Posted on 08/07/2007 11:37:02 AM PDT by JZelle
The U.S. Constitution has been orphaned by President Bush and Congress. The Founding Fathers would weep over the abandonment of their brilliant creation featuring checks and balances and muscular protections against government abuses.
An Aug. 2, 2007, executive order issued by Mr. Bush that blocks property of persons who present a risk of acting in a way that could undermine the sovereignty of Lebanon or its democratic processes or institutions is emblematic of the Constitution's orphanage.
The order was authorized by the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a statute that delegates vast legislative powers over national security affairs. IEEPA empowers the president to impose a financial death penalty upon persons in circumstances which he pronounces create an "unusual and extraordinary threat" to the foreign policy of the United States. Among other things, the president may block assets or void financial transactions.
The Founding Fathers would have frowned on Congress abdicating its national security powers. James Madison, father of the Constitution, worried that foreign threats would be exploited to undermine domestic liberties, especially by a president in times of war or conflict.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
It really began with Roosevelt...Teddy not Frankenstein.
Around the 1920’s giving women the right to vote.
They voted for Harding btw. Tell ya what a bad start that was.
The Constitution has been under relentless, constant attack by liberals/leftists since 1934.
And they got the upper hand in 1937.
Try Abe Lincoln, dude.
Thank You.
I would argue that Jeff Davis & his ilk are the ones that wrecked the Constitution, and that Abe was the one who rescued it - although with changes required to maintain the security & order we depend on today.
It began earlier than that, when the right to leave if the Feds violated their Constitutional limits was forcibly crushed.
Nope. It can be argued (and was actually in West Point text books before the Civil War) that the several States had the right to secede from the Union.
Lincoln mangled the Constituion to save the Union and created the Imperial Federal Government in the process.
That's right. Like when the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision surpassed all constitutional bounds by ruling on something that was not even before the court and claiming that no black person could even be a US citizen, and claiming that no state could ever bar the ownership of slaves within its borders.
Oh wait, you were making a different argument, werent you? You only meant the right of aristocratic white slaveholders to leave when they wanted to. You weren't talking about the other darker-skinned people - uh, I mean, property - to leave when they wanted to.
We’re lucky he did.
Sure. Right. Anything you say.
Ever wonder why England & France were so eager to support the Confederacy? Hint: they wanted their New World land back.
France and the UK supported the Confederacy ‘cause they did business with the South. The South sold cotton in Europe and, with the proceeds, bought manufactured goods and shipped them back to the South.
Northern manufacturers didn’t like this. They wanted a a captive market for their goods in the South. With the control of Congress and the Presidency, the intended to impose a large tariff on imported manufactured goods.
That was the REAL basis for the Civil War.
Sure...because every other country that had legalized slavery at one time also went through a bloody civil war....and that’s why the US had to also...right?
Oh wait...hmmm...every other Western country managed to get rid of slavery without a civil war except the US.
Do you honestly believe that without the Civil War the South would still have slaves today?
jas3
Nice misdirection. The northern manufacturers & industrialists didn’t support the war. They were just as happy to sell to the southern slaveholders as a separate country as they were selling to them as fellow countrymen.
Of course, there was a little more of a ruckus raised over the Nebraska Territory & Bleeding Kansas, over the California & New Mexico territories, over John Brown & Gabriel & Nat Turner, over the House’s gag rule prohibiting debate on any anti-slavery issue, over over the Tanney court & their Dred Scott silliness, etc etc etc. It’s funny how even though the war wasn’t about slavery, every controversy that led to the war was always fundamentally about the two very basic question “should it be legal to own slaves?” and “should we change existing laws to make it illegal?”
No. But here is what I do honestly believe:
I believe that the South was just as responsible as the North - probably even more so - for the fact that the issue could never be resolved except by war. The US was trying to abolish slavery for over half a decade, but the southern slaveholders were stubbornly and brutally opposed to even the most basic limits, and in the 1840s & 1850s becoming even more militant & less willing to comprimise.
I believe that had the South succeeded in secession, the resulting 2 countries would have been incredibly weaker that a united US, and that we would never have become what we are today. The Confederacy couldn't even cooperate enough to not lose against the North (they didn't even have to win, they only had to not lose). How would they have fared against the European powers? How would they have fared against an angry Mexico?
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.