[DoodleDawg]

When one threatens to lock up a Supreme Court justice to ensure one's continuing abuse of power, one does at that point not need to worry about Supreme Court decisions going against them.

And again you resort to fairy tale instead of fact and show your ignorance to boot. Nobody threatened to lock Roger Taney up. And even if they had then it must not have taken, because in the case that determined the constitutionality of the Confiscation Acts Roger Taney voted with the minority.

Are we debating truth or are we debating power?

As near as I can tell we're debating why we should accept that your interpretation of the Constitution is true and the Supreme Court's interpretation is wrong. And based on your track record on other subjects relating to the rebellion - tariffs, motivations, etc. - then I have no problem at all dismissing your posts as the drivel they are.

[DiogenesLamp]

And again you resort to fairy tale instead of fact and show your ignorance to boot.

It has been proven. Lincoln's very own bodyguard says it's true, and so does at least one other source. It is sufficient to establish the point without stronger evidence to demonstrate it isn't true.

Do you have any evidence that it isn't beyond "historians" claiming they can't find any proof (which they will believe) that it is?

We also know that Lincoln locked up people willy nilly, and so it's not even a stretch to believe that he threatened, and even went so far as to write out an arrest warrant for Chief Justice Tanney.

then I have no problem at all dismissing your posts as the drivel they are.

You will do that regardless of what I say or show you because you have no intention on considering any perspective that contradicts what you wish to believe.

You are a cheerleader and an apologist, not an objective philosopher who is looking for the truth.

[itsahoot]

“When the uncertain future becomes the past, the past in turn becomes uncertain.” ― Mohsin Hamid