|
CSB, I appreciate your input, really.
My issue with the "settled at Appomattox" view is that the criteria cited is something settled by force of arms. It takes the view that "we settled it because we kicked their ass."
My view is that nowhere in the Constitution is such a mechanism prohibited. Several states had individually petitioned the national government on this issue with their grievances prior to hostilities, those grievances falling upon deaf ears. It could be a comparison of:
- "That which is not explicitly permitted is denied." Seems rather statist to me. (And, honestly, I don't recognize the existence of the EU's documents to be a retroactive vindication of the Appomattox verdict.)
Contrasted with:
- "That which is not expressly denied is permitted." In my view that is more in keeping with the larger tenor of the founding documents of a limited national government, all else being reserved to the states.
__________________
"Civil Wars don't start when a few guys hunt down a specific bastard. Civil Wars start when many guys hunt down the nearest bastards."
The coin paid to enforce words on parchment is blood; tyrants will not be stopped with anything less dear. - QP Peregrino
|