Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: donmeaker
No contract can be abrogated at will by a single party to it. If it was so, then there would be no reason to have a contract.

Look up 'breach of contract'.

The US constitution has within it, means to resolve issues between the states, or between the states and the federal Constitution.

Then why didn't disHonest Abe pursue those? Delegates were sent to Warshington for that express purpose, weren't they. disHonest Abe didn't want a court resolution because his overriding objective was to destroy once and for all the system of federalism and states' rights that the founding fathers had created as a check on the centralizing tendencies of the state. He didn't put it this way, of course, but instead used the deceptive language of "saving the Union." But holding any union together at gunpoint destroys it by destroying its voluntary and consensual nature.

But, we can't expect a hard core neo-yank False Cause Loser to accept the truth in place of your cherished propaganda, can we, herr meaker?

115 posted on 12/27/2011 3:02:31 AM PST by cowboyway (Molon labe : Deo Vindice : "Rebellion is always an option!!"--Jim Robinson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies ]


To: cowboyway

Lincoln didn’t pursue a legal case after the south started shooting. The Confederates never had much of a legal system, Jeff Davis never got around to appointing anyone to the pretended Confederate Supreme Court.

The southern insurrectionists didn’t pursue a legal case until after they lost the war. Then their legal case, (Texas v. White) was lost too.


180 posted on 01/01/2012 12:10:14 PM PST by donmeaker (e is trancendental)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson