Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Who is John Galt?
"you forgot to mention which specific clause of the constitutional "contract" was 'impaired' by State secession."

All of it.

Your argument is dead, pal. It's been blown to pieces by the US Constitution. And no amount of your mouth-to-mouth "Yeeeee Haaaaaw" resusitation can breathe new life into it.

Now it's really starting to stink. So burry it. Then go home. Free your slaves, reb! ;-)

2,247 posted on 09/27/2009 10:04:07 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2246 | View Replies ]


To: BroJoeK
Sorry for not getting back to you sooner, BloJo - I was out of town.

Where were we?

All of it.

Actually, BloJo, the clause doesn't even meet your own requirements for applicable documentation:

BJ (Post #2233): Sorry pal, but all you're doing here is "firing blanks" or worse, misfiring "spent cartridges," because NONE of these quotes refer to a right of "unilateral secession," or "unapproved withdrawal from the Union." Furthermore, any quotes from the period AFTER ratification in 1788 [including James Madison in 1789, & Thomas Jefferson in 1791, & the entire Bill of Rights] are likely just then-current political statements, and not necessarily the Founders' "original intent."

Of course, there are only two reasons you could have posted this kind of capricious & completely arbitrary crap:

1) You pulled it out of your @ss, because you were trying to establish a ‘double standard’ (apply the above requirements to others, but NOT to yourself). If that’s the case, you’re a liar and a world-class hypocrite (and no better than any D@mocrat politician, as I’ve noted in the past ;>); or

2) Even though you pulled it out of your @ss, you actually believed (for some idiotic reason) that the requirements should apply to everyone here. If that were the case, you would have posted something close to meeting your own requirements. But what did you post, BloJo?

BJ (Post #2241): "[Excerpts from] Abraham Lincoln's First Inagural (sic) Address [1861]"

Apart from the obvious factual errors in the citation - it nowhere refers to the unconstitutionality of "unilateral secession," or "unapproved withdrawal from the Union," nor does it date "from the period [of] ratification in 1788."

In other words, you pulled a 'double standard' out of your @ss, and tried to smear us with it. Feel free to go pound sand.

Your argument is dead, pal. It's been blown to pieces by the US Constitution. And no amount of your mouth-to-mouth "Yeeeee Haaaaaw" resusitation can breathe new life into it.

Actually, "your argument is dead," BloJo. "It's been blown to pieces" by the words of Jefferson, the words of Madison, the ratification documents of States, the preeminent legal references of the day, and by the US Constitution itself (INCLUDING the Bill of Rights you so happily trash). And no number of your hypocritical double standards "can breathe new life into it."

Free your slaves, reb! ;-)

Go pound sand, you lying hypocrite...

;>)

2,248 posted on 09/29/2009 2:55:34 PM PDT by Who is John Galt? ("Sometimes I have to break the law in order to meet my management objectives." - Bill Calkins, BLM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2247 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson