Posted on 04/12/2007 9:34:54 AM PDT by TexConfederate1861
Based on what rule of law?
Attempted theft does not changge ownership. Therefore you are wrong. The government of the State of South Carolina ceded all claims, both public and private, on the site of Sumter to the Federal Government long before the war. They had no jurisdiction or claim on it.
Incidentally, Scalia, in his dissent, goes on--at length--about how the power to suspend the writ of habeas corpus rests solely with the legislature.
What. Did is miss the deed transfer? How much did the Confederacy pay for that bit of Federal property?
Or are you saying it was no longer Federal property just because you say so, or some clowns in Charleston said so?
If that's the case, I declare here and now that Fort Hood and Lackland AFB (along with all those really cool big-boy toys on those bases) now belong to me!
You hear me --- they are all mine now, so keep your grubby mitts off! -
Hmmmm. What else can I just declare to be mine? Maybe that government plant up in Amarillo that makes the really big firecrackers....
There was no such nation.
I find your statement even more interesting given the fact that: 1. it is NOT explicitly stated in the Constitution, and 2. the matter has never come before the Supreme Court. Other than that you statement comes fairly close to being accurate.
This is a little off subject, but my son is writing is college final term paper on federalism and states rights. He’s found a lot of references from the past (such as The Federalist), but if anyone knows of any good websites or authors discussing this, I would appreciate it.
It is indeed accurate that throughout the history of the civilized world, the Executive has not had the power to unilaterally suspend the writ of habeas corpus.
I am very pleased that you've managed to admit this stubborn fact. Perhaps now you will be able to come to the realization that the President does not have greater powers than even a King.
it has "something to do with" 92 members of MY family being raped/robbed/tortured/murdered by DAMNyankee cavalry during a bloody, 4-day drunken orgy ,as if they were NOT humans, just because they were "other than white persons".
the DYs were REALLY good at committing ATROCITIES, if you happened to be Asian, Black, Catholic, Jewish, Indian, Latino Quaker and/or "the poorest of the poor".
the TRUTH is that NOBODY in the union "high command" CARED about "people that that", so the troops VICTIMIZED them with pleasure.
i've often thought it ironic that the same "crusaders against human bondage" were the same war criminals, who slaughtered the "minorities" with gleeful abandon. in all too many cases the ONLY thing the invaders FREED the slaves from was being ALIVE!
free dixie,sw
a DOCUMENTED PRIMARY SOURCE, please OR you could admit that you are plain LYING.
there's NOT a single bit of truth in your post.
free dixie,sw
I further note, as if the issue needed any additional explanation, that in Federalist 84, Hamilton describes the writ of habeas corpus as an adoption of the common law of Great Britain:
"[I]t contains in the body of it various provisions in favour of particular privileges and rights, which in the constitution adopts in their full extent the common and statute law of Great-Britain, by which many other rights not expressed in it are equally secured."
Hamilton then goes on to ennumerate certain provisions by way of example, including the writ of habeas corpus:
"The establishment of the writ of habeas corpus, the prohibition of ex post facto laws, and of TITLES OF NOBILITY, to which we have no corresponding provisions in our constitution, are perhaps greater securities to liberty and republicanism than any it contains....[T]he practice of arbitrary imprisonments have been in all ages the favourite and most formidable instruments of tyranny."
Given that only Parliament can suspend the writ of habeas corpus, it seems strange indeed that the Constitution, which Hamilton noted was adopting English common law, would vest with the President a power that was unavailable to the Crown. Weird.
"the Boss" was almost "hard on the eyes". he was short, fat,narrow shouldered, dumpy, bowlegged & "of a certain age".
he is a CLASSIC CASE of you "can't tell a book by its cover"!!!
fyi, he was TOO POOR to buy a horse, so he borrowed a "good, young red mule" from a cousin & rode her throughout the WBTS.
he also was too poor to buy a CSA officer's uniform (those fancy gray uniforms were VERY expensive.), so he pinned his rank on whatever old clothes that he happened to be wearing.
free dixie,sw
does that VIOLATE the Constitution, in your opinion???
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
didn't you learn ANYTHING in geography???
free dixie,sw
“Rape” is only immoral to some.
Well, that may be true but please remember that Gore won ZERO electoral votes in the South (including his home state of TN, thank the Lord).
free dixie,sw
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.