JohnTaylor
Sergeant
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2006
To the unconditional Unionists of the board, I would like to propose a question.
Before I do, however, I would like to emphasize that the following is not a reflection of what actually happened before the outbreak of the Civil War, nor do I consider it a likely event in the future. It is merely a theoretical possibility, and simply used to illustrate the principles involved.
Suppose that the President became concerned that that voters in New Jersey had elected politicians from the other party, and thereby thwarted the good policies that he is trying to enact. Thus, the people of New Jersey are enemies of the Republic, and of humanity, entitled to no rights whatsoever. He asked Congress to pass a law stating that everyone living in New Jersey, as of some date in the past, is an enemy of the Republic, their life and property are forfeit without trial, they are beyond the protection of the laws, and can be killed on sight. Their property will then be sold and the proceeds going to pay off the national debt. Congress obliges, and passes the law, but it is challenged in court, and declared unconstitutional. So Congress passes (by more than ⅔ vote of both houses), and ¾ of the states adopt, a constitutional amendment allowing exactly what the President wanted. New Jerseyans are beyond the protection of the laws, their lives and property forfeit, without trial. New Jersey remonstrates, but the rest of the country is adamant.
Now, in such a case, do the people of New Jersey have no recourse? The courts will rule that the law is constitutional, since the amendment was adopted in the manner prescribed by the Constitution. New Jersey ratified the Constitution in 1787, and agreed to abide by its provisions, including the amendment process. Likewise, since the rest of the States are going to benefit financially from this new provision, they refuse to let New Jersey go her own way. So, in this extreme case, what recourse doe the people of New Jersey have?
In closing, I wish to reiterate that I do not say that this case bears any resemblance to that happened in the run-up to the Civil War, nor do I consider this at all likely to happen in the future. I would just like the unconditional Unionists to tell me what recourse they believe the people of New Jersey would have.
I ask this to understand the limits of the views of Tim, and others, as to what the rights of the people of the States might be in extreme situations.
Respectfully,
John Taylor
Before I do, however, I would like to emphasize that the following is not a reflection of what actually happened before the outbreak of the Civil War, nor do I consider it a likely event in the future. It is merely a theoretical possibility, and simply used to illustrate the principles involved.
Suppose that the President became concerned that that voters in New Jersey had elected politicians from the other party, and thereby thwarted the good policies that he is trying to enact. Thus, the people of New Jersey are enemies of the Republic, and of humanity, entitled to no rights whatsoever. He asked Congress to pass a law stating that everyone living in New Jersey, as of some date in the past, is an enemy of the Republic, their life and property are forfeit without trial, they are beyond the protection of the laws, and can be killed on sight. Their property will then be sold and the proceeds going to pay off the national debt. Congress obliges, and passes the law, but it is challenged in court, and declared unconstitutional. So Congress passes (by more than ⅔ vote of both houses), and ¾ of the states adopt, a constitutional amendment allowing exactly what the President wanted. New Jerseyans are beyond the protection of the laws, their lives and property forfeit, without trial. New Jersey remonstrates, but the rest of the country is adamant.
Now, in such a case, do the people of New Jersey have no recourse? The courts will rule that the law is constitutional, since the amendment was adopted in the manner prescribed by the Constitution. New Jersey ratified the Constitution in 1787, and agreed to abide by its provisions, including the amendment process. Likewise, since the rest of the States are going to benefit financially from this new provision, they refuse to let New Jersey go her own way. So, in this extreme case, what recourse doe the people of New Jersey have?
In closing, I wish to reiterate that I do not say that this case bears any resemblance to that happened in the run-up to the Civil War, nor do I consider this at all likely to happen in the future. I would just like the unconditional Unionists to tell me what recourse they believe the people of New Jersey would have.
I ask this to understand the limits of the views of Tim, and others, as to what the rights of the people of the States might be in extreme situations.
Respectfully,
John Taylor
Bringing the