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....
Exactly
More nonsense
Just because you don't agree with it?
Just because it is.
In anycase, no minds will be changed by this discussion. Carry on.
More holes than swiss cheese.
Sorry that you don't approve. But your approval isn't necessary. Unilateral secession as practiced by the confederate states was ruled illegal and will remain illegal unless the decision is overturned by a future court or unless the constitution is amended.
Nah. The decision re: secession was in dicta. Chase's ruling was built on air - nothing in the Constitution prevented secession.
The issue before the court was the sale of the bonds. Incidental to the decision was if the SC had jurisdiction. The court ruled - invented a specious power is more like it - that the state had never left the union. If that was true, then the state legislature could do anything it wanted with the bonds. Chase ruled the state never left, and that the state legislature couldn't change it's own laws. Even Justice Grier, who authored The Prize Cases, noted in dissent that the ruling was a joke.
The Texas Constitution and government, which was lawfully recognized by the federal government as republican in nature, contained the following:
That the general, great, and essential principles of liberty and free government may be recognised and established, we decare thatThe President of the Texas convention, Thomas J. Rusk, rose and spoke after being elected:SEC. 1. All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit; and they have at all times the unalienable right to alter, reform, or abolish their form of government, in such manner as they may think expedient.
Texas, animated by the same spirit, and following the bright example of the fathers of the American revolution, has acquired at the cost of blood her freedom and independence from those who would have enslaved her people. She now, with a unanimity unparalleled, enters that great confederacy, to whose keeping the bright jewel of human liberty is confided, content to bear the burthens and share the benefits which Republican Government carries in her train.
Regarding Chase's ludicrous, ignorant and asinine opinion that the Union is 'composed of indestructible States', the resolution admitting Texas contained this:
New States of convenient size, not exceeding four in number, in addition to said State of Texas, and having sufficient population, may hereafter, by the consent of said State, be formed out of the territory thereof.'Chase invented a decision that is laughable on it's face.
Chase may have been ludicrous, ignorant, and asinine in your eyes, but I'll bet he never confused the anexation resolution with the admission resolution. Just a guess on my part.
Anyway, and your point was?
I've given up expecting you or GOP to accept the same definition of obiter dictum that the rest of the world does. Suffice it to say that the legality of the Texas secession was indeed a central part of the defense's case.
Well, DUH.
Read slowly in the Joint resolution for admission, and you'll find the following:
... consent of Congress was given upon certain conditions specified in the first and second sections of said joint resolution [of annexation] ...
The antecedant terms. From the annexation resolution in question, the second section for your reading pleasure:
2. And be it further resolved, That the foregoing consent of Congress is given upon the following conditions, to-wit: First, said State to be formed, subject to the adjustment by this Government of all questions of boundary that may arise with other Governments - and the constitution thereof with the proper evidence of its adoption by the people of said Republic of Texas, shall be transmitted to the President of the United States to be laid before Congress for its final action, on or before the first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and forty-six. Second, said State, when admitted into the Union, after ceding to the United States all public edifices, fortifications, barracks, ports and harbors, navy and navy-yards, docks, magazines, arms and armaments, and all other property and means pertaining to the public defence belonging to said Republic of Texas, shall retain all public funds, debts, taxes and dues of every kind which may belong to or be due and owing to the said republic; and shall also retain all the vacant and unappropriated lands lying within its limits, to be applied to the payment of the debts and liabilities of said Republic of Texas, and the residue of said lands, after discharging said debts and liabilities, to be disposed of as said State may direct; but in no event are said debts and liabilities to become a charge upon the Government of the United States. Third, New states, of convenient size, not exceeding four in number, in addition to said State of Texas, and having sufficient population, may hereafter, by the consent of said State, be formed out of the territory thereof, which shall be entitled to admission under the provisions of the federal constitution. And such States as may be formed out of that portion of said territory lying south of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes, north latitude, commonly known as the Missouri compromise line, shall be admitted into the Union, with or without slavery, as the people of each State asking admission may desire. And in such State or States as shall be formed out of said territory north of said Missouri compromise line, slavery, or involuntary servitude (except for crime), shall be prohibited.In no uncertain terms, the federal government - not that of Texas - explicitly wrote the future dissolution of the state into up to 5 states as condition of admission.
Chase invented his decision out of thin air. He ignored federal resolutions, the state Constitution, and the federal Constitution. This isn't rocket science - all it requires is the ability to read and comprehend the English language, to base the resulting decision upon the facts. A horse's ass could have made the same decision as Chase.
Under provisions of the Constitution, which means that unless a majority of both houses approved you would be left with Texas and...four other things. I suppose that they would be territories, without congressional representation.
Chase invented his decision out of thin air.
Your opinion.
On the 1st of February,7 a convention, called without authority, but subsequently sanctioned by the legislature regularly elected, adopted an ordinance to dissolve the union between the State of Texas and the other States under the Constitution of the United State.Therefore, per their reasoning, the actions of the secession convention of Texas was pefectly valid, and Lincoln invaded a foreign country.
Suffice it to say that the legality of the Texas secession was indeed a central part of the defense's case.
The defendants were suing for payment of the bonds. If the legislature of the state was not a state within the union, the court has no jurisdiction over their acts. Only by maintaining that Texas never left the union could the court hear the case. If that be true, then the act of the legislature was LEGAL, the law removing the requirement for the governors signature was valid, and the final decision by Chase the exact opposite of what was rendered.
Chase writes, '[t]he legislature of Texas, at the time of the repeal, constituted one of the departments of a State government, established in hostility to the Constitution of the United States. It cannot be regarded, therefore, in the courts of the United States, as a lawful legislature, or its acts as lawful acts'. In other words, the state never ceased to be a state, but it's duly elected legislature was invalid. You can't have it both ways, unless you just make this stuff up.
And I watched with amusement as you Lincoln Loathers find no lie too outrageous, no crime to vile that it cannot be laid directly at the feet of Lincoln.
In other words, the state never ceased to be a state, but it's duly elected legislature was invalid. You can't have it both ways, unless you just make this stuff up.
It's not hard to understand at all, you just have to take your blinders off. The legislature was invalid because it was taking part in and promoting acts of rebellion against the United States and claimed allegiance to a foreign and, as it turns out, nonexistent country.
"he ASSumed that because I held my view, that I was a troll and begin attacking me in that regard."
I went back and re-read the posts between you two from yesterday. The way you stated your "opinion" on the issue and the things you said to him in response to his position made you definately sound and appear to be a troll.
"But if you're going to rewrite history, it's better not to do it for things so recent."
Again I ask, where is your proof. Show me where in the constitution or case law that what the CSA did was legally or morally justifiable.
Other than name calling and finger pointing you haven't done much to back up your assertions.
"Ah, lovely tactic -- attribute some wild idea to me and then attack me for it."
I did not attribute some wild idea to you personally. I mere said that given what you are saying on here, you more than likely subscribe to that line of thinking.
Since I have heard no denial of the question I asked you then I am to assume that you agree with that kook theory.
"The record also shows I've expressed not a single "kook" theory here yet."
Your whole premise that the Union and Pres. Lincoln comitted some illegal act is a "kook theory". Even when you take the slavery issue out of the equation and make it solely a "states rights" issue, the secessionist states were still wrong. Lincoln did what he had to do to preserve the Union.
And I clearly laid out with examples and opinion how Lincoln preserved nothing. The union never went away or was in danger of doing so.
No, I don't subscribe the the kook theory you presented. Nor is an reasonable view of American history a kook theory. It is not in my court to prove that what the CSA did was illegal, it is in yours to prove it was illegal.
Old Sarge tried, but his case didn't hold water.
In fact, the way I stated my opinion was fine. Same as anyone here. Just because I just found out about the site and because I have a strong opinion was not ground to assume I was a troll.
You made leaps in your "logic" that made no sense and then reacted to those leaps instead of what was actually said.
Glad you decided to dredge this thread up again. *SIGH*
"Umm,,you seem confused. Backwards actually."
No I'm not. I merely asked you for proof to back up your assertion that what was done wasn't illegal.
"You need to show where it was,,it's a simple concept. How old are you?"
If it's such a simple concept...why is it so hard for you to show me factual proof that what the CSA did was legal and what Lincoln did in forcing the CSA to return to the Union was illegal.
And what does my age have to do with anything? It's obvious from your responses that I am older than you.
bttt for larry
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.