I shall return ...(the last guy to make that statement took a few years to fulfill it.)
| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 04/13/2005 10:44:44 AM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:
Endless complaints. |
Posted on 12/31/2004 2:21:30 PM PST by Caipirabob
It's true that the People are themselves above constitutions and laws, but it wasn't in that capacity that Lincoln and the Union States claimed to act, but under color of the authority of the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. It was in the name of that clause that Lincoln declared insurrection (unconstitutionally) and summoned the State Militias (unconstitutionally). But if you're lying your ass off, you'd better lay a string of whoppers as fast as you can to keep the parade moving. Kinda like the Clintons.
Is the reason you argue everything but the law, the simple fact that you cannot defend your positions based on the law?
Although I'm sure Garrison would have gone along, had Lincoln or Stanton whispered in his ear how many Southern cities, plantations, and farms they intended to burn to the ground or confiscate for "taxes due".
That's why they called him a "fire eater", dummy!
But then, you are selectively quoting from the most extreme opinion in the South to justify an enormous war crime. So I guess you need to "go for it" polemically.
If the Supreme Court ruled that abortion, even late-term or partial-birth abortion were Constitutionally protected, and you felt it was infanticide, would you do something to close down the abortion mills beside talk and talk and talk about the moral outrage.
What would your sense of "higher law" authorize you to do to the abortionists?
He doesn't have the law, so he can't pound the law. He doesn't have the facts, so he can't pound the facts. What he is doing is pounding the table and insisting that the man he shot was a dues-paying member of the Ku Klux Klan, so that makes it okay.
We've got the knife, we've got the facts, we've got the dead body, and we've got a few million eyewitnesses. So our friends have to pound the table to pieces.
The fact that those who said they wanted slavery eradicated in principle were slave-owners all their adult lives and died slave-owners, and never freed their own slaves, demonstrates that their position is the same b-s as yours.
Just for added context, Garrison burned a copy of the Constitution in public.
U.S. Const., Art 4, Sec 4: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."
Lincoln carefully stopped quoting from that section before he reached the part that required, as a condition precedent for applicability or action, an "Invasion" or an "Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."
There was clearly no "Invasion" of the North.
There was clearly no "Application" by the Legislature or Executive of any State.
The Army of the Potomac was not headed South to assist the marshals of the courts in putting down "domestic Violence."
No one is saying that those who are defending the confederacy are defending slavery, what we are saying is that the confederacy is not the model for American ideals and should not be put forth as such.
So no slaves were freed, and no states passed laws banning slavery since the Constitution was ratified?
Slavery, as Stephens noted, was considered immoral by the Founders, even if they were not consistent in how they dealt with it.
That view changed with the CSA constitution.
Much of the problem with slavery came from those who did intend to keep their 'property' and resisted efforts by the Founders to remove it.
So, those who were resistent ending up leading the nation into war so they could keep their 'property'
I think I probably could but I might disagree with you somewhere along the line and we both know how that just pisses you off no end.
As did the confederate constitution. But the confederate constitution went a step further and specifically protected slave imports from one specific country. The U.S. Constitution did not.
No, blissful one, I was referring to the hoops that the south had to jump through to amend their constitution. It could only be done on the demand of at least three states and then needed the approval of 2/3rds of the other states. Since every southern state constitution of the time that I've seen had a clause in it somewhere that prevented the legislature from passing any legislation that might negatively impact slavery then it's interesting to speculate what might have happened to such a proposed amendment. Wouldn't voting for a convention to consider such an amendment be considered legislation that might negatively impact slavery and, as a result, be unconstitutional? It would have made an interesting supreme court case, had such an institution existed in the confederacy.
Well, no. They headed south to put down the war that the rebellious states started by firing on Sumter. Happy, happy nolu chan, you should know that.
Take off the blackface.
Please provide documentation for your science and evolution claim.
I shall return ...(the last guy to make that statement took a few years to fulfill it.)
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.