Posted on 12/14/2004 1:52:47 PM PST by slowhand520
Okay. Let me try it again.
I said "apples and oranges" as it pertained to violating the Tenth Amendment. When you told me about The Compromise of 1850 not involving troops, that was beside the point of what I was talking about.
You were talking about the war. I wasn't talking about the war. I was talking about the violation of federalism.
What? Did using federal troops somehow make the egregious slap in the face of the Tenth Amendment any less wrong?
I don't think so.
Fact about it, the slave holding states didn't much mind tossing out federalism when it came down to The Compromise of 1850, which suited their purpose. A violation is indeed a violation.
An offensive lineman can't complain about getting away with holding on one play, but getting flagged on another. If he held, he held.
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.