Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Right Wing Extremist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (9908)	6/14/2001 10:42:04 PM
From: Father Terrence	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 59480

An amendment which was never legally ratified! For example, it took a constitutional amendment to allow the federal gov't to levy direct taxes on the populace.

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (9908)	6/15/2001 10:01:17 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 59480

Well, first, the principle of popular sovereignty, though diluted, was expressed on the federal level by the House of Representatives, where election was direct and proportional. Second, amendments, by definition, alter the constitution. When popular election was substituted for state legislative election to the Senate, for example, it inherently advanced the element of popular sovereignty in the constitutional order. Similarly, by amending the constitution to provide for a federal income tax, the constitutional balance was tilted further to the primacy of the federal government. Additionally, one cannot ignore the history of Supreme Court decisions, most of which are long established. For example, Marshall affirmed the principle that the Constitution derives from the citizens of the United States, not the several states. Later, the doctrine of incorporation made it necessary for states to conform more strictly to the Constitution, particularly in the area of civil liberties and equity. The extension of the interstate commerce clause to allow federal regulation of certain businesses, and other decisions expanding the police powers of the federal government, have expanded the national character of the Constitution. There are also incidental arguments militating against the primacy of state sovereignty. For example, the conditions of entry into the country are regulated by the federal government, not the several states. The conditions of citizenship are defined federally, and no state has the power to make peculiar conditions of citizenship for its territory. In other words, we are citizens of the United States, not the state in which we reside, primarily. Finally, treason is defined in the Constitution as making war upon the United States, not an individual state, which indicates that the federal government is the sovereign power. I have no idea which states might have balked if they had thought that the Union was irrevocable. But whether some were under the illusion that they could come and go as they please is irrelevant, as long as the right is not stated in the document to which they are signatory, and which lays out the terms of Union. As for Texas and Hawaii, I would say they surrendered sovereignty upon entry into the Union.........