“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Thomas Jefferson:
“On every question of construction, [let us] carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”
– (The Writings of Jefferson” 15:449)
“Towards the preservation of your government … it is requisite … that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts.
One method of assault may be to effect, in the forms of the Constitution, alterations which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown.”
— George Washington (1796)
“I regard it (the Constitution) as the work of the purest patriots and wisest statesmen that ever existed, aided by the smiles of a benign Providence; it almost appears a “Divine interposition in our behalf … the hand that destroys our Constitution rends our Union asunder forever.”
– (The Works of Daniel Webster, Vol. 1, p. 404)
So, in quoting Webster, do you agree that succession was an abomination?
Just checking- because most of the folks here seem to be happy promoting a bit of rebellion.
Just a little bit of Webster that has some very direct bearing on our little bill from this week:
But I do not understand the doctrine now contended for to be that, which, for the sake of distinction, we may call the right of revolution. I understand the gentleman to maintain, that, without revolution, without civil commotion, without rebellion, a remedy for supposed abuse and transgression of the powers of the general government lies in a direct appeal to the interference of the State governments.
[Mr Hayne here rose and raid: He did not contend for the mere right of revolution, but for the right of constitutional resistance. What he maintained was, that in case of a plain, palpable violation of the Constitution by the general government, a State may interpose; and that this interposition is constitutional.]
Mr. Webster resumed: –
So, Sir, I understood the gentleman, and am happy to find that I did not misunderstand him. What he contends for is, that it is constitutional to interrupt the administration of the Constitution itself, in the hands of those who are chosen and sworn to administer it, by the direct interference, in form of law, of the States, in virtue of their sovereign capacity. The inherent right in the people to reform their government I do not deny; and they have another right, and that is, to resist unconstitutional laws, without overturning the government. It is no doctrine of mine that unconstitutional laws bind the people. The great question is, Whose prerogative is it to decide on the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of the laws? On that, the main debate hinges. The proposition. that, in case of a supposed violation of the Constitution by Congress, the States have a constitutional right to interfere and annul the law of Congress, is the proposition of the gentleman.
{o} {¶} I do not admit it. If the gentleman had intended no more than to assert the right of revolution for justifiable cause, he would have said only what all agree to. But I cannot conceive that there can be a middle course, between submission to the laws, when regularly pronounced constitutional, on the one hand, and open resistance, which is revolution or rebellion, on the other. I say, the right of a State to annul a law of Congress cannot be maintained, but on the ground of the inalienable right of man to resist oppression; that is to say, upon the ground of revolution. I admit that there is an ultimate violent remedy, above the Constitution and in defiance of the Constitution, which may be resorted to when a revolution is to be justified. But I do not admit, that, under the Constitution and in conformity with it, there is any mode in which a State government, as a member of the Union, can interfere and stop the progress of the general government, by force of her own laws, under any circumstances whatever.
Webster is pretty plain on his views.
Now about the recent bill signed by the Governor?
Do we overstep our bounds?
As Republicans who used to venerate Webster, I wonder if any claim to intellectual clarity still stands here at this blog?
Yeah Right,
What are you getting at? I have never read anything on this site coming even close to a suggestion of rebellion.
Some have expressed the notion that the federal government has overstepped its proper boundaries and that the Tenth Amendment still means something.
Whether your or I agree with this notion, what’s it got to do with rebellion?
Wanumba,
You made a previous statement that…
WE can’t communicate until you read the Constitution, the Preamble, the Articles, the Amendments and can coherently explain the POINT of each one.
I am still confused by this. You do realize that the Supreme Court is deciding issues and the “point” of the Constitution all the time. So how are other supposed to be able to do this?
Just this term the Supreme Court is trying to figure out the POINT of the 2nd Amendment and if the POINT of the 14th amendment was to apply it to the states.
Sometimes your statements is the stupidest crap I have ever read.
“The sum of all is, if we would most truly enjoy the gift of Heaven, let us become a virtuous people; then shall we both deserve and enjoy it.
While, on the other hand, if we are universally vicious and debauched in our manners, though the form of our Constitution carries the face of the most exalted freedom, we shall in reality be the most abject slaves.”
(— Wells, Life of Samuel Adams, 1:22-23)
……………………
johnny Says:
April 24th, 2010 at 9:11 pm
Wanumba,
You made a previous statement that…
WE can’t communicate until you read the Constitution, the Preamble, the Articles, the Amendments and can coherently explain the POINT of each one.
I am still confused by this. You do realize that the Supreme Court is deciding issues and the “point” of the Constitution all the time. So how are other supposed to be able to do this?
Just this term the Supreme Court is trying to figure out the POINT of the 2nd Amendment and if the POINT of the 14th amendment was to apply it to the states.
…………….
I told you to read the Constitution, the articles, the amendments. You’re dodging your civic responsibility by spending your energy complaining.
“In proportion as the structure of a government give force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion be enlightened.”
—George Washington (1796)
Thank you Wanumba for proving you are full of crap.
Its nice to know you have learned to use google though for quotes from George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. Really impressive stuff.
The entire senior class of a local school was required – in order to graduate – to memorize, and recite the Preamble and the articles, with a pithy summary in their own words as to what issues, functions each Article addressed, and summarize each of the Amendments, along with reciting The 28 Principles of Liberty.
And lazybones here doesn’t think it’s possible. Thirty high school students just did it.
The Preamble is of course, the lead in of the post I put up.
Article I:
“All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”
Wow! That establishes Congress, the form of our legislative branch of government.
That wasn’t so hard, was it? What might ARTICLE II be concerned with? And ARTICLE III?
johnny Says:
April 24th, 2010 at 10:52 pm
Thank you Wanumba for proving you are full of crap.
Its nice to know you have learned to use google though for quotes from George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. Really impressive stuff
………..
I didn’t touch google or any search engine. I have an old-fashioned thingy called a “Pocket Constitution” on my desk.
But you just admitted you KNOW how to find the Constitution on-line, but you are too lazy to do anything about it.
Wanumba,
Did you just say you got the quotes that you have used from Jefferson, Webster and Washington from a pocket Constitution?
I think you better check what you think you are reading again because the constitution doesnt have any of these quotes in it…
Thomas Jefferson:
“On every question of construction, [let us] carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”
– (The Writings of Jefferson” 15:449)
“Towards the preservation of your government … it is requisite … that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts.
One method of assault may be to effect, in the forms of the Constitution, alterations which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown.”
— George Washington (1796)
“I regard it (the Constitution) as the work of the purest patriots and wisest statesmen that ever existed, aided by the smiles of a benign Providence; it almost appears a “Divine interposition in our behalf … the hand that destroys our Constitution rends our Union asunder forever.”
– (The Works of Daniel Webster, Vol. 1, p. 404)
But nice try.
…………………
” quotes from George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. Really impressive stuff.”
……..
It’s so informative reading the actual words of those great men, not the drivelly and misleading mishmashes revisionist historians have made of them.
johnny Says:
April 24th, 2010 at 11:23 pm
Wanumba,
Did you just say you got the quotes that you have used from Jefferson, Webster and Washington from a pocket Constitution?
I think you better check what you think you are reading again because the constitution doesnt have any of these quotes in it…
…………..
Evidently, it was a complete waste of time to put the source for each quote on them.
Yes, well the little problem with wanumba’s undersatnding of history is that barely has the ink dried on the Constitution and even the people involved in the writing became embroiled in heated arguments about its meaning.
If you do not know your rights as set forth in the Constitution, because you couldn’t be bothered to inform yourselves, how will you know when they are being stolen from you?
wanumba,
Once again we are trying to make up for the inadequacies of the modern education system. While it often feels like a futile effort we need to continue as it is one of the duties of the elders to mentor the younger generations.
Todd,
I would recommend two courses of action. Firstly develop basic knowledge of the Constitution. To that end I recommend using “A Catechism on The U.S. Constitution” published in 1828 by Arthur Stansbury. Stansbury’s Socratic teaching tool was the standard for educating grade school children in the Constitution. It remains the best text I have found to date.
Secondly, you develop an understanding of the intents of the founding fathers by studying the “The Federalist Papers” by Hamilton, Madison and Jay. The Kesler/Rossiter version has an excellent cross reference between the Constitution and the relevant Federalist essay. The meaning of the Constitution was not at question during its development and adoption. What was contested was the philosophic differences of the Federalists and Anti-Federalists and which should form the basis for the new union. To that end I suggest Ralph Ketchum’s “The Anti-Federalist papers”. The Federalists won in the Constitution. The Anti-Federalists won in the passage of the Bill of Rights. The combination is the best of all circumstances.
Because of three major amendments, the Constitution today differs significantly from that of 1787. The 14th Amendment reduced the authority of the states and increased that of the federal government, the 16th Amendment legalized the federal income tax, and the 17th Amendment provided for direct election of Senators. The ratification debates of 1787 and 1788 are critical to an understanding of the intent of the Framers, but they are not the end of the story by any means.
Mr. Davidson,
I refer you to the stupidity just posted here:
http://sonoranalliance.com/2010/04/25/sovereign-state-duty-to-protect-its-people/
It asks the succession must be considered.
Once again southern American stupidity is unbounded.
I note it took all of a day for it to appear here.
Yeah Right,
OK, you got me.
Stephen Kohut. I suggest you study the debate surrounding the Alien and Sedition Act as to how there was not even an agreement over whether the first amendment protected citizens’ rights to criticize the government or elected officials. In fact the the majority in the US Congress and Pres. Adams argued they did not and people were imprisoned under the law for merely making critical statements. The truth is there was a great deal of disagreement over many aspects of the Constitution and claims made during the time that there was a single well understood meaning were a rhetorical device used in these debates and not a statement of fact.
………………
todd Says:
April 24th, 2010 at 11:34 pm
Yes, well the little problem with wanumba’s undersatnding of history is that barely has the ink dried on the Constitution and even the people involved in the writing became embroiled in heated arguments about its meaning.
…………………..
PRECISELY what George Washington and Thomas Jefferson EXPRESSLY warned what would happen.
I proved Wanumba full of crap the other day. Period. I can quote framers to the high heavens as well Wanumba. And when I did quote the very framer you invoked…you ended up looking like this post does.
Here is what I posted after Wanumba implored that I read the consitution and intepret it.
This is on the Jefferson Memorial. It is among his most celebrated quotations.
““I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.”
Jefferson also was a tireless advocate of public education…education for EVERYONE. Not just those who can pay for it. And not just Charter schools that have the limited ability to serve everyone.
Some here don’t believe in public education. Some here want to slash it.
Jefferson would be rolling in his grave.
This bears repeating for those of you who are advocating for essentially Jim Crow in the State of Arizona.
“We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors”
Wanumba, I read some of your retorts above and no one is arguing with you that people shouldn’t read the Consitution. Memorize it? I have taught it to thousands of students in my ten year career.
Since you asked about Article Three, it created the United States Supreme Court and gives it the power to interpret the Constitution.
So…I hate to say it…especially now that the Supreme Court is conservative…but they have the power to put the flesh on the bones of our Constitution and our law. They do, they have, they have had to interpret what free speech is, what conduct is, what the 9th Amendment means. And if we wanted to all be orginalists and ignore the experiences of history…and each of us interpret it for ourselves, then there would be little common understanding of what our law is left.
Wanumba,
Speaking of Jefferson, what clause of the Constitution allowed for the Louisiana Purchase? (The original one for $15 million, not last year’s $300 million one.)
James Davidson,
Reading the Constitution is fundamental. Art 2, Sec 2, Clause 2 – He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.
The Louisiana Purchase was done as a treaty with France duly approved by the Senate.
kralmajales,
The intent of the SCOTUS was not interpretation of the Constitution. No where is that a stated power in the Constitution. That happened as a result of Marbury v. Madison in which SCOTUS assumed that power although it is not specified in the text of the constitution.
While I believe in public education I do not believe in throwing away money in filling a bottomless and failing goverment pit. Money is not and has not been the issue. Too much is spent. The issue is performance or the lack there of.
Stephen Kohut,
I know this might figuratively make your head explode but Jefferson himself thought it was unconstitutional and did it anyway.
Stephen,
Study after study has proven that the intent of the framers WAS the check of judicial review. There was a colonial case under the articles of conferation that was precedent and there was debate and discussion of it in those federalist papers you left out.
And it just makes sense.
So tell me, if your decided all at once that they had a majority to say that any minority religion other than Catholics could not speak out against the government. And the majority passed the law. So what on earth would you do? You’d appeal to the 1st Amendment in more than one place (freedom of religion, free speech, and the like).
Then, the court would (under your bizarre reading of the Constitution) only be able to say. Uh…thats’ not legal. They wouldn’t even have the power to strike the law down as unconstitutional.
Dont be stupid. Read your own Federalist papers or just think about what the power to interpret means.
If you want to live under some bizarre, modern day, Monday morning quarterbacking off what the framer’s MIGHT have said or thought then go ahead and succeed with some of the other baffoons on this list. Let me know where your new country would be also so that I could get as far away from it as possible.
Stephen Kohut,
Sorry, you strike out. The power to make a treaty is not the same as the power to increase the territorial size of the United States. That’s the issue. Where does it say in the Constitution that the President with concurrence of two thirds of the Senate had power to increase the country’s size?
Steven,
“While I believe in public education I do not believe in throwing away money in filling a bottomless and failing goverment pit. Money is not and has not been the issue. Too much is spent. The issue is performance or the lack there of.”
That is really funny…especially as you advocate spending more than we do on education to police the border. And want even more as you back some of the bizarre proposals floated here.
Dont talk to be me about throwing money into a bottomless pit…unless you are willing to admit that the drug war and the war against immigration are somehow cheaper?
…………….
kralmajales Says:
April 25th, 2010 at 5:34 pm
Here is what I posted after Wanumba implored that I read the consitution and intepret it.
This is on the Jefferson Memorial. It is among his most celebrated quotations.
““I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times.
……..
“institution” is not interchangeable with “Constitution.”