Posted on 10/10/2006 5:08:28 AM PDT by Colonel Kangaroo
PRETTY LADY!
free dixie,sw
;o)
PRETTY LADY, though!
free dixie,sw
The would be Henry Cornelius Burnett, would it not? Expelled from the House December 3, 1861 for his support of the southern rebellion? About-to-be appointed confederate army officer? Soon-to-be confederate senator? Well I hate to bust his bubble but fortunately the Constitution did not give him the right to decide what was constitutional and what was not. So his speech, while colorful, is crap.
And I wonder, did he have any problem with the Jefferson Davis administration committing the same "crimes" he complained about? No, I suppose not.
So you believe that all states that have entered the Union since 1865 believe that they can leave it on a whim at any time? Despite Texas v. White saying that they can't?
At one point, there was a t-shirt with a pic of Malcolm X and the words "It's a black thing, you wouldn't understand"
Somebody put together a t-shirt with Albert Einstein with the words "It's a white thing, you wouldn't understand"
I'm thinking a kid wearing the latter would be expelled
i for one am no fan of the federal courts deciding ANYTHING of importance given the Plessy, Dredd Scott,Roe & other "USSC fiats" that DEFY both the plain text of the Constitution & common sense too.
free dixie,sw
Amen. You have any more pics?
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
Never seems to fail. When losing ground, many go look up all the porno pics and insult and degrade as many folks as they can. Now that's really mature! 3 cheers for the popcorn section...
That's not the issue. The issue is that USSC review is, for good or bad, well established in the US and has been since Marbury v. Madison in 1803. In the face of that, how can you claim that states entering the Union since 1865 believe that they can leave the Union on a whim at any time? Can you find any statement by any of the 14 states admitted to the Union since 1865 to that effect?
Can't find anything forbidding expulsion either, can you?
First you would need to point out the Constitutional violations.
Withdraw herself! No approval required from any other state to withdraw and no armies marching into the state to force it to remain in the Union. Get it?
No, you don't get it. The actions in question took place in 1779 and the confederacy they were suggesting New Hampshire should have withdrawn from was the Continental Congress. The quote, in context, reads: "Another circumstance, worthy of notice, is the conduct of New Hampshire, by her Delegate in Congress, in the case of the sloop Active. Acts of Congress, 6th March, 1779. By this decision, New Hampshire concurred in binding the other states. Did she not also bind herself? Before the articles of confederation were ratified, or even formed, a league of some kind subsisted among the states; and, whether that league originated in compact, or a sort of tacit consent, resulting from their situation, the exigencies of the times, and the nature of the warfare, or from all combined, is utterly immaterial. The States, when in Congress, stood on the floor of equality; and, until otherwise stipulated, the majority of them must controul. In such a confederacy, for a state to bind others, and not, in similar cases, be bound herself, is a solecism. Still, however, it is contended, that New Hampshire was not bound, nor Congress sovereign as to war and peace, and their incidents, because they resisted this supremacy in the case of the Susanna. But I am, notwithstanding, of opinion, that New Hampshire was bound, and Congress supreme, for the reasons already assigned, and that she continued to be bound, because she continued in the confederacy. As long as she continued to be one of the federal states, it must have been on equal terms. If she would not submit to the exercise of the act of sovereignty contended for by Congress, and the other states, she should have withdrawn herself from the confederacy."
4CJ was a dollar short and several years too late.
Nope. It's not outlawed.
can you list ANY state that has chosen to leave the union, for ANY reason whatever, since 1861???
in point of fact though, come the establishment of Los Estados Unidos de Azatlan (which i believe WILL occur within a generation), the rest of the union's members will be faced with the requirement of allowing the western states to depart in PEACE or to make WAR to stop those states from leaving the "union of the UNwilling".
let's say that YOU are POTUS on that day. how many MILLION Americans will you happily rape/rob/torture/jail/KILL to keep Azatlan from being born??? may i remind you that lincoln, the GREAT BLOOD-SPILLER, personally caused the DEATH of about a MILLION Americans for his LUST for $$$$/political POWER (and for his EGOMANIA!) & nothing else.
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
the answer is NOTHING, "Mr Minister of DAMNyankee Propaganda".
as i said, i would be PLEASED if EVERY northern/"blue"/LEFTIST state was expelled.
free dixie,sw
otoh, pictures of ANYBODY can be pornographic, if wrongly done, in such a manner as to "appeal to UNHEALTHY or PURIENT interests".
free dixie,sw
I suppose the New York ratification delegates didn't get it either. From the New York ratification of the Constitution, July 26, 1788:
We, the delegates of the people of the state of New York, duly elected and met in Convention, having maturely considered the Constitution for the United States of America, agreed to on the 17th day of September, in the year 1787, by the Convention then assembled at Philadelphia, in the commonwealth of Pennsylvania, (a copy whereof precedes these presents,) and having also seriously and deliberately considered the present situation of the United States, — Do declare and make known, —
... That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness ...
... Under these impressions, and declaring that the rights aforesaid cannot be abridged or violated, and that the explanations aforesaid are consistent with the said Constitution, and in confidence that the amendments which shall have been proposed to the said Constitution will receive an early and mature consideration, — We, the said delegates, in the name and in the behalf of the people of the state of New York, do, by these presents, assent to and ratify the said Constitution.
You've admitted to me in the past that the Constitution would not have been ratified if it said that secession was not permitted. I don't think the New York or Virginia delegates would have ratified the Constitution under those circumstances, and the Union as we know it would not have come to be.
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.