Bestest Presidents

[David Floyd]

Not at all. Secession is rebellion. A rebellion is only "legal" if it wins.

No, a rebellion is more along the lines of the Whiskey Rebellion. Secession is when, in this context, an entire state votes to leave the Union.

I meant that was your problem with Lincoln's actions.

No, I have a moral problem with suspending habeas corpus by ANY means, in ANY situation - I was simply stating the Constitutional problem.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by David Floyd
No, a rebellion is more along the lines of the Whiskey Rebellion. Secession is when, in this context, an entire state votes to leave the Union.

Which is a rebellion of an entire State.

Just like I, personally, can't "secede" from my State government.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Not at all. Secession is rebellion. A rebellion is only "legal" if it wins.

As I understand it, that is to protect the states against insurrection, not the Federal government from seceding states.

The question is whether or not there is a right to secede. Non-enumerated rights belong to the people, not to the states, therefore we can't assume a right to secede exists for the states.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by David Floyd


No, a rebellion is more along the lines of the Whiskey Rebellion. Secession is when, in this context, an entire state votes to leave the Union.

What a stupid statement.

Secession IS rebellion.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by David Floyd


I would think that in a free country, if the people aren't in favor of fighting a war, they shouldn't be forced to do so, whether it's in their supposed interests or not.

So if the majority of voters wanted to legalize torture of U.S. prisoners then it should be made legal?



You see where the danger of tyranny of majority comes into play, when you want to take literally, the rule of majority with no important qualifications to check abuse of power??

[David Floyd]

Which is a rebellion of an entire State.

No, a rebellion implies armed resistance against the legitimate government. Once a state secedes, any armed resistance by state military forces can't be construed as rebellion, because that state is actually independent.

Just like I, personally, can't "secede" from my State government.

We aren't talking about what you can and can't do with regards to seceding from a state, we're talking about whether or not states can secede from the US. Those are two different arguments.

che,

The question is whether or not there is a right to secede. Non-enumerated rights belong to the people, not to the states,

Bull****. Read the 10th Amendment.

"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, by the way, the question of secession is more a question of a POWER of state rather than a RIGHT of a state, although either could apply.

MrFun,

So if the majority of voters wanted to legalize torture of U.S. prisoners then it should be made legal?

See, now we get into Libertarianism. But don't blame me, you brought it up.

Of course the majority shouldn't be able to legalize torture, because torture violates individual rights. The majority also shouldn't be able to vote in favor of legalizing slavery, and the government shouldn't be able to institute a draft.

You see where the danger of tyranny of majority comes into play, when you want to take literally, the rule of majority with no important qualifications to check abuse of power??

How is the majority being tyrannical when they collectively don't wish to fight a war? Isn't forcing them to do so the tyranny of the MINORITY, or just plain TYRANNY?

[David Floyd]

I love it - MrFun says that the fact that the majority may wish not be drafted to fight a war they don't support is irrelevant because if there wish were to be granted, it would lead to tyranny.

Sounds like you have something ass-backwards in there somewhere, MrFun. If the minority wants to go fight a war, let them do so by volunteering for it. That isn't tyrannical at all.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by David Floyd


No, a rebellion implies armed resistance against the legitimate government. Once a state secedes, any armed resistance by state military forces can't be construed as rebellion, because that state is actually independent.

MrFun,



See, now we get into Libertarianism. But don't blame me, you brought it up.

Of course the majority shouldn't be able to legalize torture, because torture violates individual rights. The majority also shouldn't be able to vote in favor of legalizing slavery, and the government shouldn't be able to institute a draft.



How is the majority being tyrannical when they collectively don't wish to fight a war? Isn't forcing them to do so the tyranny of the MINORITY, or just plain TYRANNY?

In order for a state to secede in the first place, they have to rebel!!! Can you grasp that concept?


As for your argument that majority opposing the draft is not tyrannical, I agree. I just wanted to make sure that you would not support literal, unchecked mobocracy (absolute rule of majority).

[MrFun]

Originally posted by David Floyd
I love it - MrFun says that the fact that the majority may wish not be drafted to fight a war they don't support is irrelevant because if there wish were to be granted, it would lead to tyranny.

Sounds like you have something ass-backwards in there somewhere, MrFun. If the minority wants to go fight a war, let them do so by volunteering for it. That isn't tyrannical at all.

I already clarified myself before I even read this post of yours -- see my second last post.

[David Floyd]

In order for a state to secede in the first place, they have to rebel!!! Can you grasp that concept?

No, because a simple vote isn't a rebellion.

As for your argument that majority opposing the draft is not tyrannical, I agree. I just wanted to make sure that you would not support literal, unchecked mobocracy (absolute rule of majority).

Of course not - I don't even favor democracy, without VERY strict Constitutional limits.

[David Floyd]

I just wanted to make sure that you would not support literal, unchecked mobocracy (absolute rule of majority).

In any case, you should already know I don't support that, so why did you misdirect, rather than just responding to my point?

[MrFun]

Your tyranny of minority point you mean?

A government can compel its citizens to carry out duties that go with citizenship -- for instance, paying your taxes. And of course, in time of prolonged war -- submitting to a draft unless your are a conscientious objector.

[David Floyd]

And of course, in time of prolonged war -- submitting to a draft unless your are a conscientious objector.

Why is it relevant whether or not you are a CO? Interesting qualification - if the government has the right to force me to fight, then why doesn't the government have the right to force a CO to fight? That doesn't make much sense.

Further, the federal government doesn't even have the power to draft - raise and support armies, certainly, but not force people to fight.

Daniel Webster says it better than I can.

http://www.constitution.org/dwebster/conscription.htm

[David Floyd]

Your tyranny of minority point you mean?

A government can compel its citizens to carry out duties that go with citizenship -- for instance, paying your taxes. And of course, in time of prolonged war -- submitting to a draft unless your are a conscientious objector.

My point was more along the lines of forcing a war on an unwilling populace is not a characteristic of a free government - which is my entire point about Lincoln.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
Did Hayes or Van Buren ever do anything? You never hear him mentioned...

Van Buren was a champion of tight money during a recession. He sought to balance the federal budget budget as the economy headed off a cliff. What he is known for his presiding over the worst depression in American history.

Herbert Hoover did the same thing as Van Buren. He tried to balance the budget as the wheels of economy came off. He also raised trade barriers big-time which only complicated did the problem.

Monetarists would say that the way out of a recession is to lower interest rates. However that didn't work in Japan for 10 yearswere interest rates of hovered near zero even as the economy stagnated. Low interest rates were not working in the United States as well as we slowly descended into deflation in the 2001-2002 timeframe. The only way out all of deflation is to provide economic stimulus provided by demand. The best way to do that is too use deficit financing of the government.