The Paris Peace Treaty of 1783


Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

trice

Lt. Colonel
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
11,633
The 10th amendment don't need no long winded explaining. It is simply self explanatory.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So simple! Go ahead and talk it to death. That is about all y'all can do with it.
No one is trying to talk it to death. We simply are asking *you* to tell us what the "powers not delegated" are. The only reasons I can think of that you would not answer are:
1) you do not know what they are, which would make your claim very weak;
2) you know what they are and listing them would show your claim was no good or
3) you just feel like being contrary, which makes your claim look pretty dismissable.

Which one is it?

Tim
 

trice

Lt. Colonel
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
11,633

Elennsar

Colonel
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
14,823
Location
California
I believe Vareb is invoking the internet interpetation of the 1st Amendment, which is as follows:

I have the right to say whatever I like, however offensive and obnoxious, and nothing you can stay shall stop me. And if you threaten consequences for harassing others, I'll accuse you of attempting to suppress views that disagree with yours.


More to the point..Vareb, why is it that whenever anyone questions your interpetation, its always their fault for just being too dumb/biased to get it, but you offer not the slightest explaination as to what your view of the amendment is founded upon and why is is the correct one?

It is as if you're trolling or something.
 

Freddy

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Dec 19, 2006
Messages
3,323
Location
Worcester, MA
Who are some of the scholars you would like to answer you?
I do not know of any that is why I asked you. Did you come up with "the Tenth Amendment allows state secession theory" without reading about it from any previous source?
 

Vareb

Banned
Joined
Jul 2, 2008
Messages
1,562
Location
Shenandoah Valle
I do not know of any that is why I asked you. Did you come up with "the Tenth Amendment allows state secession theory" without reading about it from any previous source?
Here is your question and I
Can you show any Constitutional scholar who agrees with your interpretation of theTenth Amendmend?
I showed you 2 websites written by scholars. Now you change the question. Nice try.
 

Scribe

Cadet
Joined
May 9, 2008
Messages
1,602
Location
St. Louis, Mo
The 10th amendment don't need no long winded explaining. It is simply self explanatory.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So simple! Go ahead and talk it to death. That is about all y'all can do with it.
"It [the 10th Amendment] added nothing to the instrument [the Constitution] as originally ratified..."

U.S. v Sprague

Short and sweet... like the old lady's dance.
 

Freddy

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Dec 19, 2006
Messages
3,323
Location
Worcester, MA
Here is your question and I

I showed you 2 websites written by scholars. Now you change the question. Nice try.
I asked you in post 100 you replied in post 101. I was reading both links you gave.

In Secession, State, and Liberty edited by Gordon on page 175 the footnote 60 quotes Thomas Jefferson as the "father" of "the Ninth and Tenth Amendment Allows State Secession Theory".

In The Constitutionality of Secession by Naylor of the Second Vermont Republic, he states his opinion that the Tenth Amendment allows secession.

Two opinions that are not backed by any legal recognition. In fact, the opposite opinion is still legally binding in Texas v. White (1869) where the US Supreme Court ruled that state secession is unconstitutional. That remains the law of the land.
 

Scribe

Cadet
Joined
May 9, 2008
Messages
1,602
Location
St. Louis, Mo
Here is your question and I

I showed you 2 websites written by scholars. Now you change the question. Nice try.
One of the "scholars" cited is John Remington Graham. So what do we know about Graham? Well we know that he:
1) has filed law suits to ban the flouridization of water;
2) had his law license suspended for 60 days in Minnesota after making unfounded charges of a conspiracy by judges, lawyers, and unamed others to defeat him in one of his cases;
3) has lectured to secession-now League of the South and Southern Party;
4) is listed an an "affiliated scholar" of the League of the South;
5) removed himself to Canada for a couple of years to provide aid and comfort to the Quebec separatists.

Pro secession activist, yes. Scholar, no.
 

trice

Lt. Colonel
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
11,633
trice said:
Neither of these appears to have anything at all to do with the topics immediately under discussion, the Paris Peace Treaty of 1783 or the Tenth Amendment. What is it you intended to say?
Nothing. You have a comprehension problem.
Ah. You were simply making an empty, meaningless post with no content. I thought you had something to say, but you now tell us that you didn't. Thanks for clearing that up.

Tim
 

M E Wolf

Colonel
Retired Moderator
Joined
Feb 9, 2008
Messages
17,463
Location
Virginia
Dear Vareb;

Unfortunately, if you need to use sources and references; sometimes you have to vet them out yourself; as not to be mislead.

You are not alone in being mislead, regardless of the side of discussion; this is why this forum can be so very important.

Scribe, Trice and many others are the elite when it comes to several matters of law and philosophy. Many on this forum have creditials to stand on that I could get light headed in looking up. LOL

But, one thing I do know-- I have knowledge as well and those who know a lot, will never admit they 'know it all.' Yet, they will share what they do know and do their dead level best to never cause someone to be embarassed by what you/I/all we don't know. It is called allowing another to 'save face.' Or, to do their best not to embarrass someone who has embarrassed themselves. The spirit of intent by most--is to share and to learn and to grow in historical studies. Not select who is stupid or not.

But, one thing must be made very clear Vareb -- this continued behavior, as well as some others; who just call other people 'stupid' in an 'implied' way;must cease from now.; people can see for themselves who are the ignorant ones and who are intelligent and or mature about their posts.

Addressing the issues is one thing but, attacking people--that is another and I am not pleased with such; especially after repeated warnings in various stages.

It goes back to the old childhood rule -- If you cannot say anything nice -- do not say anything at all. Personal attacks on individuals intelligence and such-- must cease and immediately so.

Everybody has a right to be wrong, as everybody has a right to be human. However, the terms of this forum are specific--DO NOT ATTACK INDIVIDUALS

Respectfully submitted for consideration,
M. E. Wolf
POSTED IN THE CAPACITY OF MODERATOR
 

Vareb

Banned
Joined
Jul 2, 2008
Messages
1,562
Location
Shenandoah Valle
Vareb,

If the two authors of these sources count as 'scholars' then you and I and everyone at this forum can count themselves as brain surgeons.:wink:

Please, try again.

Unionblue
Well sure you would discredit anything I post. I figured you would be the first.:laugh1:
 

PvtClewell

Corporal
Joined
May 20, 2008
Messages
404
AmBu writes:
If the unconnected colonies revolt in mass, and gain their individual treaties with the king, they are not beholding to any Union at that time....
Would that be the Treaties of Paris?

Methinks that's a S t r e t c h
 

TerryB

Major
Joined
Dec 7, 2008
Messages
9,537
Location
Nashville TN
We were still under the Articles of Confederation in 1783, and that was nothing like the Union that came out of the Constitutional Convention of 1787. It's an apples and oranges comparison to go looking in the Treaty of Paris of 1783 for some "extra-biblical' support for the right of secession. To get the Constitution ratified, the states ceded (pun intended) much, but not all of the sovereignty they enjoyed under the Articles. The verdict of all serious historians I have read on this subject is that the states were virtually independent under the Articles, but that was too chaotic. We totally scrapped the Articles when we ratified the Constitution, thus the apples & oranges analogy. The Declaration of Independence does uphold the right of revolution, but you have to win or it's a moot point.
 


Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Top