Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Sherman Logan
The idea of dual sovereignty is one I've not run across before. But I'll play.

Did you ever study American history? Read the Federalists Papers?

But it wasn't Lincoln who destroyed the system.

It absolutely was Lincoln and honest historians will agree.

The dual sovereignty could exist only as long as one of the two "supremacies" didn't challenge the other. The southern states challenged and lost. I believe they bear by far the greater responsibility for its destruction. The federal government acted in self-defense of its own sovereignty when it was attacked.

Dude, you must have had too much to drink when you wrote that. The dual sovereignty of which we speak was between the individual states and the federal government that was established by the Founders. The Founders wrote the Constitution to LIMIT the federal government. The Southern states didn't challenge the sovereignty of any of the northers states or the federal government. They simply withdrew from that union the same way the colonists withdrew from the British crown. The Confederacy didn't challenge the sovereignty of the United States any more than the colonists challenged the sovereignty of Great Britain.

The federal government acted in self-defense of its own sovereignty when it was attacked.

Quite drinking the Kool-Aid, dude.

True enough, although you're a tad hyperbolic here.

Well I'm in good company then. Heres a couple of examples:

The Constitution Party

Oklahoma Joint Resolution 1089

We're a long way from totalitarianism, or we wouldn't be having this discussion outside prison.

Really? Are you familiar with a recent Supreme Court ruling on an individuals right to keep and bear arms?

Do you realize that we were one freaking vote away from a de facto repeal of the Second Amendment? Think about it. One supreme court justice vote away from registration and confiscation. Do you know why the Second Amendment is even in the Constitution?

Because most of us rather like the way things are going.

Ah yeah. Joe Sixpack. As long as the beer is cold and the signal is clear, every think is just hunky dory. A little loss of liberty here and there doesn't bother Joe.

Jeez.

If you really do like the way things are going, towards socialization (which entails a huge loss of liberty) then you're not even close to being a conservative and I think the mods ought to consider giving you the ban hammer.

Don't blame that on the present government, much less Lincoln.

I blame Lincoln for starting the centralization process as much as I give credit to Jefferson, Washington, et al for creating a form of government based on life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The system of government you, and quite possibly I, might prefer is not wanted by a considerable majority of Americans.

That's because we're reaching that dangerous point where 50% of Americans can vote themselves a raise. This couldn't happen if not for a Lincoln initiated centralized government.

116 posted on 07/31/2008 6:49:22 AM PDT by cowboyway ("The beauty of the Second Amendment is you won't need it until they try to take it away"--Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies ]


To: cowboyway; Sherman Logan
It absolutely was Lincoln and honest historians will agree

Honest historians like Tommy DiLorenzo?

They simply withdrew from that union the same way the colonists withdrew from the British crown.

Not quite. In both instances there was a rebellion. But the Southern states lost their's.

119 posted on 07/31/2008 1:00:27 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies ]

To: cowboyway
If you really do like the way things are going, towards socialization (which entails a huge loss of liberty) then you're not even close to being a conservative and I think the mods ought to consider giving you the ban hammer.

BTW, I never said I like the way things are going. I said most Americans are reasonably happy with things as they are and are therefore unlikely to vote for drastic change, especially a major restriction on governmental power.

I'll take my chance with the mods. If there are conservative principles, one of them is definitely a recognition of reality. I find it odd that one of your first reactions when questioned is to suggest that the questioner should be kicked out of the game.

I am probably in favor of much the same type of governmental system you are. I just don't delude myself that most of my fellow citizens agree with me (or you).

At this point in time, it appears that we will elect a liberal Democrat president, and probably significantly increase liberal Democrat majorities in both houses of Congress. Which means that by 2012, our first real opportunity to reverse things, there will also be at least a 7 to 2 liberal majority on the Supreme Court.

What exactly is your suggestion for dealing with this? Pretend those who vote for such "change" aren't "real Americans?" Try to prevent them from voting? Start a violent revolution to force the people to favor of the system you prefer? How does one lead a revolution in the name of the people against the considerable majority of the actual people?

How do you deal with the dichotomy of your vision of what America is and what the actual country is like?

125 posted on 07/31/2008 7:49:09 PM PDT by Sherman Logan (Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves. - A. Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


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