Just Damn...
Posted on 08/11/2004 7:08:05 AM PDT by The Wizard
And that's the REAL reason the demonrats hate GWB: not only is he everything they hoped billyboy would be, he will be remembered for planting the seeds that grew into peace to the Middle East.....
Washington was the Father of our country, and Lincoln freed the slaves, and GWB started the journey that will eventually bring peace to this troubled part of the world, and the rats hate him for it, so much so, that I wouldn't put ANYTHING past them.......
The real democrats, who controlled the party when Tip was the Man, lost control to the clintonistas, and he was so bad, the party regulars fled as the goon squad came in to defend their leader......
But as I sat watching Rummy from Afgahistan today speaking about 9 million folks so hungry to vote they risk their lives to register, it told any logical man that so it will be in Iraq, and all the other kingdoms throughout the world.....
The time of kings is over, now is the time of the little man, and he never had a stronger, braver friend than Ronald Reagan or GWB......
While not asking for this honor, GWB had it blown up on him on 9-11, and the world will be a safer, better place when this is done.
God Bless and protect GWB....
How come nobody ever asks these idiots how they think of Reagan now? These were the same people who thought Reagan was going to blow the world up. The same musicians who are going around ROCK AGAINST BUSH...were the same people who went around with their NO NUKES tour. They are always on the wrong side of history. They can only protest against something, because they have no ideas of their own.
TITLE 38 > PART II > CHAPTER 15 > SUBCHAPTER I > Sec. 1501. Next
Sec. 1501. - Definitions
(3)
The term ''Civil War veteran'' includes a person who served in the military or naval forces of the Confederate States of America during the Civil War, and the term ''active military or naval service'' includes active service in those forces.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/38/1501.html
And if that post gets me kicked out, then so be it.
What IS his problem???
"What is ``invasion''? Would the marching of an army into South California, for instance, without the consent of her people, and in hostility against them, be coercion or invasion? I very frankly say, I think it would be invasion, and it would be coercion too, if the people of that country were forced to submit."
Abraham Lincoln, "Speech from the Balcony of the Bates House at Indianapolis, Indiana", 11 Feb 1861, Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Roy P. Basler, ed., vol IV. p.195.
Why do you think you'll be kicked out and why did you post this to yourself. You're holding your own just fine. Relax and let him respond.
Just Damn...
Bump. Don't change a thing. I am an American, and I think it's the greatest country on earth. But you are American BECAUSE of your citizenship as a Georgian. Specifically the Constitution recognizes that there are 'Citizens of different States', not citizens of a monolithic state. Article IV recognizes 'Citizens of each State' and 'Citizens in the several States'. Amendment XI recognizes 'citizens of another State'. Amendment XIV recognizes 'citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside', meanining I am an American and Georgian, but not a citizen of any other state.
Madison during the debates, 'each Citizen after havg. given his vote for his favorite fellow Citizen wd. throw away his second on some obscure Citizen of another State.'
Robert E. Lee wrote his sister,
"With all my devotion to the Union and the feeling of loyalty and duty of an American citizen, I have not been able to make up my mind to raise my hand against my relatives, my children, my home. I have therefore resigned my commission in the Army, and save in defense of my native State, with the sincere hope that my poor services may never be needed, I hope I may never be called on to draw my sword.
USC Art I-8:15 - Congress shall have power To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions
The secession of those states were an insurrection against Federal and Constitutional authority. Each State was signatory to USC, and bound by that condition.
Further we see USC Art I-10:1 in part No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts;
Again, violation of Federal and Consitutional authority to which they were signatory.
On to USC Art I-10:3, which is No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
The secession states called up their own militias, built vessels of war, seized armories, and entered into extra-Constitutional agreements - all when there was no extra-national threat, and no Federal call-up or threat of invasion. They also entered into diplomatic agreements with foreign powers, without Federal authority.
A case for secession using the Declaration as source, attempting to cite it as legal precedent, is something I'll have to research. My unit's legal guys cited Constitutional law, but I can't recall if the Declaration was cited. Wait, out.
Dang, I must have slept thru it ;o)
I posted it to myself so it link to the original post. As for why I think I'd get kicked, it could be viewed as an "attack" and abuse.
"Six governors rejected Lincoln’s call as illegal. The governor of North Carolina, John Ellis, responded,
'I regard the levy of troops made by the administration for the purpose of subjugating the states of the South as in violation of the Constitution, and a usurpation of power. I can be no party to this wicked violation of the laws of the country, and to this war upon the liberties of a free people. You can get no troops from North Carolina. 'The other five governors answered in the same vein. "
So all I get in return is ad hominem personal insults.
Only the excuse of absolutely clueless and arrogant newcomer, can justify your personal attacks on me, my service, and my participation here.
I've just shown you text for text where you're wrong; and you stand there gainsaying and denying each point. There can be no discussion with the likes of you.
Your sad devotion to an illegal act, however romanticised, illustrates how parochial and intransigent your opinions are.
Your comments are meant to insult me, and the many veterans and Active Duty troops who participate in this forum (some of whom I've alerted to your presence.)
Nonetheless, we will continue to defend your right to speak your piece. But that is all.
But what you still miss is that once seceded (which was recognized by everyone then as legal), they were NO LONGER SIGNATORIES of the Constitution.
Yours is the WORST and most unfounded defense of Lincoln I've ever seen on this topic.
You've been corrected and don't back down. A true mark of a liberal.
What you got was a strong response to your assinine accusations. You showed text from the Constitution that did not apply to what we were discussing and then made a major leap to try and connect the dots. Sorry, you failed miserably.
There was nothing illegal about secession. I am romanticizing nothing. History and evidence support me. You simply postulate and fantasize.
But no matter what, Lincoln's aggression then has no bearing on any military action you might have been involved in -- if you're even really in the military -- which we have no idea if you're being honest or not.
Finally, I offered wisdom and correction to no other veteran but yourself. You don't represent them at all.
Again, I implore you to grow up.
Again, violation of Federal and Consitutional authority to which they were signatory.
Not true. The seceeding states withdrew from the Union by virtue of the Ordiance of Secession THEN joined the CSA. In fact, several states withdrew and remained independent for weeks until they decided.
Appreciate the "block of instruction," just don't agree.
"The secession of those states were an insurrection against Federal and Constitutional authority. Each State was signatory to USC, and bound by that condition."
Secession and insurrection are two entirely different things., and it should be remembered, that folks back then were closer to the front edge of America than we are. I believe that being a bit more than a generation away from the revolution more folks had the DoI in the center of their forehead than most folks do now.
"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts;
Again, violation of Federal and Consitutional authority to which they were signatory."
All of which pertain to commerce. The south was looking to get right prices for goods provided without being taxed to death by fed. Another good reason to "...sever the ties"
"On to USC Art I-10:3, which is No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
The secession states called up their own militias, built vessels of war, seized armories, and entered into extra-Constitutional agreements - all when there was no extra-national threat, and no Federal call-up or threat of invasion. They also entered into diplomatic agreements with foreign powers, without Federal authority."
The actions at Sumpter occurred after what can only be judged as the "rightful secession" of the confederate states so USC Art I-10:3 didn't apply (just as the "proclamation" didn't apply to the sovereign confederacy)
"A case for secession using the Declaration as source, attempting to cite it as legal precedent, is something I'll have to research. My unit's legal guys cited Constitutional law, but I can't recall if the Declaration was cited. Wait, out"
Your legal guys probably won't be able to find it. I said earlier that the right to seceed was "believed" on the basis of the DoI, remember there were old folks alive who remembered the times right after the revolution. If we could cite that document in court, I am betting Texas would have exercised its state constitutional right of secession a long time ago.......just to be onery!
QRT
On the contrary, Stainless, I think you have your directions mixed up. Conscription was enacted by Davis in April 1862, over a year before in was started in the Union. And Lincoln could have ordered 500 ships and a million tons of military material without violating the Constitution. What he could not do was appropriate funds to pay for the ships and material. And he did not.
"Don't include that liberal scumbag Lincoln in with the great presidents"
Scumbag? What's wrong with you? Still mad he freed the slaves or what?
In what way do you have proof that Honest Abe was anywhere NEAR being a liberal?
But within the powers granted him by the Militia Act.
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.