Posts by Rule of Law

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Debate continues over 'The Real Lincoln'

    05/03/2002 2:52:08 PM PDT · 146 of 205
    Rule of Law to tpaine
    And I thought you were actually going to act like an adult, so I answered one of your posts. That's what I get for doing my own thinking.

    Here is the personal attack: Notice how you get 'no response' when an obvious fallacy is pointed out in ROL's position.

    Before you sent that garbage, I had emailed Mr. Quakenbush to tell him that I would answer his posts when I had the material together. Unlike some people on this site, I don't go off half-cocked. I gather data, marshall facts and arguments. I check to see if I might agree with some of the arguments made by the other person. I do not claim to be infallable and if an argument is valid, I am willing to change my mind.

    That's what people do who are serious about discussing an issue. It might take more time than just putting down the first bit of nonsense that comes to mind. But respect for the people on this forum demands that we take the time to do things right.

  • If the United States Is Broken, Can It Be Fixed?

    05/03/2002 2:39:31 PM PDT · 51 of 52
    Rule of Law to truth_seeker
    My objection is that it is a hypothetical exercise; wholly unrealistic. To comment further is a waste of time.

    You were the one who asked for my comments. I didn't seek you out. But the reason to discuss hypothetical concepts is that they can help us understand where we are now and help us get ideas for how to fix our problems.

    For instance, the politicians in Washington say there is a huge problem with the way campaigns are run. That the current system leads to unbridled corruption. Their remedy is to eviserate the First Amendment. Surely, it makes sense to discuss alternate means of solving this problem.

    I have proposed an alternative. If you don't want to discuss it, that's fine. Don't post.

  • Debate continues over 'The Real Lincoln'

    05/03/2002 2:29:12 PM PDT · 141 of 205
    Rule of Law to tpaine
    Not so. A southern minority of the citizens of the US no longer consented to a valid constitutional republics overall views on ending a violation of human rights, - slavery. They rebelled against their own constitutions principles.

    The point is that they had the right to withdraw their consent to the Constitution. The government belongs to the people and when they decide that it no longer serves their needs, they have the right to change it.

    Someone once wrote that we chartered ourselves a government just like someone might charter a bus. If you hired a bus to go to Florida, but the driver insisted on going to Maine, you have every right to get off the bus. If a group of people go together and charter the bus and some decide in the middle of the trip that they no longer want to go where the bus is going, they have the right to get off. It's the same way with government.

    We hired it. When it no longer does what we want it to do, we have the right to fire it. This is the best protection of our rights that we have.

    The people of the south had no right to oppose the clear intent of the constitution to abolish slavery, as Article I section 9, infers. - They chose violent rebellion to resolve political differences over human rights, in the stead of constitutional remedies. Big mistake. Their fellow citizens had every right to enforce & defend the constitution & the entire republic from such a division.

    They did not choose violent rebellion. They chose peaceful separation. They sent a delegation to Washington to pay for any federal property that was within the states and to arrange to pay the South's portion of the national debt. They did demand the surrender of Fort Sumter, and had been promised that it would be surrendered. When it became apparant that Lincoln was going to break that promise, they took the fort by force.

    Also, Article I, section 9 does not imply an intent to abolish slavery. It was put in the Constitution to keep the federal government from doing so.

  • Debate continues over 'The Real Lincoln'

    05/03/2002 2:09:32 PM PDT · 140 of 205
    Rule of Law to davidjquackenbush
    But be serious. The northern states "achieved emancipation peacefully," so I don't know what you mean by "that was not even tried here." It was repudiated in the most solemn way as even an ultimate, distant goal by the Southern states who cast their lot with a regime based on slavery, after they had almost a century to think the matter over carefully, and while the rest of the world moved toward emancipation and substantially accomplished it. The civilized world of 1776 was very clear on the moral issues involved in slavery, and the civilized world of 1860 was even clearer -- the South just ILLEGITIMATELY DISAGREED. And they quite openly based their revolt on that disagreement. So let's see what statements by seceeding states you have that a) offer reasons for the justice of secession as an avoidance of tyranny, and b) don't make slavery the principal, even only, cause of secession.

    Actually, as pointed out, the whole of the world didn't move away from slavery. It is still alive in much of the world. Africa, the Middle East, much of Asia still practices slavery. Unfortunately, we have a long way to go before we eliminate slavery.

    In the places where slavery was abolished, it was almost without exception done peacefully, generally through compensated emancipation or through phasing out slavery over a period of years. And while the Psalms singers like to take credit for ending slavery, it was really simple economics that did the trick. Owning slaves just didn't pay. (We might as well face facts, for many people, if not most, money counts for more than morality.)

    Don't think I am defending slavery or defending the South's stance on slavery. But this is not a question of whether slavery was right or wrong. There's no question that slavery is wrong. It is a question of whether people may decide what kind of government they will live under.

  • Debate continues over 'The Real Lincoln'

    05/03/2002 1:54:39 PM PDT · 138 of 205
    Rule of Law to davidjquackenbush
    PRECISELY so you wouldn't say this:

    My apologies.

  • Debate continues over 'The Real Lincoln'

    05/03/2002 1:52:58 PM PDT · 137 of 205
    Rule of Law to davidjquackenbush
    Yes, it does. Or rather, it means that the right to self-determination is not conditional, but qualified. The right to self-government arises from human equality and the divine endowment of rights, and its legitimate exercise must, accordingly, to be rational, be claimed in light of its origin. You disagree with the Declaration when you speak of an absolute right to self-determination.

    I disagree with you. Read it again. You are wanting to read the section about prudence as a requirement for self-determination. It says that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. Not, governments derive their just powers from the consent of the goverened as long as the people are prudent. Or even morally right.

    I don't believe that the people in Iran, for instance, are morally right. They certainly don't believe in human equality. But I also believe they have the right to determine their form of government. I disagree with that form of government. But I don't think that anyone has the right to impose a government on the people of Iran without their consent. Do you?

    And if it would be wrong to impose a government on the people of Iran without their consent, how can it be right to impose a government on the people of the South without their consent?

  • Debate continues over 'The Real Lincoln'

    05/03/2002 1:41:32 PM PDT · 136 of 205
    Rule of Law to davidjquackenbush
    I will look forward to seeing the official statements of secession that offer this reason, even supposing (which I do not think true) that the claimed economic abuse was true or intended.

    What is the Southern explanation, by the way, for the enormous tariffs DURING the war, after the South was gone?

    As I have indicated, my bookmarks for the reasons for secession are at home. I will post the links when I can.

    But even if they do not list the tariff, it was an issue they felt so strongly about that they outlawed protectionist tariffs in the Confederate Constitution.

    As for tariffs during the war, Lincoln had to get money somewhere. He used high tariffs and paper money.

  • Debate continues over 'The Real Lincoln'

    05/03/2002 1:36:25 PM PDT · 135 of 205
    Rule of Law to WhiskeyPapa
    Were the secessionists acting prudently?

    It is not for you or me to decide whether they were prudent. And you will notice that the D of I says whenever the people think their government needs to change, they can change it. It then goes on to say that if they are prudent, they won't do so rashly.

    I do not believe that the people of Sweden are prudent for adopting socialism. But who am I to impose my will on the people of Sweden? I do not consider Islamic fundementalism a prudent form of government. But if the people of the Middle East wish to live under that form of government, it's up to them.

    The fact that you may not believe the South was prudent does not mean that you would be right to deny them their self-determination.

  • Debate continues over 'The Real Lincoln'

    05/03/2002 1:29:38 PM PDT · 134 of 205
    Rule of Law to tpaine
    Notice how you get 'no response' when an obvious fallacy is pointed out in ROL's position.

    As I have pointed out in a private reply to Mr. Quackenbush, I have not forgotten him and will reply when I collect the necessary data.

    Mr. Paine, I have asked you to quit these childish personal attacks on me. I will ask you one more time to cease. Your personal attacks on people (and I'm certainly not the only person you routinely attack) do not add to the debate. They do not do anything except disrupt this forum.

    If you have something to add, some fact or some, reasonable, logical argument, then by all means, add it. Don't distort other people's arguments. Don't insult people. And don't play out childish vendettas against people.

  • Debate continues over 'The Real Lincoln'

    05/03/2002 1:13:01 PM PDT · 130 of 205
    Rule of Law to WhiskeyPapa
    Lay out the long train of abuses prior to 1860 of the type that TJ lays out in the D of I.

    Read the D of I. It says, "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. "

    Yes, The D of I lists greivences against King George. But the heart of the matter is that whenever the people no longer consent to a particular form of government, the just powers of that government are at an end. The people of the South no longer consented to be governed by the United States. The government of the United States did not have the right to impose their will on the people of the South.

    You may not agree with what the South believed, but it is not your place (nor was it Lincoln's) to impose your beliefs on the people of the South. To impose a government on the unwilling is tyranny.

  • Debate continues over 'The Real Lincoln'

    05/03/2002 12:17:19 PM PDT · 124 of 205
    Rule of Law to WhiskeyPapa
    If the government becomes abusive of its powers, then is the time to call the D of I into play.

    Which the South did when it seceded.

  • Debate continues over 'The Real Lincoln'

    05/03/2002 11:54:50 AM PDT · 122 of 205
    Rule of Law to WhiskeyPapa
    The Congress is charged with providing for the general welfare and the common defense of the United States. Anything inimical to those ends are covered in Marshall's ruling. The Congress clearly is empowered to deal lwith them. This includes secession. The right to secession CANNOT be retained to the states because the right of perpetuity is retained by the federal government.

    Walt, the only way you can get to this conclusion is to throw out the Declaration of Independence and say that "We the people" belong to the United States government instead of the other way around.

  • Congress must debate war on Iraq

    05/03/2002 11:51:58 AM PDT · 26 of 34
    Rule of Law to stainlessbanner
    I agree, the decision must go to Congress. BTW, when was the last time the US Congress "officially" declared war?

    WWII I think. I don't remember hearing of one since. Korea is the only other possibility, but I don't think they did it then. They called it a "Police Action" not a war.

  • Bush Declares Judiciary 'Crisis'

    05/03/2002 11:47:38 AM PDT · 50 of 100
    Rule of Law to SunStar
    A country without federal judges. Doesn't seem like a crisis to me.
  • Debate continues over 'The Real Lincoln'

    05/03/2002 10:37:57 AM PDT · 117 of 205
    Rule of Law to davidjquackenbush
    You can't mean this as a universal principle. Hitler no doubt had reached an honest judgment that the Jews manifested an undeniable resolve to tyranize over the Arians. I trust you won't think I intend the comparison beyond this basic point -- the Declaration cannot mean only that groups of "sincere" people have the right to establish whatever form of government they sincerely want. Fanatics and tyrants are frequently quite sincere.

    You're not really suggesting that the South's decision to peacefully withdraw from the Union is in any way comparable with Hitler's decision to murder millions of Jews, are you? Perhaps not. But you should be more careful in your analogy.

    Yes. I do mean that the people have the right to establish the form of government that suits them. Even if they choose unwisely. (That does not give the government the right to murder people though.)

    I consider socialism tyranny. It is nothing more than slavery to the government. But the people of Sweden have chosen such a government. Do I consider it wise? No. But it is their right to chose such a form of government.

    The Declaration of Independence makes this very clear. The Declaration does not say that the right to self-determiniation is conditional. No court of world opinion may deprive people of that right. World opinion may disapprove of Islamic fundementalism, but if the people of the middle east choose to live under such a system, we have no right to force them to adopt another.

    As for the argument that the North had something to lose if the South seceded, that is true. Over 80% of the federal taxes were paid by the South and most of the expenditures were made on improvements in the North. The Republicans had promised to raise tariffs so that the South would pay even more and had also promised to spend more on Northern industries, railroads, and canals. We in the South were the cash cows that the North was determined to milk dry. If the South left the Union, the North might have to pay their own way. The power to tax is the power to destroy and the North was determined to use that power to destroy the South.

  • Congress must debate war on Iraq

    05/03/2002 10:08:01 AM PDT · 7 of 34
    Rule of Law to RJCogburn
    I'm not fan of Pat's but I remain unconvinced of the need to go to war with Iraq. He makes a good case.

    If Bush can make a case, fine. Let him do it in Congress. But, like you, I'm not convinced. Of course I wasn't convinced when his daddy did it either.

  • Army To Supply 'Morning After' Pill To Female Soldiers (Israel)

    05/03/2002 10:05:27 AM PDT · 78 of 93
    Rule of Law to RCW2001
    Women in the Army. It causes trouble all over the world.
  • Scalia Sees No Abortion Right in U.S. Constitution

    05/03/2002 9:44:44 AM PDT · 120 of 128
    Rule of Law to betty boop
    Of course Scalia feels free to ignore the Constitution when it suits him. But he is at least saying the right thing here.
  • Congress must debate war on Iraq

    05/03/2002 9:42:57 AM PDT · 2 of 34
    Rule of Law to Hoppean
    Pat says a lot of things I disagree with, but I have to agree with him when he says that if we are going to go to war, it should be done in a Constitutional manner. The Constitution requires Congress to declare war. We shouldn't do it without an official declaration.
  • Debate continues over 'The Real Lincoln'

    05/03/2002 9:01:31 AM PDT · 112 of 205
    Rule of Law to Non-Sequitur
    So where does the Treaty of Paris overrule the Articles of Confederation or the Constitution of the United States. It could refer to them as whatever they want, unless the Constitution or the Articles agree then the Treaty is meaningless.

    We make progress.

    If I remember correctly, the contention was that as of the adoption of the Declaration of Independence, a single country was formed and that the states were not separate, independent, soveriegn entities. We have now worked through the Declaration of Independence -- which clearly indicates that the states were independent entities and now the Treaty of Paris.

    Shall we go on to the Articles of Confederation? Here it is even more plain. In fact, it is explicite. Article II says:

    "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled."

    Notice how this foreshadows the 10th Amendment. No accident there.

  • If the United States Is Broken, Can It Be Fixed?

    05/03/2002 8:35:44 AM PDT · 49 of 52
    Rule of Law to truth_seeker
    With brilliant ideas like this, one wouldn't expect such an effort to go far, would one?

    You don't like the idea of Representatives and electors chosen by lot? Personally I think it would be an improvement. We could not possibly do any worse then the people we have in Congress now, and we might certainly do better.

    Plus, the idea would remove the constant posturing for election we see form our politicians. It would do away with the permanent political class we now have. Representatives who knew that they would have to go live among the people after their term in office would be much less likely to pass laws that had an adverse effect on the people. There would be no incentive to give power to Washington because the representatives would know they wouldn't be in Washington long.

    The absence of elections would also mean there would be no campaigns. Thus no campaign contributions. And no shakedowns of corporations by politicians for campaign contributions. This means less corruption. Add in the fact that many, if not most of the people chisen would be good, honest citizens, we might have a government we could be proud of instead of the cess-pit we have in Washington today.

    Political parties, or factions as Washington rightfully called them, would be a thing of the past. With no elections, there is no need to have a party. They wouldn't control the representatives since they wouldn't be needed to "get out the vote."

    Plus, our government would be truly representative of the people -- because they would be the people.

    I can see significant benefits in this plan. But I would be interested in hearing your objections.

  • Debate continues over 'The Real Lincoln'

    05/03/2002 8:19:57 AM PDT · 110 of 205
    Rule of Law to davidjquackenbush
    The right to revolution is not a right to alter or abolish one's government any old time one pleases. The right to self-government can be legitimately claimed only by men willing to grant it to others. Southern secession/revolution was illegitimate because it was a claim to exercise the sovereignty of a self-governing community -- to alter a fundamental political order -- precisely in order to avoid granting the right of self-government to others.

    This is tantamount to a claim that the Declaration of Independence was invalid because the 13 colonies allowed slavery. If the South may not secede because it allowed slavery, the same must apply to the 13 colonies.

    The Declaration is absolutely clear that revolutionary alteration or abolition of government is a profoundly serious act, justified ONLY by the honest judgment that the current government has manifested an undeniable resolve to tyrannize over a people. Tyranny is defined, in the Declaration, as a government which has become destructive of the rights government is instituted among men to secure, among them life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, rights which follow from men's equality before the Creator.

    The honest judgement of the people of the south was that the current government had manifested an undeniable resolve to tyranize the people of the South. You may disagree with their judgement. But that certainly doesn't give you the right to impose your view on others. And it did not give Lincoln that right either.

    It is either naive or intentionally misleading to interpret the Declaration as declaring an absolute right to change governments at pleasure. It declares a right to change them, as a profoundly serious measure, when such a step is the only means remaining by which to secure the rights that are due to all men because of their equality.

    Actually that's what "consent of the governed means". It means that when people no longer consent to a particular form of government, they have the right -- indeed the obligation -- to change it. The Declaration points out that people will be slow to do this because it is a serious thing. They will tolerate injustice rather than change their government. But when they reach the point that they no longer consent to that government, then they have the absolute right to change it.

    It is no accident, in my opinion, that the Southern states do not make such a claim, having as they did no conceivable right to appeal to the rights of man, in order to alter their government to secure the right to own slaves.

    You ignore the fact that many of the states did make such declarations. And they did have the right to do so. The tariff alone was enough to prove federal tyranny.

    You must not be so quick to apply our ideas to the past. We are, at least theoretically, against slavery. We think it wrong. (Though our government goes out of its way to toady to countries such as Red China and Saudi Arabia where slavery is still practiced.) But that was not the view for most of human history. Slavery was an accepted practice and had been on every inhabited continent. Slavery was on the way out in the Western world -- though it is still practiced in much of the world today. Most of the western world achieved emancipation peacefully. But that was not even tried here.

    It is simply a fallacy, a cheat of reason, to attempt to substitute the arbitrary right to change government for the right of revolution articulated in the Declaration. The South Carolina assertion of a right to leave the Union is a lawyers claim, presuming that acts of ratification are revocable at pleasure. The Tennessee document assumes that the right of revolution requires no defense in natural law, such as the Declaration clearly demands. Neither document, as quoted, offers any reason for the step taken. Neither was justified or licit. I would distinguish between them only by saying that South Carolina claims a non-existent legal right to alter the national government by departure, while the Tennessee document invokes the genuinely extra-legal right to revolution but omits to make a claim in justice to support such invocation, which is the whole point to the Declaration. Neither is, finally, more than acts of political will in the service of passion, as is clear from their careful avoidance of any REASON for the action taken.

    As noted above, many states promulgated a separate document giving their reasons for secession. I suspect this doesn't matter to you. You will no doubt find their reasons invalid. No matter how many hoops they may have jumped through, you will always find an excuse to claim that they should have jumped through at least one more. You will continue to embrace your preconceived notions in spite of all evidence or reason. And of course, that is your right.

    But it does disturb me that you have completely missed the point of the Declaration of Independence. That point is that the people have an absolute right to self-determination. The absolute right to have the form of government that suits them. And no government is legitimate that does not have the freely given consent of the governed.

  • Rush Limbaugh

    05/02/2002 2:08:55 PM PDT · 156 of 163
    Rule of Law to Wild Irish Rogue
    There is just no way that Bush can be included in the same category as the Clintons,Gore,Schumer,Barbara Boxer,Kerry, etc, etc-they are the leftists.

    By their fruits shall you know them. Bush has produced some pretty leftist fruit and I haven't really seen much conservative fruit from him. Talk, yes. Actions? Not yet.

  • Two out of three Israeli soldiers prefer the softness of the Koran over any other toilet paper

    05/02/2002 1:50:52 PM PDT · 71 of 93
    Rule of Law to realpatriot71
    Strange, it was gone for a bit on my reply application, but it is definitely back. I've had problems with my brower not loading things for a while now.

    It seems like every day, I get a message from Microsoft saying they want to download a new fix to their browser. What a piece of junk. But with Netscape using the government as a club, I won't use their software.

  • House passes election-year expansion in farm subsidies

    05/02/2002 1:19:35 PM PDT · 15 of 21
    Rule of Law to browardchad
    President Bush said the legislation wasn't everything he wanted

    Is it too late to get a recount in Florida?

    The GOP-rank and file would have screamed if Gore did this. There might have even been a chance at stopping him. But they'll blindly support Bush no matter what he does.

  • Two out of three Israeli soldiers prefer the softness of the Koran over any other toilet paper

    05/02/2002 1:16:56 PM PDT · 60 of 93
    Rule of Law to realpatriot71
    Nice to see you on board :-)

    Thanks. Happy to be aboard.

    Notice how FR for whatever reason removed their little "no sexist, racist, or personal attacks" from the reply application? Wonder why?

    Perhaps so people could indulge in a little Arab bashing. Not that I'm against Arab bashing. We need to "say it with bullets" in a few countries I could name.

    And of course I'm always open for a little French bashing. But then who isn't?

    But upon looking at the top of my screen, I see the little warning is back.

  • Two out of three Israeli soldiers prefer the softness of the Koran over any other toilet paper

    05/02/2002 1:09:08 PM PDT · 55 of 93
    Rule of Law to bright_paper_werewolves
    Whether the book is "holy" is debatable.

    Not to them.

  • Two out of three Israeli soldiers prefer the softness of the Koran over any other toilet paper

    05/02/2002 1:06:13 PM PDT · 52 of 93
    Rule of Law to ffusco
    Its OK to desecrate a book claimed to be holy by a bunch of uncivilized sub human filth.

    Is it really? Just because they are uncivilized, does it give us the right to be uncivilized too? Surely, the civilized world should set a good example.

  • Two out of three Israeli soldiers prefer the softness of the Koran over any other toilet paper

    05/02/2002 1:04:21 PM PDT · 51 of 93
    Rule of Law to realpatriot71
    I guess its OK to desecrate a holy book as long as its not your holy book .

    You're right. It really wasn't the right thing for the Israelis to do -- if they did it. Had they used Bibles or little American flags, people here would be outraged. If they used the Koran, the Moslems have a right to be upset.

  • Two out of three Israeli soldiers prefer the softness of the Koran over any other toilet paper

    05/02/2002 1:02:07 PM PDT · 49 of 93
    Rule of Law to Digger
    And the Congress is doing the same with the Constitution.

    No. Our government flushed the Constitution long ago.

  • House passes election-year expansion in farm subsidies

    05/02/2002 1:00:33 PM PDT · 13 of 21
    Rule of Law to RCW2001
    Please remind me how Republicans are supposed to be for smaller government. For some reason, I keep forgetting...
  • Rush Limbaugh

    05/02/2002 12:22:41 PM PDT · 154 of 163
    Rule of Law to Wild Irish Rogue
    As a conservative, I have been very happy with the presidency of George Bush.

    I'm glad for you. But you must understand that there are other of us who want someone a little less leftist. Some of us are not satisfied with Bush merely because he is not Bill Clinton. After all, so very few people are Bill Clinton.

    Seriously though. If George Bush suits you, that's fine. But no one should be upset when people speak out against him. Last time I checked, we Americans were still allowed to criticize politicians when they did not do what we think is right.

  • No Case Vs. Man Who Knew Hijackers (BULL! Case thrown out on outrageous technicality)

    05/02/2002 11:57:28 AM PDT · 161 of 169
    Rule of Law to tpaine
    As I said in my email to you, if you choose to advertise the fact that you are a liar, that's your business. But your constant whining because some people choose to ignore you rather than put up with your childish antics is getting tedious. Frankly, I believe your behavior borders on abuse.

    How weird. -- You claim that IF the 14th means what the USSC says, THEN the amendment must have been written in some sort of code which the court was only able to break after decades of study.

    You claim that the 14th Amendment applies the Bill of Rights to the states.

    It took the US Supreme Court decades to start applying even part of the Bill of Rights to the states using the 14th Amendment. In fact, the Court still hasn't adopted the interpretation you propose because they refuse to apply all of the Bill of Rights to the states. The Second Amendment, for instance.

    I stated repeatedly that if the drafters of the 14th Amendment had intended for the Bill of Rights to apply to the states, they would have said so in no uncertain terms and not have used a code that it would take decades to break. In other words, the 14th Amendment does not mean what you say it means.

    You accused me of saying the 14th Amendment was written in code. This is exactly the opposite of what I said, as anyone with the least bit of intelligence can see from reading my posts.

    To spell it out for you -- my posts suggest that you must believe that the 14th Amendment is written in code. A code the courts still haven't broken completely because they have not "discovered" that (according to you) the 2nd Amendment applies to the states.

    My position is equally clear. I say that if they had wanted the Bill of Rights to apply to the states, they would have said so in no uncertain terms. Since they did not, I conclude that the Bill of Rights does not apply to the states.

    Now, friend, as I've said, your constant whining has gotten old. You can continue to whine and cry all you want. But do it on someone else's posts. I'm tired of listening to your childish nonsense.

  • Rush Limbaugh

    05/02/2002 11:04:35 AM PDT · 151 of 163
    Rule of Law to Dr. Scarpetta
    President Bush does not deserve the relentless trashing that Rush dishes out. You wouldn't have had a tax cut under Gore, and if Jeffords hadn't defected, Bush's judges would have been approved. Expecting the impossible with Daschle as Senate leader is naive. Bush has many hurdles to overcome with those despicable democrats in the Senate, and CONSERVATIVE PERFECTION IS IMPOSSIBLE.

    But has he even tried? What have we gotten from Bush? A minute, temporary tax cut and nomination of a judge he refused to back when the going got rough.

    That is more than outweighed by steel tariffs, campaign finance reform (AKA Anti-free speech law), the Patriot Act, increased government spending, failure to rescind any of Clinton's executive orders, etc., etc., etc.

    Perfection? No. We're not demanding perfection. We just demand he stop delivering the left everthing they ask for and more. That would be enough for a start. Then we're willing to work on trying to get some of our agenda enacted.

  • Debate continues over 'The Real Lincoln'

    05/02/2002 10:57:49 AM PDT · 104 of 205
    Rule of Law to Non-Sequitur
    Treated as plural? How do you figure? Did you read the part where it referred to the treaty as being between the two countries? And if Great Britian did consider the 13 colonies as sovereign and independent states then why didn't they insist on a treaty with each? You are the one grasping at straws here.

    Your post says, in pertinant part, "and the said United States on their part". This is clearly plural. You also choose to ignore the plain language of Article I.

    Furthermore, the Declaration of Indepedence is "The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America." Clearly indicating that the states veiwed themselves as distinct.

    It also says, "That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.

    Again, independent states. Not part of the United States, but independent states."

    From the Articles of Confederation: "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled."

    This clearly indicates that your theory that the states were never soveriegn, independent entities just doesn't hold water.

    Historically, your claim is completely inaccurate. It is time to review your preconceived notions in light of solid historical evidence. When you do, I beleive you will have no choice but to concede that the Southern states had a right to leave the union.

  • Rush Limbaugh

    05/02/2002 10:37:00 AM PDT · 147 of 163
    Rule of Law to Dr. Scarpetta
    I happen to be a Bush supporter and think that so many of these people, like Rush, demand CONSERVATIVE PERFECTION from a president and simply don't care if a Democrat wins. Many of these people voted for Perot knowing that their vote allowed Clinton to win, and they didn't care. If they can't have it ALL THEIR WAY they want to spite the Republican Party, deprive us of their vote, and elect a dirty democrat.

    I think that most conservatives would settle for having the majority of what comes out of the White House our way. So far, we've gotten almost none of it our way. Bush has managed to go farther to the left than Gore would have ever managed. And it's because good Republicans like you will support Bush even when he does things that would have you screaming if Gore did them.

    Perhaps the reason that conservatives are "trashing" Bush is that he deserves it.

    But I do agree with you about one thing. Rush is boring, or was last time I listened to him.

  • No Case Vs. Man Who Knew Hijackers (BULL! Case thrown out on outrageous technicality)

    05/01/2002 7:14:49 PM PDT · 128 of 169
    Rule of Law to VA Advogado
    Indeed when they don't agree with a particular concept or doctrine, they lie about it or make something up.

    That is all too common. There are some people who lie with such regularity that I completely ignore them. That is the only way to treat these people.

  • Debate continues over 'The Real Lincoln'

    05/01/2002 7:12:18 PM PDT · 89 of 205
    Rule of Law to Non-Sequitur
    Correct me if I'm wrong but it looks like the treaty was with the United States of America. and not with the individual states.

    If you read what you posted, you'll see that the phrase "the United States" is treated as a plural --indicating that the treaty was between Britian and a collection of individual states. This agrees with Article I which clearly says they are independent soveriegn states. You should also remember that "states" meant "nations" back then.

    Nice try. But you'll have to grasp at another straw.

  • Rush Limbaugh

    05/01/2002 7:04:46 PM PDT · 107 of 163
    Rule of Law to Sans-Culotte
    At least he admits he was wrong about his thoughts of Hillary running for the senate.

    Well he'd just about have to wouldn't he. She is after all a Senator. To maintain she wouldn't run after she has done so and been elected would get him a one-way trip to a looney bin.

  • No Case Vs. Man Who Knew Hijackers (BULL! Case thrown out on outrageous technicality)

    05/01/2002 7:01:41 PM PDT · 126 of 169
    Rule of Law to general_re
    I am not so far removed from con law that I have entirely forgotten the history of the exclusionary rule - you omitted Wolf v Colorado from your discussion ;)

    As it is late, I won't answer you tonight, except to point out that Wolf did not apply the exclusionary rule to the states. It said that the 4th Amendment applied to the states through the 14th, but did not apply the exclusionary rule. That's why I left it out. We'll call it "Judicial Economy".

    Until tomorrow.

  • Debate continues over 'The Real Lincoln'

    05/01/2002 6:55:28 PM PDT · 87 of 205
    Rule of Law to Ditto
    Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

    This speaks of prudence. A virtue to be sure. But not a requirement. Remember that the sentence before that said,

    That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

    Surely the people have the right to decide when the form of government has become destructive to those ends. The people of the South decided that the United States government had become destructive to their life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. While you may not think they acted prudently, it is not for you to decide. Nor was it for Mr. Lincoln to decide.

    Secession, as Calhoun invented it, simply said they could walk away for any reason or no reason. The Declaration made it perfectly clear that breaking established ties was a last resort, under "Nature's Law," not man's law, and only when faced with intolorable oppression and after failure of government to address their grivences. Did the Confederacy even meet one of those conditions?

    Again, you confuse what Jefferson said was a prudent course with the only acceptable course. Read what the Declaration says again. It describes the right and then says that prudence will keep people from exercising it "for light and transient causes". It does not say that they may not do so.

    Remember, governments "deriv[e] their just powers from the consent of the governed". The people of the South no longer consented. Therefore, the power to govern was no longer operative.

    It was no such thing and the Framers would laugh at anyone who suggested it was.

    Jefferson on secession: "If there be any among us who wish to dissolve this union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments to the safety which errors of opinion may be tolerated where reason ios left free to combat it."

    Jefferson when Northern states threatened to secede: "If any state of the Union declares that it perfers separation to the continuance in the union, I have no hesitation in saying 'Let us separate'."

    John Quincy Adams on Secession: After saying there may come a time when the states no longer agree, he says, "Then will be the time for reverting to the precedents which occurred at the formation and adoption of the Constitution, to form a more perfect Union by dissolving that which could no longer bind, and to leave the separated parts to be reunited by the law of political gravitation to the center."

    I don't think they laughed at Jefferson or JQ Adams.

    Wrong. Three states signed the Constitution but their agreement was conditional that Congress add a Bill of Rights to the Constitution. Congress did so in their first session, 14 amendments, 10 of which were approved by the states. Not one of those 3 states got all the amendments they asked for in their ratification documents, but none attempted to withdraw their approval. The 10 amendments that survived ratification satisfied the conditions in their ratification documents. The Congress upheld their end of the agreement so there was not right to rescind agreement or "secede" as the Calhoun fanatics later misinterpreted those conditions.

    From Virginia's Ratification: "WE the Delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly, and now met in Convention, having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention, and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us, to decide thereon, DO in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will: that therefore no right of any denomination, can be cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified, by the Congress, by the Senate or House of Representatives acting in any capacity, by the President or any department or officer of the United States, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes: and that among other essential rights, the liberty of conscience and of the press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified by any authority of the United States."

    New York's Ratification said: "That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness; "

    Rhode Island's said: "That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness. "

    As you can see, these did not say that the people could not dissolve the government if there was a Bill of Rights. These are unconditional statements that the people reserve this right.

    Virginia cited their reservation of this right in their Oridnance of Secession.

  • New Global Criminal Court Becomes Reality

    05/01/2002 6:09:35 PM PDT · 12 of 24
    Rule of Law to Goldsters
    It will indeed take something like this to wake people up.

    I don't know if the "masses" need it. Many are opposed to world government. Not just here -- look at France.

    But the "leaders" seem to be enamoured with it. Maybe a few indictments of politicians will be a wakeup call for them. I hope so.

  • No Case Vs. Man Who Knew Hijackers (BULL! Case thrown out on outrageous technicality)

    05/01/2002 6:06:10 PM PDT · 120 of 169
    Rule of Law to VA Advogado
    I am sorry to see your brilliant discussion soiled by the libertarians on this thread.

    Don't get me wrong. I'm probably more libertarian than many of them. But I don't believe in lying. The Constitution does not require the "exclusionary rule". Plus, I don't believe that the exclusionary rule protects the citizen from government. Like I said, the cop who screws up a search warrant just goes and gets another doughnut. But if we make him personally liable for his wrongful acts, he'll pay more attention.

    I don't mean that cops should be made to pay big damages for honest mistakes. I don't for instance think that they should have to pay for typos in a search warrant. But breaking into a house is another matter.

  • Debate continues over 'The Real Lincoln'

    05/01/2002 6:00:30 PM PDT · 86 of 205
    Rule of Law to Non-Sequitur
    Oh crap. The Treaty of Paris mentions the United States 18 times. It mentions Virginia once. There is no question in the mind of the British who or what the entity that they were negotiating with was. The United States of America.

    Article I of the Paris Peace Treaty Reads:

    His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof. (emphasis added)

  • Debate continues over 'The Real Lincoln'

    05/01/2002 5:54:08 PM PDT · 85 of 205
    Rule of Law to davidjquackenbush
    Secession and revolution differ. The supposed right of secession is the claim of a right recognized by the compact to withdraw from it. The right of revolution is a natural, not a compacted right, and is the subject of the Declaration. Had the South wished to invoke the right of revolution in the Declaration, they needed only to argue that a long train of abuses had made the purpose of tyranny in the national government manifest, and that they accordingly had a duty -- to vindicate the equal rights of all man -- to alter or abolish it. For some reason, they shied away from that argument, and argued instead for the Constitutional (supposedly) right of secession. These are different questions, it seems clear to me and many others.

    The distinction you draw is illusory. You appear to be saying that if the Confederacy had called their act a "Revolution", they would have been within their rights to leave the union, but since they called it "Secession", they had no such right.

    Surely this is putting form over substance. Surely you cannot justify fighting a long and bloody war over a word. This is absolutely absurd.

    Take, for instance the Tennessee Ordinance of Secession. It reads in part,

    "We, the people of the State of Tennessee, waiving any expression of opinion as to the abstract doctrine of secession, but asserting the right, as a free and independent people, to alter, reform, or abolish our form of government in such manner as we think proper, do ordain and declare that all the laws and ordinances by which the State of Tennessee became a member of the Federal Union of the United States of America are hereby abrogated and annulled, and that all the rights, functions, and powers which by any of said laws and ordinances were conveyed to the Government of the United States, and to absolve ourselves from all the obligations, restraints, and duties incurred thereto; and do hereby henceforth become a free, sovereign, and independent State."

    According to the theory you set forth above, Tennessee had the right to leave the union.

    While South Carolina did not because their ordinance read:

    We, the people of the State of South Carolina, in convention assembled, do declare and ordain, and it is hereby declared and ordained, That the ordinance adopted by us in convention on the twenty-third day of May, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, whereby the Constitution of the United States of America was ratified, and also all acts and parts of acts of the General Assembly of this State ratifying amendments of the said Constitution, are hereby repealed; and that the union now subsisting between South Carolina and other States, under the name of the "United States of America," is hereby dissolved.

    This appears to be an arbitrary distinction.

  • Debate continues over 'The Real Lincoln'

    05/01/2002 5:31:26 PM PDT · 83 of 205
    Rule of Law to Ditto
    Jefferson and Hamilton surely disagreed on many things. But they would surly agree that the nation was founded with the Declaration, and it was one nation, not a pack of free-lancers who could come and go as they please.

    The evidence is against this conclusion. The states all considered themselves to be soveriegn entities. The Treaty of Paris recognized each of them as a soveriegn entity.

    Jefferson and Hamilton did agree on at least one thing. They agreed that states could not be forced to stay in the union against their will.

  • Debate continues over 'The Real Lincoln'

    05/01/2002 5:09:43 PM PDT · 81 of 205
    Rule of Law to Ditto
    The colonies did not "secede" and they had no right under British Law to do so. They Rebelled which was their right under Natural Law when faced with oppression.

    Secede (v. i.) To withdraw from fellowship, communion, or association; to separate one's self by a solemn act; to draw off; to retire; especially, to withdraw from a political or religious body.

    They did seceed. The fact that the British used force to attempt to deny the rights of the Americans to secede is not justification for the United States to do so. Oppression by the British does not justify oppression by the United States.

    The Declaration of Independence says,

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

    The people of the South believed that the "Form of Government" under the Constitution had become destructive to their rights to "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Therefore, they had the right to change their government -- to secede. And the North had no right to try to prevent it.

  • Debate continues over 'The Real Lincoln'

    05/01/2002 4:51:14 PM PDT · 78 of 205
    Rule of Law to Ditto
    He did push it through Congress, and actually went to Capitol Hill to sign the bill the day it passed even though a Constitutional amendment does not require the President's signature.

    I thought you meant the ratification process. I stand corrected.

  • Debate continues over 'The Real Lincoln'

    05/01/2002 4:44:20 PM PDT · 77 of 205
    Rule of Law to davidjquackenbush
    It seems to me that the President has no conceivable authority to cease enforcing the laws of the United States, including its organic law, the Constitution.

    Where it applies. But the President may not enforce the laws where they do not apply. When the south seceeded, the laws of the United States did not apply to them. Before you can say the laws should apply, you must explain why the south had no right to seceed.

    If you wish to say the states had no right to seceed, you need to explain why the Declaration of Independence is wrong.

  • Debate continues over 'The Real Lincoln'

    05/01/2002 4:39:58 PM PDT · 75 of 205
    Rule of Law to Ditto; stainlessbanner
    You are the one sounding like an ACLU huckster.

    Sir,

    I think you wrong the gentleman. He appears to be asking reasonable questions. You have said that Lincoln had the duty to enforce the law. He asks which law says states cannot seceed and you call him an ACLU huckster. Calling names is not debate and it is not presenting evidence.

    You have also accused him of ignoring the original intent of the framers. But it appears that you are the one ignoring the original intent. The right to secession is part of the Declaration of Independence. It was and accepted fact that states had the right to seceed when the Constitution was adopted. Three states explicitedly reserved that right when they ratified the Constitution. I have read several of the founders on secession and all agree that secession is a right. I have never seen anything to the contrary. If you have, please present the evidence.