|
Korean Job Discussion Forums "The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994
|
Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2007 2:37 pm Post subject: Is Ron Paul just Jefferson Davis in Disguise? |
|
|
Online RP is sometimes referred to as a Jeffersonian Libertarian. This is reasonable because he is a philosophical heir to Jefferson, one of the loonier Founding Fathers. Ron Paul is on record as being for States Rights. This of course has a long and distinguished historical ancestry and can be traced to Jefferson.
(from Wikipedia)
"The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions (or Resolves) were important political statements in favor of states' rights written secretly by Vice President Thomas Jefferson and James Madison (then in retirement) in 1798...The resolutions declared that the Constitution was a "compact." That is, it was an agreement among the states. The federal government had no right to exercise powers not specifically delegated to it; should the federal government assume such powers, its acts under them would be void. Thus it was the right of the states to decide as to the constitutionality of such laws passed by Congress...Their long-term importance lies not in their attack on the Sedition law, but rather in their strong statements of states' rights theory, which led to rather different concepts of nullification and interposition. "
A few decades later...
" The Nullification Crisis was a sectional crisis during the presidency of Andrew Jackson that arose when the state of South Carolina attempted to nullify a federal law passed by the United States Congress. South Carolina�s attempt was based on a constitutional theory articulated by South Carolina�s John C. Calhoun. He believed that any state could unilaterally, or in cooperation with other states, refuse to comply with any federal law which a convention selected by the people of the state ruled was unconstitutional. The theoretical issue related to the very nature of the United States Constitution."
And we all know what this idea led to in December 1860: "South Carolina was the first state to secede from the Union on December 20, 1860. On April 12, 1861, Confederate batteries began shelling Fort Sumter and the American Civil War began."
So, since he seems to favor pre-20th Century ideas, I think it's fair to ask just how far RP takes this idea of States Rights. We know he thinks Lincoln was wrong to defend the Union with force. Is Ron Paul just a latter-day reincarnation of Jefferson Davis? Is Ron Paul trying to 'repeal' the Civil War (as well as the 20th Century?) |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
igotthisguitar

Joined: 08 Apr 2003 Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
jinju
Joined: 22 Jan 2006
|
Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2007 7:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If Ron Paul was president in Lincoln's time he would have allowed slavery to go on. The man is scum. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
igotthisguitar

Joined: 08 Apr 2003 Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2007 8:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
jinju wrote: |
If Ron Paul was president in Lincoln's time he would have allowed slavery to go on. The man is scum. |
Supporter of slavery Ju-Joo? Really?
Wow, that sounds terrible.
The man is scum?
Plz explain. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994
|
Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2007 2:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
The president takes an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. By the time Lincoln took office, a number of states were in armed rebellion against the government. Within a month, some of the rebels fired on gov't property. RP says Lincoln was wrong to defend the country against armed aggression by rebels.
RP says he is a Constitutionalist but openly admits he doesn't think that goes as far as actually defending Constitution.
I agree. RP is scum. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005 Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
At the time of the Civil War, and up to that point, it was generally accepted that the States had, and were supposed to have, more power than the Federal Government.
States were supposed to have the power to nullify bad Federal legislation. This is also a right of juries: the right to nullify bad legislation passed at ANY level of government.
Juries used this power to refuse to enforce slavery laws.
States used this power to refuse to return runaway slaves as required by Federal law.
Slavery was on its way out and would have been abolished without Lincoln or the Civil War, and would have been abolished in the South had they succeeded.
The civil war was about free trade and States' rights vs. the Federal Gov't.
Finally, it must be remembered, that Lincoln actually didn't free any slaves. His famous "proclamation" only applied to those areas in active rebellion against the remaining US territory. Slaves that were owned in areas that remained loyal to the Union, and these are listed county by county in his proclamation, were not freed. Slave owners in these areas were allowed to KEEP their slaves.
Since the areas "in rebellion" were not under Federal jurisdiction, no slaves were actually freed by Lincoln.
But, since most people do not actually care about the truth. You can all continue to believe the myths. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003 Location: I walk along the avenue
|
Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2007 9:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: |
Since the areas "in rebellion" were not under Federal jurisdiction, no slaves were actually freed by Lincoln.
|
Didn't some of those areas come under federal jusrisdiction as the Union army advanced into them, while Lincoln was still president?
Quote: |
Slavery was on its way out and would have been abolished without Lincoln or the Civil War, and would have been abolished in the South had they succeeded.
|
I know this subject has been debated back and forth for a long time, but can you provide a link making the case that the southern states had plans to abolish slavery? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005 Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2007 9:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
As to the question of repealing the 20th Century, what a good idea.
Up until the time of Adam Smith's famous "Wealth of Nations" and the US Declaration of Independence, and the events and writings just prior, the world had suffered through milennia of rule by kings, dictators, mercantile interests, and various forms of dictatorship and group control.
The ideas of liberty were rarely heard, and routinely suppressed. There were some minor successes such as the Magna Carta in England, but these were exceptionally rare.
The ideas of liberty and individual rights are the only new political and economic ideas in existance.
The 20th Century saw a reversal. The power of the State, the creation of big, evil central governments, ruling kleptocrats, dictatorships in various forms came back. Some came roaring in as German "Yataboys" followed the national socialists. Others came creeping in as the American "Yataboys" followed the creeping fascists from FDR through Nixon to Bush and Clinton. The 20th Century saw a reversal of the new ideas of liberty and a return to the dominance of group power. New forms of propaganda were used to disguise the old systems, but they were, in fact, the same old evil fascist kings, dictators and scum of old.
Hopefully, now, as has started to be the case on the Internet and with the creation of over 1000 meetup groups, people have begun to wake up. They have begun to realize that this return to the evil ideas of old, even disguised as socialism, communism, fascism, or led by Hillary Clinton or George Bush today, or FDR or Nixon decades ago, represents a throwback to the ideas of old, that people should be ruled and not free.
With Ron Paul, we have a chance to move foreward once again. To begin to advance into the future. The ideas of peace, prosperity, individual liberty and freedom are the only new ideas around. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994
|
Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2007 1:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: |
1. At the time of the Civil War, and up to that point, it was generally accepted that the States had, and were supposed to have, more power than the Federal Government.
2. States were supposed to have the power to nullify bad Federal legislation. This is also a right of juries: the right to nullify bad legislation passed at ANY level of government.
|
1. No.
2. No.
You have seriously misread (assuming you have read anything at all not written by conspiracy theorists) early American history. A simple example: The Constitutional Convention was called because the Confederacy government was too weak. The whole point of constructing a new government was to strengthen the central government.
Nullification was never a part of the constitutional framework. John Marshall as Chief Justice brought the Court to exercise that power, but it is not mentioned in the Constitution.
From Wikipedia: "The longest serving Chief Justice in Supreme Court history, Marshall dominated the Court for over three decades and played a significant role in the development of the American legal system. Most notably, he established that the courts are entitled to exercise judicial review, the power to strike down laws that violate the Constitution. Thus, Marshall has been credited with cementing the position of the judiciary as an independent and influential branch of government. Furthermore, Marshall made several important decisions relating to Federalism, shaping the balance of power between the federal government and the states during the early years of the republic. In particular, he repeatedly confirmed the supremacy of federal law over state law, and supported an expansive reading of the enumerated powers."
You should also read up on the Nullification Crisis during the Jackson Administration. It wouldn't hurt you to check out Daniel Webster's Second Reply to Hayne, where he makes his most famous defense of Union: "Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable!". (Commonly believed to be the greatest speech ever delivered in the Senate.) |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994
|
Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2007 1:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: |
The 20th Century saw a reversal. |
It's clear you've been brainwashed by the Radical Right. The history of the 20th Century is the history of the Center defending itself successfully against challenges by the Radical Right (Fascism) and then the Radical Left (Communism). |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2007 3:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
Quote: |
1. At the time of the Civil War, and up to that point, it was generally accepted that the States had, and were supposed to have, more power than the Federal Government.
2. States were supposed to have the power to nullify bad Federal legislation. This is also a right of juries: the right to nullify bad legislation passed at ANY level of government.
|
1. No.
2. No.
You have seriously misread (assuming you have read anything at all not written by conspiracy theorists) early American history. A simple example: The Constitutional Convention was called because the Confederacy government was too weak. The whole point of constructing a new government was to strengthen the central government.
Nullification was never a part of the constitutional framework. John Marshall as Chief Justice brought the Court to exercise that power, but it is not mentioned in the Constitution.
From Wikipedia: "The longest serving Chief Justice in Supreme Court history, Marshall dominated the Court for over three decades and played a significant role in the development of the American legal system. Most notably, he established that the courts are entitled to exercise judicial review, the power to strike down laws that violate the Constitution. Thus, Marshall has been credited with cementing the position of the judiciary as an independent and influential branch of government. Furthermore, Marshall made several important decisions relating to Federalism, shaping the balance of power between the federal government and the states during the early years of the republic. In particular, he repeatedly confirmed the supremacy of federal law over state law, and supported an expansive reading of the enumerated powers."
You should also read up on the Nullification Crisis during the Jackson Administration. It wouldn't hurt you to check out Daniel Webster's Second Reply to Hayne, where he makes his most famous defense of Union: "Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable!". (Commonly believed to be the greatest speech ever delivered in the Senate.) |
That's largely true, except the following may be misleading:
Quote: |
[Marshall] repeatedly confirmed the supremacy of federal law over state law |
The Federal law is not superior to State law even now, except in matters in which Federal jurisdiction truly overlaps State jurisdiction. The biggest gaps (for the State's right advocate) are the Commerce Clause and the Due Process Clause, which allow broad government instrusion/intervention into issues that would otherwise be matters for the State.
The Commerce Clause has allowed the Feds to dictate drug policy, and the Due Process clause has allowed the Feds to dictate school board policy, Brown v. Board, Meredith v. Jefferson County, and abortion policy, Roe v. Wade.
But in general, the Feds are not allowed to interdict into State law. Even when there is a proceeding based on diversity of citizenship, i.e. a court case between a Massachusetts Plaintiff and a California Defendant, a Federal court will apply the local state law (the law of the jurisdiction in which the event took place/whatever law the Defendant has submitted to) even when as a Federal district hears the case. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994
|
Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2007 3:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: |
Quote:
[Marshall] repeatedly confirmed the supremacy of federal law over state law
The Federal law is not superior to State law even now |
The Wiki article could have been worded better. State laws follow State constitutions and State constitutions must follow the Federal constitution, but you are right. Federal jurisdiction is restricted to certain areas. The federal principle holds that there be a division of power between States and the Federal government. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2007 4:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
Quote: |
Quote:
[Marshall] repeatedly confirmed the supremacy of federal law over state law
The Federal law is not superior to State law even now |
The Wiki article could have been worded better. State laws follow State constitutions and State constitutions must follow the Federal constitution, but you are right. Federal jurisdiction is restricted to certain areas. The federal principle holds that there be a division of power between States and the Federal government. |
I bring it up partly because I think such Federalism is a great thing. The Feds are important for military unity and unity among the states when presenting ourselves to foreign powers, and for one more over-arching reason: the Feds are there as arbiters between state authority and individual citizens. This kind of layered power is unique and yet essential. The Federal courts have no interest in seeing any individual American citizen's rights determined by, say, Kentucky. The Federal courts will intervene, and have intervened as recently as the Meredith v. Jefferson County decision.
I think when Ron Paul calls himself a strict constructionist, we really need to cut through that rhetoric and ask what he means. Ron Paul has said he opposes Lincoln's Civil War. He does not think that the lawfulness or unlawfulness of slavery should have been determined by the Federal system. Why? Does Ron Paul support slavery?
I don't think he does. Such a position would be absurd. But he does oppose one direct outcome of the American Civil War: Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, also known as the Due Process Clause.
Quote: |
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law |
"Hold on, Kuros," Ron Paul's supporters may say, "Ron Paul is a libertarian and a strict constructionist, this is exactly the sort of thing he wants to defend!"
Not so, dear friends, not so. The Due Process Clause has allowed the Federal Government to intervene in the South's plans for segregation in Brown v. Board of Education (following its misstep in Plessy v. Ferguson), but most notably allowed it jurisdiction over Texas' abortion laws in Roe v. Wade.
Ron Paul is opposed to the decision in Roe v. Wade allowing women in America the full and unconditioned Constitutional right to abort children in the first trimester. You need not look farther than this speech for proof.
Indeed, Ron Paul is now advocating H.R.300, which is nothing more than a move to remove the power of the above Due Process Clause (impossible anyway, since the Courts would simply deem the legislation unconstitutional).
I refer you all now to something of which I am positive Ya-Ta Boy is quite aware: the Southern Strategy. I allege Ron Paul's pledge for 'strict constructionism' is nothing but a sham. Furthermore, his wrapping himself up in the cause of libertarianism is disingenuous. Ron Paul speaks all too often about the need for Americans to return to the ideals of the Founding Fathers, i.e., the pre-Civil War Constitution, in other words, the Constitution as it was before the insertion of the 14th Amendment and its Due Process Clause. It is Ron Paul's renewed Southern Strategy, and the brilliance of it is that he can disguise it by supporting an anti-interventionist foreign policy that is palatable to liberals, too.
So I ask you, Ya-Ta Boy, to kindly stop referring to Ron Paul as a Libertarian. As I have tried show, he is nothing of the sort. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994
|
Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2007 11:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: |
So I ask you, Ya-Ta Boy, to kindly stop referring to Ron Paul as a Libertarian. As I have tried show, he is nothing of the sort.
|
Good post, Kuros. So far I've been taking RP at his word. Perhaps I shouldn't have been so 'liberal'-minded. In my defence, I have called him a reactionary. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994
|
Posted: Fri Oct 26, 2007 12:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: |
can you provide a link making the case that the southern states had plans to abolish slavery?
|
One of the (many) ironies of the Civil War was that in the closing months of the fighting Jefferson Davis mentioned (I don't know how seriously it was considered) freeing slaves who would take up arms.
The real failure in leadership was among the Southern politicians in the decades before the War. They simply would not tolerate any discussion of any kind that would lead to a change in the status quo. There were a lot of ideas floating around about emancipation because many saw that slavery was an obsolete (as well as immoral) economic system.
I do believe if slavery hadn't been the particular issue, another one would have taken its place. The concept of States Rights needed to be settled once and for all. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|