MT and the rest of Hillary lovers

[Elfie]

Since when is it illegal and a form of treason to criticize a sitting President? And here I thought that's what Freedom of Speech was supposed to ensure.....our right to criticize the government w/o fear of being jailed/shot/deported/whatever. Silly me.

[Toad]

Wow.  Just Wow.

In my mind I know there are people that believe stuff like this:

Today it is excepted that a Senator Congressman newspaperman or citizen can criticize a sitting President any time they like (upon foreign soils for instance). Not only is this a bad idea it is illegal and a form of treason.

It's still a shock when one pops up though.

[bongaroo]

He went for the ninja edit looks like.   

[lazs2]

chalenge..  I sure hope that no other president comes up with your (and lincolns) interpretation of the constitution.

There was no dire emergency save that created by the federal government and lincoln.   the states had every right to secede..  Lincoln caused the war with his refusal to get federal troops out of another countries land...

There had been talk of secession by groups of states a few other times before and no president or congress ever said that it was not allowed.. the United States was a country freely entered into by the states and they had/have the right to secede.

I would consider moving to a state that seceded from the union if it was one that embraced individual rights and a government more like the intent of the original constitution before lincoln.

lazs

[Toad]

For those who are interested in a balanced discussion, here is a good article on Secession:

http://www.etymonline.com/cw/secession2.htm

In Pennsylvania, James Wilson, as the only member of the ratification convention who had also been a delegate at the Constitutional Convention, did the bulk of explaining and defending the new document. He equated the American states with the individuals in Locke's theory, giving up a part of their natural liberty in the expectation of more good and happiness in the community than they would have alone. "The states should resign to the national government that part, and that part only, of their political liberty, which, placed in that government, will produce more good to the whole than if it had remained in the several states."

And this implied the ability to take it back again. In the proposed Constitution, the citizens of the various states "appear dispensing a part of their original power in what manner and what proportion they think fit. They never part with the whole; and they retain the right of recalling what they part with."

[Hangtime]

I would be interested to learn where Chalenge went to school... what system produced this mind?

[Chalenge]

chalenge..  I sure hope that no other president comes up with your (and lincolns) interpretation of the constitution.

There was no dire emergency save that created by the federal government and lincoln.   the states had every right to secede..  Lincoln caused the war with his refusal to get federal troops out of another countries land...

There had been talk of secession by groups of states a few other times before and no president or congress ever said that it was not allowed.. the United States was a country freely entered into by the states and they had/have the right to secede.

I would consider moving to a state that seceded from the union if it was one that embraced individual rights and a government more like the intent of the original constitution before lincoln.

lazs

Obviously you have your history wrong.

There is no right to secede in the constitution. In any event it was upon that issue that the war was fought and the war settled it. Had the rebels any confidence they had a constitutional case they could have taken it the Supreme Court instead of making violent rebellion and civil war. Yes it was the rebels that started the war and not Lincoln. So when Toad made that comment it was utter nonsense.

If you appeal your case to the sword you can't cry when the sword rules against you.

Lincoln followed the reasoning of Andrew Jackson (read up on 'Nullification Crisis') rather than the train of thought most of you are following here (that of Calhoun's defense from that same crisis).

And concerning the right to free speech; whether you accept it or not your freedoms (constrained as they are today) are given you only so far as you do not become a problem of security or lawfullness. When a person incites insurrection his personal freedoms can be lawfully infringed.

Note: I did not give full details in what I wrote previously. You should do more thorough research of the topic at hand before proceeding further and it was my hope you might at least do a little googling before questioning me further. I am disappointed in all of you.

[Urchin]

Good argument. 

Chalenge - you seem rather learned.  Don't let the fact that you are getting gangbanged here discourage you.  I am learning new things, and although I'm probably the only one who'd admit it here, I'm sure I'm not alone.

[Bodhi]

The fact that you think you know more than all of these historical scholars speaks volumes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_United_States_Presidents

I find it funny that your boy Bill is ranked at 22 under W at 19 in the last poll in 2005.

[Rolex]

There is indeed a right to secede from the union, just like you have the right to go to the bathroom. Neither are addressed, so they are not restricted or limited in any way.

Many of the framers of the constitution expected some existing or future states might consolidate and become autonomous because of culture or trade. There is nothing in the Constitution to restrict leaving the union, only rules about joining the union. The united states of America was a lose union changed later to the United States of America with cultural engineering by men intent on consolidating power over the states.

[Hangtime]

Obviously you have your history wrong.

There is no right to secede in the constitution. In any event it was upon that issue that the war was fought and the war settled it. Had the rebels any confidence they had a constitutional case they could have taken it the Supreme Court instead of making violent rebellion and civil war. Yes it was the rebels that started the war and not Lincoln. So

Beg to differ... while the Constitution does not codify it, the Declaration of Independence expresses the concept quite admirably. Further, the question was regarded as an assumed state's right... right up to the civil war. More than a 'few' still consider the question far from settled.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/woods3.html

Lincoln followed the reasoning of Andrew Jackson (read up on 'Nullification Crisis') rather than the train of thought most of you are following here (that of Calhoun's defense from that same crisis).

Jackson was not a 'founding father'. Jefferson was... I trump your Jackson with my Jefferson.

None of this would have startled Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson refused to view the American Union as anything more than a utilitarian political arrangement to be judged by the test of time, and he expected it ultimately to devolve into two or three independent confederacies – a development he did not view with any particular dread. He told James Madison that he was "determined…to sever ourselves from the union we so much value rather than give up the rights of self-government…in which alone we see liberty, safety and happiness." When Daniel Webster attempted to argue against the principled states’ rights position in famous debates with Robert Hayne and John C. Calhoun during the 1830s, the best assurance he could offer them against the possibility of federal tyranny was the check provided by popular elections – an alleged safeguard to which the verdict of history has not been kind.

And concerning the right to free speech; whether you accept it or not your freedoms (constrained as they are today) are given you only so far as you do not become a problem of security or lawfullness. When a person incites insurrection his personal freedoms can be lawfully infringed.

Henh? Yer talkin Tyranny bub, my right to an opinion on the quality of the president, as well as my right to give that opinion voice is in fact guaranteed by the Constitution. So is my right to peaceful assembly... to keep and bear arms, and when the day comes; my right to insurrection. Provided of course; that I wind up on the winning side.

The difference between a 'traitorous rabble' and the men that pledged their lives, fortunes and sacred honor to the cause of liberty is merely a matter of who won the field at the end of the negotiations conducted under force of arms. (aka, The Revolution)

I am disappointed in all of you.

Bummer. While I am not disappointed in you; I do remain curious as to the environment that developed a viewpoint radically different from my own. Possibly you'd be so kind as to elucidate on where your shingle got painted.

Hang

[Toad]

Obviously you have your history wrong.

Even more obviously, you haven't studied it. Did you read the dissertation on secession that I linked?

...A little-known fact of the Constitution is that two of the largest states -- Virginia and New York -- made the right to withdraw from the union explicit in their acceptance of the Constitution. And in such an agreement between parties as is represented by the Constitution, a right claimed by one is allowed to all....

Did you bother to read Hangtime's link?

From Hang's link:

President-turned-congressman John Quincy Adams, another friend of union (albeit one who himself suggested the possibility of Northern secession over the issue of Texas annexation), observed in commemoration of the Constitution’s fifty-year jubilee:

The indissoluble link of union between the people of the several states of this confederated nation is, after all, not in the right but in the heart. If the day should ever come (may Heaven avert it!) when the affections of the people of these States shall be alienated from each other; when the fraternal spirit shall give way to cold indifference, or collision of interests shall fester into hatred, the bands of political associations will not long hold together parties no longer attracted by the magnetism of conciliated interests and kindly sympathies; and far better will it be for the people of the disunited states to part in friendship from each other, than to be held together by constraint.

So both Jefferson and Adams believed in the right (remember a right pre-exists the Constitution and is independent of the Constitution) of a State to secede.

I'll go with Jefferson and Adams, both key Founders of the Republic rather than Lincoln,the man that trampled the Constitution into the mud.

There is no right to secede in the constitution.

More importantly, no power to prevent a State's secession is enumerated to the Federal government. I refer you again to the 10th Amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. "