War.... (Historical: 9/11 discussion thread)

[geoschmo]

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

The sound you hear is the rest of the forum being put to sleep by Laz and Geo's facinating discussion about 18th and 19th century politics.

[Alpha Kodiak]

quote:

---

Originally posted by geoschmo:
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

The sound you hear is the rest of the forum being put to sleep by Laz and Geo's facinating discussion about 18th and 19th century politics.

---

I don't know, I think it is more interesting than the incessant droning of the talking heads on TV and radio. While this is truly the cataclysmic news story, there really isn't much new to say right at the moment, but that doesn't stop the news from saying the same thing over and o v e r aga...zzzzz

Uh, sorry. Where was I? Oh yeah, maybe I'm just insensitive, but it seems like we should at least start to get back to some sense of normalcy. They can always interrupt with real news. Of course, there is little that is worthwhile on TV normally anyway, so maybe this is an improvement.

Oh well, time to go back to sle... I mean work.

[geoschmo]

Oh man are you right about that.

The only thing worse than hearing the same thing over and over is hearing all these really specific, detailed reports, that turn out to be absolute bunk. That has been happening TOO much the past 48 hours.

I guess the new press rule is if you don't have anything new to say, make something up.

Geoschmo

[Lisif Deoral]

quote:

---

Originally posted by geoschmo:
I think the EU is really just an economic agreement isn't it. Kind of a T&R treaty in SEIV terms? I don't really know though. I didn't think it had any military ramifications at all.

---

Mainly economic, but not just that. There are also some political obligations and some attempts to coordinate foreign and internal (social) policies.
There's no military involvement - although most of the member states are also members of the NATO.

By the way, there's something I never understood about the American Civil War - had (has?) a member state the right to quit the Union? IOW, had the remaining member states the right to "restore order" through use of force?

[Baron Munchausen]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lisif:
Mainly economic, but not just that. There are also some political obligations and some attempts to coordinate foreign and internal (social) policies.
There's no military involvement - although most of the member states are also members of the NATO.

By the way, there's something I never understood about the American Civil War - had (has?) a member state the right to quit the Union? IOW, had the remaining member states the right to "restore order" through use of force?

---

That's the central issue of the Civil War, actually. It doesn't explicitly say in the Constitution that a state may withdraw from the union after joining, but it doesn't say that a state may NOT either. Many say that the 10th Amendment, which reserves powers not explicitly given to the Federal govt. for the people or the states, gives a state the implicit right to cecede from the union. This would make the war by the North illegal, but since the North won it got to write the history (and law) books.

[shonae]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lisif:
Mainly economic, but not just that. There are also some political obligations and some attempts to coordinate foreign and internal (social) policies.
There's no military involvement - although most of the member states are also members of the NATO.

---

You're forgetting that is changing now. Originally it was just an economic agreement but it is now gradually gaining more powers from the member countries. Also an European Defense/Task force is in the process of being formed using soldiers from the EU countries (mainly from Britain and France I think) and there has been talk of the EU becoming a United States of Europe.

Personally I wouldn't be surprised if by the end of the 21st century it came into being!

Ciao
Shonae

[geoschmo]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
That's the central issue of the Civil War, actually. It doesn't explicitly say in the Constitution that a state may withdraw from the union after joining, but it doesn't say that a state may NOT either. Many say that the 10th Amendment, which reserves powers not explicitly given to the Federal govt. for the people or the states, gives a state the implicit right to secede from the union. This would make the war by the North illegal, but since the North won it got to write the history (and law) books.

---

That's one way to look at it. I think a more valid argument is that by seceding from the Union, the southern states were not exercising their "implicit" rights maintained by the 10th amendment, but actually abrogating the "explicit" rights given to the federal government in all the other articles and amendments that they agreed to when the Constitution was ratified.

Constitutionally the only way the South could secede and form there own confederation was by a recommendation of amendment abolishing the current Constitution would have to be made by 3/4ths of the state legislatures of the various states, which would then have to be ratified by 4/5 fifths of the state legislatures. (Article V)

They would then be free to decide to join a new confederation, stay in the greater union after ratifying a new constitution, or form their own sovereign, independent nation.

Of course they did not have the required number of states to do this, so the result was an illegal action and as such the Federal government had the right to take the action it did.

quote:

---

Originally posted by LazaruLong42:
So the North blockaded Charleston and other major ports to stop trade between the new Confederacy and Britain/Europe, in an attempt to force them to trade with the Union. Frankly, even now that'd be considered an act of war. Follow Harper's Ferry, Fort Sumter, Civil War.

---

Constitionally the Confederate States of America was a non-entity, and the people in and defending it were actually still American citizens bound by the laws set forth in the U.S. Constitution. In that sense it was not actually a war at all but a police action.

Of course that Last point is semantics. The point is moot now.

Geoschmo

[This message has been edited by geoschmo (edited 15 September 2001).]

[This message has been edited by geoschmo (edited 15 September 2001).]