Then why do you post it to me?
Jesus' kingdom comes when heaven is on earth. God's country exists in our flesh world because He said we are His people.
Being God's people does not mean that providence gives its seal of sanction to all of our political activies.
That's Christianity 101.
Not really. Christianity 101 entails the recognition of original sin and its lasting effects combined with action to avoid those sins where possible by acting morally and welcome their forgiveness by our creator when they occur. Goofy speculative theories about divine sanction for a political state are far removed from that basis.
All four said slavery was the reason for secession and any states joining them was joining their cause unless otherwise declared
That is a non sequitur. Try again.
Nope
Yes. It is a non-sequitur. No necessary connection exists between your premise and the conclusion you purport from it. Your argument does not logically follow and is therefore invalid. If you do not like that, reconstruct your argument to where its premises lead to its conclusion.
How much of each?
Well, the congress votes on bills and the president signs them...
The Constitution says the powers granted in Aticle I were for Congress. Section 9 listed what was not granted.
Section 9 Clause 2 lists a retained privilege of the people while granting the lone method in which that privilege may be suspended. It therefore grants a power under those prescribed circumstances - the power of suspension.
The Congress is the check on the president.
Yeah. And so is the judiciary. The judiciary conducted its check on Lincoln. He ignored that check and accordingly violated the constitution by doing so.
It's Law!!! If the word "granted" is in law it is to be followed.
And the Constitution grants the legislature alone with the power to suspend the writ of habeas corpus under certain prescribed circumstances. So what is your point?
Any power granted would be of the Congress. Section 9 is clealy a section that lists what is not granted.
No. Section 9 lists clauses that share in that they are restrictions upon what may be done, but contained within the restriction on habeas corpus a power to suspend that writ is granted under the specified circumstances. Since Section 9 is in Article I, the grant of that suspension power is to the legislature.
The Congress is the check on the president to hold him accountable if he overreacts in his duty to protect the Constitution. Lincoln wasn't impeached so he acted appropriately.
It's still a non-sequitur. If you do not like that, fix your argument. Otherwise quit posting it and don't complain.
The Congress has the power to impeach, not the judiciary.
And the judiciary has the power to declare acts of the other two branches unconstitutional. That is its check. The judiciary did that to Lincoln. He ignored it. He therefore violated the constitutional authority of the judiciary.
So South Carolina didn't begin secession?
They did, but in doing so they acted alone. Alabama hosted the formation of the confederacy after other states, acting alone, also seceded.
To deny that secession was for slavery is to deny reality.
Prove your case of the sole reason then. To date you have been insufficient in your evidence for previously noted reasons. If you cannot offer anything more, you have no right to whine about it.
You said to replace the words in the quote with your made up words.
Where? Either prove your case or don't shoot your mouth off in the first place.
So why didn't he say proletariat if that's what he meant.
Because a synonym suffices. If I call you "stupid," do you ask why I did not instead call you "mentally slow"? No. Because both convey the same meaning. In marxian writings, the same goes for "worker" and "proletariat." The two are synonyms - they are different words that mean the same thing. What is it about that amazingly simple concept that you cannot grasp?
I listen long enough to determine if it's idiocy.
Not according to your earlier actions. You dismissed and ignored a brief two-paragraph quote from Spooner because you did not like it. That means you couldn't even "listen" for two paragraphs before shutting your eyes.
Spooner must not've realized that the union was preserved.
In other words, you did not read his quote. He recognizes that the country itself was retained intact. He attacks the legitimacy of the means in which it was retained.
I'm dismissing him because the result of the North's victory was preservation of the union. That's reality and Spooner denied it.
Where? It looks to me as if Spooner had many grievances with the way the union was retained. It is implicit in any such complaint that he knew the union to have been retained. Otherwise he would not have been able to complain about the methods used to retain it. Are you truly so stupid as to not comprehend that?
We seceded for freedom. The South seceded for slavery.
The south asserted the right to self government. Is that not freedom? The colonies asserted the maintanence of slavery. Is that not the system you decry?
There's no such thing as bible codes.
But you're convinced that America is the promised land?
So is Lee responsible for the murders of union prisoners?
In the cases they occurred and so long as they were under his command, he bears some responsibility.
More northern troops were murdered than southern troops.
The official records of the US government say otherwise. More southern POW's died in yankee hands than all of the northern POW's who died down south.
Because you asked and for it and for anyone that may be interested. I certainly wouldn't e-mail it to you until you proved yourself as being more than argumentive.
Being God's people does not mean that providence gives its seal of sanction to all of our political activies.
True, but we are God's people and this in God's country as Ezekial 38 and 39 clealy says. We will have Jacob's trouble though.
Not really. Christianity 101 entails the recognition of original sin and its lasting effects combined with action to avoid those sins where possible by acting morally and welcome their forgiveness by our creator when they occur. Goofy speculative theories about divine sanction for a political state are far removed from that basis.
Goofy specualtive theory? It's clearly laid out in the Word. Or have you ever read anything more than John 3:16?
That is a non sequitur. Try again.
It's true.
Yes. It is a non-sequitur. No necessary connection exists between your premise and the conclusion you purport from it. Your argument does not logically follow and is therefore invalid. If you do not like that, reconstruct your argument to where its premises lead to its conclusion.
Secession was for slavery as clearly declared and anyone joining that cause joined to perpetuate slavery unless otherwise declared, and it wasn't otherwise declared.
Well, the congress votes on bills and the president signs them...
Was it called the "Lincoln Virginia Plan? Or did Lincoln have less to do with it than others?
Section 9 Clause 2 lists a retained privilege of the people while granting the lone method in which that privilege may be suspended. It therefore grants a power under those prescribed circumstances - the power of suspension.
If it was meant to be a granting clause, it would've been listed in a previous section.
. Yeah. And so is the judiciary. The judiciary conducted its check on Lincoln. He ignored that check and accordingly violated the constitution by doing so.
The Congress decides if the president is to be impeached, not the judiciary.
And the Constitution grants the legislature alone with the power to suspend the writ of habeas corpus under certain prescribed circumstances. So what is your point?
No it doesn't. It said the Congress cannot suspend the Writ of Habeas Corpus except in limited circumstances. If it was a power to be granted, it would've been listed previously and would've said "the writ may be suspended when...".
No. Section 9 lists clauses that share in that they are restrictions upon what may be done, but contained within the restriction on habeas corpus a power to suspend that writ is granted under the specified circumstances. Since Section 9 is in Article I, the grant of that suspension power is to the legislature.
In certain circumstances but not limited to the Congress or it would've been listed previously.
It's still a non-sequitur. If you do not like that, fix your argument. Otherwise quit posting it and don't complain.
It's true. The Congress decides if a president is to be impeached. If a president isn't impeached in his defense of the Constitution, then he acted appropriately according to law.
And the judiciary has the power to declare acts of the other two branches unconstitutional. That is its check. The judiciary did that to Lincoln. He ignored it. He therefore violated the constitutional authority of the judiciary.
The Congress decides impeachment, not the judiciary, thank goodness. Look at NJ 2002 for how a judiciary works.
They did, but in doing so they acted alone. Alabama hosted the formation of the confederacy after other states, acting alone, also seceded.
Yeah right, like they had no discussions. You're denying reality again.
Prove your case of the sole reason then. To date you have been insufficient in your evidence for previously noted reasons. If you cannot offer anything more, you have no right to whine about it.
Read the Declarations of Secession. They all say slavery was the reason.
Where? Either prove your case or don't shoot your mouth off in the first place.
Then quit adding "communist" and "proletariate" to Marx' quote. He didn't say it.
Because a synonym suffices.
Bull! You're making things up instead of sticking to truth.
If I call you "stupid," do you ask why I did not instead call you "mentally slow"? No. Because both convey the same meaning. In marxian writings, the same goes for "worker" and "proletariat." The two are synonyms - they are different words that mean the same thing. What is it about that amazingly simple concept that you cannot grasp?
If Marx woul've meant "proletariate", he would've said "proletariate".
? Not according to your earlier actions. You dismissed and ignored a brief two-paragraph quote from Spooner because you did not like it. That means you couldn't even "listen" for two paragraphs before shutting your eyes.
I read it. He's an idiot. The union was preserved with a Northern victory. He claims he's a mind-reader, I guess.
In other words, you did not read his quote. He recognizes that the country itself was retained intact. He attacks the legitimacy of the means in which it was retained.
So he's a mind-reader?
Where? It looks to me as if Spooner had many grievances with the way the union was retained. It is implicit in any such complaint that he knew the union to have been retained. Otherwise he would not have been able to complain about the methods used to retain it. Are you truly so stupid as to not comprehend that?
So you think Spooner was a mind-reader? When someone sets out to do something and they do it. Then a person says that that person didn't really mean to do what they did, then that person needs to be dismissed as an idiot because reality shows that the objective was met just as the doer said it would be.
The south asserted the right to self government. Is that not freedom? The colonies asserted the maintanence of slavery. Is that not the system you decry?
The South wanted freedom to perform slavery as their Declarations of Secession clearly state. That is not support of a cause of freedom.
But you're convinced that America is the promised land?
Because of biblical prophecy, not codes.
In the cases they occurred and so long as they were under his command, he bears some responsibility.
Bull. Lee was an honorable man. Individuals will do as individuals do.
The official records of the US government say otherwise. More southern POW's died in yankee hands than all of the northern POW's who died down south.
I said murdered. That means in the field, not from disease or bad conditions in a POW camp. Although from what I understand, More union POWs had it rough than the Southern POWs. I'd imagine this is more reality that you're denying.