Posted on 05/10/2010 3:17:06 PM PDT by Davy Buck
"If Lee was a traitor (and I don't believe he was), he would be the only traitor for which a ship in the United States Navy was ever named. He would be the only traitor in Statuary Hall at the U.S. Capitol. He would be the only traitor whose image was used in a positive way to recruit military personnel to fight and win WWII. Quite an accomplishment for a "traitor", wouldn't you say. . ."
(Excerpt) Read more at oldvirginiablog.blogspot.com ...
I know. You know I know. I know you know I know. We're a knowledgeable group. But that still doesn't make something fact just because you say it is.
Why are you in bed with Bill Clinton and all those "red-diaper" Marxist historians who've been pushing that stuff? That's what I'd like to know.
When did Bill Clinton become an historian of any kind, much less the 'red diaper' Marxist type. That what I'd want to know.
You a Columbia grad? Occidental College?
Nope. Proud alum of two Big Ten universities.
I didn’t know Obamacare was a treaty with a foreign government.
Link Please?
When it's been I who've posted up big swatches of The Federalist Papers to back me up? You're leading with your chin.
.... the Founders were rightly suspicious of "the People" forming a tyranny of the majority.
Nice little fascist sentiment ..... but overthrown and confuted by the irrefutable fact that the Framers insisted that the Constitution be ratified by the People, and only by the People.
They did it again by stipulating that the Militia should be the People in arms, and again by passing the Second Amendment to ensure that the People should always be armed.
So much for your idea that the Framers held the People in contempt.
Your authoritarianism is hereby publicly exposed. Go over and stand in the corner with Non-Sequitur and the other Silver Shirts.
Actually, he can sign any treaty he wants (e.g., Clinton signed the Kyoto accords); but the treaty has no effect until ratified by Congress.
You'll try anything, won't you?
The "Cornerstone" speech was a political proclamation directed to the People and to the as-yet unseceded States, emphasizing things held in common with the Deep South.
The speech expressed a "sense of the body" rather than a personal opinion of Stephens's, just as Madison's work on the Bill of Rights represented his best effort at what the consensus clearly showed was wanted and needed for ratification of the Constitution, rather than his personal opinion about the efficacy of bills of right.
Just shoot them, and stop playing games.
Not my sentiments -- they're James Madison's. You're telling us he was a fascist? My, my, my....
You're just a plain old whackadoodle.
I am sure King George III, if alive, would have agreed with the Chase & the majority.
Didn't the Supreme Jokers, also rule in favor of Affirmative Action, directly conflicting with the equal protection clause?
Of the three branches, SCOTUS is by far the biggest (bad) joke.
The Kyoto accords are not a treaty hence the name “accords”
The US is not entering into a treaty with Japan nor is it entering into a treaty with an ecological organization by signing the Kyoto Accords, Clinton signed it know that it had no teeth.
it’s pathetic
like a little boy trying to get attention and when he does he runs back to his geek friends saying look what I did giggle giggle
I just ignore the muppet and read past his troll comments, he’s obviously a lefty troll reporting back to his lefty pals thinking he’s actually done something in his pathetic life.
[You, beginning to go insane] Chase alone couldn't rule that. That's why they have nine justices.
Are you really saying that you think the Supreme Court could forbid a State to ratify an amendment to the Constitution? Or overrule the ratification, once given?
it’s obvious he’;s a troll , pro abortion, pro homo etc probably supports the bailouts and this latest appointment by his messiah to the court
It was a treaty. The Senate refused to ratify it. That’s why it has no effect.
I recently read online that it does have an effect, called "binding". That means that Congress is obliged not to pass any law, or a successor President not to do any thing, that contravenes the treaty, until such time as the Senate votes the treaty up or down.
It turns out Clinton did that several times, on purpose, to screw with us; and his 'Rats in Congress kept the treaties (Kyoto, LOST) from coming to a vote, precisely to keep Republicans in a "bind". That's why George W. Bush publicly denounced Clinton's signature on the International Criminal Court treaty, to get the U.S. out of the "bind" that Clinton had placed USG under, in his scuzzy snakiness and 'Rat-nasty machinations.
Thanks Manc, I forgot the pro homo, pro gay marriage, the list grows. There are more, I just don’t have access to them now, waiting on a FReemail :P
A political proclamation which, among other things, laid out "the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution" as Stephens saw it. And he was not alone in his opinions as to the cause of the rebellion.
A big advantage to being the one that calls the shots.
A lot of people thought we should do the same to Lee.
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.