Perhaps Abraham Lincoln thought the same. But in the end, he decided that a military invasion of the Confederacy was "required", after all.
So, my question to you is simply this:
Does "every means at my constitutional disposal" include the launching of a punitive military assault, or does it not? Would the launching of a punitive military assault be one of those "means at my constitutional disposal", or would it not be?
That's the simple, "Yes" or "No" question which you refuse to answer.
Which tells me all that I need to know about your courage of your convictions.
How about the “courage of YOUR convictions”?
What are your convictions?
Are you going to take up arms to defend the mythical “right” of states to kill babies if they want?
‘Cuz you and your friends are sure taking up a whole lotta pixels to do so...
CC, a lot of questions don’t lend themselves to simple Yes/No answers. As a lawyer, I coach witnesses to watch out for clever lawyers who try to box them in with “false dilemma” questions that will actually force the witness to misrepresent the truth if a simple Yes/No answer is given.
To show you the difficulty, let me ask what *you* would do if a state, say, Maryland, up and decided to legalize the enslavement of all it’s FReepers, complete with hunting them down, house by house? Is the military response on the table? Would other, lesser options such as sanctions, work for you? What would be your legal justification for any response you might choose? Could you possibly identify a sliding scale of justifications for a continuum of possible responses? If no variance in justifications, how would you choose among options?
And please, feel free to use something other than Yes or No.