Thread: U.S. government is overstepping its stated powers

LETTER TO THE EDITOR:

Ray Kolander, Las Vegas

Friday, Dec. 31, 2010 | 2:01 a.m.

This is in response to the Las Vegas Sun’s Monday editorial, “A states’ rights ruseâ€

[quote="topsecret10"]LETTER TO THE EDITOR:

Ray Kolander, Las Vegas

Friday, Dec. 31, 2010 | 2:01 a.m.

This is in response to the Las Vegas Sun’s Monday editorial, “A states’ rights ruseâ€

Actually Article 5 of the US Constitution bypass's the congress and president. It takes 2/3 to bring the thing to a floor and 3/4 to pass it bypassing Congress and the President.

It was a check put in place by the founding fathers to give a way past and around a corrupt congress that cannot get things done.

"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall
propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the
Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for
proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and
Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of
three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths
thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the
Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One
thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and
fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State,
without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."

This is also a potential way to enforce immigration laws by creating an Amendment for what we need. Its pretty much the only way around congress and the executive veto powers. However this is exactly what this article is written for.

It is stunning that anyone would celebrate secession, particularly given that South Carolina tried to leave the union to protect legalized slavery.

Such dribble. South Carolina and the southern states were up against the ropes and were going to starve if they allowed the industrial north with their political power get away with the tariffs which favored the northern industries and decimated southern agricultural goods.

Your not going to worry about slaves if you cannot afford to feed them or yourself. The south was being fleeced to the benefit of the industrialists of the times. This was also a big debate some 35 yrs. prior when South Carolina also threatened secession. Same reason different time. This created the great nullification debates too, if memory serves me. If I remember correctly, it was a compromise back toward a more equitable tariff that saved the day. A import tax across the board more so than a tariff aimed at particular products. This was a trade war between America and Europe and the imports and exports, and the tariffs placed upon each along the way, with the south being beat up a bit too much.

Of course slavery evokes the emotions much more than an economic issue like tariffs. So the slavery issue was brought into the debate.

No one would want to defend slavery as an institution, but do we need to revise history in order to make it feel good?