The Constitution is as the Supremes interpret it.? You seem to think it is a "black and white" creation.? It is not.? In fact, the Founding Fathers did a really poor job, in my opinion, making it clear what they intended within the four corners of that document, as continuing legal precedent clearly evidences.? Thus, these Harvard and Yale educated lawyers have a free rein to read what they want into the document, including the "emanations from a penumbra" style interpretations by judicial activists that legalized infanticide.
States rights may indeed make a Constitutional comeback.
J South
-----Original Message-----
From: John Philip Adams <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 9:07 pm
Subject: Re: STATE'S RIGHTS ON THE COMEBACK
I am confused. I thought we were operating under the Constitution of the
United States of America, not the articles of confederation, the UN charter,
the constitution of France or Germany or Lord forbid the wahtever Scotland
is operating from at this time..
What is so hard to understand. We are operating under the CONSTITUTION of
the USA.
Are there so many uneducated attorneys and judges who do not know the
differnce or did they go to a different law school than most of those not
graced with attending Yale or Harvard?
John Philip Adams
TEXAS
-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Kevin Gutzman
Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2008 4:08 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: STATE'S RIGHTS ON THE COMEBACK
In response to Kevin Hardwick's post on federalism, which echoes
Hamiltonian propaganda of the 1790s and John Marshall's/Joseph Story's
Supreme Court opinions of the first quarter of the 19th century in falsely
associating the compact theory of federation with the Articles of
Confederation, I recommend chapter 3 of my 2007 book, _Virginia's American
Revolution..._. There, I demonstrate that the compact theory was very
clearly elaborated by Virginia Federalists -- not anti-Federalists -- in
the Richmond Ratification Convention of 1788.
Kevin Gutzman
I doubt very much that the current court will revive the compact theory of
Federation--that is, the federalism of the Articles of Confederation.
The court still finds the Federalist Papers authoritative. Consult
Federalist numbers Seven, Eight, and Nine to see why the alleged right of a
state to secede from the Federal Union violates the fundamental purpose of
the Federal Constitution.
You may also find it useful to read David Hendrickson, PEACE PACT: THE
LOST WORLD OF THE AMERICAN FOUNDING.
All best,
Kevin
Kevin R. Hardwick, Ph.D.
Department of History
James Madison University
______________________________________
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
______________________________________
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
______________________________________
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
|
