Posted on 09/27/2010 1:27:31 PM PDT by RandysRight
Did you take a special-ed course in reading thing bass-ackwards? The Tenth says nothing of the sort, and in fact says the opposite. Re-read the original for comprehension.
The Constitution in Article II delegates the power of Commander-in-Chief to the Executive with the duty of protecting the Constitution.
You've come very close to declaring the President to be Jefe-in-Chief and Osagyefo-for-Life. Who taught you about the Constitution, Johnny Rocco? You sound like a blackshirt, spouting that stuff.
The President is not the "guardian of the Constitution" or any such thing under our form of government. What you've articulated is very similar to the self-appointed power of the army in South- and Central-American caudillist states. It's one of the top problems in public governance in Spanish-speaking America, because it is precisely that belief among many South American army officers that leads directly to their frequent golpes de estado, juntas, and eventually the emergence of a new El Supremo from among the army officers "protecting the constitution".
It's the Latin American version of the hogs-and-corn cycle, and the billion-dollar question of Latin American history is, how do you stop it?
Oh, really? Well, let's try analyzing your statement with a syllogism, something along the lines of,
Bob lost all "moral authority" to defend his life the moment he fired his gun at the onrushing attacker.Uh, nope. Got another?
You reap what you sow.....and the South did.
Actually, they reaped what Daniel Webster and John Quincy Adams had sown: their destruction, for the enrichment of "gentlemen" of means who lived by business and industry north of Mason and Dixon's line.
The Confederates started it and the Union finished it.
No, Lincoln started it. At least, that is what his personal secretary, John G. Nicolay, believed -- and told everybody 20 years later when he wrote his own book about the commencement of the Civil War. He credited Lincoln with maturing a purpose of opening hostilities, while simultaneously appearing to thrust the onus on the South.
Lincoln betrayed the fixity of his intention to war down the South by the preparations he made elsewhere, where no forts were involved: in Missouri, for example, where Lincoln, even before taking the oath of office, caused the governor of Illinois and a serving U.S. Army officer, Nathaniel Lyons, to arm Missouri Wide Awakes from the Illinois Militia arsenal and cross the Mississippi River back into Missouri for the purpose of arresting and overthrowing the entire State government of Missouri and disarming the Missouri Militia -- which by the way is the People in arms, who are the proprietors of, and coextant with, their State. That is to say, the People are the State, not merely the State's government or some firehouse gang with guns.
Interfering with the People's control of their government is the ultimate no-no, the ultimate insult to the People's sovereignty and an assault on them. It's literal, genuine tyranny.
First shot, second shot, no shot at all -- it was always going to be a fight, get it? There was no stopping the Republicans, who had been marching their Wide Awakes and getting together Militia units in the States they controlled politically, like Massachusetts, for some time.
Who fired the "first shot" in Missouri, when Lyons and the Wide Awakes confronted and disarmed the Missouri Militia? Who made the Southerners wrong then? They didn't shoot at the Wide Awakes and federal troops sent against them. So how are they as "morally wrong" as Jeff Davis and Gen. Beauregard before Sumter, eh?
Let's see: South opens fire at Sumter => South wrong and bad. South doesn't open fire in Maryland and Missouri => South still wrong and bad.
See the leak in your logic, chief?
Pragmatic ability to prevail wasn't the topic of discussion. The legality or illegality of secession was.
Saying that your having the power to deny God-given rights to someone, means that the rights didn't exist in the first place, is the first water of self-service.
Thanks for stopping by.
Each of those clauses refers to ‘States,’ not former States. Your argument is nothing but ‘circular reasoning’...
Sorry if you can't handle that.
Wrong again. The only mention of the phrase "Commander in Chief" occurs in Article II, Section 2, Clause 1:
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...
Power was NOT expressly delegated to the United States making Lincoln "Commander-in-Chief over all of the several States:" your interpretation is absolutely delusional...
;>)
I see no way that you are showing me to be wrong. Lincoln was the President of the United States and thus was the Commander-in-Chief of the United States.
The confederate democrats had no legal right to usurp such power through illegal secession and Lincoln had every legal right to defend the Consitution and people of the United States.
Where in that section, or any section for that matter, does the Constitution refer to former states? You are writing something into the document which is not there which is a dangerous practice that our liberal opposites indulge in too often. Better for the cause of freedom to be a strict constructionist and accept the Constitution as it is written.
Then you concede that the south was a tyranny?
Trying to educate trolls only serves to waste your time and irritate the trolls!
Gosh - sorry that you can not see even the blatantly obvious.
Lincoln was the President of the United States and thus was the Commander-in-Chief of the United States.
Which made him "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." Nothing more, and nothing less. And neither of which prohibits State secession.
The confederate democrats had no legal right to usurp such power through illegal secession and Lincoln had every legal right to defend the Consitution and people of the United States.
Dream on. The Constitution nowhere prohibited State secession - if it had, it would never have been ratified in the first place...
;>)
Actually, you are the guilty party in that regard, not I. The Constitution nowhere prohibited State secession - "[y]ou are writing something into the document which is not there." And I would agree that what you are doing "is a dangerous practice that our liberal opposites indulge in too often."
Better for the cause of freedom to be a strict constructionist and accept the Constitution as it is written.
Absolutely. Care to quote for us the constitutional clause that specifically prohibits State secession? Hmmm?
;>)
If I've got free time, I don't mind irritating the trolls...
;>)
It is you are missing the blantly obvious though. You admit that Lincoln was the President and that the Constitution delegates powers of ‘Commander in Chief’ with a sworn duty to defend the Constititution of the United States. But you say so what? That it is only that and nothing more and does not prohibit secession. You are wrong though because of the Tenth Amendment.
The 10th specifies that the States retain the powers that are NOT delegated by the Constitution to the United States. The power of Commander-in-Chief is a delegated power by the Constitution that Lincoln held making his actions to defend the Constitution legal.
The confederate democrats though attempted to usurp the power of Commander-in-Chief even though the 10th Amendment specifically prohibited them from ‘power delegated by the Constitution to the United States’ as is written in the 10th Amendment.
The confederate democrats committed an illegal act of treason and rebellion against the Constitution of the United States. It is a fact.
Really? Let's look at the Constitution:
Section. 2. 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...
Gosh - nothing there prohibits State secession, now does it?
You're a compltete idiot (like most of your tribe)....
;>)
;>)
You flatter yourself asswipe.
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.