Posted on 11/19/2018 8:39:26 AM PST by EveningStar
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
Abraham Lincoln
November 19, 1863
Gettysburg Address as recited by Jeff Daniels.
Why not? What clause of the Constitution prevents it?
... but the electoral map of 1868 seems to refute my argument. Take a look. Virginia, Mississippi, and Texas weren’t allowed to vote for president. The governing principle of the time seems to have been not logic but what was convenient for the Republican party.
They rebellion may have had something to do with that.
Yep.
Wasn’t that settled at Appomattox?
Or hypocrisy. I’m happy to here the argument in favour of turfing states, but if states can be involuntarily turfed out of a voluntary union, there is no question in my mind that they must be capable of withdrawing.
And if they are capable of withdrawing without the consent of the other states then there is no reason why they cannot be expelled against their will. Can't have one without the other, can you?
The federal government began to take control of the flap about mud flaps in Bibb v Navajo Freight Lines.
Commerce clause was the reason given. Patrick Henry spoke of the importance of the federal rule of mud flaps many times.
“The courts have ruled otherwise.”
Victor’s Justice.
Patrick Henry spoke of the importance of the federal rule of mud flaps many times.
Sore losers.
That was not about the federal government imposing standards for mud flaps. That was about conflicting state standards. Illinois couldn’t impose its standards on truck driving through the state, if the mudflaps met the standards of other states. I don’t understand the details, but the federal government still doesn’t say what kind or size of mud flaps trucks should have.
This is the part of your explanation of Bibb v Navajo Freight Lines that caught my attention.
“Wasn’t that settled at Appomattox?”
Maybe. Maybe not.
Just last week a progressive federal congressman said the government would use nuclear weapons on citizens in the United States if they didn’t do such and such.
This would be the equivalent of Lincoln’s and Sherman’s scorched earth policy. Possibly worse.
We really need to stop this habit of taking every utterance by someone as serious. People used to be able to discern between hyperbole and reality.
This needs to happen on both sides. Because it doesn’t do anything to move a process forward.
When a democrat tells you he intends to have the police take your firearms from you, you should believe him.
You don't need to be told the police will use deadly force if they find it necessary to carry out “the law.”
Last week it was all spelled out unambiguously.
whatever the hell they wanted.
which was the compact they all AGREED TO
Bump
Only equivalent if those citizens seized or attacked federal property.
“Only equivalent if those citizens seized or attacked federal property.”
I leap to the conclusion that under some circumstances you would oppose the federal government using nuclear weapons against American citizens.
This was nearly universally denounced as treason at the time and spelled the end of the Federalist Party.
Everyone in 1860-61 recognized secession as Revolution that would require war. The Confederates were eager for a war that they thought they could win, along with their European and Latin American allies.
are so naïve as to believe that the U.S. Government would use a nuclear weapon on an American citizen who would not turn in his gun. If you really believe that, I have some sea side property in Arizona to sell you.
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.