Posted on 04/14/2015 6:57:32 AM PDT by Paisan
On this date in 1865, Good Friday, Abraham Lincoln was shot at Ford's Theatre in Washington, D.C. The 16th president died the next morning.
The methodology of "first principles" is the methodology of science. Science corrects mistakes better than does the legal system.
As for "identical circumstances", that is a subjective judgement. There may be nuances and subtleties between two "identical cases" that are not always readily apparent. Most such classifications of "identical circumstances" are just attempts to cubbyhole things to make them more convenient to grasp. A sort of Mental shorthand.
I think there is something fundamentally wrong with incorporating the tu quque fallacy as judicial policy. This "Well he got *THIS* punishment, so I should get no worse" may produce a foolish consistency, but it is the hobgoblin of little minds which implement it.
On a site that decries judicial activism, you're calling for every judge to interpret the law for himself every time, and undermine every decision that has come before.
I'm calling for every judge to not allow "Precedent" to be a substitute for thoughtful deliberation. I constantly see the fallacy of bad Precedent, or badly interpreted precedent. (Such as Wong Kim Ark.) I see where Precedent is a set of ruts leading off a cliff because prior precedent was decided wrongly or badly, or subsequent interpretations of it construe it broader than they should.
Precedent can be a guide, but it shouldn't be the first tool reached for by the Judicial hand. That should be first principles and careful thought.
So if I can get 11 of the 20 people on my block to agree, we can declare ourselves to be a different country. Good to know.
What was the recent defining criteria for Scottish Independence?
Since you bring it up, the Scottish referendum of 2014 was agreed to by the British government after negotiations resulting in the Edinburgh Agreement of 2012 and received royal assent from the queen.
You do know that that’s Richmond, and that the confederates set it on fire themselves rather than let it fall intact into US hands, right?
The fires were started by both Federal and retreating Rebels. But for the most part it was by the Federals, especially the vengeance fires in South Carolina.
Article I, Section 9:
The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
Was Maryland in Rebellion or being Invaded May 25, 1861?
Then you probably shouldn’t have used a picture of Richmond, fires the confederates started and the US Army put out.
I think that is Atlanta.
You minimize and mock the very real threat to their financial interests. It is not radically different from Obama's threats to the coal industry. It was an attack on those people's livelihood.
It is furthermore an explicit and implicit assertion that they are evil people because of how they make their living. While this can be regarded as true after a fashion, it doesn't persuade anyone to change their way of making money. If anything, it hardens their resolve.
They find themselves in positions of having to convince themselves that they are not bad people and therefore they embrace the "badness" all the harder, because if they run away from it, it implies they were bad after all.
I think Northern Abolitionists behaved like, and were viewed similar to "Carrie Nation" scold types preaching against the sins of Alcohol. Most people who enjoyed it probably felt inclined to spite them in every way they could. In other words, by embracing it and drinking more.
Another apt metaphor is the anti-fur activists throwing blood on people wearing fur coats. It simply is a bad way to convince people that they are doing something wrong.
The U.S. National Archives
Ruins of Richmond, VA., 1865
Original Caption: Ruins of Richmond, VA., 1865
U.S. National Archives’ Local Identifier: 111-B-465
From:: Series: Mathew Brady Photographs of Civil War-Era Personalities and Scenes, (Record Group 111)
Photographer: Brady, Mathew, 1823 (ca.) - 1896
Coverage Dates: ca. 1860 - ca. 1865
Subjects:
American Civil War, 1861-1865
Brady National Photographic Art Gallery (Washington, D.C.)
Repository: Still Picture Records Section, Special Media Archives Services Division (NWCS-S), National Archives at College Park, 8601 Adelphi Road, College Park, MD, 20740-6001.
I always thought that was Atlanta, I’ve never bothered to research it. I wander what that intersection is. I will take a updated picture of it and post it.
If you have a better debating method than strawman and mockery, I would suggest you pull it out and use it. We aren't playing "the Dozens" here.
Since you bring it up, the Scottish referendum of 2014 was agreed to by the British government after negotiations resulting in the Edinburgh Agreement of 2012 and received royal assent from the queen.
I have no objections to doing it by mutual agreement of both parties, but I object to the idea that this is necessary. Again, our founders didn't think so.
So no one should ever have pointed out that slavery was a bad thing because people's financial interests might be hurt? Or because they might buy more slaves, just to spite the abolitionists? By that logic, we shouldn't say that heroin peddling is bad, because that's a threat to someone's financial interest and it might make them sell more heroin.
You make less and less sense as you go.
While this can be regarded as true after a fashion…
Your grudging admission that slavery could maybe kinda possibly sorta be considered morally wrong is noted.
States can secede as they are in the Constitution and have a three branch government. Your argument shows the infantile nature of the Neo-Federalists.
My wife was born in April. LOL
Just saying.
You're the one who said, "it would appear that the natural right to self determination would require the purposeful and knowledgeable consent of the majority of the voting populace in a defined area." My block is a defined area. I have the purposeful and knowledgeable consent of 11 of my 20 voting neighbors. Now, what part of your statement to you wish to amend to abridge our natural right of self determination by declaring ourselves to be the Free and Independent Nation of Bubba Ho-Tepia?
As for feeling mocked, maybe you should secede since you feel that's sufficient reason.
Again, our founders didn't think so.
Because our founders invoked the Natural Right of Rebellion and overthrew their oppressors by force, not by legalistic invocations.
Really? Where does it say that?
If you are asking me for advice as to how they should have behaved, I would suggest that the "Holier than thou" method was the first thing they needed to Jettison. It took the Northern states decades to abolish slavery, and they were far less heavily dependent upon it.
Today we have these same Massachusetts Puritans preaching at us about "Gay Marriage" and it was only 20 years ago that Bill and Hillary Clinton were against it. "Everyone conform! Right Now!"
By that logic, we shouldn't say that heroin peddling is bad, because that's a threat to someone's financial interest and it might make them sell more heroin.
Were Heroin a legal product, you might even have a point, as it is, you have another silly strawman fallacy.
You make less and less sense as you go.
Viewing through the distorted mirror of your perception, I can see how you might think that.
Your grudging admission that slavery could maybe kinda possibly sorta be considered morally wrong is noted.
And you have a pervasive need to resort to ad hominem. I am pointing out that many regard the issue as subjective. In my opinion, slavery is absolutely wrong. But that was not the Universal opinion of that era. (and is not the universal opinion of today, either.) You keep wanting to engage in this anachronistic moralizing while ignoring the zeitgeist.
My wife was born in April
Mine too
In the context of a discussion regarding states, your "defined area" is a deliberate attempt to be flippant and assholish. It is a childish and deliberately argumentative method for ignoring or degrading a valid point.
What's more, you know it, and you did it anyway.
As for feeling mocked, maybe you should secede since you feel that's sufficient reason.
Straw man again.
Because our founders invoked the Natural Right of Rebellion and overthrew their oppressors by force, not by legalistic invocations.
If the Declaration is the Document which founded the country, (and it is) then those who are "Rebelling" against it, are the ones who refuse to accept it's principles.
Okay, so contrary to what you said earlier, "defined area" isn't enough. It has to be a state.
Why? What makes the state the magical level of sovereignty that's denied to any other entity?
Straw man again.
That's not a straw man. In words of the immortal Foghorn Leghorn, "I say, that's a joke, son."
If the Declaration is the Document which founded the country, (and it is) then those who are "Rebelling" against it, are the ones who refuse to accept it's principles.
So let me get this straight. By issuing a piece of paper with some magic words on it, the Americans rebelling against the British crown (something they'd been doing for over a year at that point) were no longer rebels, but instead the British opposing them were now the rebels.
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.