Posted on 06/10/2020 10:31:53 PM PDT by Olog-hai
Protesters tore down a statue of Confederate President Jefferson Davis along Richmond, Virginia’s famed Monument Avenue on Wednesday night.
The statue in the former capital of the Confederacy was toppled shortly before 11 p.m., news outlets reported.
Richmond police were on the scene and videos on social media showed the monument being towed away as a crowd cheered.
About 80 miles (130 kilometers) away, protesters in Portsmouth beheaded and then pulled down four statues that were part of a Confederate monument on Wednesday, according to media outlets.
Efforts to tear one of the statues down began around 8:20 p.m., but the rope they were using snapped, The Virginian-Pilot reported. …
(Excerpt) Read more at apnews.com ...
I don’t think you can legally pick and chose which laws you wish to obey.
Ordering the police to ‘stand down’ during riots and vandalism of currently unpopular public and private property is justified as ‘deescalating tensions’. That’s what they’re doing in Seattle. If a non-leftist group were to barricade off a section of town—that’s completely different.
So why is the putting down of rebellion explicitly referred to as a legitimate power of the federal government in the US Constitution, particularly in Article 1 Section 9 and Article 4 Section 4? These do not contradict the Declaration of Independence in any way, shape or form.
I would characterize it as an "Illegal taking" banned by the fifth amendment.
The government cannot simply tell other people that they may burn down your property, either tacitly or explicitly. The government does not own the property, and so cannot "give" permission to destroy it.
That’s what they’re doing in Seattle. If a non-leftist group were to barricade off a section of town—that’s completely different.
That sounds like an "equal application of the law" violation. (14th amendment)
Eh? The notion of swapping ideologies is a left-wing canard.
Please don’t misunderstand. I’m not saying it’s right, I’m just saying it’s commonly done and is being blatantly done right now. See what happens if someone defaces the Arthur Ashe monument in Richmond or if ordinary citizens try to take down the barriers in Seattle.
The power was put there to suppress rebellion. But a democratic process of secession is not rebellion. Even chief Justice of the Supreme Court Salmon P. Chase said "secession is not rebellion."
States had a right to leave. The Declaration of Independence explicitly says so, and further more, so too does the ratification statements of New York, Virginia and Rhode Island. In addition, during the Hartford Convention of 1814, the states of Connecticut and Massachusetts among others, asserted they had a right to secede, so the understanding of the founding era was that states could become independent if they so choose.
Calling a state referendum on independence "rebellion" is just lying about what is happening.
Maybe so, but it has a lot of truth in it. The areas of the nation that were Republican are now Democrat. The areas of the nation that were Democrat are now Republican.
The populations did not change their world views. The North East is still big city Hamiltonian liberals, and the Rural South is still Jeffersonian conservative. The labor union sections of the country are still the same as they were in the 1860s.
The labels changed, but the ideology has remained fairly consistent for the demographical area of the country in which it held sway.
Oh, I don't misunderstand. I think the best encapsulation of the point you are making is "some animals are more equal than others."
Good thing all those purists stayed home and didn’t vote for Gillespie.
..Anyways, did some reading when I had a chance. Got off on some subject of "political realignments" over American history and the various parties that came and went besides the two "major" parties. Mostly pre-CW1.
It gave me a headache and I end up back to my old "6 foot perimeter" stance. I trust or believe in almost nothing I can't lay my hands on. d:^)
LOL! Everybody else is wrong and you're right. Is that I?
The previous government had been deestablished in accord with the right asserted in the Declaration of Independence.
LOL! Or it would have had they won their rebellion. Alas for you they did not.
Refusing to accept the lawful result of people exercising their right to independence in according with established law, is "rebellion."
Oh barf.
“some animals are more equal than others.”
Such a situation may be rare in your life, but it has been common enough in mine. I literally marvel at some people's inability to think clearly.
LOL! Or it would have had they won their rebellion.
Their winning or losing does not change the fact of their right to leave. It simply says might beats right.
Oddly enough, this is the very premise slavery itself is founded on.
We are entering a dystopia, and the chief vehicle carrying us towards disaster is tolerating liberal control of mass communications.
NYC was always a big Democratic stronghold. And the cities where the supposed inversion occurred did have a huge shift in population demographics.
The GOP did not shift left in a big way until TR and “progressive” politics. The Democrats were left-wing long before that; it’s in their published views even from the nineteenth century, reflected particularly where then Princeton University student Woodrow Wilson said that “socialism and democracy” were “one and the same” and compared it even to Bismarckian state socialism (which spawned national socialism and the European Union’s social market economy).
Don’t forget that the fifteenth goal of the communists was to “(c)apture one or both of the political parties in the United States”.
I feel ya bro. I'm getting there myself.
It gave me a headache and I end up back to my old "6 foot perimeter" stance. I trust or believe in almost nothing I can't lay my hands on. d:^)
Sounds like a pretty good policy.
Secession is not constitutional either; it is not in there. The notion is a rebellion against the Constitution; after all, by joining the Union, a state agreed to be bound by the laws thereby and by declaring to secede, it curses those laws as unjust instead of demanding a proper redress of grievances according to those just laws (when I compare the Confederate constitution to the US Constitution, the problems of the former become very apparent). Citing the Hartford Convention as law is spurious.
BTW, I do not see where Chase saw secession as legal; particularly when it came to Texas, he regarded their joining the Union as “indissoluble”.
I don’t know where you get “state referendum(s) on independence” from; after all, this thread is not about that.
Except those snowflakes aren’t exactly guys.
And where is "Princeton" located again?
Liberal socialists tend to come from liberal socialist areas of the country.
Certainly no stronghold of the GOP even back then.
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.