[macintologist]

The preamble of the U.S. Constitution originally read:

That the people of the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia do ordain, declare and establish the following constitution for the government of ourselves and our posterity.

Judge Eugene explains the change:

"It was amended, not for the purpose of submitting the constitution to the people in the aggregate, but becasue the convention could not tell, in advance, which States would ratify it. "

This is from Secession, State & Liberty; and was cited from Gary's, "The Constitution Right of Secession," p. 171.

This clearly refutes the nationalist and anti-secessionist position.

I wonder if the rabid nationalist neocons will offer any compelling legal rebuttal instead of relying upon ad-hominems such as "you are unpatriotic" simply for voicing dissent towards the growing federal-nationalist gov't.

For the ignoramus neocons here:

http://www.archive.org/movies/detail...chael_Badnarik

You could use a lesson or two.

[SimeyTheLimey]

You don't give us much to go on, but the United States has had two constitutions, the first one (the Articles of Confederation) was more like what today we would call an international treaty than a national constitution, but it still was what we had. The language was more like that text you submit (which I have never seen before).

The group that met in Philadelphia was only supposed to amend the first one. They exceeded their authority and wrote an entirely new constitution. But there was never any question that the new constitution would have to be ratified by the people. Each state did that by a specially elected constitutional convention.

That text you submit begins "That the people of the states of . . . " and so it also supports the idea that the Constitution was a pact between people, not between states. Besides, the whole text of the constitution makes that perfectly clear. The point of the new constitution was to be a true national government. That is why it wasn't like the Articles of Confederation.

I'm not quite sure where you are going with this anyway. I have never heard of Judge Eugene, Gary, or the sources you cite. (OK, I have heard of the Libertarian Pary, but I don't see the relevance). And what successionist movement are you talking about? Please explain further.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Update, you didn't bother explaining your post but you got my curiosity going because this is all so random and unconnected to any contemporary debate. The poli lounge may not be the site of the most reasoned debates in the world, but you can usually spot at least some reason why a thread is created. This one seems completely random.

Since you won't tell us why this is suddenly of such concern to you, and why you post this, I did a little googling. There wasn't much. Most of it seemed to be a critique of Lincoln's justifications for holding the Union together in the Civil War. Why exactly is this a controversial issue to you? The Civil War isn't an area that I would claim any expertise in, but most historians I have heard on the subject think that probably the Confederates had the better legal argument. Lincoln's argument against succession was mostly emotion. But he won, and the Civil War was a long time ago, and there is no serious movement for succession now. Nor would many people seriously argue that the CSA is anything we would want to revive.

So why the sudden and cryptic post on the subject? (I say "on the subject" loosely, because you never really explained what the hell you were talking about). And why the gratuitous insult about "neocons." What have the so-called "neocons" got to do with arcane debates and Civil War history? What makes you think that you know what "neocons" think about the Civil War?

macintologist: If you are seeking to convince someone to a point of view, you have to do better than this. Explain what you are disagreeing with, explain logically what you propose, and generally, tie the two together. You can't just post a rambling set of quotes and say "you could use a lesson or two." It makes you look like a crank answering the voices in his head. Remember, we can't hear those voices. You have to write them down for us.

[nath]

Jeepers. Someone gets sensitive when rabid-nationalist-ignoramus neocons are given a hard time!