Top US general says Confederate leaders committed 'treason' and signals support for renaming bases

[woodpusher] Perhaps Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson understood it as well or better than Madison. It would seem that he who best predicted what would result probably had the best understanding.
[OIFVeteran] It's not so much predicted as he understood that the constitution was being ratified by the people, so they bound the states to it, where the articles of confederation was ratified by the states. He says this very thing in his speech to the Virginia ratification convention.
[ought-six] I believe woodpusher’s original comment was that Henry and Jefferson predicted what the Constitution would BECOME, not what it was thought to be in 1788 (recall Henry’s famous “I smell a rat,” comment). It was the old “Federalists vs Anti-Federalists” standoff, and was one of the reasons for the Bill of Rights.

It was really a reference to what indubitably did result; the Federal leviathan in Washington—the centralization of power and corruption in Washington.

The Federalist Papers were a marketing campaign to the people of New York. They were selling a product. Madison Avenue was the appropriate place to become home to advertising agencies.

Unless the Framers sold an image of the government as it exists today, somewhere there has been a disconnect.

That’s what I said, dear. The Opinion was issued seriatim. There are nine of them. Only something agreed upon by five or more is an Opinion of the Court. You are absolutely fixated on the dicta that do nothing.

It doesn't matter whether Taney delivered it seriatim or discontinuously, any comments made that did not involve the matter before the court were made in dicta and are not binding as precedent.

Taney’s massive amount of dicta is in response to the even more massive dicta of Juscitce Benjamin Curtis who sat on the bench and listened to his older brother argue the case, and then leaked his opinion to the press before the Court had authorized the release of any opinion.

Now that you've admitted that the bulk of Taney's comments were made in dicta do you also admit they were not binding? And if they were not binding then we could expect that had the rebellion not interfered then the Republicans in Congress and the Lincoln administration would have challenged the Sanford decision every way possible?

The federalists created a system of government that had never existed before, and I think doesn’t exist anywhere else. They believed (and rightfully so in my opinion) if we continued with the very weak central government under the articles of confederation that the United States would break up. So they created a new system of government with a much stronger central government, with enough checks and balances that it wouldn’t become tyrannical(hopefully), and made the constitution the supreme law of the land.

The anti-federalist seemed to think we were fine under the Articles or that the Articles just needed to be improved. Thomas Jefferson thought we would always be a nation of farmers, a bit naive in my opinion, but I don’t think anyone could see the amazing technological developments that would occur.

Personally, even with all its faults, I still think our government is one of the best on the planet. It offers us unprecedented individual liberty and material wealth. Unlike many other countries in the world I can support any political party or position I want without fear of being arrested and thrown in jail. I can worship or not worship any god or gods I want. Etc, etc.

“It was really a reference to what indubitably did result; the Federal leviathan in Washington—the centralization of power and corruption in Washington.”

Yes, both Jefferson and Henry had intense distrust of a strong federal government. Remember Henry’s prophetic comment: “The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government -— lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.”

Listen pal, let me break this to you ok: The South lost the war. The Confederacy lost. And yes, Joe cleans your clock every time. Again, your side lost. And as far as piss: F**k you.

It doesn't matter whether Taney delivered it seriatim or discontinuously,

To know what a majority of the justices agreed upon, you have to read all nine opinions. Nobody joined the opinion of CJ Taney. There were six concurring opinions and two dissenting opinions.

any comments made that did not involve the matter before the court were made in dicta and are not binding as precedent.

That is what I said, dear.

Now that you've admitted that the bulk of Taney's comments were made in dicta do you also admit they were not binding?

Yes, dear. Not only are dicta not binding precedent, as I said, they are not even opinions of the Court. You are so fixated on your dicta, and holding on to your irrelevant dicta so hard, you have failed to see that there is a 7-2 majority decision and an actual holding of the Court. The 7-2 majority held that the case was controlled by the prior U.S. Supreme Court case of Strader v. Graham which was held to be directly on point and which unanimously held for a lack of jurisdiction. And accordingly, in Scott, the Court decision was to remand the case to the U.S. Circuit Court with instructions for that court to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.

The Mandate issued in Scott was clear and specific in enforcing the majority decision of the Court:

Missouri, C.C.U.S.
No. 7
Dred Scott, Ptff. in Er.
vs.
John F.A. Sandford
Filed 30th December 1854.
Dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
March 6th, 1857. —
- - - - - - - - - -
No. 7
Ptff. in Er.
Dred Scott
vs.
John F.A. Sandford
In error to the Circuit Court of the United Stated for the District of Missouri.
This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Missouri and was argued by counsel. On consideration whereof, it is now here ordered and adjudged by this court that the judgment of the said Circuit Court in this cause be and the same is hereby reversed for the want of jurisdiction in that court and that this cause be and the same is hereby remanded to the said Circuit Court with directions to dismiss the case for the want of jurisdiction in that court. —
Ch. Jus. Taney
6th March 1857

And if they were not binding then we could expect that had the rebellion not interfered then the Republicans in Congress and the Lincoln administration would have challenged the Sanford decision every way possible?

No. The directly on point unanimous holding of a lack of jurisdiction in Strader was very much a binding precedent and was properly applied to Scott.

Even if there had been some magical way to argue jurisdiction against the unanimous holding in Strader, no sane official would have challenged the Scott decision, and none made any attempt to do so.

The entire sham case was a fraud, based on a fraudulent statement of agreed upon facts. This became notorious public knowledge before any challenge could have been made. In addition to Scott not being a citizen of Missouri, Sanford was never the owner of Scott, and was not lawfully a party to the case. The real owner, who should have been the named defendant, was Massachusetts abolitionist congressman Calvin Chaffee who executed a quit claim deed post-trial to transfer ownership to Taylor Blow in Missouri.

There was never a real case or controversy before the Supreme Court or the lower courts. The two sides conspired to submit a falsified agreed statement of facts. John Emerson was long dead before the alleged, but fictional, sale of Scott to Sanford. When the two sides conspire, it becomes a moot case as there is no real controversy between two contesting parties, and there is no possible claim of jurisdiction. When it notoriously becomes public knowledge in the leading newspapers of the day, nobody is taking that back to the court for reconsideration.

Now you can stop fixating on your dicta.

The federalists created a system of government that had never existed before, and I think doesn’t exist anywhere else.

Hell, the system as created by the Framers does not exist here and now.

I would also note that the Federalists did not create a system of government. The effort necessarily required the support of some Anti-Federalists who found the proposed union better than no union and hoped for the best. It could be worse, but the nightly news reminds all that they are working on that.

Personally, even with all its faults, I still think our government is one of the best on the planet. It offers us unprecedented individual liberty and material wealth. Unlike many other countries in the world I can support any political party or position I want without fear of being arrested and thrown in jail. I can worship or not worship any god or gods I want. Etc, etc.

There are many things to recommend our system over other flawed systems, but being the original creation of the Framers is not one of them. It has surpassed anything envisioned by any of the Framers. Alone, the 16th and 17th Amendments radically altered the original plan of the Framers. A few centuries of rules and regulations and court opinions have also made changes.

There is no perfect system of checks and balances. The people are not perfect. If they were, anarchy would work.

The parliamentary system is not all bad. The no confidence vote has much to recommend it.

As for worshiping any god you want, when and where you want, COVID-19.

As for freedom of expression, a Trump sticker on your vehicle may get it keyed. A MAGA hat may get you attacked. Saying Trump is our President may get one fired. Something isn't right.

Listen pal, let me break this to you ok: The South lost the war. The Confederacy lost. And yes, Joe cleans your clock every time. Again, your side lost. And as far as piss: F**k you.

Hi again, my newfound pal in life. The South lost the war. Fact. Not my side. Fact. You did not win anything. Neither did BroJoeKapernick. Get out of that puddle and take your midol.

To know what a majority of the justices agreed upon, you have to read all nine opinions. Nobody joined the opinion of CJ Taney. There were six concurring opinions and two dissenting opinions.

That does not change the fact that virtually none of Taney's ruling is binding as precedent.

Yes, dear. Not only are dicta not binding precedent, as I said, they are not even opinions of the Court.

You really have no clue what you are talking about, do you? Dear?

First of all my use of the ‘’pal’’ doesn't confer anything friendly or amicable. And yes, Joe cleans your clock regularly. Challenge him to a debate then and see who has the facts and history right. Why don't you do that?

To know what a majority of the justices agreed upon, you have to read all nine opinions. Nobody joined the opinion of CJ Taney. There were six concurring opinions and two dissenting opinions.

That does not change the fact that virtually none of Taney's ruling is binding as precedent.

That does not change the fact that dicta is a comment said in passing, unnecessary to the decision in the case, and expresses nobody's opinion but that of the judge who issues it, but yet you spend all your time dwelling on your dicta.

As for precedent, the Scott majority identified the binding precedent for Scott as the holding in Strader v. Graham. Obviously, the Scott court explicitly followed an existing precedent.

Yes, dear. Not only are dicta not binding precedent, as I said, they are not even opinions of the Court.

You really have no clue what you are talking about, do you? Dear?

Obviously, you were unaware what a dictum is. It is short for obiter dictum, an unnecessary passing comment of a single judge. Now that you know what it is, you can stop wasting time looking for your dicta and droning on and on about your dicta.

First of all my use of the ‘’pal’’ doesn't confer anything friendly or amicable. And yes, Joe cleans your clock regularly. Challenge him to a debate then and see who has the facts and history right. Why don't you do that?

Sure, but I consider you my new pal anyway, just because you are so swell. I have no need to challenge BroJoeKaepernick to a debate and waste time and effort. Perhaps you could challenge yourself to a debate and call yourself names all day. Now, run along child.