Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
View past Libertarian pings here
Posted on 06/26/2014 7:06:44 AM PDT by navysealdad
And how many divisions does the Supreme Court have?
The reason secession failed in 1860 was primarily due to the fact that the South was totally unprepared for war, having no industrial base of its own, and they let themselves be suckered by Lincoln into striking the first blow. They then lost any moral high ground they might have held. Also, the NON-slaveholders let the slave owners write too much of their justification for seceding, which locked THEM into the slaveowners’ position and gave Lincoln cause to tar them all with that brush.
TODAY’S secessionists are not that gullible, nor that naive. If such an action becomes necessary (and Maine seems to think it is), there will be NO ceding of the moral high ground. No more Fort Sumters is the rallying cry and they mean it, in every way.
Lincoln’s run-in with the Supremes had to do with his absolute abuse of Habeas Corpus. He ignored them, just as he did Congress (not at all unlike Obummer). He jailed (for as long as HE pleased) mainly newspaper editors, state lawmakers (of Maryland, to keep THEM from seceeding, thus leaving the District of Criminals, as ever was, surrounded) and a few dissident congresscritters. He acted like, and WAS, a slimy, vile tyrant who brings to mind (my mind, anyway), the Vietnam war jackass who gave birth to the phrase, “We had to destroy the village in order to save it.” Lincoln had to destroy the Constitution in order to “save” the union!
Oh, and they’ll take the Constitution with them, seeing as how the Feds under most of our latest presidents (like from Teddy Roosevelt and Woody Wilson but excluding Calvin Coolidge, onwards) have not seemed to want it. Reagan came close to using it and he gave those of us serving under him back the pride and dignity we had lost under LBJ, Nixon, Ford and especially Carter. All presidents I served under. Then came Bush I and Billy Jeff Clown, and I was happy to retire before his forays got folks killed so needlessly, but I digress.
There is NO EXPLICIT ARTICLE prohibiting it. Read the 10th Amendment. Then read many of the State Constitutions from the time of the Founding, where a specific right to leave was inserted. Remember, it was the STATES WHO CREATED FedGov, and NOT A ONE OF THEM TRUSTED THE NEW CENTRAL GOVERNMENT ENOUGH TO BIND THEM WITHOUT A MEANS OF EGRESS FROM THE NEW UNION. Were they right to do so? My answer is a hearty Hell, YEAH!!!!!
One would think so.
What appointees where they ? and what rulings or regulations did they make ? E.P.A. ? I.R.S. ?
Labor union guys making labor union friendly decisions.
The preezy’s power to make recess appointments hasn’t been “limited.” He can still make all the recess appointments he wants. The decision only says he can’t decide when congress is/isn’t in recess. A lot of high-fiving for not a whole lot.
I can’t for the life of me figure out why coal mines and large corporations aren’t simply ignoring Obama’s illegal rulings. Just say no!
I was finally able to catch Mark Levin’s audio rewind today and it’s definitely worth a listen for the first couple of segments. I had a feeling when I heard this news today it shouldn’t be taken at face value. And Mark explains why this is so.
Here’s the recap from marklevin.com:
On Thursday’s Mark Levin Show: Mark talks about a recent Supreme Court decision that grants the President the power to nominate and appoint Cabinet positions while Congress is in recess; even if the recess period is not specifically determined. Mark says this is a blatant abuse of power, and limits Congress’ power once again to the Executive as the power lies with the President to do as he pleases. The President and the Executive is now able to manipulate the Appointment process as he pleases, and the Supreme Court is allowing it to do so. Mark says it should be a very big concern that President Obama has done so much already without Constitutional authority and yet nothing has happened to him. There’s no impeachment brought against him, there’s rarely any argument from many Republicans and definitely none from Democrats.
And here’s a link to the audio rewind page. Select June 26 if you want to hear what this the decision really means.
http://www.marklevinshow.com/common/page.php?pt=podcasts&id=191&is_corp=0
Like the King will listen to the SOCUS.....
I notice that the 13th Amendment abolishing slavery came AFTER the Civil War. So did Lincoln take matters into his own hands regardless of the Constitution? It appears maybe he did and the states had a valid Constitutional grievance with the feds, one so egregious to them that they chose to secede.
It would appear that the Constitutional approach would have been to get a Constitutional Amendment first. Unable? Then, as was the case at the founding, the republic would have to endure this blight until there were enough votes to make slavery unconstitutional. Otherwise, you allow for tyranny, maybe for "good" at that point, but at some future point (now), it's another story. Tyranny always starts with "doing good."
I’ve heard lawyers today say things like, “The Civil War abolished state’s rights”. That is the potential tradeoff for defying the Rule of Law in the name of “doing good.”
Our Presidents and some VPs may think they are dictators.....they are not regardless of their Party. We all need to remember that Presidents are not dictators even if they are Democrats.
When a President steps out of line with our Constitution (D/R) they need impeached. They need their axx thrown out by the people, because then they will respect the people.
And then The Supremes said "don't do it again".
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.