Posted on 11/23/2010 9:43:51 PM PST by Errant
WASHINGTON – Is this the case that will break the presidential eligibility question wide open?
The Supreme Court conferred today on whether arguments should be heard on the merits of Kerchner v. Obama, a case challenging whether President Barack Obama is qualified to serve as president because he may not be a "natural-born citizen" as required by Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution.
Unlike other eligibility cases that have reached the Supreme Court, Kerchner vs. Obama focuses on the "Vattel theory," which argues that the writers of the Constitution believed the term "natural-born citizen" to mean a person born in the United States to parents who were both American citizens.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
I think Hank had you in mind when he wrote this song.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKrpaFw_CsA&feature=related
Ever the dreamer, aren't you?
bingo!!! that’s what I’ve believed from day one.
[You, bluffing and blustering] Absolute nonsense.
Hardly.
Would you consider the prolonged, strenuous exchange of art'y fire "non-conflict"?
Did Anderson exchange fire with the Carolina batteries without intending to "defend the fort"? Transparently not.
Did Anderson exceed his orders, and violate Buchanan's instructions, by preemptively moving his command to an unfinished work? Arguably -- and not "nonsense", as per you.
Your skeletal reply shows your bankruptcy of argument.
Canard. Did the United States steal New York City or Boston from the Crown?
And the South offered to pay, but Lincoln would not receive emissaries of the Confederacy, nor treat with the commissioners of Virginia: "You are too late," said he, having declared war on their State.
Courtesy ping.
That response makes no sense dork.
You continue your misdirection, and relevant sounding posts while interested in obfuscation rather than truth.
You have been asked three times to produce the order for Anderson to move his command and you have not done so.
You don’t because you can’t.
You know factually that Lincoln had been planning for an armed confrontation with the Confederacy not only at the time of his inauguration (”I will hold the forts...”), but months before. (Lincoln to Gen. Winfield Scott, Dec. 1860)
You know that he and his Cabinet disagreed on the Sumter strategy (Cabinet meetings, March 4-April 5 1861), but that renowned military adviser Postmaster Montgomery Blair was his only supporter (Cabinet vote, March 4-5, 1861).
None of the relevant military commanders supported him (Gen. Scott, Maj. Anderson, Capt. Voldges, Capt. Adams), so he had to enlist two junior men to carry out the invasion of the South, (civilian Gustavus Fox and M. C. Meigs, an engineering Captain). They threw together a plan over a two hour period on March 31, 1861, showed it to Lincoln, who then ordered Scott to adhere.
Not having money for this scheme, Lincoln sent Seward over to the Dept. of State to get $10,000 out of his safe. He then gave the money to Fox to rent civilian ships to carry out the illegal, covert act.
This was not the way a US President carries out policy, whether under his authority or not (which it was not).
Your preoccupation and favorite red herring over Anderson or Lincoln's authority to authorize military aggression does not cover the facts that show that then President Abraham Lincoln instituted and instigated a policy of war against the people of South Carolina and Florida.
I await your well reasoned denial.
“After Anderson’s move to Sumter, a dismayed President faced angry commissioners, who sought the surrender of Fort Sumter, a position that several of his cabinet officers supported.
“Secretary of the Interior (Jacob) Thompson noted that South Carolina was a small state with a sparse white population.
“Why not evacuate property that southerners believed they owned under the doctrine of eminent domain?
“They would buy the fort.
“Moreover, Anderson had violated the earlier agreements with South Carolina that the state had made with Buchanan—or at least thought that it had made.” (note: The state of South Carolina adhered to the agreement until Anderson violated it.
James Buchanan by Jean H. Baker, 2004
He is using that argument as a strawman as the court would only declare him ineligible. removing him would then be left up to congress.
It does to anyone with half a brain, which means you're left out.
Fact.
Did the United States steal New York City or Boston from the Crown?
The final status of both New York and Boston was settled by the Treaty of Paris. What legally transferred federal property to the confederacy?
And the South offered to pay, but Lincoln would not receive emissaries of the Confederacy
Because that emissary was there to deliver an ultimatum, not offer to pay for stolen property. Why would Lincoln want to meet with them when all they were there for was to deliver demands?
I have to admit you must be losing badly when you turn an eligibility thread into a civil war thread so that you can argue against Neo-Confederates.
No response is required, I’ll be mowing the grass and raking leaves for the next five hours.
Not arguable to any rational person. Buell's instructions to Anderson read:
"You are carefully to avoid every act which would needlessly tend to provoke aggression; and for that reason you are not, without evident and immediate necessity, to take up any position which could be construed into the assumption of a hostile attitude. But you are to hold possession of the forts in this harbor, and if attacked, you are to defend yourself to the last extremity. The smallness of your force will not permit you, perhaps, to occupy more than one of the three forts, but an attack or or attempt to take possession of any of them will be regarded as an act of hostility, and you may then put your command into either of them which you deem most proper to increase its power of resistance. You are also authorized to take similar steps whenever you have tangible evidence of a design to proceed to a hostile act."
Looking at Floyd's instructions, which I posted in reply 277 and there is no conflict between them and what Buell relayed to Anderson. Both say that Anderson is to hold all the forts. Floyd does not say that Anderson cannot move his troops. The only clarification is that Floyd is countermanding Buell's instructions to "defend yourself to the last extremity." Floyd is making it clear that in the event of an attack Anderson is not to hold the forts to the last man. Instead, if in his military judgment further resistance if futile then he is to make the best terms possible and surrender his force. And that is exactly what Anderson did, and in doing so he followed his instructions to the letter.
Buell's instruction gave Anderson permission to move his force if he felt it prudent. I quoted the relevant parts in reply 315. That was all the authority Anderson needed.
You don’t because you can’t.
I can and I did.
Before shooting off your mouth, I submit that you should have taken the time to scroll up the thread a ways to reply 246. If you would had done so then you'd have seen that it was lentulusgracchus who turned this into a Southern rebellion thread and not I. And for the lamest of reasons, too. Are you suggesting I should just have ignored them? That wouldn't be very polite, would it?
Buchanan had indeed made the agreement with South Carolinians. Here, in an old post of mine, are some quotes from an unsent letter by Attorney General Edwin Stanton who participated in the cabinet meeting discussions about this with Buchanan that confirm the agreement: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2484139/posts?page=1222#1222
Stanton's account in the letter was later verified by Joseph Holt who had participated in those cabinet meetings as Buchanan's Postmaster General.
Buchanan faced the resignation of three of his cabinet members (Stanton and two others -- possibly Toucey, Black, Thomas, or Holt) if he stuck with the agreement he had made with South Carolinians and did not back Anderson's move to Sumter. Buchanan had already suffered the loss of two cabinet members (Howell Cobb of Georgia on December 8, 1860 and Lewis Cass of Michigan on December 12 or 13, 1860) and faced the prospect of losing two more from potential scandals (John Floyd and Jacob Thompson). Buchanan finally caved to the pro Union group (Stanton and others) and came out with a public statement that distanced himself from any previous agreement with the South Carolinians.
Anderson's move to Sumter did not play well with South Carolinians. From page 8 of the Jan. 1, 1861, New York Times, reporting an article from the Charleston Courier of Dec. 28, 1860. (Italics as reported in the Times):
The newspaper offices were besieged, the hotel halls were thronged, and even the grave and serious gentlemen composing the State Convention shared in the general excitement. On all hands anger and indignation was expressed at the supposed perfidious conduct of the Federal authorities, at whose instance it was first thought the movement was made. The people were greatly incensed at the idea of a willful breach of those assurances of non action which had been volunteered by the Government at Washington and upon which so much reliance and confidence had been placed by the entire population, that every impulse to take the necessary precautions for their own safety had been restrained.
Instinctively men flew to arms. Orders were immediately issued to the following Companies to hold themselves in readiness for service: Washington Light Infantry, Capt. C. H. Simonton; Carolina Light Infantry, Capt. B. G. Pinckney; Meagher Guards, Capt. Ed. McCready, Jr.; altogether forming a portion of the Regiment of Rifles, commanded by Col. J. J. Pettigrew and Major Ellison Capers; also, to the Marion Artillery, Capt. J. G. King; Lafayette Artillery, Capt. J. J. Pope, Jr.; Washington Artillery, Capt. G. H. Walter; German Artillery, Capt. C. Nohrden; all under command of Lieut. W. G. De Saussure; Adjutant, Jas. Simmons, Jr.; Sergeant-Major, E. Prioleau Ravenel; Quartermaster-Sergeant, J. R. Macbeth; Surveyor, A Barbot: Surgeons, P. Gervais Robinson and Middleton Mitchel. Also, the Palmetto Guard, Capt. Thomas Middleton, and Cadei Riflemen, W. S. Elliot.
All the military forces thus ordered out promptly obeyed the summons, and the streets were soon enlivened by the appearance of individual members of the different organizations in their uniforms.
Anderson really escalated tensions by his move. Another article from that issue of the Times quoted from the Courier as saying:
Maj. Robert Anderson, U. S. A., has achieved the unenviable distinction of opening civil war between American citizens by an act of gross breach of faith.
WOW, what a witty comment. How old are you? 14? Dorky dearie.
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.