[identity profile] hunterkirk.livejournal.com posting in [community profile] talkpolitics
I was watching a show about the Presidents of the USA and while watching the Presidents that existed during and just prior to the Civil War a question came to me. The question is which is more important the Constitution or The Nation of the USA?

Now in the ideal world the Constitution of the USA is indeed the best thing for the whole of the USA. Yet there have been times that one or another political force argued that something was very needed for the USA, yet that very thing was neither openly or subjectively supported by the constitution. I for one believe that the ending of slavery was one of those issues. While the Constitution in no way forced, and still doesn't, its member states to remain a part of the USA it was important go to war to keep the USA united and to end slavery. Although I do think slavery would have ended naturally on its own, it doesn't make invalid the conflict to end it.

Which is more important the USA or the Constitution?

If one sticks to the legal frame work of the Constitution many of the actions of the United States Government are not supported by the Constitution. It takes a lot of "the spirit of the" to think that the above statement isn't true. Yet many of these actions that are not supported by the Constitution are also things generally embraced by the population. So the question remains when the elected government wants to take a action that is neither supported or allowed by the Constitution but is popularly supported (yet not enough for a amendment to the Constitution) should the government be allowed to do it?

(no subject)

Date: 26/3/09 15:42 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] underlankers.livejournal.com
"John Marshall has made his decision and now let him enforce it."

(no subject)

Date: 26/3/09 17:33 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] underlankers.livejournal.com
As I recall, the treaties signed with the Five Civilized Tribes have them supposed to be in Georgia....while they're in Godforsaken Oklahoma. Then there's the treaty signed with the Sioux tribes after Red Cloud beat the US that was broken in about 5 years.

(no subject)

Date: 26/3/09 17:50 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] underlankers.livejournal.com
50%? The only conceivable Indian landholding of any significant size is that of the Navajo, and that's a small pittance of their former land.

And I'm saying that they were upheld and kept to be broken later. No US government ever made a permanent treaty with Natives if it was able to help it. Not, mind, that the original British colonial governments were any better at that.

(no subject)

Date: 26/3/09 20:01 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] underlankers.livejournal.com
No, but I'm saying that considering how limited the Indians are and how unlikely an irredentist movement is, giving them rights to their original land shouldn't be an impossibility.

(no subject)

Date: 26/3/09 22:47 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] allhatnocattle.livejournal.com
I don't understand what you mean by rights. I'm looking at this and thinking there are many places that were never bought or signed over. Vancouver BC is disputed Indian land. I'm sure claims have been made by tribes over various towns/cities in the USA. This gets very complicated were a government to declare a major city to be Indian land. Imagine if some high authority court declared the Louisianna Purchase to be null and void because the French didn't actually own that land and shouldn't have sold it. This could only invite chaos.

(no subject)

Date: 26/3/09 23:22 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] underlankers.livejournal.com
Then we'd go back to Native administration. Considering the assclowns in Baton Rouge can't find their own asses with a big-ass neon sign pointing to it, we'd be hardly worse off under the Choctaw or the Caddo.

(no subject)

Date: 27/3/09 02:31 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] allhatnocattle.livejournal.com
ROTFL

You just reminded me that Billie Joe McAllister jumped off the Tallahatchie Bridge.

(no subject)

Date: 27/3/09 02:01 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] underlankers.livejournal.com
Oh, please, screw the Heiliges Romisches Reich, I want us Krauts to get back the Hohenzollerns. At least the two Kaisers Wilhelm never bungled the state to the degree the Habsburgs did. My dad's ancestors came from Brandenberg-Preussen. What Lander are your guys from?

(no subject)

Date: 27/3/09 11:11 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] underlankers.livejournal.com
Feh....we have a better claim than most considering we were here before the Revolutionary War.

(no subject)

Date: 27/3/09 12:52 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] underlankers.livejournal.com
I have no Native blood, period. I come from the Angles of Miercia and the Germans of Brandenberg. 100% Germanic, here. So...I'm a half-breed of Angle-Brandenberger stock.

(no subject)

Date: 27/3/09 12:50 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] underlankers.livejournal.com
Newbie. My ancestors had the good sense to get out of dodge before that foolishness with the Hohenzollerns wanting to be the Deutscher Kaiser family instead of the Konigen von Preussen. As it was.....we left when Prussia was still to be admired, not condemned.

(no subject)

Date: 27/3/09 13:28 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] underlankers.livejournal.com
Easily-enough done, my mother's line goes all the way back to Henry Hudson and the Mayflower both. I win.

Credits & Style Info

Talk Politics.

A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods

DAILY QUOTE:
"Clearly, the penguins have finally gone too far. First they take our hearts, now they’re tanking the global economy one smug waddle at a time. Expect fish sanctions by Friday."

July 2025

M T W T F S S
  123 456
78910 111213
1415 1617 181920
2122 23 24 252627
28293031