Posted on 12/22/2011 3:04:51 PM PST by Federalist Patriot
Now this is a great ad from American Crossroads! Let’s hope we see a 30-second or 1-minute version of this playing in 2012 during the General Election Campaign.
It uses Obama’s own words against him, where he recently decreed himself to be essentially the fourth best President in the history of the United States in terms of his accomplishments! There’s nothing like the ego of “The One.”
(Excerpt) Read more at freedomslighthouse.net ...
Yes, the US government had the right to put down insurrection. This had happened previously, with Governor Lee of Virginia putting down insurrection in Pennsylvania, and Colonel Lee, the former’s son, putting down insurrection in Virginia.
Secession, the legal leaving of a state could occur by federal amendment certainly, or perhaps by legislation, or by federal court case with supreme court as original venue.
Successful rebellion could occur in theory, and be legitimized by treaty after the war. That is what happened in the American Revolution, but to do that, you have to win your rebellion. the Slave Power didn’t meet that standard.
Pres GW Bush laid out 16 reasons. If you can’t read them, that isn’t his problem.
So... you're for the return of fugitive slaves??
Texas v. White, which ruled that secession, as practiced by the states in the rebellion, was illegal
Was it not that same high court that ruled for the murder of unborn children? Against private property rights? Reversed itself more times than you've changed wives? Thought so...
Glad you agree with my reading of Texas v. White.
de facto - in practice but not necessarily ordained by law or in practice or actuality, but not officially established
Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit is it.
The de facto repeal of the 10th Amendment occurred on April 9, 1865.
That's a ridiculous statement. Secession was real, unlike your pretend gods and your pretend marriages to close family members. Second, if the South simply wanted to continue slavery they could have stayed in the union, where slavery was protected.
I'm Christian, you heathen, which, according to you, means I'm a pagan. But lets ask some your your comrades in The Coven if they stand by you in that assertion:
Hey punkrr, brojoke, do you agree with squeaker here that Christianity is a pagan religion?
Insurrection is not the same as secession. And nowhere in the Constitution is there a requirement for an amendment, or court proceeding for a state to withdraw from the Union.
Of course he didn't. He had his war and that was his goal. I think it's interesting the way you pretend conservative, neo-yank, False Cause Losers gloat over the power of the central government. Like lincoln, FDR, Clinton, Obama, you abhor states sovereignty and states rights.
Then their legal case, (Texas v. White) was lost too.
A pretend court case with a pretend decision.
Chase's comments on secession was what is known as dicta: "A comment by a judge in a decision or ruling which is not required to reach the decision, but may state a related legal principle as the judge understands it. While it may be cited in legal argument, it does not have the full force of a precedent."--from Law.com
There was no argument, debate or rebuttal about the issue of secession in Texas v White. It cannot be said that the issue of secession was 'decided' when a very partisan judge, who should have recused himself considering his involvement in lincoln's illegal war, took the occasion of this court case to insert his opinion on a question that was not argued before the court.
Texas v White: the holy grail of the neo-yank False Cause Losers and a travesty of a court case.
Nor is there a place where the power of secession is returned to the states from the Articles of Confederation.
Pretending that that power had been returned doesn’t make it so.
If there was a controversy over whether the power had been returned, the states were bound to settle it in court, rather than with gunfire by Article 3 of the constitution.
By not doing so, the southern states were in rebellion, which is insurrection.
As you know, but it blows holes in your argument, so you will never be honest enough to admit it.
Instead, in the past you have lied, claiming for any state, or for the people of a single state, the general 10th amendment powers that are reserved to the states (plural) and the people.
Don’t expect you have gotten more honest. Surprise me.
The south could have stayed in the Union, and their domestic institutions, unjust as they were, would have been safe. But they didn’t want that. They wanted to further and extend slavery, with an intent to go to war as necessary to take Arizona Territory, and perhaps Cuba. To do that they needed Virginia, and so they started a war with the US to bring in Virginia. And only a few years after insurrection in Virginia had been put down, they flipped and claimed no federal power to put down insurrection.
Good thing they were stopped. They guessed wrong on Lincoln.
Origin of PAGAN:
First Known Use: 14th century
There is no definition of "pagan" that applies to Christianity.
The 10th Amendment was never repealed, de facto or de jure.
Today it is more honored in the breach than in observance, but the reason is not Lincoln.
The reason is that states are far too eager to feed at the Federal money trough, for them to object to any conditions Big Government might put on taking its "free goodies".
Before states can enforce the 10th Amendment, they must first be willing to turn down Federal "free money".
Do you know of any who routinely do that?
More pretend history from the king of the neo-yank False Cause Losers..........
The power delegated to the federal government was significantly expanded by amendments to the Constitution following lincoln's illegal war and the states became legally subject to the final dictates of the federal government; hence the de facto repeal of the Tenth Amendment.
Today it is more honored in the breach than in observance
That would be, in effect, a de facto repeal.
but the reason is not Lincoln.
Most honest historians will disagree with you:
The reason is that states are far too eager to feed at the Federal money trough, for them to object to any conditions Big Government might put on taking its "free goodies".
The real reason is lincoln's consolidated and absolute government.
Before states can enforce the 10th Amendment, they must first be willing to turn down Federal "free money". Do you know of any who routinely do that?
How can they when they're under the thumb of lincoln's consolidated and absolute government?
Your comrade, donsqueaker, disagrees with you.
disHonest Abe, guilty of treason, as charged!
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.