Ron Paul will have at least 9 deligates at the convention

[Stray Pooch]

btw, Ami.  Thanks for the link to the "Amahl and the Night Visitors" torrent.    It took my son almost two days to download the entire thing but I now have a very nice recording (not to mention a whole lot of other good stuff).  I haven't heard the full opera in years.  Thanks!

[Amianthus]

Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation.

Forgive me, but I was under the impression that the union formed under the Articles of Confederation was dissolved with the signing of the Constitution.

Since Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation says that if every state legislature agrees to a change, then the Articles will be considered changed, and every state legislature adopted the new Constitution, then the articles should be considered "changed." And the new Constitution says nothing about a "perpetual union."

As a matter of fact, Virginia held out on the new Constitution until they were insured that it did not forbid them from seceding.

[Amianthus]

btw, Ami.  Thanks for the link to the "Amahl and the Night Visitors" torrent.

No prob. It's amazing what's available via torrent.

It took my son almost two days to download the entire thing

I'm not sure if that torrent was setup as separate files, though many are. If they are setup as separate files, most torrent software will allow you to just download the pieces you want, or setup one or more pieces as "high priority" so they will download first. I personally use uTorrent which allows both of these options, plus it has a very small memory footprint.

[Stray Pooch]

Forgive me, but I was under the impression that the union formed under the Articles of Confederation was dissolved with the signing of the Constitution.

Since Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation says that if every state legislature agrees to a change, then the Articles will be considered changed, and every state legislature adopted the new Constitution, then the articles should be considered "changed." And the new Constitution says nothing about a "perpetual union."

The Articles were changed.  The union was not.  The form of government was drastically modified, but the union was not dissolved.  It was, in the words of the Constitution, made "more perfect."  The Constitution does not mention the "perpetual union" because it already existed.  Unlike the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution does not formally name the union.  (Article 1 of the AofC states "The Stile of this Confederacy shall be 'The United States of America.'".)  It does, however, invoke the name of the United States of America because, again, it already existed.   

Nowhere in the Constitution does it mention dissolving the union.  Nowhere in the Constitution does it state that the perpetual nature of the union will be changed.  Nowhere in the Constitution is there a provision for seceding from the union.  One could argue that the tenth amendment gives states the right to secede implicitly, but that would run counter to the perpetual nature of the union.  Such a right does not exist. 

Our legal system is common law.  Under such a system, precedent is as important - or more important - than civil legislation.  Our early courts cited English case law as precedent, even though the U.S. rejected England.  That is because under the concept of common law, precedent establishes the basis for legal interpretation.  When a state enters into the union, it does not require a change to the Constitution.   The state is expected to come under the jurisdiction of the Constitution in it's form at the time of admittance.  All of the case law attached to it is immediately relevant to the new state.  The Articles of Confederation were a legal agreement entered unanimously by the colonies.  That union was not dissolved.  While the form of government was changed, the form of the union itself was not.  The Articles of Confederation, as far as they were not specifically superseded by the Constitution and subsequent case law, is still valid precedent.

As a matter of fact, Virginia held out on the new Constitution until they were insured that it did not forbid them from seceding.

That is an interesting statement.  It does not sound inconsistent with the Southern temperment.  I would be interested in reading about that.  What is your source?

[Stray Pooch]

I'm not sure if that torrent was setup as separate files, though many are. If they are setup as separate files, most torrent software will allow you to just download the pieces you want, or setup one or more pieces as "high priority" so they will download first. I personally use uTorrent which allows both of these options, plus it has a very small memory footprint.

I was wondering about that.  But my son didn't mind, as he just let it d/l in the background.  Turns out there was an awful lot of other good stuff in there as well.  I'm looking forward to digging into the Beverly Sills stuff.  Thanks again!

[Amianthus]

That is an interesting statement.  It does not sound inconsistent with the Southern temperment.  I would be interested in reading about that.  What is your source?

The State of Virginia's ratification document states it, it is also present in the documentation of their deliberations:

DO in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression,

http://www.usconstitution.net/rat_va.html

Interestingly enough, since in your claim Virginia could not secede, do you think that the creation of West Virginia is illegal?

but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State

US Constitution, Article IV, Section 3

After all, if Virginia could not secede, what authorized Congress to take a chunk of it and make a new state?

[Xavier_Onassis]

Obviously, the creation of West Virginia was unconstitutional. But being as the results of the Civil War proved that Virginia's seceding was also illegal, the way this was regarded is that only PART of Virginia seceded, and the other part remained loyal to the Union.

I suppose that there is a court case here, but I hardly think it's likely. Maybe there was a case long ago.

[Amianthus]

I suppose that there is a court case here, but I hardly think it's likely. Maybe there was a case long ago.

Yes, there was a court case. The Supreme Court failed to restore West Virginia to Virginia, essentially saying "what's done is done."

[Stray Pooch]

The State of Virginia's ratification document states it, it is also present in the documentation of their deliberations:

DO in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression,

That is interesting, but I am not sure that Virginia making this claim obligates the union - or any court thereof - to interpret it as law.  I would have to look more into the deliberations and see if I can find out anything about how those deliberations have been (or might be) interpreted by the courts.  Further, the wording states that the "people" retain the rights - not the individual states.  That IS consistent with the tenth amendment.  One could argue (and I do make this argument with respect to the second amendment, as well as the nonth and tenth) that a deliberate distinction exists in the Constitution between the Union, the several States, and the people.

Interestingly enough, since in your claim Virginia could not secede, do you think that the creation of West Virginia is illegal?

I have always wondered about that.  I agree that it seems WV is illegal (though in fairness we have to have SOMEPLACE where a decent man can still cohabitate with his sister    ).   I imagine there is a rational basis for it, but I would be interested in looking it over.  

To me the larger question has always been the legality of any legislative actions taken during the period between secession and reunification.  What are the rules for a quorum in the legislature and how were they dealt with when the South left?  If the rebellion was, in fact, illegal and the union was never severed, how could the Congress function?  If the secession nullified the need for the Southern presence for a quorum, then it would seem that implied the legitimacy of the Confederacy - or at least the secession.  

[Amianthus]

Further, the wording states that the "people" retain the rights - not the individual states.  That IS consistent with the tenth amendment.  One could argue (and I do make this argument with respect to the second amendment, as well as the nonth and tenth) that a deliberate distinction exists in the Constitution between the Union, the several States, and the people.

Except for 2 states, all the other states that seceded, including Virginia, had a public referendum. So, in most of the cases, the people rescinded the union, not the states.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Somehow, Missouri managed to GROW after joining the Union in 1821. The Platte Purchase, essentially all territory between the Missouri River and the W. border of Clay County extending northward to Iowa Territory was added after 1821.

Massachusetts shrank in 1821 when Maine was separated from it and admitted as a separate state.

[Amianthus]

To me the larger question has always been the legality of any legislative actions taken during the period between secession and reunification.  What are the rules for a quorum in the legislature and how were they dealt with when the South left?

The rules as written for both houses are that a quorum is assumed to be present unless someone requests a roll call. I just always assumed that everyone quietly agreed that a quorum was present and went on with business.

[Amianthus]

I agree that it seems WV is illegal (though in fairness we have to have SOMEPLACE where a decent man can still cohabitate with his sister    ).   I imagine there is a rational basis for it, but I would be interested in looking it over. 

That would be Maryland. It's not illegal to marry close relatives in Maryland, but it is illegal to do so in West Virginia...

[Amianthus]

Massachusetts shrank in 1821 when Maine was separated from it and admitted as a separate state.

Well, it was always "separated" from Massachusetts - their borders don't touch. Maps from the time depict it as "No. Massachusetts." IIRC, the claim that Massachusetts had on Maine was weak, since they didn't have any representation from those counties in the Massachusetts state government - they treated that region as a territory rather than part of the state. And territories are allowed to petition for statehood.

The new section added to Missouri was part of the "Missouri Territory" and not part of any other state, so there was no real question there...

[Universe Prince]

This is why I have no respect for libertarianism.  You are making semantic arguments, UP.

No, Pooch, I'm not. The Civil War was not a program to end slavery. You can call it a program, but that would be you making semantic arguments, not me.

Whether there was a government "program" is not the point - not at all.

Of course it wasn't the point. The point was that since there was this government "program" to end slavery someone opposing big government must oppose the ending of slavery. It was clever in a childish sort of way, but it's a bogus argument.

The FACT is that slavery COULD NOT have been ended by "the people" no matter how concerned SOME of them were.  It took the GOVERNMENT - by way of the Congress and the Courts - to abolish and then enforce the abolishment of slavery.

Hey, Pooch, before you get on some angrily righteous rant about the need for government (oops, too late) I'd like to point out that I never said either that the government was not needed to or should not have abolished slavery.

These conversations would be a lot easier if people like you and BT would stop assuming that I oppose any and all government, and any and all things done by government. I wouldn't have to be so sarcastic all the time, and you wouldn't have to spend the time typing out long pro-government rants.

The South wanted to continue with slavery so badly that they decided to break the Perpetual Union they agreed to in the Articles of Confederation.

I'm pretty sure that by 1860 we had moved on from the Articles of Confederation. And by 1860, there were a few more states involved than had been represented at the signing of the Articles of Confederation. So I'd have to say your argument there doesn't hold up.

It is all well and good - and correct - to say that the South wanted out of the Union because of what they correctly perceived as the Federal government overriding state's rights.  So what?  That hasn't got a thing to do with whether the government was required to assert and protect the rights of people unjustly oppressed.

Sigh. Hey, Mr. Obseravnt, no one argued that the government shouldn't protect the rights of the people. In point of fact, I have more than once in this forum argued that government should do exactly that.

You keep ridiculing the notion of using the power of government to protect people from the "big bad cruel world."

Uh, no, I don't. I don't at all. If I ridiculed anything it would be the notion that support for, say, the abolition of slavery means I should then also support and not criticize big government.

Well I've got news for you.  That's what a government is for.  It doesn't exist to build roads.  Private companies can do that.  It doesn't exist to educate children.  Families can do that.  It doesn't exist to make the world fair.  Nobody can do that.  It exists only to protect, as best as possible, the rights of individuals.

I have some news for you, Mr. Righteously Indignant. I have made that argument here in this forum many times. And usually I get criticized for it. And now, here you are, lecturing me about it. If I were less patient, this is the point where I'd tell you to -- ---- --------. But I won't say that.

There is no question that the Federal government is far too big and has far too much power.  There is no question that Lincoln and Roosevelt bear heavy responsibility for that.  There is no question that the founders did not intend the behemoth that sits astride the hills of Rome in DC.  But the libertarian response to that is to basically do away with the government and let the free market and personal choice rule the day.

Let's just snip this right here, cutting out a lot of really boring if passionate arguments about how libertarians would allow chaos, abuse, racism, rights violations and probably satan himself to run rampant. First of all, not all libertarians are anarchists. Second, there are lots of ideas within libertarianism about how to protect the rights of individuals, even in the absence of a government proper. Third, even if I had the time to try to counter you point for point, I doubt seriously it would make one whit of difference. Talking about libertarianism is useless to people who righteously and indignantly shut their minds to it. Even if I could eloquently spell out all the different ideas various libertarian folks have for dealing with these issues, I would still end up being lectured to by the likes of you about how horrible libertarianism is for wanting to abolish government and supposedly leave every last human without any protection from or recourse against all the worst that could ever happen. So frankly, I don't think you are worth wasting the effort.

But BT's question about whether ending slavery was a good thing IS a valid question, because it was the action of the government - not the people - that did that.  You ridicule it because it does not fit in with your conception of what we are debating.

No, I ridicule it because it is a stupid question. I was not arguing against government or government actions to protect the rights of people. I was not arguing against the government action to end slavery. The question was intended as a "gotcha". It would be sort of (not exactly, but sort of) like you arguing against socialism and someone asking if you're against protecting workers from abusive employers.

It is right to teach that Lincoln saved the union and ended slavery because that is what happened in a nutshell.

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

Libertarians claim that wanting the government to protect you from the big, bad world is cowardice.

They do? Have you some examples? I'm fairly certain I never said such a thing.

One can equally claim that wanting the government to turn a blind eye on abuses of power in the free market, discriminatory practices and wholesale destruction of the environment is another form of cowardice.

One could, yes, but then I have not seen any libertarian make argument for wanting such a thing. Ever. I have, on the other, hand, seen libertarians denounce the abuses of power that come from the collaboration of corporations and government. I have also seen libertarians argue in favor of protecting the environment through strong protection of property rights. Of course, I have also seen libertarians argue against abuses of power by government, discriminatory laws and wholesale trampling of property rights and such. But I won't mention that because I would hate to see you going off on another "libertarians want chaos and anarchy" rant.

The fact is, most libertarians (and conservatives in general) will tell you that they do not endorse abuse of workers, or destruction of the environment or discrimination in housing.  Most of those who makes such claims are sincere.

Gee, thanks. You're so (I'm being sarcastic again) fair.

But just as too much government empowers those who would use the police powers of the state to oppress individuals, too little government empowers those who would use their economic power to do the same.

Not to mention that too much government empowers those who would use their economic power to do the same to simply use the government to accomplish it. Kelo vs. New London ring a bell? If not, look it up. I think you'll find that libertarians were not among those happy to see government placing limits on property rights in the name of the public interest, or rather so that New London could transfer property from one private owner to a richer one.

This notion you seem to have, Pooch, that libertarians want to see corporations free and unrestrained in any way to trample over people's rights is not even fit enough to be called excrement. You say you have no respect for libertarianism, but you seem not to know the first thing about it. I guess respecting something you only know from lies and distortions is difficult. But I'm sure you as a Mormon wouldn't know anything about that, now would you?

I've about reached the limit of my patience on this. I could go on, and probably do some ranting myself, but that would serve no purpose.