Voting Rights Act of 1965

[03_SHOOTER]

Given the recent hearing before the Supreme Court concerning Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and after having reviewed it, if SCOTUS rules that Section 5, and for that matter the entire Act is to be continued in America, irrespective of the fact that it is a BLATANT violation of the 14th Amendment, then I respectfully recommend that ALL 16 of the States involved immediately SECEDE from the United States!

Section 2 of the 14th Amendment makes it perfectly clear that;

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

The ONLY remedy for being denied, or in any way abridged, the vote is that the number of those having been denied is to be reduced from the number counted toward representation in the House of Representatives, period, end of discussion. There is NO OTHER Constitutional remedy should a State deny anyone their 14th, 15th, 19th, or 26th Amendment Right to vote, and as such, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is un-constitutional ON IT'S FACE.

[03_SHOOTER]

OK, this didn't go very far, so let's try another approach;

Do you believe that States have a Right to secede from the Union should they reach the conclusion that the government has "a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states", or do you believe that once a State, always a State, regardless of what the federal government does.

[JohnP]

Originally Posted by 03_SHOOTER

OK, this didn't go very far, so let's try another approach;

Do you believe that States have a Right to secede from the Union should they reach the conclusion that the government has "a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states", or do you believe that once a State, always a State, regardless of what the federal government does.

Yes….

Let’s take this one step at a time.

1. Do I believe a state has a right to secede form the union? The Tenth Amendment is similar to an earlier provision of the Articles of Confederation:

"Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled."

This spells it out directly; yes, we have the right to secede for whatever reason. From time to time states and local governments have attempted to assert exemption from various federal regulations using the Tenth Amendment as a basis for their claim. An often-repeated quote, from United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 124 (1941), reads as follows:

The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers.

2. …should they reach the conclusion that the government has a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states… - There is no caveat for why; we have the right.

3. Do you believe that once a State, always a State, regardless of what the federal government does? We are states, but if the question is, should we be the whipping boy for the Federal Government or the lap dog of the same? Neither is acceptable. I would rather be a mongrel, fending for myself in a cold, cruel world, than a pampered show dog that’s trapped in the Master’s cage, fed what the Master wants and unable to make it’s own decision.

[HairyEyeball]

The Union was formed with and by the consent of the joint and several States, agreeing to cede a portion of their powers to such central government. Just as you may revoke any 'permission' given your children should they misbehave and abuse the 'freedoms' you have granted them, the individual sovereign States have not only the 'right', but the moral and legal responsibility, to revoke their consent and permission, indeed their membership, in a 'Union' that has abused its 'charter', violated every stricture imposed on it by the document authorizing its creation, and undermined its credibility beyond repair.

The 'solution', practical only insofar as the governments of the individual States had not become equally corrupt, would be a 'vote of no confidence' in the current central government, the removal of all officials elected and appointed, and the reinstatement of a Constitutional Republic. That being slightly less likely than the current occupant of the Oval Office holding a Rose Garden press conference to produce his foreign birth certificate and voluntarily resigning in custody of the FBI, the 'Tenth Amendment Resolutions' currently either in process or already approved by certain States should be enforced by refusal to forward any monies to the central government, active enforcement of State laws despite the usurpation of 'federal' law over the subject, and any and all such exercise of the powers of the joint and several States not clearly and specifically ceded to the central government.

'Secession' as such, given the alternative of 'withdrawal of support', may not be necessary - and having learned just a little bit from history - would give rise to greater 'problems' than currently obtain.

[03_SHOOTER]

I too believe, as did the FF's, that the States reserve their Right to secede from the Union when the government becomes intolerably oppressive.

If I may be so bold as to present an 1833 letter from James Madison to Daniel Webster concerning his address in Congress about the Nullification Crisis to help differentiate between secession for any reason whatsoever, and secession when the government becomes despotic.

15 Mar. 1833

I return my thanks for the copy of your late very powerful Speech in the Senate of the United S. It crushes "nullification" and must hasten the abandonment of "Secession." But this dodges the blow by confounding the claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression. The former answers itself, being a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged. The latter is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy. Its double aspect, nevertheless, with the countenance recd from certain quarters, is giving it a popular currency here which may influence the approaching elections both for Congress & for the State Legislature. It has gained some advantage also, by mixing itself with the question whether the Constitution of the U.S. was formed by the people or by the States, now under a theoretic discussion by animated partizans.

It is fortunate when disputed theories, can be decided by undisputed facts. And here the undisputed fact is, that the Constitution was made by the people, but as imbodied into the several states, who were parties to it and therefore made by the States in their highest authoritative capacity. They might, by the same authority & by the same process have converted the Confederacy into a mere league or treaty; or continued it with enlarged or abridged powers; or have imbodied the people of their respective States into one people, nation or sovereignty; or as they did by a mixed form make them one people, nation, or sovereignty, for certain purposes, and not so for others.

The Constitution of the U.S. being established by a Competent authority, by that of the sovereign people of the several States who were the parties to it, it remains only to inquire what the Constitution is; and here it speaks for itself. It organizes a Government into the usual Legislative Executive & Judiciary Departments; invests it with specified powers, leaving others to the parties to the Constitution; it makes the Government like other Governments to operate directly on the people; places at its Command the needful Physical means of executing its powers; and finally proclaims its supremacy, and that of the laws made in pursuance of it, over the Constitutions & laws of the States; the powers of the Government being exercised, as in other elective & responsible Governments, under the controul of its Constituents, the people & legislatures of the States, and subject to the Revolutionary Rights of the people in extreme cases.

It might have been added, that whilst the Constitution, therefore, is admitted to be in force, its operation, in every respect must be precisely the same, whether its authority be derived from that of the people, in the one or the other of the modes, in question; the authority being equally Competent in both; and that, without an annulment of the Constitution itself its supremacy must be submitted to.

The only distinctive effect, between the two modes of forming a Constitution by the authority of the people, is that if formed by them as imbodied into separate communities, as in the case of the Constitution of the U.S. a dissolution of the Constitutional Compact would replace them in the condition of separate communities, that being the Condition in which they entered into the compact; whereas if formed by the people as one community, acting as such by a numerical majority, a dissolution of the compact would reduce them to a state of nature, as so many individual persons. But whilst the Constitutional compact remains undissolved, it must be executed according to the forms and provisions specified in the compact. It must not be forgotten, that compact, express or implied is the vital principle of free Governments as contradistinguished from Governments not free; and that a revolt against this principle leaves no choice but between anarchy and despotism.

It is abundantly clear that ALL of the FF's understood not only what the limited role of the government was to be, but that should the government abridge the Rights of the people, usurp their power, and comport themselves ultra vires, then it was without question the Right of the States to secede from the Union since such abrogations on the part of the government amount to nothing less than Breach of Contract.

[JohnP]

Originally Posted by 03_SHOOTER

If I may be so bold as to present an 1833 letter from James Madison to Daniel Webster concerning his address in Congress about the Nullification Crisis to help differentiate between secession for any reason whatsoever, and secession when the government becomes despotic.

Now my Brothers and Sisters, may I be as bold and present you with Texas v. White:

Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869) was a significant case argued before the United States Supreme Court in 1869. The case involved a claim by the reconstruction government of Texas that United States bonds owned by Texas since 1850 had been illegally sold by the Confederate state legislature during the American Civil War. The state filed suit directly with the United States Supreme Court which under the United States Constitution retained original jurisdiction on cases in which a state was a party.
In accepting jurisdiction, the court ruled that Texas had remained a state ever since it first joined the Union, despite its joining the Confederate States of America and its being under military rule at the time of the decision in the case. In deciding the merits of the bond issue, the court further held that the Constitution did not permit states to secede from the United States, and that the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the legislatures within seceding states intended to give effect to such ordinances, were "absolutely null".

This short form of this suit was for Texas to redeem bonds that were illegally sold by the Revolutionary Government of Texas during the War of Northern Aggression. A total of twelve attorneys represented Texas and the various defendants in the case. Arguments before the Supreme Court were made over three days on February 5, 8, and 9, 1869.

For the entire reading and result:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/htm...4_0700_ZO.html

The court's opinion was delivered by Chief Justice Salmon Chase on April 12, 1869. Chase wrote that the original Union of the colonies had been made in reaction to some very real problems faced by the colonists. The first result of these circumstances was the creation of the Articles of Confederation which created a perpetual union between these states. The Constitution, when it was implemented, only strengthened and perfected this perpetual relationship.

The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union." It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?

"…without the States in union, there could be no such political body as the United States." Not only, therefore, can there be no loss of separate and independent autonomy to the States through their union under the Constitution, but it may be not unreasonably said that the preservation of the States, and the maintenance of their governments, are as much within the design and care of the Constitution as the preservation of the Union and the maintenance of the National government. The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union composed of indestructible States.
When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.

For these reasons, Texas had never been outside the Union and any state actions taken to declare secession or implement the Ordinance of Secession are null and void.

The states are bound by the decision of the Supreme Court. Even if your States invoke Article 10, the States will never be out of the Union or Confederation of these United States of America!

[03_SHOOTER]

Playing "Devil's Advocate" I see. This should be FUN!!!

To address your last first, specifically that "The states are bound by the decision of the Supreme Court. Even if your States invoke Article 10, the States will never be out of the Union or Confederation of these United States of America!", if we are to accept stare decisis as holding precedent over the Constitution, then I respectfully submit that in accordance with Dred Scott v Sandford, Blacks are not people, nor citizens, and are due no protections under the law. If on the other hand we are to hold true to the Constitution over any "opinion" rendered by a Court, then we must hold to the clear meaning of the Constitution, and where questions arise, we must look to the FF's for clarification, and in that respect, the record is clear that the FF's believed that the "union" of the States was a voluntary one, and as such, subject to the concepts of contract law, and therefore free to dissolve their voluntary contract should the government breach that contract.

Furthermore, if we are to accept the ruling of the Court in Texas v White that the States do not have a Right to secede, even when faced with decades of abuses, usurpations, and abrogations, then the very concept of the State itself is null and void, which is a patently unconstitutional interpretation on it's face, since if the States no longer exist as sovereign bodies that form the United States, then the 4th Article of the Constitution no longer applies, certain aspects of the 2nd Amendment no longer apply, the 10th Amendment no longer applies, the 11th Amendment no longer applies, the 14th Amendment no longer applies, and in fact every aspect of States Rights, State independence, and even State Law no longer applies, and there is nothing but US law.

Oh, and it would be remiss of me if I failed to point out the fact that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court had served as Secretary of the Treasury under Lincoln, and all of those joining the majority opinion had been rabid abolitionists prior to the War, thereby imposing their own political beliefs into what was rightly a legal question, but there's nothing really new about that, now is there?

[Woody]

Considering how well seccesion turned out last time it was tried I doubt anyones got much stomach for it.The republicans failed to retain power or if your a conspricy theory follower let the democrats win as they could see what was coming and rather someone else took the blame .
Think its a bit soon to plan open revolt if your that upset you could always come back to your rightful rulers we are very forgiving.

[Billyd]

Originally Posted by timwoodhead@hotmail.com

Think its a bit soon to plan open revolt if your that upset you could always come back to your rightful rulers we are very forgiving.

You tried that by force and got your red-coated hinies handed to you.

Some of us don't forget.

[JohnP]

Originally Posted by 03_SHOOTER

Playing "Devil's Advocate" I see. This should be FUN!!!

Let the Devil be damned; let us grapple with these issues at hand!

Originally Posted by 03_SHOOTER

To address your last first, specifically that "The states are bound by the decision of the Supreme Court. Even if your States invoke Article 10, the States will never be out of the Union or Confederation of these United States of America!", if we are to accept stare decisis as holding precedent over the Constitution, then I respectfully submit that in accordance with Dred Scott v Sandford, Blacks are not people, nor citizens, and are due no protections under the law. If on the other hand we are to hold true to the Constitution over any "opinion" rendered by a Court, then we must hold to the clear meaning of the Constitution, and where questions arise, we must look to the FF's for clarification, and in that respect, the record is clear that the FF's believed that the "union" of the States was a voluntary one, and as such, subject to the concepts of contract law, and therefore free to dissolve their voluntary contract should the government breach that contract.

I reject your reality and substitute my own -

Stare decisis is the policy of the court to stand by precedent; the term is but an abbreviation of stare decisis et quieta non movere — "to stand by and adhere to decisions and not disturb what is settled." The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a higher court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which a lower court cannot overturn. The second is the principle that a court should not overturn its own precedents unless there is a strong reason to do so and should be guided by principles from lateral and lower courts.

Although Dred Scott was never overruled by the Supreme Court itself, in the Slaughter-House Cases of 1873 the Court stated that it had already been overruled in 1868 by the Fourteenth Amendment:

“The first observation we have to make on this clause is, that it puts at rest both the questions which we stated to have been the subject of differences of opinion. It declares that persons may be citizens of the United States without regard to their citizenship of a particular State, and it overturns the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States.”

Since Scott v. Sanford is overruled by the 14th Amendment, this argument is void.

Originally Posted by 03_SHOOTER

Furthermore, if we are to accept the ruling of the Court in Texas v White that the States do not have a Right to secede, even when faced with decades of abuses, usurpations, and abrogation, then the very concept of the State itself is null and void, which is a patently unconstitutional interpretation on it's face, since if the States no longer exist as sovereign bodies that form the United States, then the 4th Article of the Constitution no longer applies, certain aspects of the 2nd Amendment no longer apply, the 10th Amendment no longer applies, the 11th Amendment no longer applies, the 14th Amendment no longer applies, and in fact every aspect of States Rights, State independence, and even State Law no longer applies, and there is nothing but US law.

But My Brother the 14th Amendment Section 3 paragraph 2 states: The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting Territory of other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed to as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

14th Amendment Section 4 states: The United States shall guarantee to every State in this union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive, (when the Legislature can’t be convened) against domestic violence.

Have I missed a Supreme Court Ruling citing these freedoms are not in effect? Does the Congress not make Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory of other Property of the United States? Is not every state protected from invasion or domestic violence?

Originally Posted by 03_SHOOTER

Oh, and it would be remiss of me if I failed to point out the fact that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court had served as Secretary of the Treasury under Lincoln, and all of those joining the majority opinion had been rabid abolitionists prior to the War, thereby imposing their own political beliefs into what was rightly a legal question, but there's nothing really new about that, now is there?

It is an unfortunate thing that one’s affiliations and beliefs before the fact will always reflect one’s dealings in later life. Is it not said in psychology, that your thought processes and beliefs are set before your teenage years are complete? These experiences will guide you in all your decisions in life unless they are affected by a Significant Emotional Event. The past, current and future Supreme Courts will always be filled by men and women of questionable Liberal and Conservative views; remember that Chase wasn’t the only Supreme Court Judge, he was the one tasked with writing the decision.