Do you seriously think...... after your behavior.... that I'll be answering any more of your questions?
Posted on 06/11/2013 4:48:08 AM PDT by iowamark
Civil War buffs have long speculated about how different the war might have been if only the Confederacy had won formal recognition from Britain. But few recognize how close that came to happening — and how much pro-Southern sympathy in Britain was built on a lie...
Early British support for the South was further buttressed by something as mundane as a protective tariff — the Morrill Tariff — approved by Congress on March 2, 1861. This new tariff, passed to protect American infant industries, also unwittingly gave rise to a troublesome myth of mounting trans-Atlantic proportions.
The tariff had been opposed by many Southern legislators, which is why it passed so easily once their states seceded. But this coincidence of timing fed a mistaken inversion of causation among the sympathetic British public – secession allowed the tariff to pass, but many in Britain thought that the tariff had come first, and so incensed the Southern states that they left the union.
Nor was this a simple misunderstanding. Pro-Southern business interests and journalists fed the myth that the war was over trade, not slavery – the better to win over people who might be appalled at siding with slave owners against the forces of abolition...
Why was England so susceptible to this fiction? For one thing, the Union did not immediately declare itself on a crusade for abolition at the war’s outset. Instead, Northern politicians cited vague notions of “union” – which could easily sound like an effort to put a noble gloss on a crass commercial dispute.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com ...
The states retained the right of revolution. The federal government (and the state governments) retain the rights to put down insurrection.
Both are extra-legal events, though if and insurrection made war against the United States, that would be treason, and could have legal penalties.
Just as terorism is not constrained by legality, and terrorist acts can lead to significant penalties not inflicted by the judiciary.
Except your multiple sources don’t turn Article 4 Section 4 into something that has to do with insurrection. It remains a consideration of what to do regarding domestic violence.
Do you seriously think...... after your behavior.... that I'll be answering any more of your questions?
Show me the federal government's Constitutional authority to define insurrection
Well bless you’re little pea-picking heart - you even found a little cartoon to show me how much you care ;-)
No. Get your education on your own dime.
As the comment was NOT directed to you, the refusal is not yours to give.
Show me where it states that in the Constitution.
Do you seriously think...... after your behavior.... that I’ll be answering any more of your questions?
Do you seriously think...... after your behavior.... that I care? ;-)
If it is a legal term, then it may be defined, either by common law (officials decided if it is, or isn’t based on the case at hand) or, alternatively, a tighter definition can be written by a legislature and passed as law.
The life of the law has been experience.
Oddly, they get offended if anyone disagrees with their opinons.
She posted two sources neither of which agreed with her position, was identified for it, and now she is upset with you because you showed that her sources didn’t support her position.
(sarcasm) You must really be a big meany. (/sarcasm)
Yea we seemed to be drifting towards some kind of twisted post-dialectical reasoning exercise....
“Show me where it states they have the right to breathe air”
(Do it now!)
I don’t have to because you didn’t agree with me that the moon is made of green cheese!
So there.
There are different kinds of law. for you I will give them a name and an example.
Physical law: The speed of light is 186,284 miles per second.
Constitutional law: Controversies between the states are to be resolved with the Supreme Court as original jurisdiction.
Legislative law: The militia consists of the national guard and the unorganized militia. (Title 10, Section 311)
Common law: Justice Taney held in “Dred Scott” that persons of African heritage could have no standing in the court.
In all cases the executive acting within his legitimate powers has authority to act under his best understanding of the law. His understanding is subject to review, by a judge in a particular case, or by appeal.
Any definition of any legal term is given in legislative law and constituional law by other legal terms. In common law, the definition is given in more concrete terms.
Example: A person is accused of grand theft, in that he stole a very nice and expensive chair. In Case 1, on appeal, the appeals court held that the value of the chair did not meet the legal definition of grand theft. In Case 2, a somewhat nicer and more expensive chair was held to meet the definition of grand theft.
The judge must, with that information, attempt to decide, for the case at hand whether the chair that is alleged to have been stolen, more closely resembles case 1 or case 2.
While a judge can be wrong, the defendent has an option to appeal.
Where appellate judges are wrong, the legislature can rewrite the law to give added guidance. The Executive has a power to pardon, which may also correct judicial error.
Where laws forbid proscribe punishment of behavior that should not be forbidden, or should not be punished, Attorneys General have a near absolute authority to exercise discretion. Usually there is plenty of work, so prosecutors may decide not to prosecute less important crimes or misdemeanors. On the otherhand, to obtain political advantage, a prosecutor may decide to prosecute even when there is no crime. The latter prosecutor should expect to be punished either by the court, or by a voting public.
In the case of bad law, a jury, or any member of the jury may decide to vote against a guilty verdict. This is called Jury nullification.
Jury Foreman: We find the accused not guilty of cattle rustling if he gives back the cows.
Judge: You can’t find that. If he took the cows, you must find him guilty.
Jury Foreman: Not Guilty of cattle rustling, and he can keep the cows.
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.