Posted on 01/18/2005 4:06:39 PM PST by TBP
I seriously doubt there's any groundswell of support to re-enact slavery.
When next you want to bag on Gonzales or me, I suggest you do it in a way that makes sense based on reality and demonstrates you have a grasp on the legal structure of our federal system. First, nobody's remotely considering repealing the 13th amendment. And even if the U.S. did so, the U.S. Attorney General wouldn't be defending states' slave laws, because that's not his JOB. His job is to enforce federal law and press the executive interpretation of such in court. He doesn't enforce or defend state laws. That would be a job for the STATES' Attorney Generals.
But here's a little payback, oh great scholar of laws: what should Gonzales, the federal AG, do if Roe is overturned and suddenly, a state like Massachussetts MANDATES abortions for all pregnancies in low-income, unmarried women under the age of 21?
"Should the Attorney General in the 1850s have enforced Dred Scott?"
Since you didn't ask me, I won't answer yet. But I'd enjoy seeing you argue otherwise, that Dred Scott was unconstitutional and the AG shouldn't enforce it, given your prior posts.
I had done some searching and was never able find anything to indicate that. If you had some info on this it would surely ease my mind.
I do and always have.
You get nowhere by doing the exact actions your doing here in this thread.
It got your attention didn't it?
Did it take you all night to think of that one?
Yup.
Suppose Amendment 13 was repealed and the Federal government enacted a enw slavery law. Would you expect Gonzales to support it and defend it?
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.