Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 8 Sep 1992 16:06:00 EDT
From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: The War Between the Jasons

On Tue, 8 Sep 1992 15:31:00 EST JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET said:
> > Also, the Bill of Rights is not totally limited to the federal
> > government.  If you notice, only the First and Tenth Amendments mention
> > Congress.  The others are in the passive voice, applying to both levels
> > of government.
>
> no.  A look in the reason why the bill of rights came into existence
> will show that the states wanted to protect themselves from federal
> power.  In the 1820s this was made clear in Barron v. Baltimore and
> the 14th amendment was needed as were other amendments (i.e. voting
> right amendments) to supercede this.

Barron v. Baltimore??  Never heard of it!!  Tell me more!

>> selves.  How can a military-imposed government take the place of an
>> elected legislature?
>
> well, the South did succede from the union, a right to me that the
> Declaration of Independence surely makes correct, so surrender means
> they are at the will of the victors till they accepted the terms.  The
> South wanted to have their cake and eat it too -- succede but than go
> back to normal once they were defeated.
Well, first of all, I will be the first to say that secession was wrong.
And I DO understand that military occupation was necessary to make sure
the states became not unloyal members of the Union.
However, to set up puppet governments and have them ratify constitutional
amendments seems to me to be a blatant act of imperialism.

>> Could people representing the Southern states
>> have sued to regain their seats in Congress??
> once you resign your seat, you resigned you seat.  Nixon couldn't of
> August 10, 1975 said, "hey, I want to bear this out and come back in,"
> because he resigned already.  Also, the constitution gives the
> Congress the right to accept or reject incoming members (Art 1. Sec.
> 5).
Really????  I am going to have to check this out.  But the constitution
also says that no state shall be deprived of its equal representation
in the Senate.  (Art 5, I think, the same one that deals with amendments
to the Constitution)

> > Because if not, then
> > the 13th thru 15th Amendments are invalid.  And if so, why didn't they?
>
> the 13th amendment was ratified and accepted by enough states before
> military reconstruction; don't know about Southern states, but even
> they accepted its tenets with their defeat.  The 14th was a
OK--I will accept that--how about Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky, and
Missouri--did they ratify the Amendment?

> requirement of the military reconstruction to become a full pledged
> state again.  It too basically is about the Civil War and much of it
> can be seen as a part of the  "surrender terms" for the war never
> really ended, just the armies surrendered.  The terms were more
Well, for that matter the war never really began either--people just
started shooting each other.

> implied, and the South didn't follow them -- they put forth Black
> Codes and the like which made the 13th amendment nearly a sham.  The
> 15th came later.  To see the 14th as invalid would be to argue the
> Civil War was fought for very limited ends, which was not the case by
> the end.  When the south rejected such ends, they in fact rejected the
> surrender terms warranting military rule.
Quite simply--the Civil War was fought to save the Union.  The Emanci-
pation Proclamation was a war tactic.  The very end of the Civil War was
to have the Southern states be full-fledged states--so why after that
did the states have to meet requirements such as APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO
THE CONSTITUTION???  Ratifications made under diress are not ratifi-
cations.  I'm still wondering whether anybody sued about this...if not,
then I accept that the statute of limitations makes the amendments
valid--if so, then what did the courts say?

> >> I believe, but barely, that the C.W. Amendments are legit, but I would
> > like further information.
> >
> > -Travis
> >
> history has shown them to be Travis, but then it can be argued the
> Constitution itself isn't legit and a big improper way to limit state
> power.  Of course, the Civil War seems to have solved that idea, but I
> guess I can be wrong.
>
>           -Joe
>
> P.S. If it  wasn't noted before, the reason why there are separate
> sex bathrooms is that there are _some_ correct kinds of separation of
> the sexes as long as equal protection is there.  One need not take
> showers with other sexes to be equal to them, but you do have to have
> equal opportunities for jobs to be equal.  Logic often works to nip
> such questions in the bud.

_Some_ correct kinds of separation of the sexes???  Oh OK perhaps you'd
like to enumerate them.
So one need not go to school with other races to be equal to them,
right?
-Travis
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU