Posted on 08/29/2011 12:27:09 PM PDT by Second Amendment First
A federal judge temporarily blocked enforcement of Alabama's new law cracking down on illegal immigration, ruling Monday that she needed more time to decide whether the law opposed by the Obama administration, church leaders and immigrant-rights groups is constitutional.
The brief order by U.S. District Judge Sharon L. Blackburn means the law won't take effect as scheduled on Thursday. The ruling was cheered by opponents who have compared the law to old Jim Crow-era statutes against racial integration.
But Blackburn didn't address whether the law is constitutional, and she could still let all or parts of the law take effect later. The judge said she will issue a longer ruling by Sept. 28.
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
Soooo, you're a Hamilton worshipper, huh? Some of Hamilton's believes:
Hamilton was a compulsive statist who wanted to bring the corrupt British mercantilist system — the very system the American Revolution was fought to escape from — to America.
He fought fiercely for his program of corporate welfare, protectionist tariffs, public debt, pervasive taxation, and a central bank run by politicians and their appointees out of the nation's capital.
Jefferson and his followers opposed him every step of the way because they understood that Hamilton's agenda was totally destructive of liberty.
He was the instigator of "crony capitalism," or government primarily for the benefit of the well-connected business class.
Hamilton is also considered to be the founding father of central banking since America's first central bank, the Bank of the United States (BUS), existed primarily due to his efforts as Treasury Secretary. As William Graham Sumner wrote in his biography of Hamilton, however, "[A] national bank . . . was not essential to the work of the Federal Government." The real purpose of Hamilton's bank, Sumner believed, was "the interweaving of the interests of wealthy men with those of their government." And interweave it did, providing cheap credit to business supporters of the Federalist Party, attempting to engineer boom-and-bust cycles to influence elections (called "political business cycles" in today's parlance) and even financing the political campaigns of BUS supporters.
Hamilton worshipped government power for its own sake, and sought a government that would seek "imperial glory" (his words). He disrespected people like Jefferson who believed the primary purpose of government should be the protection of natural rights to life, liberty and property. He frequently complained of "an excessive concern for liberty in public men" and called for a government of "more energy."
Hamilton was the founder of the American nationalist tradition. As Clyde Wilson has pointed out, there is a sharp difference between nationalism and patriotism. Patriotism is "the wholesome love of one's land and people," says Professor Wilson. Nationalism, on the other hand, is an "unhealthy love of one's government, accompanied by the aggressive desire to put down others — which becomes in deracinated modern men a substitute for religious faith." (I think that this is where you and your yankee comrades fit in.)
What does "Hamilton's Republic" look like, from a government policy perspective? It is one that is run by a dictatorial chief executive with king-like powers, for one thing. At the Constitutional convention Hamilton presented his real agenda: a "permanent" president who would appoint all the governors, and who would have veto power over all state legislation.
He supported the compromise by which the United States could not abolish the slave trade for 20 years
By telling us who you worship you've told us who you are, you arrogant sob.
Every president except the Adams was either a slave owner or a supporter of the slavers. Southern control of the US government is indisputable and, naturally
Are you suggesting that up until 1860 that the United States was a dictatorship? Are you also suggesting that the nowth wasn't representated in the federal government prior to 1860?
Tell ya what betty, let's just stop the chatter and get straight to the nut cuttin:
You provide sources from 'real historians' that support your absurd statements that the South completely controlled the federal government until 1860 or Sierra Tango Foxtrot Uniform.
Why don’t you and snarkrr get a room.....
Hamilton was George Washington’s protege and chief adviser for a reason. They both loved their nation more than anything including a petty state. They both devoted virtually their entire adult lives to fighting for and preserving the freedom of the American People. Neither was ready to flatter the mob like the Left of that day, Jefferson, or resort to Class Warfare like the Democrats (then and now).
Economies build state power and preserve freedom. Hamilton was intelligent enough to understand that freedom was an empty concept without a strong support which meant government. His policies provided the necessary framework to allow the nation to survive surrounded as it was by the empires of Europe all conspiring to rip off sections of the Union.
Britain was the most successful state in the world and therefore Hamilton understood that one should emulate the policies of success. Since he understood economics and finance better than any other American he and Washington put institutions and policies into effect which provided the sinews necessary to tie the Union together.
He understood that the British imperial system had distorted the American economy by forcing it into industrial dependency upon the British economy. It had restricted or outlawed the creation in the colonies of certain sectors of industry such as iron making. Hence, it was reasonable to propose a program to make the readjustment from the under-developed industrial period to a modern capitalist economy.
It was necessary to quickly develop at least the necessary industries to provide resources for national defense. The taxes and revenues necessary to pay for this and the debt he inherited were quite small per capita and primarily came from government land sales and tariffs.
BTW the American people did not revolt against mercantilism they revolted against having no representation in the government in London. Had there been a couple of Members of Parliament there would have been no Revolution as it was only a third of the people supported independence. Hamilton, as a teenager, was one of the most effective propagandists for Independence while still a student. He used his college fund to outfit a militia unit.
The Bank of the United States was private and not run by politicians. It was its indifference to the mob and politicians that infuriated Jefferson, that and his manic hatred of banks. He was little more than an overseerer for the British bankers who provided the capital for his little kingdom.
Hamilton made no secret of his belief that the rich must be tied to government. He knew that to allow the Left (Jefferson) to shape it would mean, as in the republics of the past, class conflict and destruction. Jefferson, the great admirer of the Reign of Terror, linked his political fortunes with the demagogues and City political machines who had worked against the ratification of the Constitution.
Nor did the Bank “engineer” business cycles. When Hamilton was Sec it and Treasury attempted to prevent wild speculations when possible. And even after Hamilton and Wolcott Jefferson’s SecTreas, Albert Gallatin, operated a responsible financial policy adhering to Hamiltonian policies. Certainly the Bank would assist politicians which favored it and opposed those who opposed it. But so what?
It was largely due to Hamilton’s policies that the United States was strong enough economically and politically to survive the Great Treason of 1861. For that the People owe a debt it cannot repay except through a proper veneration of his services. However, his name and reputation have been slandered for two hundred years by Left-leaning historians and the Jeffersonians. One of America’s greatest patriots is totally misrepresented.
His view of the American “empire” is not different than Jefferson in its essence and certainly he had more concern with freedom than Jefferson since he actively worked to end slavery even going so far as to propose the enlistment of Black soldiers during the Revolution. No wonder Jefferson hated a man who did more than write high-sounding phrases about “freedom”. That is what your quote meant. He wanted less TALK about freedom and more action about securing it.
Hamilton, like all believers in Manifest Destiny, viewed the entire continent as America’s natural limit. Entirely in keeping with Jefferson’s views.
Hamilton’s speech at the Convention was designed to push the Constitution as far Right as possible. He admitted his views were not those of the majority. But being an expert lawyer he knew how to present a case. His view of a King was as an executive no matter what you call it and he never proposed that Americans adopt a monarchy or a aristocracy. Although virtually every discussion of Hamilton has some Know Nothing claiming he was a monarchist, all from Jeffersonian lies.
You want to talk about dictatorship? Check out the actions of Jefferson’s insane persecution of Aaron Burr. Talk about Tyranny. Hamilton would have never done anything like that although a more despicable character than Burr is hard to find.
Control of the federal government prior to 1860 does not imply a dictatorship. Such control would not mean much to most since that government was TINY and rarely affected people’s daily lives unless it was enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act. It only had an army of 16,000. Most of the governing being done was by States.
Is that the one who loves the South so much he or she lives in Montana or Idaho?
Must be Southern Montana or Southern Idaho, I guess.
She’s just a low-grade moron from the look of it ;-)
All that to reinforce my claim that you’re a statist.
You’re just an old windbag.
BTW, where are those references from ‘real historians’ to back up your claim that the South completely controlled the federal government until 1860?
Chirp, chirp, chirp......................................................
South Bronx, actually.
What about you, sweetheart? Where do you live? A government housing project in 0bamaville, USA?
BTW, you and yapper are such a cute little couple. ;~) lol ((snicker))
I must be to be exchanging replies with buffoons like you, x and arrogantslob.
;~) lol ((snicker))
Yes, you must be. Glad we got that settled.
If that’s settled then so is your buffoonery. Agreed?
;~)
lol
((snicker))
Chirp, chirp, chirp......................................................
Chirp, chirp, chirp......................................................
Missing me already?
“You’re just an old windbag.” Flirting will get you nowhere. My girl friend says the same thing.
I am not a quoter or a linker to others thoughts. Any decent history book will list those who controlled the federal government. There is no controversy as to the stance of the Presidents on slavery. Are you confused and believe there is some anti-slavery presidents I did not list?
Do you know who Henry Clay was or John C. Calhoun, or Taney were? How many more national leaders do you need? Lincoln was NOT typical and even he had no intention of starting a war over slavery.
In other words, you're unable to back up your absurd statements. Why am I not surprised......
Any decent history book will list those who controlled the federal government.
Then provide the name of one, just one, that will substantiate your statement that "the South completely controlled the federal government until 1860".
Lincoln was NOT typical and even he had no intention of starting a war over slavery.
Glad to hear one of you Linkinbots finally admit that Linkin started the war and that it wasn't over slavery.
My statements are not even controversial but to the the Lost Cause devotees. I know you folks love to post quotations taken out of context which often make the opposite point you are arguing. And you love to post the thoughts of others mine are sufficient to destroy the pretensions of the Lost Cause.
Why don’t you tell me where my comments are wrong with specifics?
You can’t even read a clear comment without drawing the wrong conclusion anyway.
The lack of an intention of Lincoln to start a war is to any RATIONAL person not a statement that he started a war and there has never been an argument that he fought to preserve the Union. It was fought by the SLAVERS for slavery not the North.
Naturally, I have said this a dozen times and you keep returning to the LIE that I have claimed it was over slavery for the North. IT WAS NOT. But it clearly and confessedly was so for the South.
If you can’t wage an honest argument then don’t bother.
"the South completely controlled the federal government until 1860" - arrogantslob
Totally absurd and you can't provide credible references to back any of your absurdity up.
With you it's just blah, blah, blah, lie, lie, lie, blah, blah, blah, lie, lie, lie........
IT WAS NOT. But it clearly and confessedly was so for the South.
That is the Big Lie pepetuated by you left wingers. And unlike you, I can provide references to credible historians that will shatter your yankee lies and politically correct yankee mythology and bilge. For instance:
Why The War Was Not About Slavery
If you can’t wage an honest argument then don’t bother.
I suggest that you try some honesty for a change. It may liberate your from you statist, liberal, politically correct bonds.
I have listed the pro slavery presidents - no response but sputtering. I will and John Marshall to Taney between the two that is almost the entire eighteenth century up to the War. Both slave owners and Southerners. Then I listed the top figures in the Congress Clay and Calhoun - no response from you but sputtering. Southern power in Congress was cemented by the 3/5s rule allowing Slavers to vote as though their chattel was 3/5s of a man. You just pretend this increased power did not exist. So that is Executive, Judicial and Legislative all under control of the South and Slavers. What is your problem with this obvious and indisputable fact.
Livingston is the best you can do? He isn’t even a historian much less a credible one and I wouldn’t trust his philosophical analysis any more than his political. Nor does the school he teaches at have any reputation of excellence in any field.
Nothing he says can change the fact that the Slavers readily admitted that they fought for slavery. It is only their modern apologists who claim they fought for some Noble Cause rather than the ability to use the Whip and the Lash. They weren’t such hypocrites.
How does that validate your statement that "the South completely controlled the federal government until 1860"?!? (Hint: links from reputable sources would be a good start...)
Look, I know that you're dumber than a bag of hammers but c'mon!
John Marshall to Taney between the two that is almost the entire eighteenth century up to the War.
Are you suggesting that these two men were dictators and that the north wasn't represented in congress or the SC until after the Wah? I guess disHonest Abe's emancipation was further reaching than originally suspected....
FWIW, the Stars-n-Stripes flew over slavery much longer than the Stars-n-Bars.
the 3/5s rule allowing Slavers to vote as though their chattel was 3/5s of a man.
Wow. You really aren't very bright are you? The 3/5's rule was proposed by the yankees James Wilson and Roger Sherman because they (the north) didn't want blacks to count as a whole human being.
You've previously stated that you don't like to use quotes or links but I'm thinking that you simply don't read and that all you do is spout liberal, yankee propoganda.
Nor does the school he teaches at have any reputation of excellence in any field.
Like I said, you're dumber than a bag of hammers...
Nothing he says can change the fact that the Slavers readily admitted that they fought for slavery. It is only their modern apologists who claim they fought for some Noble Cause rather than the ability to use the Whip and the Lash.
States Rights was the Cause and slavery was the occasion and you can't provide any references and/or sources (other than your own absurdity and feeeeeeeelings, of course) to refute that.
BTW, while you're foaming at the pie hole trying to rebute the facts that I've so graciously provided for you, try reading (a difficult task for you, I know) about how your beloved northron comrades treated slaves and freedmen:
Presumably you believe that nastiness will drive me away. It won’t since I am used to nastiness and insanity from the Defenders of the Slavers.
Perhaps you need a refresher course on what control of the federal government means. Remember there are three branches of the fed/gov: Executive, legislative and judicial. As I SHOWED you all three were controlled by pro-slavery forces for almost the entire period prior to the RAT Rebellion.
The three fifths rule was a compromise with the Slavers. Of course, the North did not want the votes of the Slavers to be inflated by counting blacks. Are you really so big an idiot that you think Slaves could vote?
I stand corrected about Emory I was thinking of another school.
Once again I'm throwing the BS flag on your patently absurd hyperbole so either support your absurdity with references from credible sources or Sierra Tango Foxtrot Uniform.
Are you really so big an idiot that you think Slaves could vote?
Your reading abilities are as vapid as your whiny opinions. I didn't post anything about slaves voting, idiot.
I stand corrected about Emory I was thinking of another school.
If you were to wake up one morning and find yourself in the peculiar and unprecedented mood for honesty you would feel compelled to issue a blanket correction for every piece of nonsense that you've posted on FR. However, the likelihood of a libtard yankee propogandist (that would be you) becoming honest is, for all practical purposes, unreasonable to even consider.
Now, disappear most riki-tik Private Joker and take Rafter Man with you!
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.