Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Robert E. Lee Boy Scout Council, Richmond, VA, to be Renamed. More PC for the Boy Scouts...
WRVA Radio ^ | 5/13/03 | VMI70

Posted on 05/13/2003 6:17:13 AM PDT by VMI70

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300301-320321-340 ... 501-516 next last
To: VMI70
Question of the Day:
How do you feel about Robert E. Lee being dropped by the boy scouts?
It's OK by me. 4.90 %
It's just another politically correct mistake. 95.10 %

It's too bad they don't show the number of votes.

Easy:

It's OK by me: 2 (Walt, Grand Old Partisan)
Politically Correct Mistake: 40

The pentium floating-point bug accounts for the errant math.

301 posted on 05/13/2003 8:15:39 PM PDT by Gianni (Peace, Love, and Biscuits and Gravy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 284 | View Replies]

To: Gianni
No problem.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/910518/posts?page=268#268
302 posted on 05/13/2003 8:24:44 PM PDT by VMI70 (...but two Wrights made an airplane)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 299 | View Replies]

To: Grand Old Partisan; putupon; stainlessbanner; VMI70
You know, if you want to be considered a serious writer, you should stop copying Wlat's homework.

He's the only one around here voting for the RATS. Well, unless MurrayMom has crawled out from under her rock recently...

303 posted on 05/13/2003 9:32:41 PM PDT by Corin Stormhands (HHD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 281 | View Replies]

To: steplock
Your right about that but everyone convienantly forgets that
fact. They say that the victors write the history
304 posted on 05/13/2003 10:01:23 PM PDT by Revkoolade60
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Grand Old Partisan
Not very relevant,

Relevant in that Federal encroachment on a state's domain is an irritant and resented regardless of the state's geogtaphic latitude, the issue at hand, or time period in which it occurs.

Sort of like a neighbor who sends his dog to crap in your yard, tells you it's good fertilizer, and forces you at the point of a gun to let him do so.

305 posted on 05/14/2003 4:11:34 AM PDT by putupon (he who writes on $#!+house walls, will roll their...;-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 289 | View Replies]

To: Gianni
Had slavery been an issue, the southern states would have had recourse through the existing justice system.

So you're suggesting that slavery was not a reason for the southern rebellion?

306 posted on 05/14/2003 4:21:51 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 300 | View Replies]

Comment #307 Removed by Moderator

To: VMI70
I know of at least one person who is now considering taking the Boy Scouts out of his will and will no longer donate to the group.
308 posted on 05/14/2003 4:54:18 AM PDT by Dante3 (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dante3
Therein lies another problem for the REL Council and the BSA at large. The large scale individual donations may very well decline.
309 posted on 05/14/2003 4:58:53 AM PDT by VMI70 (...but two Wrights made an airplane)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 308 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
"So, in areas where Lincoln could have freed slaves, he didnt. In areas where he had no control, he ordered slaves to be
freed.

If President Lincoln had the power to free the slaves up North all on his own then why bother with the 13th Amendment?"


As I stated in an earlier post, he didnt have the constitutional power to free them. He had the physical power to do it. He had already shown that the constitution wasnt going to stop him. My point was that if he really was very concerned about slaves then he could have freed them. It would have been unconstitutional and therefore wrong.
310 posted on 05/14/2003 5:24:09 AM PDT by ConstitutionalConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 290 | View Replies]

To: Gianni
Why should the remaining states take on the debt incurred in the name of all?

Of course, nobody will ask the obvious question: Walt, what in the Sam Hell was the Union doing with a debt in the first place?

Part of the national debt was taken on in retiring the debt of Texas. Another part was incurred in ridding Florida of the Indians.

Pretty good bargain for those two states just to walk on that, huh?

Walt

311 posted on 05/14/2003 5:27:56 AM PDT by WhiskeyPapa (Be copy now to men of grosser blood and teach them how to war!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 299 | View Replies]

To: ConstitutionalConservative
He had already shown that the constitution wasnt going to stop him.

I would dispute that fact completely.

My point was that if he really was very concerned about slaves then he could have freed them.

He was concerned and he did use his influence to get the 13th Amendment out of Congress and to the states for ratification.

312 posted on 05/14/2003 5:36:46 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 310 | View Replies]

To: Gianni
Post all the lofty rhetoric about preserving the union that you'd like, even Lincoln knew it to be impossible.

No, he didn't, and no it wasn't.

"even Lincon knew..."

What a nonsensical comment to make.

Walt

313 posted on 05/14/2003 5:39:58 AM PDT by WhiskeyPapa (Be copy now to men of grosser blood and teach them how to war!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 299 | View Replies]

To: Gianni
Slavery, like it or not, was constitutional and had been protected by the courts as such for nearly 100 years. Had slavery been an issue, the southern states would have had recourse through the existing justice system.

It's not as simple as that. The question wasn't whether or not slavery was constitutional. The question was to what degree did Congress have the power to regulate or prohibit its expansion. Going back to Jefferson's ordinance of 87, the precedent had been set that Congress could and perhaps should prevent the expansion of slavery into new territories. This was the approach taken in the Wilmot Proviso, which I am sure you are familiar with. Well, the slave states damn near had a cow at the thought! It was at the time of the Wilmot Proviso, all the way back in the early 40s, as I recall, that the Slave states first started making noise about secession. The issue was slavery. It didn't matter to them if Congress had the authority or not, it was a line in the sand for them.

You would think that the question of Congressional authority to regulate slavery in the District of Columbia would not have been as controversial, but it was.

Article 1, Section 8 gives Congress the power "To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States..."

However, when Congressmen such as John Quincy Adams attempted to exercise that authority to ban slave auctions and the practice of slavery, hell, they couldn't even bring the bills to the floor. The House version of the Calhounists routinely walked out. Not exactly republican behavior. For them, the mere thought of any limit on their precious trade was reason for anarchy. What else can you call it when they walk out of Congress when they don't get their way? Or when debate on something they don't like is attempted?

In reality, as Americans migrated west, as the frontier was tamed, as new states were formed, the question of slavery--and it was a question--was a crippling impediment to progress. It held up California statehood (the slavers wouldn't accept them because they were to be--by their own choosing--a free state. So much for states' rights!)It held up the building of the railroads.

Now, if it were me, I would support the authority of Congress, per section 8, to prohibit slavery in new territories, AND in D.C. To me, that's a plain reading of the law. But if it were my line in the sand, an issue so near and dear to me that I would die for it, that I would turn on my own nation's flag, well then, I don't suppose Article 1, Section 8 counts for much. That's anarchy, my friend.

314 posted on 05/14/2003 6:04:18 AM PDT by Huck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 300 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
So you're suggesting that slavery was not a reason for the southern rebellion?

Apologies, it was early and I hadn't drank enough coffee yet. Slavery was certainly an issue, however had it been the only one there would have been recourse through the existing governmental channels.

The same could not be said of other perceived abuses.

315 posted on 05/14/2003 7:19:34 AM PDT by Gianni (Peace, Love, and Biscuits and Gravy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 306 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
Pretty good bargain for those two states just to walk on that, huh?

Pretty good bargain to reply without answering the questions relating to 'walking out,' huh?

316 posted on 05/14/2003 7:23:05 AM PDT by Gianni (Peace, Love, and Biscuits and Gravy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 311 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
What a nonsensical comment to make.

So your position is that Lincoln viewed the Union as being held by coersion from its inception?

All you need to believe to worship at Walt's First Church of Unionism is that the constituion was a grand conspiracy against the people, and once ratified was somehow given authority over the instrument of it's creation. There's also the matter of words used in the document not meaning what they really say, "perfect" being "perpetual" and so on. Not all of us have the sort of abilities that you have - mind reading people who have been dead for 150 years or so - so we rely on the text itself.

You may want to look at your refutations of constitutional questions. Is it telling to you that you never use the constitution itself as a source? It certainly is to me.

And you call my commentary nonsense?

317 posted on 05/14/2003 7:28:11 AM PDT by Gianni (Peace, Love, and Biscuits and Gravy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 313 | View Replies]

To: Huck
That's anarchy, my friend.

Assuming that the issue so near your heart is within the scope of the delegated powers of Article 1, Section 8. If not, it may just be resistance to tyranny.

Let's say the government were to overstep its bounds and implement in law such a monstrosity as to bring about the death of 40 million Americans. Is there no point at which the people have an obligation to resist?

318 posted on 05/14/2003 7:33:32 AM PDT by Gianni (Peace, Love, and Biscuits and Gravy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 314 | View Replies]

To: Gianni
What a nonsensical comment to make.

So your position is that Lincoln viewed the Union as being held by coersion from its inception?

The power of coercion was desired by both Washington and Madison.

"Your sentiments that are affairs are rapidly drwaing to a crisis, accord with my own. What the event will be is also beyond the reach of my foresight. We have errors to correct. We have probably had too good an opinion of human nature in forming our confederation. Experience has taught us, that men will not adopt and carry into execution, measures best calculated for their own good without the intervention of a corecive power. I do not concieve we can exist long as a nation, without having lodged somewhere a power which will pervade the whole Union in as energetic a manner, as the authority of the different state governments extends over the several states. To be fearful of vesting Congress, constituted as that body is, with ample authorities for national purposes, appears to me to be the very climax of popular absurdity and madness."

George Washington to John Jay, 15 August, 1786.

Madison:

"I would propose next, that in addition to the present federal powers, the national Government should be armed with positive and complete authority in all cases which require uniformity; such as the regulation of trade, including the right of taxing both exports and imports, the fixing the terms and forms of naturalization, &c., &c.

Over and above this positive power, a negative in all cases whatsoever on the Legislative acts of the States, as heretofore exercised by the Kingly prerogative, appears to me to be absolutely necessary, and to be the least possible encroachment on the State jurisdictions. Without this defensive power, every positive power that can be given on paper will be evaded or defeated. The States will continue to invade the National jurisdiction, to violate treaties, and the law of nations, and to harass each other with rival and spiteful measures dictated by mistaken views of interest. . . ."

How can you fault Lincoln for taking the same position as Madison and Washington?

The Union did not have the power of coercion at its inception, but the framers of the Constitution clearly desired it and made sure it was incorporated in that document.

Walt

319 posted on 05/14/2003 7:41:20 AM PDT by WhiskeyPapa (Be copy now to men of grosser blood and teach them how to war!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 317 | View Replies]

To: Gianni
Assuming that the issue so near your heart is within the scope of the delegated powers of Article 1, Section 8. If not, it may just be resistance to tyranny.

Let's say there is a dispute over whether it's within their power or not. What then? Our Constitution provides for that in Article 3:

Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

The SCOTUS is the proper and delegated authority over such disputes. The only resort past that is revolution. But let's not forget what we were talking about--the introduction of a bill in the House of Representatives. This is not exactly tyranny. It is our system. To walk out when you don't like the debate is anarchic.

Let's say the government were to overstep its bounds and implement in law such a monstrosity as to bring about the death of 40 million Americans. Is there no point at which the people have an obligation to resist?

There is definitely a point at which the people have a right to resist. That should not be confused to be some sort of legal, constitutional right. It is an extraconstitutional appeal to natural rights. In our system, a republican is supposed to be prudent, and to try all available means--Congressional act, Presidential intervention, appeal to the Courts, state conventions, the press--and failing those, to take what actions are deemed necessary. There is no handbook for when that is just or not. Our Founders made their declaration and are judged by it--favorably. The slave states made their declarations and are judged by it--unfavorably. And imho, rightly so on both counts.

320 posted on 05/14/2003 7:48:56 AM PDT by Huck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 318 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300301-320321-340 ... 501-516 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson