Tuesday, March 01, 2011

A Government by Constitution or by Ideology, Which is Your Choice? (Part 2)

Once grandpa had the full attention of the crowd once again he continued with the following words.

"Accepting the solution will require every ounce of courage within each of you, the people. Accepting this solution will require that each of you to put aside any differences that you might have with others and unite as a people who desires a constitutional government. It will require that each of you put aside your political ideologies and act as a people united in seeking a way of life as no other people have in this world. Can you do that?

Believe it or not this solution is already available and is just waiting to be implemented. It is a solution that began over a hundred years ago though its purpose would be seen as different than its purpose as I outlined this day. And if you accept this solution you must understand this difference if you are to defend your position. It will require that you keep your focus on the future instead of allowing your opponents to focus your thoughts on the past.

You, the people will need to ask yourselves whether or not your political ideology takes priority over the Constitution as it was intended. For only one can determine what kind of nation we will be. For I am about to test your courage of conviction as it has never been tested before. The ramifications that will result will be tremendous and will be felt for generations to come.

The choice is yours, my friends. We can once again be a nation united by the consent of all or we can remain a nation united by force. We can once again be nation governed in a constitutional manner or remain a nation governed by ideology. Which do you, the people, choose?

The solution is to demand that the States ratify the Corwin amendment to the Constitution. This amendment has already been passed by the Congress of the United States. Three States have already ratified it. All that it requires is that you, the people, demand that your State add their names to the ratification of this amendment. The one benefit of this amendment is that it has no time limit in regards to its ratification.

It is a simple amendment and uses very little words. Presidents Buchanan as well as Lincoln both approved of this amendment. In fact, President Lincoln sent a message to the governors of each State urging them to ratify this simple amendment. It is an amendment that even President Lincoln understood as clarification of the intent of the founding fathers in terms of the rightful interpretation of the Constitution.

And this alone would be reason enough to ratify it and make it the most important addition to the Constitution for it would require that all abide by the Constitution as the founding fathers intended not by political ideology. This amendment would declare that the Constitution was clearly written and that there are no ambiguous statements in it. For it would clearly define the limitations and the division of powers of the form of government that the founding fathers had in mind. Of this there can be no doubt if one seeks a Constitutional government as it was intended to be. It will explicitly declare what was only implicitly understood.

Another benefit of the ratification of this amendment is that our history as a nation will be understood in a different light. Heroes will no longer be seen as heroes and villains will no longer be seen as villains. The words of the past will be understood as they should be and without bias or prejudice as they are now.

What are the words of this simple amendment? They are the following words;

“No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State”

Read the words my friends. Ponder their meaning. Recognize the implication of its purpose and effect. Realize just how much this simple amendment will bring about change to the governance of this nation. Think about how this simple amendment has the power to unite us as a people and as a nation. Think about how this simple amendment will allow all persons to fulfill all of their political dreams regardless of political persuasion. Challenge your own preconceptions about government and its role in the lives of its citizens.

The choice is yours, my friends. In the acceptance of this challenge you will be seeking a government that abides by constitutional principles. In the rejection you will continue to have a government that abides by ideological principles. How much value you place on the Constitution will be determined by your decision."

With these words grandpa paused once more as he saw the crowd begin to really look at each other and you could hear the buzz of whispers throughout. Then a shout could be heard from the crowd.

“And how will this one amendment do all that you have promised that it would do?

Grandpa just grinned and said, “A good question, my friend, and I hope that there are many more like this. For it is the answers to questions such as this one that each of you must know if you are to defend your position on this issue of division of powers that the founding fathers intended.”


LandShark 5150 said...

Nibble - Nibble. You got me circling and very enticed. But before I bite, me has to knock the barnacles off the fins and do some studying on the scent trail.
Griper, nice thought shaker. I'm going to pass this along to a friend and ask him for his expertise. Thanks for the invite and renewal of virtuous thought my friend.

The Griper said...

that can of worms has been stirred thouroughly and is now ready to serve, my friend.

amanofwonder said...

Surprise, Surprise, Surprise!

Okay call me Gomer Pyle, but I ain't got no headache now that I read wut grandpa hadda say about it all. I sur do value my elders.

I will try to git back ta yah when I can. But I got alotta responsibilities I accepted to undertake and seeing it all thru to the end means that's the constitution I hold accountable to myself. Impeach me az a commenter iffen I don't.

Thanks Mister Griper, I have found very few blogs that challenged me to think deeper than you have. So when I say you are a headache, please take it as a true compliment.

And oh by the way "flipsy" wuz mah word verification. Maybe karma iz truely governing me after all.

The Griper said...

he blushes, thank you for the compliment, my friend.

LandShark 5150 said...

Nibble, not hitting yet, but I do believe you stated earlier of the original intent or language there of the founders, I would be led to think that this amendment of 1861 would have been meant for the institution of slavery. Now that said, Lincoln had no intention of the preservation of states rights, other than the "State" nor concern of the 10th amendment. So the words "domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State” is the treble hook I'm staring at thru the chum trail.
One point (10th amendment/states rights)is very sharp and clear in my eye.
Another point(slavery), very rusty and may be considered dull yet still dangerous.
The third point on the treble that I'm trying to evade is the death roll. The reason for the amendment was killed with the civil war. And lincoln may have originally cast the line out there, he soon cut it to preserve the union. The textiles from the south was more important than the slaves at the outbreak of secession. Concessions could be given and soon fall to the ocean floor to save the boat. Because we all know a bigger boat is better. Right? (Ha)
But I'm still circling in wonder, my friendly fisher of thought

The Griper said...

i acknowleged that the reason for this amendment was different back then than i proposed in this post. you'll find it in the second paragraph of grandpa's words. but the point of it is that it explicitly reflects the intent of the founding fathers in regards to separation of powers.

LandShark 5150 said...

100% agreemant on seperation of powers but the arguement I see that would be the wall banger is the intent of the amendment when written. And I see a headache from it. As said more studying on this topic is coming from me.

Oh and happy birthday to this amendment mar 2, 1861!

The Griper said...

you're making a good devil's advocate, sharky but be more specific about your concerns

LandShark 5150 said...

Griper - the devils advocate is a stretch but the phrase " including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State" should put an end to the argument and the actual 13th amendment would clarify it further.
What I see is a clear cut means to the end as you propose. The advocate part is hard for me to reach since I don't reside in Libtardia.
Also what I've found is that although Illinois ratified it, it was done in convention and not legislature. So that could be argued and make for a tough sell in that state again being the socialist they lean towards.
Still swimming on the advocate side, but the proposal you speak of - I'm on the boat!

LandShark 5150 said...

Griper - this amendment was very difficult in 1861 and I do believe would continue today. Meaning that this amendment was proposed in order to keep the "cotton states" from secession. A compromise, if you will. It barely passed then - the House on February 28 by a vote of 133-65, and the Senate approved it on March 2 (2 days before Lincoln took office) by a vote of 24-12.

As stated in Harper's Weekly 03/16/1861 - TWO NIGHTS IN THE SENATE.
"Hour after hour had slipped away; it was six o'clock in the morning, and no vote had been taken on the Resolution. In six hours more the Inauguration was to take place. half an hour or so before daylight, the ayes and nayes were called for, and the Resolution passed by 24 to 12—just the necessary two-thirds."

So as tough as the sell was then, the argument today would be told as 'states repealing slavery'. Nonsense of course since the 13th Amendment - Ratified (note: end of the war) 12/6/1865. Took 309 days to do so. " Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction") would still enforce anti-slavery issue. So what would happen to the 13 th ?

The 13 th is basically a rewrite of the Corwin with States rights omitted, correct? You know I do believe in original intent, so the sticky on it I believe will lie not on Corwin, but on Lincoln. Before the out break of war he endorsed and even in his inaugural address referred to it "had no objection to its being made express and irrevocable." Lincoln's March 16, 1861 letters to the governors did not endorse or oppose the proposed thirteenth amendment. They merely transmitted a copy of the joint resolution to amend the constitution. After the firing on Fort Sumter and Lincoln's call for troops, important border states Virginia and Tennessee, among others, seceded. The War greatly reduced the purpose of possible compromise. Lincoln may have believed the Constitution supported slavery. His support of the Corwin amendment may have attempted to codify that belief, but the War changed his opinion on presidential power. Those powers led to the end of the Republic and restored the union. That's an argument for another sticky wall.

But with all this said, do I think that the Corwin amendment has a foot hold - yes. My thought is that although Lincoln stepped on and disrupted the issue of states rights, he firmly believed in the original intent of the Constitution shown thru his endorsement of the amendment. So the very wording he endorsed "No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof" gives credence to your point. And the final part of that "including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State" is the over riding question of what to do with the 13 th we are living with now.

As you so stated on the wording of and thinking into, what say you?

The Griper said...

the difficulty of its passage at the time, sharky, was the result of divided beliefs on the issue of slavery.

as for the question of the 13th amendment we need to look at how ratifying this amendment would affect that amendement. there are only two possibilities;
1. it would not affect the 13th amendment thus the question would be irrelevant.

2. it would automatically repeal the 13th amendment and this might be a problem if there is no logical answer to it. i might even go farther than that by saying it might automatically repeal the 14th and 15th amendment. if so, we would be in the same situation we were in prior to the war and prior to the seccession of the first State, right?

now, every problem has a solution and this one has a solution also.

Lista said...

Wasn't that the Amendment that Related to the Sovereignty of the States in Relation to the Issue of Slavery? And Yes, I See that LandShark has Confirmed this.

When it Comes to Prejudiced and Racism, there are Some, Even Today that Connect the Issue of States Rights with Racism. You'd Think that by now, that would have Faded into the Past, yet Apparently Not.

Good Post, Griper.


Words of Wisdom of my visitors

Grab This Widget

Gas Buddy

Search for gas prices by US Zip Code


Design by Amanda @ Blogger Buster