Posted on 03/09/2013 5:03:48 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Presumably the Constitution does limit the president’s war-making power.
National Review showed its colors when it dove into the tank for Romney and McCarthy jumps in to join McCain and Graham in bashing Senator Paul.
Uh-oh. Lincoln = Stalin? Even though slavery requires a police state to exist and “ targets entire segments “ of the population for abrogation of their rights ? I suspect you know the Constitution much better than I; where does it say that slaves need to be of African descent? Suppose you had been uno of the octos born to OctoMom— could she have sold you into slavery under the Constitution that Lincoln supposedly tore up?
There are probably 40% of the population who would be thrilled if obama hit a Tea Party rally with a drone.
This writer is naive if he doesn’t believe mccain and most politicians from both parties want the Tea Party destroyed by any means neccessary. I use the Tea Party as one example.
The founding fathers had no idea how easy it would become in the future to fix elections.
The founding fathers had no idea that a majority of congress would be filled with the type of people we have today.
The founding fathers never thought we’d be a war with a religion on our side of the earth . And they sure never dreamed the populace would become so stupid that they’d elect one of the enemy president.
The highjacker would be engaged in an attack on the country. The passengers would simply be collateral damage.
You are clearly wrong on every point that you are trying to make.
Yes, a TREATY does OBLIGATE the United States to defend another country, if that is stated in said Treaty. The Treaty itself, once ratified, is Congressional authority to use military force, but Congress can clearly revoke said Treaty or refuse to fund a military effort taken by any President.
The Constitution is NOT a text book, or a complete guide to how all issues should be resolved. It is not intended to spell out every single action the government can or can not take.
Some things are specifically allowed, some things are specifically prohibited. Congress is given BROAD power to IMPLEMENT the Constitutional framework for our form of government.
Yes, you are CRAZY, and you have very very few people, alive today, who share your nutty views.
Count on the power going out nationwide within a few weeks of that happening on a large scale. A tyranny (even a popular “tyranny of the majority”), will not have the power to run its toys and murder patriots wholesale, if the power is shut off. And the power can be shut off anytime. The power flows through the transmission lines only while the social contract (read, “The Constitution”) is still largely in effect.
Uh-oh. Lincoln = Stalin? Even though slavery requires a police state to exist and “ targets entire segments “ of the population for abrogation of their rights ? I suspect you know the Constitution much better than I; where does it say that slaves need to be of African descent? Suppose you had been uno of the octos born to OctoMom— could she have sold you into slavery under the Constitution that Lincoln supposedly tore up?
That’s just a fact.
Once the leader of a nation starts (or started) killing his own citizens in great numbers, he enters the same realm of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Saddam, Ho, Ceaucescu, etc. —
During the 20th century more than 170 million people were killed by their own government. Most of these killings were “justified” in some way or another as worthy acts by the government that carried out the killings. Stalin used to sign the death sentence certificates AFTER killing the people and it always accused them of serious “crimes,” some of which might have risen to the level of abiding slavery.
Of course slavery in the South was a bad thing, but it was also based on a plantation system that was as doomed to fail as one of Stalin’s five-year plans for that matter. There are many bad things done in America and yet only one president has waged outright war on half of us. In most cases, presidents rely on legal, civil means for changing the things they don’t like—and a failing system shouldn’t be all that tough to replace via clever politics and such.
The Constitution guaranteed rights to the States including the right to be utterly stupid and vile in their various practices. (To wit: My state allows men to marry other men, an abomination.)
No southern state would have ratified the Constitution as it was perceived by Lincoln. Most wouldn’t even ratify it today knowing how easily distorted it is — and slavery wouldn’t even enter into that calculation.
This whole “Lincoln freed the slaves” thing is all fine and good but where did he get that authority in the first place? It was really no better than one of those Stalin death sentence certificates.
Just ask yourself this question—There is a candidate for president who, if elected in 2016, will wage war on every state west of the Mississippi because he has A REALLY GOOD REASON to do it. (Just ask him.) Are you going to vote for him?
As for octos and unos, I’m assuming that’s some sort of rap music thing?? I don’t know any of that.
In any case, I realize my view of Lincoln is a minority view. And that most people think he was a saint.
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.