Ever heard that statement about eternal vigilance being the price of liberty? Keeping an eye out for communists, nazis, and other socialist scumbags who try to infiltrate my party and government is a necessary hobby.
I post informational documentation to support my views.
No you don't. You select three or for partisan accounts, most of them by rabid left wingers, and regurgitate passages from them to no end even when those passages are shown to be in error or, worse, when you are shown to have artificially truncated them to make them sound more supportive of your position than they really are. If you tried the stunts you practice around here in virtually any university setting you would've been given the boot months ago.
It almost always comes from recognized authorities in their field.
Again, that is simply not true. Take your source on Bollman for example. Far from a recognized authority, he is a revisionist operating on the fringe of his profession by attempting to take down a 200 year old precedent with near universal acceptance in the legal scholarly field.
Then there's your sources on habeas corpus. You've got Farber, an average left of center law professor with no real distinction of any sort to his name any more than the average left of center law prof at any university has. And you've got Jaffa, who does not even hold an academic credential or formal training of any sort in the law and, by all indications, is a literature professor! Your source on Taney is even more bizarre - he's a left wing reparationist crackpot who is employed by the SPLC and whose "history" comes across as the ramblings of an agenda-driven hack (which he is) when compared to virtually any other source on Taney, be it positive (like Curtis) or negative (like Fahrenbacher). Since you have openly and wantonly professed each and every one of these persons as an "authority," thus making your argument an appeal to authority, it is far from ad hominem but rather perfectly fair game to point out that your "authorities" simply lack the credentials you assign to them.
You do pollute Free Republic. The content and demeanor of many of your ("your all") posts belongs over on DU. This is a conservative forum.
...straight from the guy who dumps untold pages of Berkleyite nutcases and SPLC-employed reparationist hacks as if they were valid "authorities" on this forum. I can see you've bought yourself a projector, capitan, but it is malfunctioning.
"Your source on Taney is even more bizarre - he's a left wing reparationist crackpot who is employed by the SPLC and whose "history" comes across as the ramblings of an agenda-driven hack (which he is) when compared to virtually any other source on Taney, be it positive (like Curtis) or negative (like Fehrenbacher)."
Ad hominem attacks that do not refute the accuracy of the author's views. Can't attack the message? No problem. Attack the messenger! I think, also, you'll see that I quote Finkelman once to give you a taste of a real left-winger - as compared the the gratuitous left-wing smears you paint on my other sources - including Jaffa and Rehnquist! Outside of Bledsoe, J. Davis, Stephens, and Hitler, I have no idea who is on your approved list of pro-southern sources.
Post script - "Reparations" for slavery is a despicable idea. There are no living ex-slaves; there are no living ex-slave holders. Present day society is not responsible for the past evils. There are many citizens of this country who never had a slave-holding ancestor, or whose family may have come to the country well after the demise of slavery. Reparations belong to those who have been wronged and made by those who committed the wrong.