Monuments Lee Statue Should Not Be Moved

[CMWinkler]

http://www.cavalierdaily.com/article/2017/03/lee-statue-should-not-be-removed

 

[Rebforever]

Heading to court.

 

[Scotsman]

http://www.cavalierdaily.com/article/2017/03/lee-statue-should-not-be-removed

There's some irony, and just plain hypocrisy....

Protecting a statue commemorating a war to protect the rights of Southerners to handle their own local matters . . . by passing a state law telling Southerners that they do not have the right to handle their own local matters.

 

[Rebforever]

There's some irony, and just plain hypocrisy....

Protecting a statue commemorating a war to protect the rights of Southerners to handle their own local matters . . . by passing a state law telling Southerners that they do not have the right to handle their own local matters.

It is heading to court. And the people involved are all Virginians. Getting rid of historical objects is just another way to reduce history. I would think, you of all people, would know that.

By the way, did you ever write your book? If you did, what was the name of it?

 

[Study the Past]

It should stay where it is, in Virginia of all places. I, for one, hope they stick to the referenced Virginia State Law that leaves it undisturbed.

 

[AndyHall]

I read the plaintiff's brief. While I'm not an attorney, it doesn't strike me as being a strong argument. Establishing standing itself is going to be a challenge, as several of the plaintiffs are not from Charlottesville, and some that are have no clear connection to the monument besides being residents and taxpayers. One, for example, is a descendant of the sculptor, whose "interest" in the monument is preservation their ancestor's "reputation." The plaintiffs argue that the terms of the gift to the city don't explicitly authorize the city to remove or relocate the monument, but don't cite anything in them that the monument has to be maintained permanently, so that's kind of a wash. And above all, their case rests on Code of Virginia 15.2-1812, that a district court in Danville ruled did not apply to monuments erected before the late 1990s. I think that's a wrong-headed ruling myself, but the Virginia Supreme Court declined twice to hear that case on appeal, so the legal landscape for the plaintiffs in Charlottesville does not look promising.

 

[CMWinkler]

I read the plaintiff's brief. While I'm not an attorney, it doesn't strike me as being a strong argument. Establishing standing itself is going to be a challenge, as several of the plaintiffs are not from Charlottesville, and some that are have no clear connection to the monument besides being residents and taxpayers. One, for example, is a descendant of the sculptor, whose "interest" in the monument is preservation their ancestor's "reputation." The plaintiffs argue that the terms of the gift to the city don't explicitly authorize the city to remove or relocate the monument, but don't cite anything in them that the monument has to be maintained permanently, so that's kind of a wash. And above all, their case rests on Code of Virginia 15.2-1812, that a district court in Danville ruled did not apply to monuments erected before the late 1990s. I think that's a wrong-headed ruling myself, but the Virginia Supreme Court declined twice to hear that case on appeal, so the legal landscape for the plaintiffs in Charlottesville does not look promising.

Standing is always the crucial issue in these cases. In Memphis 1, the Chancellor ruled that the SCV and Save our Parks did not have standing. The Tennessee Court of Appeals found the SCV did. The SCV had provided maintenance to General Forrest, expended funds and time, made and installed a large granite marker that proclaimed "Forrest Park," all with the City's permission. This was found to give them standing and the case remanded back to the Chancery Court in Memphis.

I don't know what these plaintiffs have to establish standing. Where'd you find the brief?

 

[AndyHall]

Where'd you find the brief?

I found a link to it online in a news story about the filing. Here's a copy. I've redacted the home addresses of the named defendants, but otherwise it's complete.

ETA: I don't have a particular problem with this lawsuit being filed; that's how we settle things in this country. But I do think that this is not a particularly compelling argument the plaintiffs are making, given the present legal landscape in the Commonwealth.

 

[CMWinkler]

I found a link to it online in a news story about the filing. Here's a copy. I've redacted the home addresses of the named defendants, but otherwise it's complete.

ETA: I don't have a particular problem with this lawsuit being filed; that's how we settle things in this country. But I do think that this is not a particularly compelling argument the plaintiffs are making, given the present legal landscape in the Commonwealth.

Ah, the Complaint. Virginia, like almost all states now, is a notice pleading state. All that you are required to do is the bare bones to give the other side "notice" of the nature of your claim. There'll be a Rule 12 Motion (I'm not sure what it's called in Virginia, but that's the federal rule) to dismiss based upon lack of standing and then the real briefs will be filed by both sides.

 

[zburkett]

I am not a lawyer but I am fed up with those who want to rewrite history or try to eradicate it.

 

[AndyHall]

Ah, the Complaint. Virginia, like almost all states now, is a notice pleading state. All that you are required to do is the bare bones to give the other side "notice" of the nature of your claim. There'll be a Rule 12 Motion (I'm not sure what it's called in Virginia, but that's the federal rule) to dismiss based upon lack of standing and then the real briefs will be filed by both sides.

Thanks. I don't know the detailed procedure there.

 

[Scotsman]

It is heading to court. And the people involved are all Virginians. Getting rid of historical objects is just another way to reduce history. I would think, you of all people, would know that.

By the way, did you ever write your book? If you did, what was the name of it?

Do you not see the irony in the situation? I doubt proponents of the statue are commemorating the war as a fight to preserve slavery. Instead, they see Lee as a champion of local rule. A state government telling a city what it can or cannot do in regards to a purely local matter violates the very angle the statue is meant to celebrate.

Every time this topic comes up, people confuse public celebration or commemoration with historical study. The issue here is how a community wishes to commemorate parts of the past. It is a current events issue. If a majority in a community no longer believes a local statue represents them, why should an outside group or government overrule them?

Which book are you referring to?

 

[CMWinkler]

There's some irony, and just plain hypocrisy....

Protecting a statue commemorating a war to protect the rights of Southerners to handle their own local matters . . . by passing a state law telling Southerners that they do not have the right to handle their own local matters.

Hmmm. I thought the fight was over states' rights. Was it really over municipal rights instead?

 

[Scotsman]

Hmmm. I thought the fight was over states' rights. Was it really over municipal rights instead?

Was it a war to allow the state governments to be as overbearing on local governments as Southerners accused the federal government of being?

The "states rights" argument(although far overblown) relies heavily on the principle that local matters are best handled by local people. Rarely is it used to argue that states are the total masters of the people.

The question still stands, though--if a community votes to remove a local statue because it no longer represents them, why should an outside group or government overrule them?

 

[CMWinkler]

Was it a war to allow the state governments to be as overbearing on local governments as Southerners accused the federal government of being?

I thought it was a war to assert state sovereignty and the compact theory of the Constitution.

The "states rights" argument(although far overblown) relies heavily on the principle that local matters are best handled by local people. Rarely is it used to argue that states are the total masters of the people.

Then you think the argument was for municipal rights rather than states' rights.

The question still stands, though--if a community votes to remove a local statue because it no longer represents them, why should an outside group or government overrule them?

Communities, cities, towns, etc., are constructs of the states in which they live. If the state has a law prohibiting such things, like right here in beautiful Tennessee, then, yes.

 

[Scotsman]

I thought it was a war to assert state sovereignty and the compact theory of the Constitution.



Then you think the argument was for municipal rights rather than states' rights.



Communities, cities, towns, etc., are constructs of the states in which they live. If the state has a law prohibiting such things, like right here in beautiful Tennessee, then, yes.

Compact theory stands upon voluntary governmental associations formed by people. The states are just one level of government -- one type of social contract -- borne of the people, who ultimately hold sovereignty.

Interesting that you advocate strengthened state authority over citizens. For you, the "states rights" argument appears to be fighting against a perceived tyranny of federal authority to establish a real one with state rule.

 

[Irishtom29]

I am not a lawyer but I am fed up with those who want to rewrite history or try to eradicate it.

I think those people are making history. And I don't think monuments to history are history in themselves but the reasons for their erection and removal sure as Hell are.

In any event no one is forbidden to write or read as they please, thus history isn't being eradicated.

 

[Andersonh1]

Compact theory stands upon voluntary governmental associations formed by people. The states are just one level of government -- one type of social contract -- borne of the people, who ultimately hold sovereignty.

Interesting that you advocate strengthened state authority over citizens. For you, the "states rights" argument appears to be fighting against a perceived tyranny of federal authority to establish a real one with state rule.

In Compact Theory, the people of the state are where final sovereignty resides, and the states are sovereign and independent of each other. Counties and cities are not sovereign, because they are creations of the state, and there's a reason for this. It's because with the Declaration of Independence, the original 13 states declared themselves free, sovereign and independent, and they went on to win that independence in the Revolutionary War. Under the Compact Theory, elements of that sovereignty have always been retained by the states, with the remaining powers delegated, not surrendered, to the Federal government.

All of that is to say this: counties and cities are not on the same level with the state under the compact theory, and never have been, so you can't use it in this way to support your argument. There's nothing inconsistent with Compact Theory in having a state law that is superior to all local laws.

 

[CMWinkler]

Compact theory stands upon voluntary governmental associations formed by people. The states are just one level of government -- one type of social contract -- borne of the people, who ultimately hold sovereignty.

An interesting assertion. It's not the United Communities of America or the United People of America, it's the United States of America. It seems the states are fairly crucial.

Interesting that you advocate strengthened state authority over citizens. For you, the "states rights" argument appears to be fighting against a perceived tyranny of federal authority to establish a real one with state rule.

You are certainly entitled to your view. It seems to me that tyranny can be present at any level of government.

 

[Scotsman]

In Compact Theory, the people of the state are where final sovereignty resides, and the states are sovereign and independent of each other. Counties and cities are not sovereign, because they are creations of the state, and there's a reason for this. It's because with the Declaration of Independence, the original 13 states declared themselves free, sovereign and independent, and they went on to win that independence in the Revolutionary War. Under the Compact Theory, elements of that sovereignty have always been retained by the states, with the remaining powers delegated, not surrendered, to the Federal government.

All of that is to say this: counties and cities are not on the same level with the state under the compact theory, and never have been, so you can't use it in this way to support your argument. There's nothing inconsistent with Compact Theory in having a state law that is superior to all local laws.

The Compact Theory does not place all sovereignty upon a state, or make a state an absolute authority. It is arrangement, or coalition, among certain governments. The people still hold authority within the state. They can change the state's laws, its boundaries, and may even split the state into several new states if they wish.

Without going too deep into the subject, the Constitutional Union was not a true compact among states, anyway. Had it been so--and had your version of the Compact Theory been true--the state governments would have ratified the Constitutions. Instead, ratification conventions consisting of delegated citizens, which were separate from the state governments, were called forth to handle that matter. Thus, the people of the state (not the states themselves) ratified the Constitution.

I agree that counties and cities are not on the same level with the state, just as the states are not on the same level as the federal government. None of that means that the people within a state are complete subjects to that state.

In any case, I am not arguing that Virginia cannot pass a law prohibiting a city from moving a statue. I am saying that such a law is hypocritical given the subject of that statue.