated in the US Constitution.
Brad, man up and post your old opinion pieces defending the FBI intimidation exercises in Columbia and other cities.
Remember when Clinton and Butch Reno had the FBI roping down into Columbia from black helicopters?
What was this? I must say I do not remember.
So far there are eight comments on this post, and two on the related one that follows.
Now watch: If past patterns hold true, starting in 24 or 48 hours, there will be a sudden surge in comments, as the neoConfederates weigh in. This is something I’ve noted for as long as I’ve been on the editorial board. If you publish something about the Confederate flag or anything related to that general topic area, you will hear from a LOT of flag supporters or fellow travelers — but only after a delay.
That’s because there’s a bunch folks who care DEEPLY about these topics, but who don’t read newspapers or keep up with current affairs in general — so their grapevine has to pick up what we published and pass it on (probably by e-mail at the fastest, or maybe even snail mail, or by postings on their topic-specific Web sites). Then we hear from them.
I’ll be interested to see whether nullification as a topic works that way…
i think a repeal of the seventeenth amendment is in order. congress wouldn’t be foisting so many mandates on the states, if the states had true representatives in congress.
So Brad… you’re worried about an influx of comments from “neoConfederates”, did you think about this before you posted this topic? Are you really trying to troll in your own blog?
So “neoConfederates” are ignorant is what you are saying. They don’t read newspapers or keep up with current affairs. Have you watched the NAACP sheep lately? As far as they’re concerned it’s still 1955.
Why don’t we discuss the gang wannabes in Columbia vs. Pizza Hut deliverymen.
Pizza Hut deliverymen 1 Gang wannabes 0.
Too bad a young life was snuffed out on account of his stupid behavior along with a gun toting pizza dude. Before I make a final judgement on this I want to see more facts. Is the delivery dude telling the entire truth? Was this entirely a case of self-defence or was it vigilante justice? There are a few red flags here that need some further clarification.
Helicopters Assault Charlotte, NC
The Washington Post
(4/13/97, p. 1) r
Reports that “A dozen U.S. Army Black Hawk helicopters, their lights out, descended from the night sky March 4 on a corner of Charlotte, N.C. They swooped among the high-rise apartment buildings, then dropped dozens of special operations troops, some with their weapons blasting, into an abandoned warehouse to capture a group of ‘terrorists.'”
Inumdated
“Some terrified residents grabbed their guns. Others ducked into doorways. The 911 line went crazy, as did Mayor Pat McCrory’s telephone line. “‘I could barely hear the callers because of the helicopter noise and the gunfire in the background,’ McCrory recalled.”
Local Police Surrender Local Accountability
“Neither McCrory nor his police chief was sure what was going on. But they had a clue: Three months earlier, two men in jeans and T-shirts from the secretive U.S. Army Special Operations Command had visited McCrory’s office to ask permission to conduct urban counterterrorism exercises they said would go unnoticed. McCrory signed a confidentiality statement agreeing not to disclose the event beforehand or national security’s sake.”
Blitzkrieg Training Authorized By Gop Congress
“‘We were misled,’ said McCrory, who was forced by the public outcry to kick the Army out of Charlotte after the first of what was to have been three days of urban antiterrorism training. ‘How they thought you could come in and out without any disturbance is beyond me. It was almost like a blitzkrieg operation. People went and got their guns. I feel fortunate no one was hurt.'”
At Least 21 U.S. Cities Are Subjected To Population Control Training By Commander-In-Chief Clinton’s Defense Department
“Over the last three years, the U.S. Army Special Operations Command has conducted at least 21 such exercises in 21 U.S. cities, including Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas, Detroit, Houston, Los Angeles, New Orleans, Miami, Pittsburgh, and Seattle.”
—- note ————
Columbia, SC was also one of these cities.
Do a NEXUS search of The State.
Sounds more like a ham ham handed training exercise than anything sinister.
Jeez, Warthen, you’re a totalitarian.
Me, I’m a lot more worried about the “clear and present danger” from Obama than some state resolution affirming the Ninth and 10th amendments.
Why don’t you and Rich the Euro guru make up some signs that say “End State Autonomy Now!” amd march up and down in front of the State House until you wear out the soles of your shoes?
Actually, I feel about the 9th and 10th Amendments about the same way that I feel about the other eight in the Bill of Rights: I feel like they’re in fine shape and have held up well for more than two centuries, and they really don’t need the S.C. General Assembly to pass new legislation to assert them. They stand on their own.
No kidding. Why does the Legislature need to preen and posture and act like they’re the last thing standing between us and totalitarian government?
I don’t think that was the U.S. government there in Charlotte. I think it was an alien planet doing secret maneuvers to try and catch us off guard. But wait. Could Obama work for them?
It’s sad the way ‘Rich’ cites the US Constitution as his excuse for the federal government taking away more individual liberty, when last week and next week he will be agreeing with Obama that the Constitution is irrelevant on some other rights.
What’s sad is that these fools think they are smart and educated, and entitled to be the masters of other people.
KP, were those fed cops or aliens who captured little Elian Gonzales at gunpoint and handed him over to Fidel Castro?
Bill,
As a member of the NAACP, I read your comment and just could not believe it. 1955? That year was mild compared to 1931 (Scottsboro), 1923 (Rosewood), 1900s (Atlanta), or 1877 (end of Reconstruction). People of color were terrorized and lynched for almost 100 years after the end of the civil war. Their rights were rarely respected, and they were often physically brutalized and killed by local whites–especially if it appeared they were getting ahead and prospering.
Nothing infuriates racist whites like a prospering family of color. That’s the history and it is extremely well documented.
Brad, I would let the flag thing die. The yahoos who support the flag don’t want a rational debate, they want a shouting festival. They want the public spotlight to advocate the most awful, retrograde, ignorant public policy positions possible.
Compared to the confederate flag wavers, Sarah Palin standing by the turkey being killed and bled is a flaming liberal.
Even conservatives in places like Alaska and Wyoming have no idea of what we deal with down here once you leave Myrtle Beach, Beaufort, Columbia, and Charleston.
They have no idea!
Rich, tell me how does it feel to be a member of an acceptable racist organization? Don’t believe me, what would you think of a NAAWP? Even the mention of such a thing has your leaders screaming on national television and would have the SC Legislative Black Caucus walking out of their chambers. Why isn’t there a SC Legislative White Caucus? Oh yeah, that would be racist. I’m beginning to learn how this double-standard works. Now which channel is the Miss White America on, oh yeah WET.
Lee, as someone with extensive background and experience in family law, immigration law, and SWAT tactics (such that you know more about that situation that anyone who was involved with it, as you do all matters), why don’t you tell us?
Bill C brings up the non sequitur “what if white people did that?” to denounce black specific organization.
There is ample evidence of white caucuses, e.g. the US Senate with ONE black member. The power structure in the US is clearly in the hands of whites, mostly males. To suggest otherwise is either disingenuous or maybe ignorance.
I surveyed my black high school students last year and most had grandparents who were in their 60s. This means when the grandparents turned 18, they could not vote in SC. These kids are only 2 generations removed from being second class citizens. The notion that this should be completely discounted reflects a lack of understanding of history as prelude.
KP has been keeping up with Lee’s posts, lol.
BRAD WARTHEN WROTE:
“I found that “sole and exclusive right” bit interesting, with the way it seemed to brush aside the federalist notion of shared sovereignty.”
D— my eyes, Brad! You really DO NOT get it. Your argument only makes sense if you see the source of all power as emanating from the Federal government. You seem to forget that little July 4th bit about:
FOUNDING FATHERS WROTE: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…”
Yes, we DO have “sole and exclusive right” as given by our CREATOR. After that, as we decide to participate in a larger organization (originally a federal republic) through our smaller organizations (the states), we enumerate certain powers to the Federal government yet STILL, besides the legal means of amendments and so forth, have the right and power to alter THE ENTIRE ARRANGEMENT when it comes right down to it.
BRAD WARTHEN WROTE:
“That language seems to go beyond the purpose stated in the summary, which is:
TO AFFIRM THE RIGHTS OF ALL STATES INCLUDING SOUTH CAROLINA BASED ON THE PROVISIONS OF THE NINTH AND TENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.
“The point being, of course, that since we do HAVE the Ninth and 10th amendments, every word of this resolution is superfluous unless it means to negate federal authority in some way not currently set out in law…
“I feel about the 9th and 10th Amendments about the same way that I feel about the other eight in the Bill of Rights: I feel like they’re in fine shape…”
That of course, only makes sense if you have a naive, Hitler Jugend sort of adoration for the transmogrified Federal omnipotence that currently exists. If you can’t see the problem, you can’t fix it. But then you have the editorial superpower of simply and arbitrarily labeling people who actually respect the U.S. Constitution as “neo-confederates” so that you can yawn and go about your “enlightened” fascist way.
This whole thing has nothing to do with a piece of cloth. The Confederate flag is nothing to be worshipped nor made legally exempt except to the simple-minded among the population who are just as eager to deify the US flag while they’re at it.
It is, instead, the principles we have and the actions we take to preserve those principles that really matter. An expression of back-bone always seems to distress “pragmatic fascists.”
“Shouldn’t we all just get along?” you ask.
Sometimes, as on July 4th, 1776, the answer is “no.”
“blue bunny” wrote:
i think a repeal of the seventeenth amendment is in order. congress wouldn’t be foisting so many mandates on the states, if the states had true representatives in congress.
Posted by: blue bunny | Mar 9, 2009 1:23:11 PM
With a repeal of that amendment and term limits for all elected officials in the Federal government, we might actually change things for the better without a French Revolution type of reformation.
Then again, I like the idea of heads rolling…=:>)
Randy E – Okay, you answer the question, since you also brought it up. “What if white people did that?”. Are white people holding the election of US Senators back? How so? I’m interested in hearing your reasoning for this, because I’m thinking it has more to do with the fact that there aren’t that many black people running for US Senate.
I find it interesting that your findings state that the blacks could not vote in this country in the 1960’s and 1970’s. Because I’m willing to bet that the average black student’s grandparent age is less than 60 years old.
I’m assuming that you also surveyed the white students in your class. What was the average age of their grandparents?
KP, if you want to try to justify unlawful tactics by Democrats in law enforcement, do it.
Try to post like an adult, stating whatever it is you believe in a straight forward manner. The fact that you have to play word games and insult everyone to avoid honest statements of your beliefs shows you lack of confidence in them.
So far, it looks like you are totally unaware of the events, and to ignorant to make an intelligent statement, but obsessively desire to post anything.
Don’t get mad. We’re trying to help you grow up.
Bill,
White people have often formed whites-only organizations in this country. The KKK comes to mind. Last I heard, Blacks were never invited to join. Then there’s the DAR–Daughters of the American Revolution–as well as the Daughters of the Confederacy. How about the SCV? Not too many Blacks there, either.
Randy makes an important point about Connecticut. All states in the Union outside the South just don’t have the issues we deal with here in the South. I doubt that the issues of secession, nullification, interposition, or the battle flag ever really come up. What’s more, most northerners and westerners are not trying to get the schools to teach creationism or anything like “the South was right.”
We need for our people actually to look at the Constitution and see what it says. Article 6 is especially useful. You have there the Supremacy Clause and the the clause forbidding any religious test for office.
As for the status of the Declaration of Independence, it DOES NOT HAVE the force of constitutional law. The Constitution (and the jurisprudence deriving from it) is our sole, fundamental law. The Declaration mentions a deistic conception of a Creator as the source of all our rights, but the Constitution does not mention God and specifically disestablishes religion in the First Amendment. We are indeed a secular republic.
Just want to point out that, if the states had more of their power back in their hands with the repealing of the 17th Amendment, the states could then appoint blacks to the U.S. Senate a lot quicker than they might otherwise be elected there under the current corrupted system.
Maybe you folks would like to read this. A lot of talk on the subject on the radio last night…Slugger
‘Manchurian Candidate’ Starts War on Business: Kevin Hassett
Share | Email | Print | A A A
Commentary by Kevin Hassett
March 9 (Bloomberg) — Back in the 1960s, Lyndon Johnson gave us the War on Poverty. In the 1970s, Richard Nixon launched the War on Drugs. Now that we have seen President Barack Obama’s first-year legislative agenda, we know what kind of a war he intends to wage.
It is no wonder that markets are imploding around us. Obama is giving us the War on Business.
Imagine that some hypothetical enemy state spent years preparing a “Manchurian Candidate” to destroy the U.S. economy once elected. What policies might that leader pursue?
He might discourage private capital from entering the financial sector by instructing his Treasury secretary to repeatedly promise a brilliant rescue plan, but never actually have one. Private firms, spooked by the thought of what government might do, would shy away from transactions altogether. If the secretary were smooth and played rope-a-dope long enough, the whole financial sector would be gone before voters could demand action.
Another diabolical idea would be to significantly increase taxes on whatever firms are still standing. That would require subterfuge, since increasing tax rates would be too obvious. Our Manchurian Candidate would have plenty of sophisticated ideas on changing the rules to get more revenue without increasing rates, such as auctioning off “permits.”
These steps would create near-term distress. If our Manchurian Candidate leader really wanted to knock the country down for good, he would have to provide insurance against any long-run recovery.
There are two steps to accomplish that.
Discourage Innovation
First, one way the economy might finally take off is for some entrepreneur to invent an amazing new product that launches something on the scale of the dot-com boom. If you want to destroy an economy, you have to persuade those innovators not even to try.
Second, you need to initiate entitlement programs that are difficult to change once enacted. These programs should transfer assets away from productive areas of the economy as efficiently as possible. Ideally, the government will have no choice but to increase taxes sharply in the future to pay for new entitlements.
A leader who pulled off all that might be able to finish off the country.
Let’s see how Obama’s plan compares with our nightmare scenario.
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has been so slow to act that even liberal economist and commentator Paul Krugman is criticizing the administration for “dithering.” It has gotten so bad that the Intrade prediction market now has a future on whether Geithner is gone by year’s end. It currently puts the chance of that at about 20 percent.
No More Deferral
On the tax hike, Obama’s proposed 2010 budget quite ominously signaled that he intends to end or significantly amend the U.S. practice of allowing U.S. multinationals to defer U.S. taxes on income that they earn abroad.
Currently, the U.S. has the second-highest corporate tax on Earth. U.S. firms can compete in Europe by opening a subsidiary in a low-tax country and locating the profits there. Since the high U.S. tax applies only when the money is mailed home, and firms can let the money sit abroad for as long as they want, the big disadvantage of the high rate is muted significantly.
End that deferral opportunity and U.S. firms will no longer be able to compete, given their huge tax disadvantage. With foreign tax rates so low now, it is even possible that the end of deferral could lead to the extinction of the U.S. corporation.
If any firms are to remain, they will be festooned with massive carbon-permit expenses because of Obama’s new cap-and- trade program.
Importing Drugs
Obama’s attack on intellectual property is evident in his aggressive stance against U.S. pharmaceutical companies in the budget. He would force drug companies to pay higher “rebate” fees to Medicaid, and he included wording that suggests Americans will soon be able to import drugs from foreign countries. The stock prices of drug companies, predictably, tanked when his budget plan was released.
Obama will allow cheap and potentially counterfeit substitutes into the country and will set the U.S. price for drugs equal to the lowest price that any foreign government is able to coerce from our drugmakers.
Given this, why would anyone invest money in a risky new cancer trial, or bother inventing some other new thing that the government could expropriate as soon as it decides to?
Finally, Obama has set aside $634 billion to establish a health-reform reserve fund, a major first step in creating a universal health-care system. If you want to have health care for everyone, you have to give it to many people for free. Once we start doing that, we will never stop, at least until the government runs out of money.
It’s clear that President Obama wants the best for our country. That makes it all the more puzzling that he would legislate like a Manchurian Candidate.
(Kevin Hassett, director of economic-policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, is a Bloomberg News columnist. He was an adviser to Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona in the 2008 presidential election. The opinions expressed are his own.)
To contact the writer of this column: Kevin Hassett at khassett@aei.org
Last Updated: March 9, 2009 00:01 EDT
As a matter of fact, the DAR–Daughters of the American Revolution–as well as the Daughters of the Confederacy and the Sons of Confederate Veterans all have members who are black, Hispanic, French, Italian and Jewish.
The catch is, you have to have an ancestor who served with the armies during those wars.
Only 10% of American colonists served on the side of George Washington. Most were cowardly fence sitters, wind testers, what we call today, “moderates”.
Actually, the state of Connecticutt, along with the rest of New England, held a Secession Convention because they wanted to have state run religious schools.
Thanks for the advice, Lee. We should all follow your grown-up example, which means we’ll only post when we have something new and different to say, we won’t insult anyone, and we won’t post obsessively.
I find it interesting that people in the South keep referring back 100+ years for excuses to why things don’t get done. I grew up in the midwest, where people actually fend for themselves and don’t rely on the government to do everything for them. Let’s use floods for example, how are the northern and midwestern towns and cities along the Mississippi River getting along after the massive floods over the past decade? Many are back to pre-flood conditions, or in many cases better. Then compare that to the New Orleans fiasco. Two years later and people are screaming because the National Guard packed up and left. How many in the midwest received $2000 Visa cards? It’s too easy to sit on the porch and complain about the garbage in your front yard than to get up off your lazy ass and go pick it up. Same goes for the school system, I went to a school that was built in 1902 and is still in the same or better shape than it was 30 years ago when I was there. If something needs to be done, the community fixes it, they don’t wait for the government’s check to be in the mail. Do we see the Irish, who were white slaves for lack of a better word, who built railroads in the Northeast and midwest with the same problems as the black slaves in the South? Do we see the Chinese who built the railroad system out west continuing to have the same problems as the blacks in the South? How about the Mexican immigrants today, how many of them are sitting on their front porch or hanging out on the street corner waiting for their government checks? The only person holding the black man down is the black man himself.
The best question I’ve read recently is, “How can 2,000,000 blacks get into Washington, DC in 1 day in sub zero temps when 200,000 couldn’t get out of New Orleans in 85 degree temps with four days notice?”
RICH QUOTE:
“We need for our people actually to look at the Constitution and see what it says. Article 6 is especially useful. You have there the Supremacy Clause and the the clause forbidding any religious test for office.”
END QUOTE
Please do take another look at the U.S. Constitution and note that the Supremacy Clause cannot apply to the states since the 9th and 10th AMENDMENTS (i.e. changes) to the Constitution come AFTER the Supremacy Clause (contained in the body of the document) so that if there is any conflict, the Supremacy Clause loses to states’ rights BY DEFINITION OF THE WORD, “AMENDMENT.”
As it was in the military, you follow the last legal order. If there is a conflict with earlier orders, you follow the last legal order. You don’t have to be a lawyer to understand that. That’s the way it is supposed to be despite the “Animal Farm” interpretation of the U.S. Constitution employed for the last century.
RICH QUOTE:
“As for the status of the Declaration of Independence, it DOES NOT HAVE the force of constitutional law.”
END QUOTE
Who said it did? It does, however, give CONTEXT to the PRINCIPLES upon which our republic was founded. I was not discussing law but principles like, oh, say, CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED. You know, that silly old idea that people should have some real power in governing themselves.
The Constitution did not and does not exist in a vacuum. There are plenty of documents that explain what happened during the writing of it and the original intent of the Founders.
RICH QUOTE:
“…[T]he Constitution does not mention God and specifically disestablishes religion in the First Amendment. We are indeed a secular republic.”
END QUOTE
Thomas Jefferson is a much better interpreter of the document that you refer to:
“I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the United States. Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in religious discipline has been delegated to the General Government. *IT MUST THEN REST WITH THE STATES, AS FAR AS IT CAN IN ANY HUMAN AUTHORITY.” –Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Miller, 1808. ME 11:428
[EMPHASIS mine]
The prohibition against meddling with religion applies to the Federal government only. Connecticut and a couple of other states entered the Union with official state religions.
A couple more quotes for you TJ fans out there:
“If a sect arises whose tenets would subvert morals, good sense has fair play and reasons and laughs it out of doors without suffering the State to be troubled with it.” –Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XVII, 1782. ME 2:224
[The individual states still have the right compatible with the Supreme Law of the Land to outlaw a particular religion if it wishes.]
“Whatsoever is lawful in the Commonwealth or permitted to the subject in the ordinary way cannot be forbidden to him for religious uses; and whatsoever is prejudicial to the Commonwealth in their ordinary uses and, therefore, prohibited by the laws, ought not to be permitted to churches in their sacred rites. For instance, it is unlawful in the ordinary course of things or in a private house to murder a child; it should not be permitted any sect then to sacrifice children. It is ordinarily lawful (or temporarily lawful) to kill calves or lambs; they may, therefore, be religiously sacrificed. But if the good of the State required a temporary suspension of killing lambs, as during a siege, sacrifices of them may then be rightfully suspended also. This is the true extent of toleration.” –Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Religion, 1776. Papers 1:547
[Individual states are left with the power to determine just how to handle (potential) conflicts between religion and civil law.]
“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.”
THOMAS JEFFERSON, letter to William Stephens Smith, November 13, 1787
Bill C, in response to your post:
Are white people holding the election of US Senators back? How so? People get elected largely by working within the established power structure. If the positions of power are held by whites who associate primarily with whites, the cycle continues. A great example is the race of NFL head coaches. Art Shell was the first modern era black head coach and he wasn’t hired until 1989. The NFL insituted the Rooney Rule in 2003 because white retread head coaches with bad records were repeatedly hired because they had become part of the power structure.
I find it interesting that your findings state that the blacks could not vote in this country in the 1960’s and 1970’s. In the 60s, which resulted in the Voting Rights Act.
Because I’m willing to bet that the average black student’s grandparent age is less than 60 years old. I surveyed the high school students in February of 2008. High school students are 14-18 years old. IF their parents had them when they were 20 years old and their grandparents had their parents at age 20, the grandparents would have been between 54 and 58 years old. 60 is not that far off. Perhaps you are suggesting that the average black student was born to a teen mother? I didn’t assume, Bill, I asked them.
I’m assuming that you also surveyed the white students in your class. What was the average age of their grandparents? The grandparents of the white students could vote in the 60s, Bill. It would have been a moot point.
Randy E – Are you black? I’m just wondering where your “hate whitey” attitude is coming from.
If a black man (well half-black, his black father ran out on his white mother… not uncommon) can become president, what’s to keep another black man from becoming a Senator? Look at Jim Clyburn, all you have to do is complain until your district gets redrawn in your favor.
Why are you talking about professional sports? I realize that professional sports is “success” for a black person, just the same as becoming a (c)rap ebonics microphone talker. Maybe if these same students applied themselves to academics the way they do to basketball and football they’d have a future outside of the long-shot professional athlete.
Do you have an answer for the Washington/New Orleans question? Maybe it’s a miracle.
When the intellectual resources run dry (and quickly at that), racism is called into service.
Bill, please cite my statement(s) that indicates that I “hate whitey.” I do abhor racism, deliberate or institutionalized, but as Dr. King stated, “love the man but hate the deed.” FYI, this is based on Scripture.
Under the fourteenth amendment, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights have been “incorporated” into state law. The high court has consistently held for more than a century that states may not do to their citizens what the federal government is forbidden to do to them.
Yes, there were state churches at the Founding, but these were all disestablished within fifty years. Clearly, there was a secular intent to the Founders’ vision. Jefferson also coined the phrase “wall of separation” between church and state. This is hardly permission to base official policy and Congressional enactments upon sectarian dogma.
Let’s remember what religion fundamentally consists of: belief without evidence, i.e., faith. Whose faith do we impose on everyone else?
It’s the same question when comes to abortion, stem-cell research, homosexuality, divorce, birth control, sex education, evolution, you name it!!
If it’s based upon religion, you have a right to make personal decisions for yourself. In a secular republic such as ours where the government is supposed to be neutral in matters of religion (i.e., belief without evidence), you may NOT make those decisions for the rest of us.
BTW, I would remove the tax-exempt status of all churches and religious enterprises in this country. I would also require any college or university giving degrees sanctioned by the state to abide by the same civil rights law as do the public institutions.
Since religion is nothing more than belief without evidence, it has no more standing intellectually than any other opinions we might hold without evidence.
When Jesus returns after the Rapture and all the b*llshit predicted by the Left-Behind Loonies, he can set us all straight. Until then, we’re left with the next best thing–a secular, representative democracy.
When the intellectual resources run dry (and quickly at that), racism is called into service.
Since you and Rich talk more about race than anyone else here, Randy, is this an admission?
If a black man (well half-black, his black father ran out on his white mother… not uncommon)…I realize that professional sports is “success” for a black person… Bill C
PM, you are suggesting that Rich and I referring to the race issue is comparable to Bill C’s comments? That’s quite a stretch.
Randy E, I never said you said you “hated whitey”, but one can’t help but come to that conclusion from your posts.
You state you “hate racism”, is that white and black racism? Because I’ve witnessed more black hatred of whites than the other way around since moving to the South in the early 1990’s. I’ve also noticed that blacks play the victim every chance they get.
If a black man (well half-black, his black father ran out on his white mother… not uncommon)…I realize that professional sports is “success” for a black person… Bill C
PM, you are suggesting that Rich and I referring to the race issue is comparable to Bill C’s comments? That’s quite a stretch.
————-
Randy E, please point out where I spoke falsely in my statement.
Is Obama not half black and half white?
Did Obama’s father not run out on his white mother?
Are the facts that 71% of all black babies born in recent years belong to unwed mothers?
Do blacks not view making it to the professional ranks as successful?
your “hate whitey” attitude – Bill C
Guess I misinterpreted this statement, eh?
Do blacks not view making it to the professional ranks as successful? Bill C
By attributing this value to African-Americans as if were exclusive to them, which you most certainly did, you made a racist statement. Here is a definition of racism; “The belief that race accounts for differences in human character.”
Bill C, you can back pedal or attempt to nuance your way out of this, but the toothpaste is out. If you are so confident of your nuanced non-racist statements, restate them using your full name.
RICH QUOTE:
“Under the fourteenth amendment, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights have been “incorporated” into state law…that states may not do to their citizens what the federal government is forbidden to do to them.”
ENDQUOTE
Incorrect. The Animal Farm readings of the 14th Amendment got rolling in the latter half of the 20th century which corresponds, not surprisingly, with the rise of the Supreme Court oligarchy and socialism.
YOU may wish to join the Hitler Jugend worshipers of judicial activism and release the Federal government from its contractual restrictions but I, and other people who treat the document as what it is, a contract between the states, do not.
RICH QUOTE:
“Yes, there were state churches at the Founding, but these were all disestablished within fifty years.”
ENDQUOTE
At the CHOICE of the states involved. They never gave up that power and it still exists as a fundamental right that has also not been legally written out of the U.S. Constitution.
RICH QUOTE:
Clearly, there was a secular intent to the Founders’ vision. Jefferson also coined the phrase “wall of separation” between church and state. This is hardly permission to base official policy and Congressional enactments upon sectarian dogma.
ENDQUOTE
“Secular?” I wouldn’t choose that word as being representative of the religious and moral men who were the Founders. Everything I’ve read only indicates that the intent was tolerant of different religions or even a lack thereof–not that religion as incorporated into the fabric of individuals and society should have absolutely no influence.
Jefferson was only referring to the Federal government. You may have to divide your thinking some so that you can understand the division of powers between the states and the Feds. If the Federal government is restricted it doesn’t mean the states are, too.
The tendency to organize and classify among so many is the result of an intolerant, simplistic, totalitarian, obsessive-compulsive attempt to make everything the same all over. That sort of “uniformity” does not and can not work and results in the peculiar form of tyranny in such matters as we are suffering now that seeks to label any prayer or mention of God as “crimethink.”
Tolerance works in more than just one direction. People and states in a federal republic that tolerate abortion, for example, must be tolerant of other states that do not. It’s a concept called “consent of the governed.” It’s all based true respect and true tolerance.
You have to be able to tolerate a little anarchy here and there to live in true federal republic as laid out by law in the U.S. Constitution. Both the leftists and the neo-cons are guilty of this tendency so don’t feel too bad about it.
RICH QUOTE:
“Whose faith do we impose on everyone else?”
ENDQUOTE
That’s a GREAT question that the U.S. Government is not capable of answering. It is therefore simply left up to the states to decide the matter.
“…Certainly, NO POWER* to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in religious discipline HAS BEEN DELEGATED TO THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT. IT MUST THEN REST WITH THE STATES, AS FAR AS IT CAN IN ANY HUMAN AUTHORITY.*” –Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Miller, 1808. ME 11:428
*EMPHASIS added
RICH QUOTE:
“It’s the same question when comes to abortion, stem-cell research, homosexuality, divorce, birth control, sex education, evolution, you name it!!
ENDQUOTE
So, you’re saying that if the Federal government all of a sudden to outlaw all abortions, stop all stem-cell research, execute all homosexuals, end divorce, outlaw birth control, sex education propaganda, and evolution, you’d support the central government’s right to do so?
I tell people this all the time: If the Supreme Court rides in on white horse, stepping in between the state and its citizenry in support of a cause you just happen to like, you’d better watch out. They haven’t just helped you, they’ve just taken away more of the states’ and citizens’ powers to decide for themselves what kind of place they want to live in. The Supreme Court can ride back in and reverse their decisions and claim on precedent that they have the right to do so. What would you say then?
RICH QUOTE:
“If it’s based upon religion, you have a right to make personal decisions for yourself…you may NOT make those decisions for the rest of us.
ENDQUOTE
From later comments you make, it appears that you’re only pretending to be defending people’s religious choices. However, I’ll take your statement as written and simply point out that, as Jefferson has stated, there ARE times where those personal decisions are NOT protected as in, just as examples of the principles involved, child or animal sacrifice.
Your premise, therefore, is flawed since, as in most things, religion does not exist in a vacuum. Religion exists in context with the rest of our lives. There are limits to it and there HAVE to be limits to it as a practical matter. Where those limits are drawn, as written in the U.S. Constitution, are so that the states have the power but the Federal government does not. Is that not simple enough?
RICH QUOTE:
“BTW, I would remove the tax-exempt status of all churches and religious enterprises in this country. I would also require any college or university giving degrees sanctioned by the state to abide by the same civil rights law as do the public institutions.”
ENDQUOTE
If you’re talking about doing this at the Federal level, you can’t even get today’s Supreme Court to go along with this.
HOWEVER, all that you propose IS allowed at the state level. It is up to the people of the states, through their respective governments to determine how and at what level of government (state or county or lower) such matters are to be determined.
The Bill of Rights were always supreme to the state laws, because there would have been no ratification of the US Constitution until the states got the Federalists to include the Bill of Rights.
Liberals invoke God and the Constitution when it suits them, and usually in a subversive manner.
You can always spot a liberal racist by their assertions that black people are incapable of succeeding on their own, but only with the guidance of soft-handed white liberals, financed by the redistribution of wealth from other whites who created and earned it.
The bill before the S.C. House must be defeated. Its passage is tantamount to treason. Art. 6, Sec. 2 of the Constitution of the United States. End of discussion.
Since when did a socialist care about treason?
“Amendment IX
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
“Amendment X
“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.”
That SHOULD be the end of the discussion but according to you:
“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”
Randy E, don’t you think it is racist for some white liberals to assert that black people are incapable of succeeding on their own, and must be given social promotions, jobs, housing, food, medical care, and welfare by white liberals ( using the tax money of others, of course)?
Workin’ Tommy C,
I would be totally happy if that was all there was to it. I told my State Senator that if he could get the bill changed to the following, then it would be fine.
Regards,
Michael Rodgers
A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO AFFIRM THE NINTH AND TENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.
Be it resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring:
That the General Assembly of South Carolina affirms the Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution, where the enumeration of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people, and the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, where 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.
Be it further resolved that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the United States Senate, the United States House of Representatives, and each member of the South Carolina Congressional Delegation.
—-XX—-