Posted on 07/04/2013 5:14:37 AM PDT by Kaslin
I never encountered lost causers until FreeRepublic. Crap like “Lincoln Idolators” is the simple-minded stuff that repels otherwise open-minded folks.
After reading the claims of LCL’s I went on my own into the archives and read first hand about him...the man did what was necessary to uphold the duties of his office and defend our nation. Thank God he did.
And yet Washington let Mifflin know that either he (Mifflin) would attend to the insurrectionists or else Washington would. And, as you will recall, he didn’t stop at the state border waiting for an answer.
I don’t have a problem with him securing the Union... that War is over and the outcome is History... but he violated the Constitution and destroyed States Rights forever. You can’t learn about Lincoln in one morning and depending on what you read... you may not even be reading the truth.
LLS
Yea he committed a couple of technical violations of the Constitution but what president hasn’t? I’d say that his measures were appropriate to the circumstances. I’ve only been participating in the WBTS threads for six or seven years now but in that time I read dozens of books from all perspectives and looked into the claims of all the neo-confeds. I’m confident of where the truth lies.
Oops - forgot to respond to this: “...and destroyed States Rights forever.”
That’s just foolish hyperbole. You’re better than that.
LLS
States don’t have rights - they have powers.
I’ve always been ambivalent about initiatives. They tend to veer uncomfortably close to pure the democracy favored by the left than to representative republicanism. That said I fell on the side of the proponents of Prop 8 and was sorry to see it gutted by the 9th circus court.
But remember, all SCOTUS said was that the plaintiffs did not have standing to argue the case before the bench - they did not rule on the merits of Prop 8 or homo marriage itself. The only ones who had standing to pursue the case was governor moonbeam or the state AG.
Would you have preferred that they came to the “right” result but at the expense of the rule of law?
I agree with you about Proposition 8 and I also respect the right for California to have these initiatives coded into their Constitution. The SCOTUS was wrong... but these days they usually are... either by being politically active legislators from the bench or via cowardly evasiveness.
The SCOTUS nullified the will of the people of California through their cowardice. I would have preferred that they had stated that the Constitution of California contains the right of the people to modify it via the ballot initiative process and that it was a State matter and not within the power of the Federal Judiciary to legislate it otherwise. I also wish that roberts had not used "legislating from the bench" to declare obamacare a tax when the Federal government itself was arguing that it was not a tax... but we all suspect why roberts ruled the way that he did... and it was not a morally nor Constitutionally correct decision.
And to maintain an economic system that used, bought and sold human beings as chattel. Yup, you got it.
Every day is Memorial Day when you think about it.
I realize that it is a niggling point but rights are endowed unto us by God whereas powers are granted by the people to government (local, state, federal, etc).
IMO we have to be very precise if we are to beat the left. In my state (Washington) we have a great social agitator named Tim Eyman. You can read about him here: http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Tim_Eyman He has sponsored a bunch of great initiatives. He has lost more than he has won but he learned from each mistake and improved his initiatives until they were as close to bullet proof as possible.
Like I said, a bunch of his initiatives passed only to be killed by legal challenges. The lefties would study and pore over the things until they found flaws that they could exploit. The frustrating is that our left-dominated state legislature would routinely undo everything that Eyman (and The People) accomplished. That’s because the state legislature (representatives elected by The People) hold more concentrated power than The People whose only practical recourse is to toss them out of office by electing someone else.
This is why, as much as I appreciate the sentiment behind Prop 8, I knew that it wouldn’t survive in leftist-dominated California. The only way a law like that can stand is if the elected representatives (legislature and governor) support it.
If (we) don’t like it (we) need to throw the rascals out!
I am all for throwing progressives out of office everywhere... and especially in California!!! Man if only they could get a grip and open the eyes of the low information voter. Reagan reached them... captured their imagination... he did it as Governor and he did it as President. I understand that was long ago and that California has slanted hard left... but I still wish it would happen and I know that it is possible... however unlikely. Sad times these.
LLS
Blaming all this nation's ills on one man isn't sickening...it's amusing.
Specifically what caused the change?
How?
Article III, Section 2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the Supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
Looks pretty explicit to me. The Supreme Court had jurisdiction to accept the appeal and issue the ruling it did.
The SCOTUS nullified the will of the people of California through their cowardice.
The Supreme Court nullified nothing. It sent the case back to the lower court.
The War is over and the South lost. Nothing will change anything of the past and in our future we may be fighting common enemies so let’s just drop this now. I have no wish to continue with a thread that divides us further. I should never have posted here in the first place.
LLS
So you're saying that that implies that Mifflin could take his state outside the union? That's debatable. It's also possible that not complying would have made Mifflin a rebel and an outlaw.
That's why Washington and Hamilton also called up the militia in neighboring states. See Paul Johnson's version.
The sense of Hamilton's passage doesn't confirm your interpretation. The federal government is charged with ensuring that federal laws are enforced -- and not just when a state governor allows it to do so.
Worshiping the man that destroyed the Republic ...
If the Republic was destroyed, secession had a lot to do with it. It was recognized at the time that secession was a major break with what came before. What was left of the country was going to be very different from what it was, whatever Lincoln did or didn't do.
Or maybe it was later 20th century developments that killed the Old Republic: Wilson, the Roosevelts, LBJ. It seems perverse to put all the blame on Lincoln, particularly since the federal government wasn't that much larger or more powerful than it had been and wasn't anything like it is today.
Shouldn't you also note that the "Old Republic" didn't give you -- and a lot of other people -- voting rights? I'm all for the Founders and their work, but isn't it the case that changes do come, and not all of them are bad?
What America tried to do is to reconcile a republican structure and republican checks and balances with a democratic expansion of the electorate. Maybe it won't work, but we ought to recognize the effort.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.