FW: Towns and Townships

[Robert Fitzke]

My comment was based, primarily, on the first sentence of the Constitution,
whic says, "We, the People....do ordain and establish this Constitution..."

The debate is whether the Constitution is a creature of the states, and
thus, the individual states could, arguably, secede, or a creature of the
people.

My preference is the latter. That view avoids much of the rhetoric about
state's rights (which the Supreme Court chose to ignore\d in the Bush v Gore
case out of Florida).

Bob
----- Original Message -----
From: Frank Abate <abatefr at earthlink.net>
To: <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 11:10 AM
Subject: FW: Towns and Townships


> Bob F commented on my posting as follows:
>
> >>
> It's my understanding there is some considerable dispute over the accuracy
> of this statement, re "legally correct".
> <<
>
>
> What I meant by "legally correct" was that, per my reading of the
> Constitution and historical precedents at the time of the secession of
> Southern states, they had every right to do so.  Nothing I found in the US
> Constitution disallowed secession.  What DID disallow it was Lincoln's
> strong-willed political stance, backed by the armies of the Union.  Armies
> always trump constitutions.  And with the conclusion of that war, a
> precedent was set.  Now I expect it would be very hard, if not
> unconstitutional, for a state to secede.
>
> Needless to say, the Confederacy was not, so to speak, politically
correct.
>
> Frank Abate
>
>
> >
> > (and the fact that the Confederate states were legally
> > correct, but wanted for guns and ammo factories),
> >
> > Frank
> >
>