Posted on 07/23/2013 8:18:43 AM PDT by Bon of Babble
Rush Limbaugh would have sided with the confederacy during the Civil War, according to MSNBC analyst Dorian Warren.
Warren, a Columbia professor and fellow at the progressive Roosevelt Institute, explained that Limbaugh “represents the Confederacy. He would have been on that side that went to war around the question of slavery.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
I figure that is just means that Roberts uses a two step review process. Of course he could have held that it was a tax, and therefore no parties had standing until they had paid the tax, per the Anti Injunction act. It would have been silly to me if after all the arguments and lower court rulings they held that it was a tax, and couldn’t be considered.
I would have liked to have it ruled unconstitutional, as the Constitution gives the government no authority to meddle in health insurance. Of course that would have opened a big can of worms, because then the fed gov would also have no constitutional authority to regulate agriculture, mining, labor, education, housing and urban development, health and human services, the environment, except as necessary and proper for other constitutional powers. (ie, they could provide health insurance to military or DoD civilians).
They were not ready to be quite that activist. I don’t blame him. I also suspect that he was warned that the most lefty lawyers in the land would have gone over his adoption with a very fine toothed comb if he voted the wrong way. These Chicago types don’t scruple much.
Since the war was started by the insurrection, refusal to accept the insurrection was not the cause of the war. The people that started the war were in favor of the insurrection.
The slavery meme was invoked by the south in their pretended secession documents. They were just on the side of the institution of human slavery so that is now an embarrassment to the neo-confederates.
The US government did return fugitive slaves. Per supreme court decisions, state officials had no role in the fugitive slave act.
Under the principle of federalism, state officials would have to use state procedures and follow state laws. The slave power didn’t care for free states requiring evidence, witnesses, and due process before an accused slave could be returned to his alleged master. Accordingly the state officials were not allowed to cooperate with slave catchers, and that duty fell to federal marshals.
After winning that court case, and with the later Dred Scott ruling that accused slaves had no access to federal courts to challenge the actions of slave catchers or federal marshals, there was no legitimate complaint that the slave power could make.
That is true. They also never filed suit in the SCOTUS (as original jurisdiction) to resolve a controversy that would have permitted them secession as a resolution.
They didn’t even have enough for straight up legislation.
So they appealed to the sword. They lost in that venue also.
I think Roberts should have said look: you have taxing power, but you messed up this case by not making that clear. Bring this back as a tax & we will hear it again. That’s pretty much what the 4 consevative judges said. If Roberts did that there woud have been no major change in current tax policy. I stand with the 4 conservative judges who found a simple way to toss this mess away, but for vnity of Roberts who wanted HIS court to seem fair. Shameful.
Article III requires that controversies between the states, or between a state and the federal government would be resolved by law, with the supreme court as original jurisdiction.
The various states agreed to that when they agreed to the constitution. Therefore they pretense at secession and war to support secession was unconstitutional, particularly when they pretended that secession and war was their selected method of resolving a disagreement with the federal government.
I also wish that it had been struck down. I don’t think that disagreeing with me is shameful.
I myself hesitate to complain about a lawyers knowledge of law unless they pretty far in left field, (pun intended).
Lol, I meant the ruling by Roberts was shameful. In any event we are stuck with the law.
I don’t like the ruling but don’t think it shameful.
We are not stuck with the law. It was put in place by the legislature, it can be removed by the legislature.
Glen Reynolds says, “Promises that can’t be kept, won’t be. Benefits that can’t be paid, won’t be.”
I get your point, but if the Union had rolled over and accepted the insurrection, there would have been no war.
Or rather, there would not have been a war then.
I fully believe that war would have arisen in a relatively short time over the border states, which the CSA wbeould have continued to try to subvert, or the territories, which they would have demanded be divided.
The only foolishness I’ve found here are the confederate supporters who haven’t figured out that their side lost 148 years ago, that they seemingly still support slavery and the democrat ideals that led to the foolish war that they started by secession and firing on Sumpter.
It was a lost cause then boys, it’s a lost cause 148 years later. Why would anyone with that mindset call themselves patriots and supporters of the Constitution while still obsessing on the last major democrat attempt to destroy that Constitution?
Good summary of yankee opinion...
So sad that so many cling to the past glory that never was. Typical democrat mindset.
Opinion or not, the arrogant, traitor, democrat movement lost then, it’s still a loser, maybe more of a bowel movement than anything else.
Funny how James Madison disagrees with your interpertation of the Constitution and the Federalist Papers, which he had more than little to do with creating. Amazing how you know more than him about the topic. Maybe Madison was like me... didn't have a clue what he was talking about.
"I return my thanks for the copy of your late very powerful Speech in the Senate of the United S. It crushes "nullification" and must hasten the abandonment of "Secession." But this dodges the blow by confounding the claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression. The former answers itself, being a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged. The latter is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy."James Madison, 15 Mar. 1833
Then there is this from a fellow who was around when secession was actually taking place.
"The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom, and forbearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it were intended to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will. It is intended for perpetual union, so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government (not a compact) which can only be dissolved by revolution, or by the consent of all the people in convention assembled."I quess he didn't have a clue either.Robert E. Lee, January 23, 1861
You do not belong, FRiend. Kolob awaits all three or four of you.
I was in the South in 1950’s and I can attest to the fact that even them the parts of the South that Isaw was still a backwater
For several years, the matter of states rights were argued
in the legislature before the war started. Military installations in the South were set up to enforce the collection of tariffs. There were other issues involved in states rights than slavery.
The North wrote the history (they won). It’s not necessarily
the truth!
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.