Posted on 10/25/2010 7:28:30 AM PDT by Michael Zak
On this day in 1859, Senator William Seward (R-NY) said:
"The Democratic party is inextricably committed to the designs of the slaveholders... The history of the Democratic Party commits it to the policy of slavery. It has been the Democratic Party, and no other agency, which has carried that policy up to its present alarming culmination... Such is the Democratic Party... The government of the United States, under the conduct of the Democratic Party, has been all that time surrendering one plain and castle after another to slavery."
The more things change...
Secession is not discussed in the USC. It is not prohibited. Texas v. White blah blah blah 10 yrs after the fact...
It tell you what, Lincoln could have sent the US Solicitor General to visit Richmond instead of the Army of the Potomac.....
You're the one without a clue when Thanksgiving is and I'm the loser?
Yes, he/she was on FR on that day fighting the CW as usual
Again with the gender confusion? Check that photo you claim to have. Otherwise if you keep calling me 'dearie' then I'm going to have to start worrying about you.
Or the other hand, maybe you have checked the photo and...oh, ick. Does mojitojane know about your...interests?
One of those "don't give a damn" things?
It is not prohibited.
Secession without the consent of states is.
Texas v. White blah blah blah 10 yrs after the fact...
Don't think of it as a decision issued 8 years after the fact. Think of it as the decision issues 142 years ago that prevents your future unilateral secession.
It tell you what, Lincoln could have sent the US Solicitor General to visit Richmond instead of the Army of the Potomac.....
The office did not exist in 1861; cases before the Supreme Court were argued by the Attorney General on behalf of the U.S. Regardless, had the confederacy not first turned to rebellion then maybe sending Bates might have prevented a lot of bloodshed.
Like I said the USC isn't followed anymore, the words lost their meaning a long time ago. The USC has become the statist doormat. I decided that, my conclusion, my opinion, the compact between federal Govt and the people has been broken. I go along as a citizen only through threats of violence to me and my family. It doesn't mean I can't call a spade a spade. I follow the law and pay my taxes. Were my state decide to go it alone, I would not have Mr. Lee's ambivalence and ruminations on secession. An easy decision.
If collective evil can't be stopped then a divorce is the only other option.
And when that happens you can do away with that pesky judiciary altogether. Or ignore the requirement for it, like Davis did.
Oh please do! Hey rockrr, mstar's gonna dazzle us! Listen close, now. We don't want to miss anything.
OK, mstar. We're ready. The floor's all your's.
Don't fight, maybe we'll have time for such niceties this time.
Don't start one.
...maybe we'll have time for such niceties this time.
ROTFLMAO! Davis had the time to keep that revolving door of a cabinet fully stocked but didn't have time for a supreme court? Besides, why establish something you'll just ignore?
Your opinion may have merit but Davis's hypocrisy level is lower than his Northern counterpart who simply ignored his SCOTUS. I'm sure the Illinois Butcher™ envied Mr. Davis in that regard.
Why don’t you “dazzle” us with some transparent honesty about just who you are and why you are here.
And how did he do that?
Now don't go trying to change the subject. You promised us dazzling debating skills. I, for one, can hardly wait to see you strut your stuff.
Besides, ask mo-joe. He's spent God knows how much time and effort copying down every post I make and every personal fact I let slip. I'm sure he can give you volumes of information, including a photo. Or so he claims.
Central_Va,
Will you be attending the Obama rally today in Albemarle County? Loud and excessive heckling is encouraged. God bless the Commonwealth.
I believe they are referring to the UOG (Union Occupational Government). A similar system allowed Germany to annex Austria in 1937.
No, I would say that there is nothing in the Constitution that explicitly directs the creation of those agencies. Let's try to stay on topic, shall we?
Hoodat says no such thing. Please desist from attributing positions to me which I do not hold.
Ok, what you are saying is from the period of 1861-1865 Mr. Lincoln followed the USC to the letter, never did anything unconstitutional. Is that what you are saying then?
So when you said, "Should I "sugar coat" it for them and dazzle with my debate skills, well aware there is only one way they will end an argument. Frankly that is a waste of time and boring" you were just spoofing us? I can't tell you just how disappointing that is. I was soooooo looking forward to you dazzling us with your brilliance.
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.