Posted on 05/04/2018 6:42:25 AM PDT by Bull Snipe
Leading elements of Union Major General George G. Meade's Army of the Potomac cross the Rapidan River. With a few hours they would clash with General Robert E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia in the Battle of the Wilderness. Lieutenant General Grant's Overland Campaign had begun.
Nope, it’s just a statement of fact. This is a personal attack on you though: Piss off.
No.
If the seven children of the parents’ estate can't agree to sell part of the farm for the Interstate Highway System, the government condemns the property, builds the road, and sends the children a check.
If the children do not like the payment amount, they can go to court.
But the Sovereign can condemn property when the other party does not act in good faith. Lincoln refused to even talk with Confederate representatives and then resorted to trickery.
Really?
If the seven children of the parents’ estate can't agree to sell part of the farm for the Interstate Highway System, the government condemns the property, builds the road, and sends the children a check.
Isn't the actual process 1) Government condemns the property, 2) government sends check for what it calculates is just compensation, and 3) government builds the road? If I were to buy your house is the proper order 1) I say I want your house, 2) you give me your house, and 3) I pay you for it?
But the Sovereign can condemn property when the other party does not act in good faith. Lincoln refused to even talk with Confederate representatives and then resorted to trickery.
If states can condemn and seize federal property without payment or without the agreement of the federal government, then can the federal government condemn and seize a state's property without payment and without agreement of the state? What clause of the Constitution supports such an idea?
“Since the federal government creates states then does that make them the super parent?”
States create other states. It was the states set up the procedure found in the Constitution that they (the states) created:
“New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.”
The states unambiguously specified that new states would only be created when the people’s representatives in Congress voted to do so.
Without an affirmative vote by Senators and Representatives - elected at the state level - no new states can be created by the “federal government.”
Can you think of a single exception where a state was created by federal bayonets?
I guess this was ignored in the case of West Virginia.
“This is a personal attack on you though: Piss off.”
Well that does not sound very nice.
States, as expressed through a vote in both houses of Congress. And isn't Congress a branch of the federal government?
Without an affirmative vote by Senators and Representatives - elected at the state level - no new states can be created by the “federal government.”
By the same token, if every state legislature voted to allow a territory to join the union then those actions would be meaningless, wouldn't they? Isn't it true that if the people of the territory vote to become a state, nothing happens? So it's still the federal government, i.e. congress, that creates the states, right?
The much-hated Wikipedia explains the power of eminent domain thusly:
“In federal law, Congress may take private property directly (without recourse to the courts) by passing an Act transferring title of the subject property directly to the government. In such cases, the property owner seeking compensation must sue the United States for compensation in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.”
“Isn’t the actual process 1) Government condemns the property, 2) government sends check for what it calculates is just compensation, and 3) government builds the road?”
The much-hated Wikipedia explains the power of eminent domain thusly:
“In federal law, Congress may take private property directly (without recourse to the courts) by passing an Act transferring title of the subject property directly to the government. In such cases, the property owner seeking compensation must sue the United States for compensation in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.”
I've not been able to find the law this particular paragraph references, but you are aware that Wiki, and all other information relating to eminent domain, contain the same requirement? That the property to be taken is private property? What law or clause of the Constitution allows the federal government to seize state land, or allows states to seize federal land?
He couldn’t talk to them. He said the same thing that Buchanan said to the delegates from South Carolina that came to see him. They would have to talk to Congress first, because until Congress passed a law to change the status of South Carolina as a state there was nothing that he could talk about. Both Buchanan and Lincoln stated that they had no constitutional authority to declare a state out of the union. But they did have the constitutional authority to declare a state(s) in rebellion.
Because he was pardoned by Andrew Johnson. Personally, I think he should of been hanged by neck until dead, but there was that whole reconciliation idea that Abraham Lincoln started.
And this is how Liberals do it. When Massachusetts drafted it's 1776 constitution, they decided to incorporate the stirring sentiment of Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence.
The Activist court decreed that putting those words into the Massachusetts constitution abolished slavery, even though there was absolutely no legislative intent to do so. They made up that law out of thin air, and then forced everyone to live under their newly made up law.
And that's how Liberals have been doing it ever since.
Collectively they were, but being beaten when you are outnumbered four to one is no shame.
You can't think of every war in terms of victimization. We didn't victimize the Germans or the Japanese because we conquered them.
None of them scared the New York Merchant class. The South scared the sh*t out of them.
Yet millions of people were freed in the Civil War. And that "principle" had been established long before the Civil War.
To quote the London Spectator in 1862:
"the principle is not that a human being cannot justly own another, but that he cannot own him unless he is loyal to the United States."
The lesson of the Civil War was "Don't be a fool and go to war with those who were once your countrymen for 'light and transient causes';
And as i've pointed out countless times, "light and transient causes" is a matter of opinion. The Canadians didn't consider British rule sufficiently bad to warrant a revolution. (Actually a war of independence. "revolution" is an incorrect term here.)
So far as they and the British were concerned, American complaints were "light and transient causes."
if you've got a representative government, you work within it to achieve your ends or a workable compromise, rather than treat your fellow citizens as enemies."
That is naive. One of the inherent defects in democracy is that the majority can always trample the rights of the minority, and the minority will never have sufficient power to rectify it.
Thankfully the Founders didn't follow your thinking about working within the British system to resolve their conflicts. It would have gotten them nowhere.
I am saying that the Constitution committed the country to keeping slavery until it could be abolished by the procedure contained within the Constitution for amending it.
It says nothing of the sort.
Are you willfully blind? It very much says that. I cannot fathom how you could possibly see it saying something different. Let's look at it.
No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.
This clearly says that state laws to abolish slavery are null and void if they interfere with returning a slave to his master.
The key word is "escaping" I don't see anything in there that says that you can bring your slaves to another state, be resident in that state, keep and work your slaves and then bring them back to your slave state with you.
George Washington did exactly this.
"Escaping" means attempting to get out of being held to service. The means by which this is attempted are irrelevant. Trying to claim the laws of a "free state" made you free, is an attempt to "escape" being held to labor due.
If you move to another state, you have to respect and obey its laws, and if those laws forbid slavery you are in violation of the laws.
No, any state attempting to refuse to allow a man to come into their state with his slaves, is violating the rest of Article IV, which requires states to respect each others' Privileges and immunities.
The problem here is that states were attempting to override Federally legal acts without going to the trouble of amending the Constitution. They were attempting bad faith claims to get what they wanted.
That does not mean that Wisconsin has to give visiting South Carolinians the "rights" Carolinians claim for themselves at home.
This is what I mean by acting in "bad faith." Under the meaning in 1787, it was accepted by all parties that slaveowners could go to other states with their slaves if they so wished. Had all parties been informed that this would allow the banning of travel or residence in certain states, the Slave owning states would have rejected the Constitution.
You are proffering a meaning contrary to what was understood by all parties in 1787. Again, more of that "living constitution" stuff.
Apparently, Wisconsin will have to allow a slaveowner to take slaves through the state, but if the slaveowner establishes residence in the state, he can't remain the owner of slaves without making a mockery of states rights and the Constitution.
And so now we move the dispute over to the meaning of the word "residence." What if he resides in Missouri, but has property in Wisconsin? Again, attempting to interfere with what was agreed upon in 1787 is acting in bad faith.
I did find your reference to Asperger's, but won't quote it here. It's not an advantage to be on the spectrum. Trust me. You have no idea how negatively people react to those who are too obsessional, narrowly focused, and fanatical.
I have joked about that for years. It has become a thing to claim you are using "weaponized Autism". It means nothing to me to let people think I have Aspergers, and the only thing surprising is that some people demonstrate irony by obsessing about it. :)
Why would he want to antagonize Pennsylvania? He obviously didn't agree that they could ban it in their state, but as a means of keeping peace withing a fragile coalition, he chose not to confront them on the point.
But this concept of the powerful subjugating people who are weaker than them did not lose. It was simply reinforced by the Civil War.
The slaves were freed simply because it was advantageous for the conquering power that it be so. They didn't intend to do that when they started, but they became increasingly angry at the people who had defied them, and freeing the slaves was not only revenge, it was just one more means to insure the South would never again become so financially powerful as to threaten the masters of Northern mercantilism again.
And this social/financial elite has been ruling the nation ever since.
Deny that I sometimes think I might have Aspergers? It isn't bothersome enough to deny. I have long ago reached the conclusion that Psychiatric Jargon only serves the interest of Psychiatrists who wish to pretend they have some insight into the human condition.
My observation is that "Bi-Polar", or "High functioning Autism", etc, are merely behavior that is within the normal range of human conduct. I think Psychiatrists deem them a disorder so as to present themselves as "smart". This is also why they like to use Greek Jargon instead of plain English. It covers up the fact that they often really don't know anything, but they don't want the patient to realize that.
You can think I have whatever you like. I can be your "Asperger Kid" if it makes you happy to believe so. :)
Well if it's a learning disability, I don't have it. I learn so fast I even astonish myself. In the interests of better arguments, I wish you and your friends could have some too! :)
What makes me look like an ass is challenging your dogma. Another human condition that i've long noticed is the tendency of people to really get upset when people challenge their dogma.
They want to believe what they want to believe, and they really don't like it when people make them think outside of their cozy little box.
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.