Posted on 02/18/2006 12:20:02 PM PST by ncountylee
If you pay any attention to the actual possibilities then not taking a step which is essentially impossible is not an error.
It was politically impossible for Truman to declare war against an ally. So it was not an error.
You also downplay the capabilities of the Soviets. Their military establishment was capable of prodigeous feats of production as the example of the reverse engineering of the B-29 in two yrs demonstrates.
England was so tired of war that it replaced the Old Lion with a pipsqueak who looked as though he was afraid Stalin would eat him.
Fantasies are not very production in real affairs.
"Demands for rights produces this size."
But increased size results in REDUCED rights.
"The size of the federal government is due to the demands of the American people for protection national and individual."
I fully support our Federal government providing NATIONAL level protection because I fully support the Constitution of the United States of America, but I have never demanded INDIVIDUAL protection from my government and I never will. Anyone with any understanding of why this country was formed wouldn't do so either. Productive members of society who understand their personal duty to themselves, their families and their society will never NEED a government to take care of them on an individual basis.
As far as Lincoln is concerned, I understand that he did not personally set up the institutions which have made our government grow too large, but he helped establish the mind-set that the federal government should exercise complete control over the States.
By the way, for the record, Lincoln himself declared that slavery was not the reason we went to war. Further, slavery had existed since the country was founded. It is not as if the " Slavers assault on freedom" was some previously unrealized threat to the nation, and so these "threats" cannot possibly be the impetus for Mr. Lincoln's violations of citizens' Constitutional rights.
Lincoln's "constraints upon personal freedom" were done to "preserve the Union", which is the same reason he gave for going to war. He had previously declared he would preserve the union by keeping slavery throughout the U.S., by abolishing slavery altogether, or by keeping slavery in some States and abolishing it in others.
Clearly, Mr. Lincoln was pretty ambivalent about the plight of the slaves, at least until he was able to use the issue politically to extend the war.
However, none of this is related to the REAL question, which is: Is it right to trample on the very Constitution you are sworn to uphold in an effort to preserve it? I think that a president who believes he must violate the Constitution in order to preserve isn't much of a leader, and therefore is a weak president.
Sounds like a bunch of self-righteous uptight pinko freaks who think their opinion is all that matters.
The then constituted USSR spread their violent Marxist ideology to China, North Korea, Southeast Asia, much of Africa, Cuba,and parts of South and Central America.
Yes...It was a colossal policy error.
Apparently you are viewing some other history than that of planet Earth. On planet Earth the US and the USSR were allies and the former supplied the latter to fight the Nazis. They made plans together and fought the common enemy.
There was no way that the American people would have supported a war against their ally in 1945 and millions of Soviet soldiers were not going to allow any but a long and bloody fight to force them back from the territory it had conquered. We certainly did not have the men there to do is and Stalin knew we had no more A bombs. So this fantasy is right up there with the one about the secret Nazi base at the South Pole or on the Moon.
I do not care that the right of Slavers to the whip and the lash were reduced by recognizing the human rights of the slaves. Nor that the right of terrorists to blow Americans to smithereens is reduced by increased security measures. Americans have lost no fundamental rights due to the increased government no matter what those with a distorted and nostalgic view of the past pretend.
It is the Law of the Land which protects individuals in America. And when it couldn't changes were made to allow it to. This was all as the Founders believed.
You are fortunate not to have your Constitutional rights removed by State laws as many of our fellow citizens had on a routine basis once the federal protection was removed from the South. Thousands were killed by the Democrat terror apparatus because they insisted they were Americans too. Those who turned away and pretended this was acceptable were part of the problem.
Lincoln's "mind set" was to do what he took an oath to do "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Presumably you believe that an armed attack upon the forces of the United States should be ignored.
He had the same "mind set" as Andrew Jackson and that was to resist those attempting to destroy the Consitution and Union.
No one knowledgeable claims Lincoln fought the war over slavery. Slavery was the reason the South went to war but not the North. But the Slaver Defenders lie about that too though the Slavers themselves happily admitted.
It is also false that Lincoln did not care deeply about the plight of the slaves. He cared deeply enough to help form a political party to stop its spread. But he recognized the deep hatred within all areas of America towards the negro.
War does not allow all the niceties of normal life get over it.
Please read the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution.
My constitutional rights are violated (removed) EVERY DAY by state laws; and yours are more severely violated than mine, since you live in Illinois.
"It is the Law of the Land which protects individuals in America. And when it couldn't changes were made to allow it to. This was all as the Founders believed."
Yes, and there is only one mechanism by which it can be changed. That mechanism is called Constitutional Amendment. Not Executive Order, Not Judicial Fiat...
Constitutional Amendment is the only LEGAL way to do it.
It is a common misunderstanding that the amendments were to apply to the states. They were not. Barron vs. Baltimore explains that. Nor was there any intent that criminals or the insane be allowed possession of firearms. The amendment explains the main reason for individuals having arms -"A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,..." note this did not prevent the slave states from infringing on the slaves' "right" to have arms or punishing severely those caught with them. This was the main purpose of the Tenth amendment.
There are few limits upon the Executive's ability to wage war. Nor is there a need for amendments to allow it. Lincoln did what had to be done. I criticisize him only for not hanging more traitors.
#1 Jimmy Carter - The Panama Canal giveaway!!!
Vietnam was the right war, fought the wrong way.
Or letting the French keep their Indochina colonies after WWII, which ultimately led to the Vietnam War.
I'm no fan of Woodrow Wilson, but he did try to convince the French to compromise on the Versailles Treaty, but the French wouldn't listen. The fault lies squarely on Clemenceau for the Versailles Treaty, not Wilson.
The amendments do not apply to the States?
So why did Kelo vs. Hartford end up in a Federal court based on 5th Amendment rights?
And the tenth amendment MENTIONS the states.
It is absolutley ABSURD to argue that the Bill of Rights does not apply to the states.
The first amendment is the only one that does not fully and completely apply to both the Federal and State governments, and that is because it starts out saying "Congress shall make no law...". NONE of the others start out that way and so our governments, Federal and State, are limited in their powers to infringe on our rights. Hence the name: "Bill of Rights".
And where in my post did I say criminals should own guns? Where did I even MENTION criminals. The state laws which infringe on our second amendment rights apply to ALL of us, not just convicted criminals or the insane.
You mentioned "the main reason" for owning guns, thereby implying that there are others. That is good. Now do you care to take a crack at explaining "... shall not be infringed"?
If the states restricted the freed slaves rights to own guns then the states were WRONG. By the way, you're really hung up on slaves, aren't you?
As originally set up the amendments did not apply to the states. That was changed by the fourteenth amendment. You need to read correctly what I wrote.
States never were constrained by the amendments prior to that. States established churches financed through taxpayer money, restricted other religions, repressed newspapers, and violated free speech with abandon. While the Jeffersonians were whining about the Alien and Sedition acts being used to stop criticism of the fedgov they gleefully persecuted their opponents using FAR more draconian state laws. Under those laws the truth was no defense as it was under the A&S acts. Hamilton's last great legal case was lost because the publisher of the Wasp could not use the fact of the truthfulness of his statements (about Jefferson who urged his prosecution by NY) as a defense. NY changed the law after the embarassment Hamilton brilliant argument caused it.
"Shall not be infringed..." was INTENDED only to apply to federal authorities when the Congress adopted the second amendment. These are fundmental aspects of understanding the Constitution.
No I am not "hung up" on slaves but their freedom and subsequent mistreatment was the cause of much of the mischief you fear from a stronger government. Take the atrocities of the Slaver class out of the equation and we would have had a much different government. Those who do not recognize this need it pointed out.
As originally set up the Bill of Rights DID apply to the states.
Always did, always will (unless the Constittuion is legally amended).
The ONLY exclusion was the establishment of religion, which was allowed to the states but not Congress, and still would be if we were following the constitution as we should be.
The 14th amendment changed nothing as regards the Bill of Rights.
Perhaps you should read about Barron vs Baltimore wherein the USSC explained matters.
Just because the free world ended up with a common enemy...to call them our "ally" is a reality stretch.
Had the Russian military not been battered so completely and the western allies by pact had been weakened sufficiently Russia WOULD have continued her push west.
Only a very naive individual or a Democrat politician the likes of Jimmy Carter could perceive otherwise.
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.