rambling rants and ravings from me to no one

[NJCubScouter]

NW, that was a good post and I agree with it. I just have one little comment on your statement about the 13th amendment. Unlike all the other amendments prior to the 14th, its effect was not limited to the federal government. In fact, I believe it is the only amendment that reaches beyond ALL governments and directly controls private actions as well. Section 1 of the 13th amendment says:

 

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.

 

As a result, the 13th amendment was immediately effective and enforceable nationwide and did not require the 14th amendment for its enforcement. You are correct that the rights contained in previous amendments (basically, the Bill of Rights) were not enforceable against the states until after the passage of the 14th amendment, and even then it was a number of years before the U.S. Supreme Court determined that that was the case, and it wasn't done wholesale, but on a selective basis. (This is oversimplified; I think there was a whole chapter in my constitutional law textbook about this.)

[Proud Eagle]

I really must thank everyone for the intelligent replies. I never expected any based on what I first posted.

 

I must say I stand corrected about Judge Moore's oath of office.

 

However, the idea that US Federal Courts supercede any State/Local government oath of office automatically is false. In practice the federal government can impose its will on any state or local government and the officers thereof. However, if Judge Moore's oath of office had not included any obligation to uphold the US Constitution (which others have testitified that it did, and I take them at their word) then he would have faced the choice of upholding his oath or upholding a court order. That would be quite a position to be in.

 

Though from what I understand Judge Moore doesn't fully recognize the jurisdiction of the federal court in this case. In reallity Judge Moore is trying to argue that many of pre-Civil War concepts of law and the Constitution are correct. From all study I have done it does seems that judicial activism really did become an issue after (or perhaps immediately prior to) the Civil War. The Civil War did two things: it ended slavery and showed that State government has no means to resist any of the powers of any of the branches of the federal goverment. I would hope that everyone agrees about the good of the former, but there is much dispute about the good of the latter.

 

Really if you look at the pre Civil War US government it was more like the UN, EU, or US gov under the Articles of Confederation than the current US government. What was once a union of the several States, formed with powers granted by the soverign States, has become a government restrained only by the unlikely threat of general rebellion against the current whims of vocal minorities, pluralities, and majorities.

 

I doubt we would recognize, in practice, the government created by the Founding Fathers, nor would they likely recognize the government we currently tolerate. While we may still have the original text within the Constitution, I think only a fool would argue that we have the same goverment as the framers and founders.

 

I am not arguing at the moment weather or not we are better off with our current system or would be better off with the system as it was. I am just pointing out it is not really the same system.

 

I hope anyone who reads this has a good day/night/whatever. I don't really want to start an argument over these issues. I am just trying to put a few closing thoughts on this thread I started.