Posted on 12/24/2007 10:11:44 AM PST by wardaddy
In hindsight that was certainly a mistake. But it was legal.
Seems weird a CW professor would miss that, although my history of the period right after the civil war was hazy but I can’t imagine that in 1867 there were many justices that were Pro-South/Secession at the time, and the vote was still split with 3 dissenters.
Make that 1869, not 1867.
Post a quote where I said this. I did not. You are an idiot.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Apparently you are correct, I am an idiot! The words were actually used by Moose4 in a response to your post. I can only offer my humblest apology and throw myself on the mercy of the court, it was an honest, although needless and careless mistake.
Ron Paul must think he is another Ross Perot. He is in for a very sad awakening!
Exactly!
The Clintons never forget a lesson learned, and the 3rd party pickoff play was their only ticket to the WH in ‘92 and thus ‘96.
As I’ve said on many occasions, I believe McCain’s already sold his soul to the Clintons and will go 3rd party when the Evil Pair command him. He can’t ever win, so he may as well get some suck-up from liberals and wishy-washy pubs in trade for a nice pat (stab) on (in) the back from President Hillary on his way out of politics...
Then they’ll destroy him after he has served his purpose (think Joe Leiberman)
That's an absurd claim. Most slaves were imported before the Revolution, and they came in on foreign-flagged ships.
Non-sequitor is an exquisitely chosen name I see! The fact that I used a different word which means basically the same thing changes nothing. The fact that there are powers prohibited to the states changes nothing. Where is the power to prevent secession granted to the federal government and where is the power of secession denied to the states. Unless you can come up with more your post is meaningless. The real question is always, where is the power granted to the federal government. As you yourself say, if it is not delegated to the federal government, nor prohibited to the states, it is reserved to the states or to the people.
I would follow ROn Pauls campaign contributions. My bet is there is Clinton money going there.
I think you're both wrong. Slaves were brought under many flags and a substantial portion came in Yankee ships. Look up the history of Newport, Rhode Island sometime.
The Yankees didn't come to dominate the trans-atlantic slave trade until the British began intercepting non-american slave ships. That wasn't until three decades after importation of slaves into the US was banned.
Paul is a liberal creep IMO.
Of course I do. As you know, Mr. Jefferson's statements (quoted above) are consistent with the public statements of Mr. Madison (who definitely was involved in the drafting and ratification of the Constitution ;>) and others, as well as with the specific written terms of the Constitution, the ratification documents of several of the States in question, and other historical documentation.
(As you have noted, we've been through this before, so I doubt you'll change your mind, no matter what documentation I produce. Your loss, IMO... ;>)
You are assuming (via your use of the term "rebel") that State secession was unconstitutional. Care to prove that point? Please quote for us the specific clause of the United States Constitution that prohibits State secession. Until you prove secession was unconstitutional, the "attack on the garrison in Sumter" will more properly be considered the eviction of foreign military forces from the territory of the sovereign State of South Carolina.
;>)
No, but truly just causes are worth fighting for until victory is achieved. Obviously the Southern rebellion wasn't one of those.
To believe otherwise is to deny the principle of self government.
The Southern states had self government, and also had a disproportionate level of influence in the federal government. But that wasn't enough for them.
And what rule of law allowed them to fire on a federal garrison in a federal fort?
But 5 justices voted for the majority, which was what it took. The fact that some dissented is meaningless. Four justices dissented in Bush v. Gore.
No, what you did was insert a word - explicitly - which appears nowhere in the amendment...and nowhere in the body of the Constitution. And in doing so you tried to imply the existence of something which doesn't exist.
Where is the power to prevent secession granted to the federal government and where is the power of secession denied to the states.
Where is the power to leave without the consent of the other states granted? Congress had the power to admit states and to approve any changes in status once allowed in. Implied in that is the power to approve their leaving.
The real question is always, where is the power granted to the federal government.
Article I, Section 10 and Article IV, Section 3.
A much more apprpriate question would be: 'What rule of law allowed the federal government to occupy the territory of South Carolina, following the secession of that State from the federal union?'
(Please see my Post #213 above, addressed to you... ;>)
You mean like druges are outlawed?
Where’d that ‘e’ come from? ;-)
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.