Posted on 09/27/2010 1:27:31 PM PDT by RandysRight
I already did. The President is delgated the power of being Commander-in-Chief over all citizens of the United States and sworn an oath to defend all U.S. citizens and the Constitution of the United States.
The State legislatures do not have this power. the State Executive branch does not have this power. The States themselves do not have this power over citizens of the United States due to the Constitutional FACT that this power is delegated to the United States President in the Constitution.
"Commander-in-Chief" - over me? I'm not in the military. Cite the specific constitutional terms - doofus.
The State legislatures do not have this power. the State Executive branch does not have this power. The States themselves do not have this power over citizens of the United States due to the Constitutional FACT that this power is delegated to the United States President in the Constitution.
By all means - please quote for us the section of the US Constitution that supports your argument. (Hint - it does not exist.)
Pardon us if we don't stay up past bed time waiting for your (dubious) reply...
;>)
I guess you doubt that the Constitution delegates the President the power of Commander-in-Chief of the entire United States?
No matter if you are in the Army or not if you are rebelling against the Constitution then it is the Army of the United States that will deal with you and the President that will command them as I have pointed out already through the Constitution.
doofus? Are you kidding me? Wow. You certainly are a piece of work.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article02/
I am really suprised that the libertarians types who defend the Confederacy are not appalled by the entire concept of a President and Commander-in-Chief and an Executive branch of the United States. It seems to go against every fibre of their being to have a centalized branch of government that EXECUTES any kind of federal supremacy at all over the States.
Yet there it is in the Constitution. It defies the right of States to unilaterally secede being that the Constitution delegates specifically the power to the President to defend ALL people of the United States and the Constitution itself. It even makes the President swear to do so.
Hey, I see gramps has come out of hibernation to wander about and utter his toothless inanities. You can explain it all to him if you want, but there’s really little point - he’ll only forget what we were talking about ten minutes from now ;-)
Well it might be that I sent him back into hibernation.
I do not know how he explains the Fact that the Constitution specifically delegated such power to the Commander-in-Chief of the United States.
Not each individual state but to the United States.
The Constitution backs President Lincoln and not the democrat rebels.
The "entire United States?" Where, precisely, is that mentioned in the Constitution? Please be specific...
;>)
No matter if you are in the Army or not if you are rebelling against the Constitution then it is the Army of the United States that will deal with you...
Sorry, sport - but the Constitution no where prohibited State secession, and therefore State secession was a right reserved to the States under the 10th Amendment, and such action did not equal 'rebellion.' Your circular argument goes nowhere...
doofus? Are you kidding me? Wow. You certainly are a piece of work.
Thank you...
;>)
From your link:
"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States..."
Guess what, sport? I'm not in the Army or the Navy, and I'm too old to be in the militia (a seperate issue). The President is NOT my "Commander in Chief"...
;>)
I am really suprised that the libertarians types who defend the Confederacy are not appalled by the entire concept of a President and Commander-in-Chief and an Executive branch of the United States. It seems to go against every fibre of their being to have a centalized branch of government that EXECUTES any kind of federal supremacy at all over the States.
Perhaps you should read the records of the debates in the constitutional convention some time. The delegates specifically REJECTED a national government, with "supremacy" over all of the States.
Yet there it is in the Constitution. It defies the right of States to unilaterally secede being that the Constitution delegates specifically the power to the President to defend ALL people of the United States and the Constitution itself. It even makes the President swear to do so.
Really? Where is it, specifically? Be precise - prove me wrong. Which specific clause of the Constitution prohibited State secession? Don't quote the 'whole nine yards' (it makes you look like an idiot). Which specific clause prohibited State secession?
"The world wonders..."
;>)
(And I see that you're still spouting your standard bullsh!t - and that you still haven't managed to find a pair. No surprise... ;>)
LOL!!!
I do not know how he explains the Fact that the Constitution specifically delegated such power to the Commander-in-Chief of the United States.
Really? Quote the article, section, and clause - clown boy....
;>)
You like to throw out names so I guess you deserve it in return...
Learn to read you moron.
I have specified the part of the Constitution that completely defies the concept of a State right to unilaterally secede but you just whistle dixie and pretend that you dont understand.
The Constitution specifically delegates the power of Commander-in-Chief of the United States to be the President. It does not have to specify your insane notion that it must explicitly prohibit the States to individually assume that power through secession simply because it didn’t create a redundacy. The power was already specifically delegated to the President of the United States. What about that do you not understand?
The power was specifically delegated to the Commander-in-Chief of the United States to defend the Constitution, which by default means that the States did not have that legal power being it was specifically delegated to the Union.
The moronic argument that you are making has been made in regards to every single aspect of the Constitution. Even though the Constitution delegates the power to the United States to protect freedom of speech or freedom of religion you can argue where does it prohibit the States from oppressing these rights of the People.
It is the most ridiculous arguement that libertarians make all of the time. You want to defend your right to violate the rights of the People (enslave people even) by claiming State rights.
clown boy?
I would love to see you face to face talk this way.
You are really a piece of work with your Beevus and Butthead style of conversation.
Try some fool with that one, troll. In the first place, he didn't "warn" anyone about anyone else in that quote.
In the second, George Washington was a Federalist and was concerned first and foremost with physical security of the nation against foreign enemies.
He'd have felt rather differently about things if he'd known the Yankees were going to burn his beautiful Virginia to the ground, split the State in two in order to play political games, and impoverish the survivors with their tariffs and punitive taxes. Hell, he'd have ridden with the Lee family.
That sort of language, "Commander-in-Chief of the Entire United States", suggests a military El Supremo and President-for-Life, not the chief executive of a constitutionally-constrained representative democracy.
That section of Article I does not mean what you say it does. It absolutely does not forbid States or the People of States to secede. It simply doesn't. The language isn't there.
I don't know about that. I see more parallels between Obama and someone like Castro or Chavez than I do between Obama and Hitler.
Do you ever consider how statist and facist your posts sound? You are Anti-Free Republic. Form your own web site and take your Lincoln Coven with you.
Did they?
If they could prove that you Northern socialists were not catering to the Constitution in good faith, then it would be breached and they rightfully claimed it to be so.
But the Northern states could just as rightfully claim that the Southern slaveocracy was wrong and that they were not violating the Constitution in any way. They were merely following the concept of state's rights.
So big deal. They listed it as one reason for secession. It was after all "protected" under the Constitution, and the bargain had been breached. Just maybe they wanted to list something other than "irreconcilable differences"...
It was not merely 'one reason' listed as their reason for the rebellion. It was THE reason. The single most commonly mentioned reason The term that they chose to identify themselves. They were not ant-tariff states or pro-small government states. They were slave states, and proudly labeled themselves as such.
Well when someone accuses me of being statist and fascist I do consider the source. And when I see that it's you making the claim then it doesn't bother me at all. They're two of your three favorite pejoratives and have basically lost their meaning.
You are Anti-Free Republic. Form your own web site and take your Lincoln Coven with you.
And let the inmates run the asylum on the Southern rebellion threads? You'd love that, wouldn't you? Here, as a public service to all you Lost Causers let me post this link to a Southerner-only thread. No Yankees are allowed, as I know since I'm one they booted, and they all seem to be your kind of folks. All pro-confederate. No debate or disagreement. No wrong-thinkers are allowed and any who show up are dealt with. All very...peaceful. Kind of like what you want your new confederacy to be like.
Like I told you before, "spread the wealth around" is your quote to own. Don't shy away from it, be proud of it...
Georgia Declaration of Secession:
The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury.
But when these reasons ceased they were no less clamorous for Government protection, but their clamors were less heeded-- the country had put the principle of protection upon trial and condemned it. After having enjoyed protection to the extent of from 15 to 200 per cent. upon their entire business for above thirty years, the act of 1846 was passed. It avoided sudden change, but the principle was settled, and free trade, low duties, and economy in public expenditures was the verdict of the American people. The South and the Northwestern States sustained this policy. There was but small hope of its reversal; upon the direct issue, none at all.
Adams Vs. Jefferson: The Tumultuous Election of 1800 :
A major point of contention between the North and the South was the issue of the size and power of the federal government as defined by the Constitution. As mentioned earlier, Republican leaders supported a loose reading of the Constitution and wanted to expand the size and scope of the federal government, even if that meant giving the government powers that were not authorized by the Constitution. Among other things, they advocated government subsidies for certain big businesses, federal control of the banking system, a high protectionist tariff, and massive public works projects...
You KNOW how it upsets certain folks when you point out things that don’t comport with their preconceived notions!
LOL!
Yeah, let's look at that. What is the first thing mentioned in the document?
"The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic. This hostile policy of our confederates has been pursued with every circumstance of aggravation which could arouse the passions and excite the hatred of our people, and has placed the two sections of the Union for many years past in the condition of virtual civil war. Our people, still attached to the Union from habit and national traditions, and averse to change, hoped that time, reason, and argument would bring, if not redress, at least exemption from further insults, injuries, and dangers. Recent events have fully dissipated all such hopes and demonstrated the necessity of separation. Our Northern confederates, after a full and calm hearing of all the facts, after a fair warning of our purpose not to submit to the rule of the authors of all these wrongs and injuries, have by a large majority committed the Government of the United States into their hands."
Slavery, right out of the box. And how did the declaration close? Why let's take a look at that:
"But they know the value of parchment rights in treacherous hands, and therefore they refuse to commit their own to the rulers whom the North offers us. Why? Because by their declared principles and policy they have outlawed $3,000,000,000 of our property in the common territories of the Union; put it under the ban of the Republic in the States where it exists and out of the protection of Federal law everywhere; because they give sanctuary to thieves and incendiaries who assail it to the whole extent of their power, in spite of their most solemn obligations and covenants; because their avowed purpose is to subvert our society and subject us not only to the loss of our property but the destruction of ourselves, our wives, and our children, and the desolation of our homes, our altars, and our firesides."
Slavery at the beginning, slavery at the end, and slavery in the middle. The idea that slavery was not the single most important reason behind the Southern rebellion is plain idiotic.
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.