Who flies this flag?

A forum not related to waterfowl for discussing the more controversial and hot topic issues in our world from immigration, politics, the war, etc..

Moderators: Smackaduck, MM

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby blackduckdog2 » Mon Nov 04, 2013 11:40 pm

MODuckkiller wrote:
blackduckdog2 wrote:Like I said earlier, I'm trying (and not very well) to lay out some of the ideas an old friend had on the issue. He was a Jesuit priest, a historian (though not with any academic specialty in the Civil War) and a scholar. His very interesting, to me at least, theory that all wars take place in a dysfunctional, perverted spiritual climate is not the sort of thing that is going to get mainstream historians all excited. But the idea that an addiction (slavery) existed that was nearly impossible for it's practitioners to see, in any way, the evil they were involved with, while at the same time knowing, on a deeper level (through the light of Christ, according to Father Tom. I'd say conscience) that the circumstances simply could not continue, and then applying that social model (the addict in denial and spinning out of control) to the steps taken that finally led to abolition is nothing short of genius, if you ask me.


The theory is sound, and I would agree that it is indeed, a brilliant theory. However, I still do not see how it would be relevant if only 10% of white southerners owned slaves, and less than 1/3 of Confederate soldiers listed pro-slavery convictions as reasoning for fighting. I suppose we will just have to agree to disagree on this topic, for we have come to an impasse.

Although I will not stray from my personal beliefs, views, etc., ones that I am sure contradict yours, I would like to apologize for last night's post. It was rude, insulting, and could have been posted in a more appropriate fashion.

naahh….. I was the knot-head on this one. I totally confused you with another poster. Inexcusable
"We have met the enemy, and he is us."
Walt Kelly, via Slow's avatar. Look it up
User avatar
blackduckdog2
hunter
 
Posts: 6290
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:02 am


Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby possumfoot » Tue Nov 05, 2013 1:18 am

blackduckdog2 wrote:
possumfoot wrote:
blackduckdog2 wrote:
possumfoot wrote:oh yea, i would think martians picking cotton from hover craft would qualify as orriginal...
don't give up the day job

and again.. another deflection..

deflection is what happens to reality when it gets within about a lightyear of your awareness, possum foot….but I don't hold that against you



this may be true.. :sarcmark: but i would like for you to answer the question..

had slavery not existed, with nothing else changed (i.e. cotton production and the tariffs imposed) would the civil war have still taken place??
WTN10 wrote:He was funny like a Pomeranian getting kicked over a fence.


pgquackstacker wrote:I actually started bringing a gun with me on dates, so I bring the girl's father out to my car and tell him if he tries to cock-block me I'll kill him.
User avatar
possumfoot
hunter
 
Posts: 5770
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2005 5:13 pm
Location: making sesbania my bitch

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby slowshooter » Tue Nov 05, 2013 1:40 am

How about asking if Napoleon would have been born if there were three more rings around Saturn? That's about as relevant.
All this for a bowl of borscht.
User avatar
slowshooter
hunter
 
Posts: 9011
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:44 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby possumfoot » Tue Nov 05, 2013 1:58 am

slowshooter wrote:How about asking if Napoleon would have been born if there were three more rings around Saturn? That's about as relevant.



how so?? if according to BDD2 the civil war started because of slavery then why would it be an irrelevent question..
WTN10 wrote:He was funny like a Pomeranian getting kicked over a fence.


pgquackstacker wrote:I actually started bringing a gun with me on dates, so I bring the girl's father out to my car and tell him if he tries to cock-block me I'll kill him.
User avatar
possumfoot
hunter
 
Posts: 5770
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2005 5:13 pm
Location: making sesbania my bitch

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby slowshooter » Tue Nov 05, 2013 1:59 am

possumfoot wrote:
slowshooter wrote:How about asking if Napoleon would have been born if there were three more rings around Saturn? That's about as relevant.



how so?? if according to BDD2 the civil war started because of slavery then why would it be an irrelevent question..


So you are saying 4 rings? :lol3:
All this for a bowl of borscht.
User avatar
slowshooter
hunter
 
Posts: 9011
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:44 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby possumfoot » Tue Nov 05, 2013 2:27 am

slowshooter wrote:
possumfoot wrote:
slowshooter wrote:How about asking if Napoleon would have been born if there were three more rings around Saturn? That's about as relevant.



how so?? if according to BDD2 the civil war started because of slavery then why would it be an irrelevent question..


So you are saying 4 rings? :lol3:



how many rings does saturn actaully have?? :lol3:
WTN10 wrote:He was funny like a Pomeranian getting kicked over a fence.


pgquackstacker wrote:I actually started bringing a gun with me on dates, so I bring the girl's father out to my car and tell him if he tries to cock-block me I'll kill him.
User avatar
possumfoot
hunter
 
Posts: 5770
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2005 5:13 pm
Location: making sesbania my bitch

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby blackduckdog2 » Tue Nov 05, 2013 7:18 am

I think there'd have been major strains in a north south relationship but no, I don't think it would have come to war. That's a hypothetical and I could be wrong, but even so, as to the war we DID fight, I believe that the issue of slavery informed every major decision made during that time frame.
Also, there's rings around Uranus :yes:
"We have met the enemy, and he is us."
Walt Kelly, via Slow's avatar. Look it up
User avatar
blackduckdog2
hunter
 
Posts: 6290
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:02 am

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby SpinnerMan » Tue Nov 05, 2013 7:39 am

assateague wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:So was the Articles of Confederation like the Soviet Union? Simple question because there is no doubt that there was no way to leave.



Correct me if I'm wrong, but when the Articles were abandoned, the STATES were the ones who got to say yea or nay to the new Constitution. Why didn't the proposal for a new constitution go to the congress, as it should have? How could states, something which you seem to feel are suborned to the federal government, get to give final approval rather than the duly constituted government?

Furthermore, the fact that the Articles of Confederation placed so much weight on the concept of a state as a sovereign nation, in a "confederation" with each other NOT forming an overarching central government (hence the very title of the document) leads me to believe that a state could leave any time they wanted. "Abiding by" and "being a permanent party to, never allowed to leave" are two amazingly different things.

Just to be clear- you believe that the states VOLUNTARILY entered the union, and now cannot leave?

You are avoiding the question, intentionally.

You claim the Constitution is like the Soviet Union if it is a perpetual contract. You are married, that is a perpetual contract. I hope you think marriage is not like the Soviet Union, but maybe you are praying for the end of time :smile: The Articles of Confederation was clearly a perpetual contract as written and agreed to. So it must have been like the Soviet Union, just like marriage. Granted just like marriage, some people swear until death do them part and change their mind a week later.

You misread. Not in Congress, but in a congress of the states, which is exactly what they did.
Article XIII. Every State shall abide by the determinations of the united states, in congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this confederation shall be inviolably observed by every state, and the union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them, unless such alteration be agreed to in a congress of the united states, and be afterwards con-firmed by the legislatures of every state.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16293
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby assateague » Tue Nov 05, 2013 9:30 am

SpinnerMan wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:So was the Articles of Confederation like the Soviet Union? Simple question because there is no doubt that there was no way to leave.




You are avoiding the question, intentionally.

You claim the Constitution is like the Soviet Union if it is a perpetual contract. You are married, that is a perpetual contract. I hope you think marriage is not like the Soviet Union, but maybe you are praying for the end of time :smile: The Articles of Confederation was clearly a perpetual contract as written and agreed to. So it must have been like the Soviet Union, just like marriage. Granted just like marriage, some people swear until death do them part and change their mind a week later.

You misread. Not in Congress, but in a congress of the states, which is exactly what they did.
Article XIII. Every State shall abide by the determinations of the united states, in congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this confederation shall be inviolably observed by every state, and the union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them, unless such alteration be agreed to in a congress of the united states, and be afterwards con-firmed by the legislatures of every state.



I'm not avoiding anything. You assume that the Articles prohibited secession, but there's really nothing that says that. "The union shall be perpetual" does not mean you cannot leave, it simply means that the Articles don't expire in 7 years, such as an indentured servitude, or something. (I'm assuming that the "perpetual" phrase is what you're talking about, not the other stuff in your quote)

And what you state as "proof" that I am wrong regarding the ratification of the Constitution, your quote actually explains it quite well:

unless such alteration be agreed to in a congress of the united states, and be afterwards con-firmed by the legislatures of every state.


It doesn't say "we'll kick this over to the states, and let them decide". It says "such alteration be agreed to by a congress of the untied states" (the part you bolded), and AFTERWARDS confirmed by the state legislatures. Please explain to me how the Constitution followed this path. There most assuredly was a Congress in the US under the Articles of Confederation. So why didn't THEY draft the Constitution, vote on it, and then send it to the states? We both know that is not what happened.


SpinnerMan wrote:You claim the Constitution is like the Soviet Union if it is a perpetual contract. You are married, that is a perpetual contract.


I wasn't aware that if my wife decided to divorce me, that I was allowed to hunt her down and threaten to bring her back into the marriage at gunpoint. But that seems to be what you are advocating here. How can Virginia "divorce" the United States? I believe they simply vote to secede. You believe that they cannot, ever.

Listen, it's quite simple- if a party to an agreement cannot leave, under threat of death, then that is not "free". If you believe that a state cannot secede, this is EXACTLY what you propose this country is founded on- not a free association of states, but a threat of war if you try and get out.

So please, tell me what point of yours I am avoiding, and I'll answer it again. But here's one for you:

Do you believe this country was founded on a free association of states, or on a threat of violence between the federal government and the states?
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby possumfoot » Tue Nov 05, 2013 10:46 am

blackduckdog2 wrote:I think there'd have been major strains in a north south relationship but no, I don't think it would have come to war. That's a hypothetical and I could be wrong, but even so, as to the war we DID fight, I believe that the issue of slavery informed every major decision made during that time frame.
Also, there's rings around Uranus :yes:



thank you.. but that shows how ignorant of that part of history you are.. the war was over money.. in this case cotton as it was THE commodity.. the south had it, the north wanted it along with several other countrys.. the north could not, or would not pay fair market value, but through numbers (votes) they were able to convince the government to practicly force the south to sell the the north.. it was redistribution of wealth.. the south was comparitivly wealthy, while the north , not so much.. (in general)
more money in the north, more jobs, ect, means lowerd poverty, and higher employment.. the people who would gain (theoreticly) would vote for those that brought them this turn of events.. and they did not care that the southern people were getting the shaft because the people of the south could never hope to decide anything on a the national stage with votes as they were FAR out numbered..
WTN10 wrote:He was funny like a Pomeranian getting kicked over a fence.


pgquackstacker wrote:I actually started bringing a gun with me on dates, so I bring the girl's father out to my car and tell him if he tries to cock-block me I'll kill him.
User avatar
possumfoot
hunter
 
Posts: 5770
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2005 5:13 pm
Location: making sesbania my bitch

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby SpinnerMan » Tue Nov 05, 2013 12:13 pm

stabbing in the dark wrote:You assume that the Articles prohibited secession, but there's really nothing that says that. "The union shall be perpetual" does not mean you cannot leave, it simply means that the Articles don't expire in 7 years, such as an indentured servitude, or something. (I'm assuming that the "perpetual" phrase is what you're talking about, not the other stuff in your quote)

Nothing says the union is perpetual other than it is formally called the "Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of Newhampshire, Massachusetts-bay, Rhodeisland and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia." :fingerhead:

Whereas the Delegates of the United States of America in Congress assembled did on the fifteenth day of November in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy seven, and in the Second Year of the Independence of America agree to certain articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of Newhampshire, Massachusetts-bay, Rhodeisland and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia in the Words following, viz. “Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of Newhampshire, Massachusetts-bay, Rhodeisland and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia.

Yeah, that just means that everybody can leave whenever they please from this perpetual union being created :rolleyes:

Article III. The said states hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defence, the security of their Liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretence whatever.
Unless they decide to not do so, then it's not binding at all. Maybe I help and maybe I just say adios.

Article IV. The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different states in this union
and perpetuate only means as long as they feel like it. No set date, a week, a month, you know, whatever they feel like.

And that the articles thereof shall be inviolably observed by the states we respectively represent, and that the union shall be perpetual.
Unless of course, you wish to violate them and leave this temporary perpetual union.

If they meant indefinite, they were quite smart enough to use the word indefinite. Indefinite is NOT a synonym for perpetual.

assateague wrote:
unless such alteration be agreed to in a congress of the united states, and be afterwards con-firmed by the legislatures of every state.


It doesn't say "we'll kick this over to the states, and let them decide". It says "such alteration be agreed to by a congress of the untied states" (the part you bolded), and AFTERWARDS confirmed by the state legislatures. Please explain to me how the Constitution followed this path. There most assuredly was a Congress in the US under the Articles of Confederation. So why didn't THEY draft the Constitution, vote on it, and then send it to the states? We both know that is not what happened.

The Constitutional Convention was a congress of the united states and not the Congress of the United States. It is a description and not a title. This congress drafted the Constitution and it was then ratified by the state legislatures in order to make it the new legal charter of the nation. They were not a bunch of law breakers. They were following their existing charter to replace it with a new and improved charter. THEY did. They being the states through their delegations to the convention.

assateague wrote:I wasn't aware that if my wife decided to divorce me, that I was allowed to hunt her down and threaten to bring her back into the marriage at gunpoint.
If she claims the marriage is over and starts shooting at you because you won't leave the tree fort on what she claims as her property, you get to defend yourself, do you not? :huh:

But you are purposeful distracting from the argument that if the contract is perpetual it is like the Soviet Union. You agreed to just such a contract and swore and oath to God to abide by that. Perpetual unions are quite common. You voluntarily entered into one yourself, so I assume you didn't think it was a horrible thing, but maybe you did. I hope not.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16293
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby assateague » Tue Nov 05, 2013 12:16 pm

SpinnerMan wrote:But you are purposeful distracting from the argument that if the contract is perpetual it is like the Soviet Union. You agreed to just such a contract and swore and oath to God to abide by that. Perpetual unions are quite common. You voluntarily entered into one yourself, so I assume you didn't think it was a horrible thing, but maybe you did. I hope not.





assateague wrote:Do you believe this country was founded on a free association of states, or on a threat of violence between the federal government and the states?
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby blackduckdog2 » Tue Nov 05, 2013 12:18 pm

possumfoot wrote:
blackduckdog2 wrote:I think there'd have been major strains in a north south relationship but no, I don't think it would have come to war. That's a hypothetical and I could be wrong, but even so, as to the war we DID fight, I believe that the issue of slavery informed every major decision made during that time frame.
Also, there's rings around Uranus :yes:



thank you.. but that shows how ignorant of that part of history you are.. the war was over money.. in this case cotton as it was THE commodity.. the south had it, the north wanted it along with several other countrys.. the north could not, or would not pay fair market value, but through numbers (votes) they were able to convince the government to practicly force the south to sell the the north.. it was redistribution of wealth.. the south was comparitivly wealthy, while the north , not so much.. (in general)
more money in the north, more jobs, ect, means lowerd poverty, and higher employment.. the people who would gain (theoreticly) would vote for those that brought them this turn of events.. and they did not care that the southern people were getting the shaft because the people of the south could never hope to decide anything on a the national stage with votes as they were FAR out numbered..

Like I said before…………I agree with everything you've said here (it's hardly original; I agreed with it the last time you said it too) except your silly denial of the role slavery played in the conflict. I'm done with this for now. Nice chatting with you
"We have met the enemy, and he is us."
Walt Kelly, via Slow's avatar. Look it up
User avatar
blackduckdog2
hunter
 
Posts: 6290
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:02 am

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby SpinnerMan » Tue Nov 05, 2013 12:25 pm

assateague wrote:Do you believe this country was founded on a free association of states, or on a threat of violence between the federal government and the states?

Neither. A union is not a free association. It is not a club. It is a legally binding contract that they freely entered into. Breaking a legally binding contract has consequences and are enforced by the threat of government violence if you refuse to comply.

Free association would be you and me duck hunting. Either of us choose to end our association. There is nothing anyone can do about it.

You and me enter into a contract is not a free association. It is a legally binding association. If I violate that, you may choose to sue me in court. And if I choose not to honor my legal obligations, government men with guns will sooner or later show up and force me to do so. If I choose to fight them, well, it's going to go just as well as it did for the South.

The Constitution is not a free association. It is a legally binding contract created entered into by the legal representative of the People within each state. There is always an implied threat of violence if you choose to break a legally binding contract.

So no it was not in any way a free association. It was entered into freely, which is quite different.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16293
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby assateague » Tue Nov 05, 2013 12:35 pm

You do realize, of course, that you stating unequivocally that the Constitution is a contract runs directly contrary to more than a few theories of our government. The question has NEVER been settled (well, except in your mind, apparently), nor have I ever heard it called a legal contract. A SOCIAL contract, yes. A treaty, yes. An agreement, yes. But never a LEGAL contract.

How is it possible that there is a contract between the government and the individual states, when the states were the ones who created that government? You claim that the Constitution is a legal contract- how? Between who? The Constitution is an agreement between 13 states to create a federal government, and to define the parameters of that government. Period. It is not binding them to never be able to leave. It is not binding them to subservience to the very thing they created. Frankly, that's an incredibly stupid point of view.

It is a far more applicable analogy to use NATO, or the EU. But you didn't want to do that, because you know that signatories to either of those may leave if they want. Matter of fact, signatories to any such thing may leave if they want.

How do you possibly see the Constitution as a legal contract which forbids any state from leaving? What precedent ANYWHERE is there for such a thing?
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby SpinnerMan » Tue Nov 05, 2013 1:08 pm

assateague wrote:How is it possible that there is a contract between the government and the individual states, when the states were the ones who created that government? You claim that the Constitution is a legal contract- how? Between who?
Because it is a contract between the states :thumbsup: That's who? How, same as any when any other group bind themselves together. When you create a business by legally join with partners, the contract is not between you and the business, but you and the partners. However, you now have lost your autonomy within the business and can't wash your hands of the legal responsibilities of the business. An individual cannot simply leave the business under his terms, but must do so under the terms of the business that they created. Same thing here.

assateague wrote:The Constitution is an agreement between 13 states to create a federal government, and to define the parameters of that government. Period.
And we are trying to understand the terms of that agreement. Period.

The Articles of Confederation clearly say they are perpetual.

The article I quoted from the Yale law professor makes factual assertions that the perpetuity of this agreement was debated in New York and sounds like it was pretty well settled. If his version of the facts is correct, it seems pretty clear. I cannot be certain that they are, but given the other facts, they seem much more likely than not to be true.

assateague wrote:It is a far more applicable analogy to use NATO, or the EU. But you didn't want to do that, because you know that signatories to either of those may leave if they want. Matter of fact, signatories to any such thing may leave if they want.
Can they? I have no idea what the terms of those agreements are. Maybe you do know, but I do not. Just because some agreements include the right to walk without consequences and others do not is truly irrelevant to the details of this particular agreement.

assateague wrote:How do you possibly see the Constitution as a legal contract which forbids any state from leaving? What precedent ANYWHERE is there for such a thing?
The Articles of Confederation clearly say perpetual. A marriage is eternal as well. How many countries exist where a part of that country can simply choose to leave? It seems quite the norm.

Your assertion that they must be able to leave any time they damn well please is not a given. That kind of agreement doesn't seem to be a way to produce a stable nation and it doesn't seem to be consistent with the Articles of Confederation or the debate when New York voted to ratify the Constitution.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16293
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby assateague » Tue Nov 05, 2013 1:10 pm

Simple question- in your opinion, how does a state get to leave the union if they have had enough?
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby assateague » Tue Nov 05, 2013 1:12 pm

SpinnerMan wrote:An individual cannot simply leave the business under his terms, but must do so under the terms of the business that they created. Same thing here.


So you're saying that a state may leave the union. Or that there are partnerships where a member may never leave, lest they be hunted down and brought back into it, or killed. Which one?
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby SpinnerMan » Tue Nov 05, 2013 2:45 pm

assateague wrote:Simple question- in your opinion, how does a state get to leave the union if they have had enough?

That's what we have been debating. It seems like they must ask the permission of the other states. They have to negotiate the terms. What fraction of the debt and assets is theirs? What is the fate of community property within the state?

If you are in a business and have had enough, how do you get out?

If you are in a marriage and have had enough, how do you get out?

There are a lot of complicated issues and it seems unreasonable that unilateral action is how you leave any complex agreement. They all involve negotiations with your partners. In my opinion that seems to be how a state gets out and not simply unilateral action on their part. That seems to be consistent with the understanding at the time of ratification.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16293
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby assateague » Tue Nov 05, 2013 3:48 pm

Based on what? And to be clear, you are now saying that a state CAN secede?
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby ScaupHunter » Tue Nov 05, 2013 3:53 pm

SpinnerMan wrote:
assateague wrote:Simple question- in your opinion, how does a state get to leave the union if they have had enough?

That's what we have been debating. It seems like they must ask the permission of the other states. They have to negotiate the terms. What fraction of the debt and assets is theirs? What is the fate of community property within the state?

If you are in a business and have had enough, how do you get out?

If you are in a marriage and have had enough, how do you get out?

There are a lot of complicated issues and it seems unreasonable that unilateral action is how you leave any complex agreement. They all involve negotiations with your partners. In my opinion that seems to be how a state gets out and not simply unilateral action on their part. That seems to be consistent with the understanding at the time of ratification.



You did just say they can leave Spinner. You also miss the point that anyone can pick up and just walk away from a marriage or business. So long as they are willing to give up all benefits of the relationship, or business they can simply walk away and refuse to participate. The contract becomes null and void by default. The other parties have n way to change the decision or impact the contracted party who no longer participates or recieves benefit.
Bella's
Decoy Setting Pro Staff
Boat Operator Pro Staff
Duck Shooting Pro Staff
Warm Towel Pro Staff
Snack Supply Pro Staff

He works for free! Who's the B now?
User avatar
ScaupHunter
hunter
 
Posts: 6702
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby SpinnerMan » Tue Nov 05, 2013 4:10 pm

ScaupHunter wrote:You also miss the point that anyone can pick up and just walk away from a marriage or business.

No they cannot. There are legal hoops that must be jumped through. The process is not over when you decide you want to leave.

ScaupHunter wrote:So long as they are willing to give up all benefits of the relationship, or business they can simply walk away and refuse to participate.
What if there are debts? What if they have obligations? They can't just leave, can they?

The Articles of Confederation were perpetual. Where they replaced by something that was also perpetual? It seems like they were. It is certainly possible that they were. You guys are claiming that it is impossible that they were any way but the way you believe they are. I'm open to the fact that I could be wrong. You guys are not, but your logic to try to pretend like it is the only option is very poor.

Is this an accurate representation of events? You guys pretend like its not even possible, but it clearly is.

http://www.law.yale.edu/news/1850.htm
Alexander Hamilton read aloud a letter at the Poughkeepsie convention that he had received from James Madison stating that "the Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever." Hamilton and John Jay then added their own words, which the New York press promptly reprinted: "a reservation of a right to withdraw" was "inconsistent with the Constitution, and was no ratification."


http://www.constitution.org/jm/17880720_hamilton.htm
To Alexander Hamilton

[July 20, 1788]

N. York Sunday Evening

Yours of yesterday is this instant come to hand & I have but a few minutes to answer it. I am sorry that your situation obliges you to listen to propositions of the nature you describe. My opinion is that a reservation of a right to withdraw if amendments be not decided on under the form of the Constitution within a certain time, is a conditional ratification, that it does not make N. York a member of the New Union, and consequently that she could not be received on that plan. Compacts must be reciprocal, this principle would not in such a case be preserved. The Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever. It has been so adopted by the other States. An adoption for a limited time would be as defective as an adoption of some of the articles only. In short any condition whatever must viciate the ratification. What the New Congress by virtue of the power to admit new States, may be able & disposed to do in such case, I do not enquire as I suppose that is not the material point at present. I have not a moment to add more than my fervent wishes for your success & happiness.

This idea of reserving right to withdraw was started at Richmd. & considered as a conditional ratification which was itself considered as worse than a rejection.

:huh: :huh: :huh: :huh: :huh: :huh: :huh: :huh: :huh: :huh:
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16293
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby clampdaddy » Tue Nov 05, 2013 5:51 pm

User avatar
clampdaddy
hunter
 
Posts: 3650
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Where spoonies go to die

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby Indaswamp » Tue Nov 05, 2013 5:58 pm

SpinnerMan wrote:
assateague wrote:Simple question- in your opinion, how does a state get to leave the union if they have had enough?

That's what we have been debating. It seems like they must ask the permission of the other states. They have to negotiate the terms. What fraction of the debt and assets is theirs? What is the fate of community property within the state?

If you are in a business and have had enough, how do you get out?

If you are in a marriage and have had enough, how do you get out?


There are a lot of complicated issues and it seems unreasonable that unilateral action is how you leave any complex agreement. They all involve negotiations with your partners. In my opinion that seems to be how a state gets out and not simply unilateral action on their part. That seems to be consistent with the understanding at the time of ratification.

...lawyers. Lots and lots of lawyers...... :tongue:
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Never fart in your waders, it'll give you WORTS.
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 58100
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby ScaupHunter » Tue Nov 05, 2013 6:31 pm

SpinnerMan wrote:
ScaupHunter wrote:You also miss the point that anyone can pick up and just walk away from a marriage or business.

No they cannot. There are legal hoops that must be jumped through. The process is not over when you decide you want to leave.

ScaupHunter wrote:So long as they are willing to give up all benefits of the relationship, or business they can simply walk away and refuse to participate.
What if there are debts? What if they have obligations? They can't just leave, can they?

The Articles of Confederation were perpetual. Where they replaced by something that was also perpetual? It seems like they were. It is certainly possible that they were. You guys are claiming that it is impossible that they were any way but the way you believe they are. I'm open to the fact that I could be wrong. You guys are not, but your logic to try to pretend like it is the only option is very poor.

Is this an accurate representation of events? You guys pretend like its not even possible, but it clearly is.

http://www.law.yale.edu/news/1850.htm
Alexander Hamilton read aloud a letter at the Poughkeepsie convention that he had received from James Madison stating that "the Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever." Hamilton and John Jay then added their own words, which the New York press promptly reprinted: "a reservation of a right to withdraw" was "inconsistent with the Constitution, and was no ratification."


http://www.constitution.org/jm/17880720_hamilton.htm
To Alexander Hamilton

[July 20, 1788]

N. York Sunday Evening

Yours of yesterday is this instant come to hand & I have but a few minutes to answer it. I am sorry that your situation obliges you to listen to propositions of the nature you describe. My opinion is that a reservation of a right to withdraw if amendments be not decided on under the form of the Constitution within a certain time, is a conditional ratification, that it does not make N. York a member of the New Union, and consequently that she could not be received on that plan. Compacts must be reciprocal, this principle would not in such a case be preserved. The Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever. It has been so adopted by the other States. An adoption for a limited time would be as defective as an adoption of some of the articles only. In short any condition whatever must viciate the ratification. What the New Congress by virtue of the power to admit new States, may be able & disposed to do in such case, I do not enquire as I suppose that is not the material point at present. I have not a moment to add more than my fervent wishes for your success & happiness.

This idea of reserving right to withdraw was started at Richmd. & considered as a conditional ratification which was itself considered as worse than a rejection.

:huh: :huh: :huh: :huh: :huh: :huh: :huh: :huh: :huh: :huh:



Reread my post Spinner. I know of more a few folks who just walked away and never looked back at marriages. They simply took the loss and moved on with life. If you walk away and never look back most folks will not go to the effort of finding you. After a few years they write you off. Plenty of people have simply walked away from contracts and never been called to account. We are a society with a ridiculous number of laws that are not enforced. I know of one guy who has been married 4 times and never divorced. He is not what you would consider a polygamist, yet he is one by simple default after walking away and then marrying someone else without a divorce first. The government doesn't bother checking up on things and he gets away with it. Trying to argue that laws are laws and have to be followed simply ignores the reality that we only enforce the ones we find convenient and ignore the rest until someone decides to punish someone for something they don't like.
Bella's
Decoy Setting Pro Staff
Boat Operator Pro Staff
Duck Shooting Pro Staff
Warm Towel Pro Staff
Snack Supply Pro Staff

He works for free! Who's the B now?
User avatar
ScaupHunter
hunter
 
Posts: 6702
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am

PreviousNext

Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests