Yesterday, for the first time ever, I watched The Colbert Report (pronounce reh-pore). That show is funny.
It comes on at 11:30 PM on weekdays here, immediately following The Daily Show. When you compare Stephen Colbert to Jon Stewart, you get, in my opinion, a far funnier person. Stewart is quite predictable nowadays--take a couple shots at Bush, interview someone (usually incorporating a shot at Bush), have someone else do a segment, and then hand it off to Colbert. You can throw in a 3rd shot at Bush for good measure.
According to Wikipedia, Colbert's show was pitched in the following manner: "Stephen Colbert parodies The O'Reilly Factor." This manifests itself most clearly in "The Word" which is clearly based on O'Reilly's "Talking Points." This is by far the funniest segment of the show, as Colbert makes ridiculous (and ridiculously funny) statements with even funnier statements shown at the side.
As it may be clear to you if you look at the bottom of the screen, I am conservative. Both Colbert and Stewart mock conservatives far more often than liberals, and both are Democrats. But I like Colbert; I don't like Stewart. Colbert's mockery comes mostly with his style. Stewart's comes with what he is actually saying. Thus it is far easier to swallow Colbert's humor. Plus I have no problem with someone mocking Bill O'Reilly.
If it came on a bit earlier, I might become a devoted follower of The Colbert Report. As it is, I'll catch it when I can.
Thursday, April 13, 2006
Monday, April 10, 2006
The Election of 1860, the Constitution, and Southern Secession
I attend a small university deep in the south of Virginia. That means that my friends down here who read this may villify me. But as I tell them, I can't help it.
The election of 1860 indirectly triggered one of the biggest disasters in United States history. Out of four major candidates, Abraham Lincoln was elected president with 39% of the popular vote in the nation, and 0% of the popular vote in the South. Realizing that they no longer had power to elect a president, and fearing that, because he was a Republican, Lincoln would try to end slavery, the South seceded. James Buchanan's indifference did not help either.
I will now digress for a moment. The Electoral College was created to form a buffer between the voters and the most powerful office in the nation. Since votes were counted by states, not by individual, the main result is that states elect the president, not the people. It is my impression that because, as states, South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Lousiana, and Texas, would be ruled by a president they did not elect, they seceded.
Well, guess what. The other states did elect the president, and thus the states as a whole elected the president. Lincoln got a majority of the electoral vote, after all. Just because the Southern ones did not vote for the winner does not mean they could secede. Secession was, in part, the South throwing a fit that they could not have a say in the election of the president. If Lincoln had not been elected, but, say, Breckenridge had, the South would not have seceded.
I derived this analysis one day last month, because I thought I needed a good reason why secession was ridiculous. I still wanted to share it because I had never seen it before.
However, I found a better explanation today, while researching for this piece, and it needs to be mentioned. The Constitution explicitly prevents secession.
In full, here is Article VI of the Constitution of the United States:
All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
----------
What is important here? It is the third paragraph. Read that and try to tell me that secession is provided for in the Constitution. Basically, all members of all 3 branches of the government - legislative, executive, and judicial - "shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution." By seceding, the Southern states were clearly removing their support for the Constitution that their elected and appointed officials had promised to support.
It would be easier if I just showed you where I found this reasoning. The logic in this piece here is crystal clear, makes perfect sense, and can not be denied. It was part of a research project by secondary school students in Wisconsin, but that does not take away its reasoning - after all, they got it straight from our Constitution.
The only way to support secession is through the Declaration of Independence, but guess what - that's not the law of the land.
The election of 1860 indirectly triggered one of the biggest disasters in United States history. Out of four major candidates, Abraham Lincoln was elected president with 39% of the popular vote in the nation, and 0% of the popular vote in the South. Realizing that they no longer had power to elect a president, and fearing that, because he was a Republican, Lincoln would try to end slavery, the South seceded. James Buchanan's indifference did not help either.
I will now digress for a moment. The Electoral College was created to form a buffer between the voters and the most powerful office in the nation. Since votes were counted by states, not by individual, the main result is that states elect the president, not the people. It is my impression that because, as states, South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Lousiana, and Texas, would be ruled by a president they did not elect, they seceded.
Well, guess what. The other states did elect the president, and thus the states as a whole elected the president. Lincoln got a majority of the electoral vote, after all. Just because the Southern ones did not vote for the winner does not mean they could secede. Secession was, in part, the South throwing a fit that they could not have a say in the election of the president. If Lincoln had not been elected, but, say, Breckenridge had, the South would not have seceded.
I derived this analysis one day last month, because I thought I needed a good reason why secession was ridiculous. I still wanted to share it because I had never seen it before.
However, I found a better explanation today, while researching for this piece, and it needs to be mentioned. The Constitution explicitly prevents secession.
In full, here is Article VI of the Constitution of the United States:
All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
----------
What is important here? It is the third paragraph. Read that and try to tell me that secession is provided for in the Constitution. Basically, all members of all 3 branches of the government - legislative, executive, and judicial - "shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution." By seceding, the Southern states were clearly removing their support for the Constitution that their elected and appointed officials had promised to support.
It would be easier if I just showed you where I found this reasoning. The logic in this piece here is crystal clear, makes perfect sense, and can not be denied. It was part of a research project by secondary school students in Wisconsin, but that does not take away its reasoning - after all, they got it straight from our Constitution.
The only way to support secession is through the Declaration of Independence, but guess what - that's not the law of the land.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)