Replies

The law is the law, disobey at your own peril.

“You don’t have an ethical belief in the moral foundation of law?”
Do you believe ethically that Article IV section II of the Constitution is a moral law. You seem to defend vehemently that it must be obeyed. It is cited in many of your threads that since it is in the Constitution it is inviolable.
In your opinion Article IV section II needed to be followed no matter what the consequences of that action may be. Return the slaves so they can continue to dig fortifications, Return the slaves so they may continue to cast cannon, Return the slave so they can they can make the ammunition to kill American soldiers.
Obedience to Article IV section II is paramount in your view of the world. Your opinion of what is moral is strange indeed.
I personally do believe Article IV section 2 of the Constitution is unethical and immoral. I am glad that it has been removed by Amendment to the Constitution.

Just keep in mind that DiogenesLamp does not believe that the Fugitive Slave Clause had anything to do with Slaves (fugitive or otherwise). He forgets that it was included after the Southern Slave States, Georgia and South Carolina insisted upon its inclusion as their determining factor for ratifying the United States Constitution. He can’t wrap his head around the distinct possibility that Article IV, Sec 2, clause 3, most likely was the seed out of which the War of the Rebellion later erupted. It evolved from the Fugitive Slave Clause, to the Fugitive Slave Act, to the Fugitive Slave Law, to the Compromise of 1850 and finally to the Dred Scott Decision. In that decision (1858), Crazy Taney decided that Blacks were not citizens at the time of the Constitution, that they were not then and there citizens and that they never could be citizens. Of course that meant that Dred Scot had no standing to bring his case for “due process”. Would DiogenesLamp have abides by this ruling.

Remember too that whereas he comes across as being intentionally obtuse, he actually believes the absurd things he says. He is the worst case of a self-deluded individual that I have ever encountered online. He is the worst sort of historical revisionist. And Honest Abe lives in his head rent free.

Do you believe ethically that Article IV section II of the Constitution is a moral law.

Article IV, Section II is obviously not moral law, but it is law that was passed by the agreed upon system, and therefore it becomes a moral obligation to uphold it, change it, or abrogate the agreement.

All the states agreed to uphold it, and if they renege on the agreement, it breaches the contract.

You seem to defend vehemently that it must be obeyed.

I apply the same vehemence to other constitutional clauses as well. What do you think should be done regarding constitutional law? Refuse to obey the ones that liberals disagree with?

It is cited in many of your threads that since it is in the Constitution it is inviolable.

Till amended or repealed. Do you not believe the Constitution should be enforced as written?

In your opinion Article IV section II needed to be followed no matter what the consequences of that action may be. Return the slaves so they can continue to dig fortifications, Return the slaves so they may continue to cast cannon, Return the slave so they can they can make the ammunition to kill American soldiers.

Somehow you and others have gotten the impression I am referring to wartime conditions. I am not. Of course you don't give back any seized assets during the war! I thought it was axiomatic that we were talking about post war conditions. To suggest we do so during a war is so silly it never occurred to me anyone would think we were talking about the period when the war was being fought.

I personally do believe Article IV section 2 of the Constitution is unethical and immoral.

Well I do too, and it would have been better had it never been put in there.

I am glad that it has been removed by Amendment to the Constitution.

I very much object to the fake ratification process used to claim that 13th, 14th and 15th amendments were ratified. You cannot throw out all the opinions of the people of a state just because you don't like their opinions. This is not how "consent of the governed" is supposed to work. This is how dictatorship works.

The Southern states would never have ratified those amendments at that time in History, and tossing out their right to vote and/or threatening them to vote as they are told renders the process invalid.

The Democratic process cannot operate as puppets of the government. That was never how our system was supposed to work.