Trolling Not Allowed

Trolling Not Allowed! Comments from anonymous trolls are not permitted and are deleted if posted by the offending pest.

Saturday, April 2, 2011

United States and Selective Reasoning Violate the Constitution

Tim Higgins of Just Blowing Smoke... is not blowing any smoke when it comes to 'calling as it is' regarding the historical selective reasoning of the government of the United States of America in the interpretation, limitations, and adherance/nonadherance of and to the Constitution of the United States of America.

I strongly encourage you to click on over to read "The Beam In Our Own Eye" and you may ascertain for yourself the validity and veracity of that which I am of the belief to be the truth.

While Timothy W. Higgins points out the facts, it seems as though the entire population of the USA chooses not to see our country's history and current operations with clear vision but rather through a smoky lens.


CWMartin said...

For the most part I'll agree, but the Lincoln thing makes me uncomfortable. First of all, once the Const. is ratified, is it any longer a voluntary association? I can see the South throwing out the const. and Lincoln trying desperately to SAVE THEM from their own folly through any means necessary. Would being a British pseudo-colony have helped them? Was slavery helping them to develop or economically enslaving THEMSELVES to not only sin, but foreign interests and to northern industrial might? The South's chosen course was to turn themselves eventually into a welfare state- should Lincoln have left them to their growing parasitism? I don't deny the facts, just don't like the attitude with which it was presented.

The TR thing was spot on, though. And I doubt that he would've done anything but smile at the accusation. Maybe chuckle a little.

BTW, Brining up Kuwait as constituted would be a British issue, not a US one.

Timothy W Higgins said...


If the Constitution is not a voluntary compact between States, does this not make the reasoning and justification behind the Declaration of Independence also a lie? Certainly such an argument could be made.

As for the causes of the Civil War, arguments could go on endlessly about it (and have). It should be remembered however, that the New England States were the first to consider Secession over an embargo placed on shipments to England and France during the Jefferson Administration. It was only when Jefferson backed down that the crisis was averted. If their arguments were valid, and many considered them to be so, were not those of the South equally so.

The point however, is that once the war began, it was Lincoln who took away the rights of freedom of the press, speedy trial, and habeus corpus by presidential fiat.

As to Kuwait, I brought it up since we ostensibly went into that fight when Iraq decided to arbitrarily annex this nation without reason or provocation.

Interestingly, I didn't have the room to bring up the odious piece of legislation known as 'The Patriot Act', and I have been surprised to see no one point to its absence.


My thanks as always sir when someone whose opinion I hold in such high esteem finds mine worthy of note.

CWMartin said...

My first statement was just a question. But if there was not a solid bond between the states, the Dof I would have been a lie because there wouldn't have been any independance. Same as the Lincoln deal. He believed in the nation and the principles it was founded upon. He did what he had to to preserve independance for everyone. Does this mean he violated the const. Sure. But the const would have likely lost its existance had he not did as he did. The country could not afford to become more fragmented- a fact lost on this partisan-politics-and-media-driven society we have today. You are well within your bounds to question what he did- I just wonder how much you'd enjoy the changes wrought if he didn't.

The New Eng. states would also have found the same problem with their "independance". Its kinda like a bunch of spoiled teenagers about to emcounter adult life on their own for the first time.

The first to drecry the ugly things sometimes necessary to preserve independance are often the first also to cry when that independance is lost. We saw a version of that with Vietnam, in which a self-deluded intelligencia and media, and their trailing congressional puppies, lied to ZAmerica and the world so that they could congratulate themselves on the peace they wanted- a peace that cost SVN, Laos, and Cambodia their freedom and gave free reign to Pol Pot's butchers( But our troops were the "baby killers").

Timothy W Higgins said...


Evidently in your world view, the ends do justify the means. It was OK for Lincoln to violate the Constitution in order to save the nation created under it.

Likewise the Declaration of Independence apparently got it wrong when it said that, "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. - That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Getting back to the original point of the column however, every nation's people have a right to self-determination; and no people or nation have an obligation or even a right to interfere with this. Your examples (and the law of unintended consequences) in fact prove my point.

CWMartin said...

Re-read my first post- "For the most part I'll agree..." "I don't deny the facts, just the attitude with which they were presented..."

Do I believe Lincoln did the right thing? Yes. I asked you this before- would the protection of habeaus corpus been worth the destruction of the nation? The South would have soon found themselves a third world country, and the North would have been fighting to uphold the Monroe Doctrine within twenty years. So yeah, in my world- a world in which ALL of this nation received an opportunity to move foreward instead of destroying itself over a quibble of legality- yes, the ends do SOMETIMES justify the means. I am totally confident that Lincoln was led to the White House by however you define providence because he was just the sort of man able to make that tough call.

Do you really support self-determination to the point that you would be happy with a South that is allowed to be independant just so that they could continue to treat 3/5ths of their population as sub-human? And if the government has no right to keep a part of its nation from destrotying itself in such a matter, then what good is it in the end?

Timothy W Higgins said...

Mr. Martin,

The answer to your question is simple. You cannot purport to defend core principles by ignoring them or subverting them.

If Lincoln and the Republicans of the day were so set on a strong central government that they were willing to violate the Constitution to get it, perhaps the nation would have been better served by Secession. I suspect however, that rather than war, we might have seen a negotiation would have found common ground for a new compact to be forged.

Attempting to defend a US manifest destiny by such means is intellectually dishonest, as is throwing around a 3/5 number that was meant to determine legislative representation and not human value.

You seem willing to support a federal government that turns its back on the principles it was founded on. Congratulations, for over the last 150 years you have seen it come to fruition.

CWMartin said...

Youre right about that, Tim. Pelosi and reid's foisting of that health care monster against the main will of the people and the dems walk outs in my state and wisc. are prime examples. At least Lincoln did it for the good of the people instead of a self serving agenda.

But I'm sure youre right. We'd have been so much better off with half the nation being an economic slave to Europe while enslaving their own work force. Who cares that they would have been hopelessly crippled without any native heavy industry, would've had to starve themselves to raise devalued cotton that Britain would have bought for half what it was worth and sold back at twice what they could afford, and with the north likely ignoring them in the business field, they would have been honeycombed with new John Browns -and more sucessful ones. More successful because they can't make weapons and ammo with cotton balls and sugar canes.

Yes, I'm sure that would have been a more honest and happier world. I'm a bit spouting here, but, think about it. You weren't there. It's easy for you to say Lincoln commited some unforgivable sin from 150 years away. Obama thought Bush was doing that about Gitmo. It's not so easy when the problem is in YOUR lap.

Timothy W Higgins said...

Mr Martin,

Bringing health care and Congressional personalities into this discussion is a straw man argument, and I will not be baited into it.

For the rest, let me say that you seem to come at this from the highest motives however, and for that you are to be applauded. Further approbation would be due if the logic of your arguments were of equal measure.

Conclusions that the Civil War was fought exclusively about slavery is far too easy for someone who has obviously given this thought. The rest is in legal terms, 'drawing conclusions from facts not in evidence'. It would be equally valid to speculate that slavery would have continued to die a natural death as economically unsupportable, or that a successful Secession would have led to a reconciliation that had greater balance between the federal government and States rights.

As for Mr Brown, you might wish to be careful in using him in future. He too was a man of the highest motives who thought that using indefensible methods in a just cause held no wrong.

In the end, the principles themselves must matter, or they're not worth defending by any methods. The very examples that you use of Southeast Asia and Gitmo call attention to your own belief in that.

The Declaration of Independence does not guarantee happiness, but only its pursuit. Not only our principles and our motives, but our actions need be of the highest if we are to be the example as a nation that you and I both wish us to be.

CWMartin said...

Wasn't trying to bait, I thought they were legit examples. Probably if I were on the other side I could have used Iran-contra and Grenada.

As I said, I agree with much of your point. I think though, that to keep a body of law living and breathing, you have to do extraordinary things in extraordinary circumstances. A body of law able to bend and go back into shape under such pressure is more likely to survive that one that cannot bend and shatters.

Actually, John Brown was exactly the right one to mention. He was motivated rightly, had a good base cause, but because he couldn't bend, he was hung.

Definately enjoyed this when I wasn't being somewhat crabby. Tilt with you again next time, eh?