Gary nails it - again. Well done.
The III is filled with hollow Souls who wear III tabs and caps who have no more in common with the fight for Rightful Liberty than the millions of millions of people who wear NFL jerseys in their living rooms who think they have a real connection to the teams on their big screen televisions.
The real III accomplish tasks beyond typing on keyboards. Either you have gone into Harm's Way, or you have not.
True Liberty will never be defended by the meek who think a patch or t-shirt or blog makes them part of the starting team...
I would not alter a single word. I would but put a point upon that standard, as follows -ReplyDelete
The III% know who they are, because of who they ARE. There is no special patch; there is no sigil bit of gear, no secret-squirrel handshake. If such things enamor you, then go join some "lodge" which adores such practices.
What shall mark a man now, as then, is the willingness, upon hearing that war has come, to take up arms and head toward the sound of the guns. They came -
Over the objections of their wives;
Dedspite the scoffing of their neighbors;
right past the chiding of the town's Torries (who would surely report then, by name, at the first opportunity).
And they kept coming. And more died than not, but still they came; and still they kept a'coming.
For one simple reason - they would rather die as free men, than to live as chattel property of any man, regardless what 'crown' he might wear.
Because from beginning to end, our Revlutionary War, and the life of the nation we formed thereafter, was for one purpose, and no other - to put and end to the slavery of men, and to establish, by force of arms as needs be, a land founded upon the simple Fact that All Men Are Created Equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain Unalienable Rights, and that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Hapiness.
They poured out their blood, to nurture the sapling of a nation which sprang up in the wilderness, for that one simple cause.
Who then shall make casual declaration, that he would do all of the same? Trust him not; if only for your own reputation's sake.
Who then shall claim that the uniform he wears, is proof that he should stand in such esteemed company? Avoid him, for calamity is his very shadow; and the day grows longer by the moment.
And what man may show all his "investment" in liberty, and where he has stored it all up? But of course he would have you join him in such investment. Flee from him; For his is but a Ponzi - wrapped in a pattern to tantalize your frivolous tastes. Flee, that you may perhaps retain the sole talent which you now possess, rather than surrender it to him, as a fool is wont to do.
No. History will recount the names of those who, on the Day of Reckoning, shall rise up and fill - with their own bodies, as necessary - that breach in civil society which now impends, as often before it has done in diverse times and places, for that is History's job.
And if nowhere else, then Heaven shall, without err, record the standing of those who could sit for not a single further injury to the Dignity of Man; and who thus stood in simple defense of that Grace whose abundance so many have trammeled, as they sought nothing greater than "commerce and opportunity". Silver and gold, indeed.
What? Do you find me bitter? Even more bitter still, is that cup which was poured out upon Bunker Hill and a hundred other battles; and still that cup remains full.
Do you think I resent those who make commerce of Liberty's cause? Still you underestimate me, for I have met a veritable nest of cowards selling 'Peace and Security' under that label; and them I detest above all else.
And lacking all these, have you still not paced me out, to determine what manner of man I am? Then what am I to you; anything more than a reed blown by the wind?
There is little enough honor in the world, that I should dare to squander what I have paid greatly to obtain, only to find later that it is true coin to so few. But for those who count it as I do, there is not of this world a single thing which can breach that bond.
Well written,. I only take one exception. You represent "All Men Are Created Equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain Unalienable Rights, and that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" as inclusive of all who walk on two legs. However, historical research disproves that comparison.
For an understanding of what the Framers intended, I would suggest reading
"We the People", but, Who are "We"? -- http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/wethepeople.htm
So, you're really going to take a shot at the ol' Billy Bob Clinton line, and argue, "what the meaning of the word 'is', is?" Because that's about the absurdity level of arguing against the plain-faced meaning of "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.." Either a Person is, or they are NOT. Either a Man is, or he is NOT. So, was Dred Scott a man? In it's own finding, Chief Justice Taney while speaking for the Court, repeatedly refers to Scott as "he", "him", and "plaintiff". All are indicative of a man in the context implicit in every court document...and particularly with regard to Taney calling Scott "plaintiff" - a word which specifically indicates a man who holds demonstrated standing before the court.Delete
Yeah, that's right. Scott had to prove standing...before Circuit would even hear his plea of appeal. N'uff said on that.
Seriously. I'd sooner argue that the 14th Amendment wasn't Ratified in accordance with the Constitution, since ratification by the subdued and subjugated Southern states was not voluntary - that is, that they would not be recognized as equal States (i.e. with representatives in Congress and the Senate) until ratifying it... can you say "Catch 22". So they weren't states at the time, but they had to Ratify #14 to "regain" statehood. It's utterly non-sequitor, and I'm not racist in the damn least. My objections to the 14th have to do with creating an entirely **NEW** Polity which had never before existed. Previously, a man had to be a citizen of a State (first) which then obtained for him Citizenship under the Constitution...the 14th reversed the roles of the Fed and State governments in creating/granting citizenship... in a manner wholly impossible to ajudicate. With no States, theres no Union, but there can still be ooodles of Federal Citizens, who then become "citizens" of a state simply by virtue of choosing to reside there, in accordance with some federal decree?!?
No States = No Union = No Federal Citizens; so citizenship *has* to operate in the exact same sequence, or all manner of stupid things can happen... Like Puerto Rico, for example == It's not a state... but the citizens of Puerto Rico get representatives in Congress? WTF.
Talk about a refugee crisis! Damn, I just want all them commie yanks to go the hell home! Seriously. ...and take their fool chilluns with 'em!
So please, either bring me something that at least passes a basic Turing Test, or leave me be... I have other fish to fry.
You seem to fail to recognize why the Court hear Dred Scott. Sandford didn't object, rather, he pled over. Since there was no challenge to Scott's filing with that Court, the Court could not rule that Scott had no standing. They can only rule on the record and what is put befire them. Absent the objection, they chose to here the matter -- as they should, since the Clerks of the Court back then weren't like they are, today.ReplyDelete
So, you have chosen to attack me, but you have not addressed the arguments set forth by Taney. That avoids the issue, so I suppose you can't refute Taney, only try to refute me. Refuting me doesn't refute the argument. And, Taney was quite clear, regardless of his usage of pronouns. He didn't say that slaves weren't people, he said that slaves (or ex-slaves) were not the people that Jefferson referred to.
As far as the Fourteenth Amendment, I have been there, and covered that:
The Fourteenth Article in Amendment to the Constitution
Gary, I didn't fail. I accepted as premisary, that the subordinate appellate circuit did it's work to establish standing - and I stated as such. If they didn't, then it's an open question; but one which looses relevance in the face of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, with their plain language - as also stated above.ReplyDelete
Please cease putting links to your site in your comments, or you may get blocked for spam, which would be entirely beyond my control. I've been to your site, and I'm reading - pushing will accomplish nothing more to your service. But time isn't free, and mine even less so, these days.
Again, I'd be more interested in discussing other issues, specfically with the "Ratification" of the 14th by the Southern States while under compulsion of military occupation, and whose Duly elected State Governments had oficially delivered notice of secession five years prior. We have much to agree upon, because the premise that the 14th itself grants no rights, appears more than passingly correct... but when you start discussing 'Rights' and their application to classses/classifications of people it is a complex admixture of Colonial Law, States Constitutions and Statutes, and the operating Amendments of the Federal Constitution, through the contextual lens of our Bill of Rights - those inalterable Amendments which do specifically enumerate Rights, which cannot be abridged to the slightest cost of any individual or group, except by the operation of legitimately ratified law in it's proper application and opeartion.
FWIW, When engaged in private, I am less likely to dismiss premises that don't work in my understanding of the Law, and more willing to spitball, exercise the what-If muscle, etc... but I will not be made a spectacle of in a public forum, any more than I am inclined to do so to others... until I'm sure I'm sure. I trust you'll have noticed as such. I also don't brow beat. And I don't slaughter unless I am given no alternative... but when I do, I do it well, sir.
Frankly, it would appear on first blush that you've cherry-picked Taney's comments to suit a purpose - how does that make you any more credible than the NAACP/ACLU fuggits you speak so lowly of? (and with which low opinion I would absolitely agree)
I'll consider all of Taney's opinion, once I've read it at length -- if I find it necessary. If it comes to light that he was already possessing of a disputed position in the matter when he wrote the opinion, then I shall count him no more credible than any activist judge a hundred years less antideluvian... There have been activist judges, as long as they have been adjudicating imperfect laws - Even Caesar complained that the Judges were fabricating cases to build their own fame.
And lastly, remember, every lawyer is "practicing law" for a reason... because they've not perfected it yet. And judges are just lawyers, with heavier caseloads and a set of robes...
I'll get back to you.