Gun-control ruling affirms the Confederacy

tcpalm.com ^ | March 28, 2007 | JOSH HORWITZ

[stand watie]

i recall asking you once (a couple of years at least ago)if there was ANYTHING you did NOT know "everything about". you said you could NOT think of anything.

it's called being a "know all".

free dixie,sw

[stand watie]

btw, the USSC would (PROBABLY) NOT have ruled on "sawed off shotguns" under 18" barrels had "Miller's" attorney pointed out how many "sawed offs" had been used in trench warfare in WW1.

"Miller" is NOT a major SECOND AMENDMENT case, but rather is MOSTLY a "criminal conversion" case.

free dixie,sw

[Non-Sequitur]

Miller" is NOT a major SECOND AMENDMENT case, but rather is MOSTLY a "criminal conversion" case.

ROTFLMAO

[stand watie]

well, N-S, you can go argue with the Constitutional experts on this one. frankly, i DOUBT that the REAL experts on the 2d would agree with you on this one, inasmuch as it was MOSTLY about the conversion of a LAWFUL shotgun into a CRIMINAL INSTRMENTALITY (NOT unlike converting regular hand-tools into a set of burglar tools).

at least that's what i learned in college.

otoh, YOU say that you KNOW EVERYTHING about EVERYTHING, thus your knowledge must be SUPERIOR to everyone else's, regardless of their academic credentials.

laughing AT you.

free dixie,sw

[stand watie]

PLEASE inform everyone here of your academic credentials as a Constitutional scholar and as an EXPERT on Constitutional Law.

you don't have any??? then WHY do you lol???? (perhaps you should remain silent about things of which you KNOW nothing???)

fyi, i've taken exactly TWO 3-hour courses on Constitutional Law (one undergrad & one in grad school, so i'm FAR from an expert.)

otoh, you SAY that you KNOW everything about EVERY subject, so perhaps we should all bow down to N-S, the Minister of DAMNyankee Propaganda. (SARCASM button: ON)

free dixie,sw

[since 1854]

If the SC ruling against secession after the fact bothers you, then in your view the rebel states should have asked the SC to rule on the constitutionality of seccesion before the fact, before they seceded. Else, any SC decision on secession would have been after the fact.

[since 1854]

Francis H. Pierpont, the Unionist Governor of Virginia, remained Governor of Virginai for three years after the end of the Civil War.

[since 1854]

No state ever left the Union.

[Non-Sequitur]

you don't have any??? then WHY do you lol???? (perhaps you should remain silent about things of which you KNOW nothing???)

I LOL and ROTFLMAO at the idiocy that you post.

Just out of curiosity, what are YOUR academic credentials as a Constitutional scholar and as an EXPERT on Constitutional Law?

[smug]

No state ever left the Union.

So, then the formation of West Virginia was and is unconstitutional?

[since 1854]

Virginia never left the Union, but the state government did change.

As affirmed by the Supreme Court, the creation of West Virginia was constitutional. Per the constitution of Virginia at the time, the 1861 constitutional convention superceded the state government. Those delegates who voted for secession thereby lost their legitimacy as delegates, leaving the loyal delegates as the legitimate government of the state of Virginia. It was the loyal state administration of Gov. Francis Pierpont, who remained in office until 1868, which consented to the formation of West Virginia.

[smug]

ridiculous, the constitution says you can’t form a state of of a part of a existing state.

[since 1854]

Read the Constitution some time. It says the permission of the state government is required, which the Pierpont administration provided.

[stand watie]

what part of i'm NOT a Constitutional scholar, did you NOT understand??? (as you are aware, i'm a "policy wonk" and my degrees are in Public Administration & Political Science. i told you that at least 3 years ago.)

laughing AT your feeble attempt to change the subject away from your LACK of both academic credentials above the "master's level" AND your lack of actual knowledge of the subjects that you post DRIVEL about.

free dixie,sw

[stand watie]

the "pierpont administration" was NEVER the legitimate government of ANYTHING, not even of itself. it was a FICTION, agreed upon by INVADERS, TYRANTS & the elitist, SELF-serving DAMNyankees.

free dixie,sw

[Non-Sequitur]

ridiculous, the constitution says you can’t form a state of of a part of a existing state

You can't form it without consent of Congress as well as the legislature. That part of the Virginia legislature not participating in the rebellion was recognized as the legitimate government of Virginia by Congress. It was they who petitioned Congress to allow the partition.

[stand watie]

and the DAMNyankee-controlled congress was ITSELF fraudulent, upon the secession of the rest of the states.

free dixie,sw

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

and the DAMNyankee-controlled congress was ITSELF fraudulent, upon the secession of the rest of the states.

How does that work? You've now basically said that the secession of the southern states DID overthrow the entire United States government. It's hard to claim it wasn't a rebellion if the departure of the southern delegations instantly made the rest of the congress fraudulent.

[Non-Sequitur]

and the DAMNyankee-controlled congress was ITSELF fraudulent, upon the secession of the rest of the states.

How would you know?

[stand watie]

go argue with the REVISIONIST/LEFTISTS that you DAMNyankees seem to agree with on every other subject.

fyi, i said what i did to get a "rise out of" the DYs here, as you cannot have it BOTH ways.

either the US Congress was FRAUDLENT in continuing to "sit" (without a quorum) OR the secession of the southern states was BOTH lawful & legitimate.

free dixie,sw