Posted on 08/20/2004 5:43:21 AM PDT by TexConfederate1861
Oh, no. Here it comes..........
Yep....duck and wait for the WLAT Brigade! :_)
Morning, SB!
Here's your Dixie wake-up call. Thanks, Tex!
Deo Vindice!
My Pleasure......anything to wake up the opposition! :)
History never ceases to amaze me..
Actually, I think the column is almost verbatim from Prof. DiLorenzo's book. Thus, nothing new - just something to keep the pot stirred up.
And yes, as a matter of fact my copy of The Real Lincoln was signed by the author.
Because the people supported it, Lincoln could get away with suspending habeas corpus.
Because the people opposed it, Nixon could not get away with the far less serious crime of breaking and entering.
What most people fail to understand is that words on paper in a document called the Constitution have never had any finite meaning.
Thus if the people support going to war in Iraq it does not matter what authority or lack of authority exists. As long as the people support it, Bush has all the authority he needs. When the people no longer support a president, he could follow every rule perfectly, but if enough of the public were against him, he would still be impeached and convicted of high crimes and misdemeanors.
Of the people, by the people, and for the people.. says it all
Another Tommy DiLusional POS? You forgot the barf alert.
You'd think he reads FreeRepublic.
Wow, stuff we weren't taught in 5th grade, back in '59.
Yes but imagine had he lived what he would have accomplished.....
To put it in the most simplest terms (most simplest?) ...
WAR is HELL! and Lincoln did what HE thought was best for the country.
Since the north won, history is kind to the victor.
If the south had succeeded in upholding the Constitution of the United States as written, Lincoln would have been hanged as the real traitor.
Are you a DEMORAT? Of COURSE the Constitution had "finite" meaning......JEEEZ!
Well he has a PHD? do you?
No, just a B.S. and an MBA. But you are aware that his doctorate is in economics and not history, aren't you? One would hope that he does better there than when he tries to tackle subjects outside his field of education.
The finite meaning went out the door when neither Thomas Jefferson or James Madison(the Constitution's author) challenged the ruling in Marbury Vs Madison in 1803.
In that decision the court ruled that the Constitution had no "finite" meaning. That decision written by Chief Justice Marshall ruled the constitution meant what ever 5 of the nine justices said it meant that day. The reserved the right to decide it meant somthing else tomorrow.
Since that time there have been hundreds of decisions by the surpreme court that violate the "finite" meaning of the Document. Many rulings have created provisions that are not even mentioned in the document .. The Constitution expressly says that the court has no jurisdiction over things not in the constitution. To get around that he court just says provisions exist even when they don't. Abortion is an exmaple. The word abortion does not exist in the text of the constitution. The Supreme Court ruled the word was in the penumbra of the constitution. Look up the word Penumbra to get a clue.
To claim that the constitution has "finite" meaning is to just ingore the two hundred and one years that have transpired since it last had "finite" meaning.
If you had ever studied history, you would know the truth of what I say.
I missed the Union vote on suspending the Habeas Corpus - what was the date?
Marbury did no such thing. It meant that a majority of the Court could rule an act of Congress to be unconstitutional and therefore void. This is a far cry from ordering remedies, which is the real problem.
ML/NJ
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.