Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: mietla on July 20, 2008, 03:42:20 PM
-
Clintons really came to believe that they are above the law. So far they beat it every time, why not once more.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xq8aopATYyw
-
Would it be too much to ask to put enough original thought into your post to come up with a coherent point or two instead of just linking to a 10-minute video?
-
All charges were dropped against Hillary, case was thrown out then reopened in civil court. Basically the guy is charging Bill with doing a business deal with an investor that the guy wanted to do a business deal with 1st. I hope the Country can survive such carnage.
-
All charges were dropped against Hillary, case was thrown out then reopened in civil court. Basically the guy is charging Bill with doing a business deal with an investor that the guy wanted to do a business deal with 1st. I hope the Country can survive such carnage.
We've survived crooked politicians for a long time now but they have certainly taken their toll. There must a breaking point somewhere.
-
We've survived crooked politicians for a long time now but they have certainly taken their toll. There must a breaking point somewhere.
There's not. It's just a cycle. We've had crooked politicians for 200 years. All political systems will always have some amount of corruption.
-
Would it be too much to ask to put enough original thought into your post to come up with a coherent point or two instead of just linking to a 10-minute video?
He didn't make any points? Kinda looks like to me he expressed a belief that the Clintons think they are above the law and can do as they please w/o regard for consequences. He also points out that so far, they have always beaten any charges.
Granted, it wasn't a lot, but it was something :D
-
There's not. It's just a cycle. We've had crooked politicians for 200 years. All political systems will always have some amount of corruption.
Corruption should be rooted out and punished severely lest it become the norm.
-
And if you can't find corruption in the pols you hate... make up a really good story.
-
Kinda like Capone never being guilty of anything.
-
Where's Ken Star when you need 'em?
-
Corruption should be rooted out and punished severely lest it become the norm.
Corruption has always been the norm. Since the dawn of the Politician, it has always been the norm.
Though there is one way to tell an honest politician from the rest.
-
There's not. It's just a cycle. We've had crooked politicians for 200 years. All political systems will always have some amount of corruption.
Until there's no bread for the peons. Then it's time to sharpen up these:
(http://blogs.trb.com/sports/football/jets/blog/guillotine.gif)
-
The poor ones are the honest ones. Good luck finding many of those.
I remember Truman as probably being more honest than most, even though he came out of the Pendergast machine.
When President Truman retired from office in 1952, his income was substantially a U.S. Army pension reported to have been $13,507.72 a year. Congress, noting he was paying for stamps and personally licking them, granted him an "allowance" and, later, a retroactive pension of $25,000 per year.
When offered corporate positions at large salaries, he declined, stating, "You don't want me. You want the office of the president, and that doesn't belong to me. It belongs to the American people and it's not for sale." Even later, on May 6, 1971, when Congress was preparing to award him the Medal of Honor on his 87th birthday, he refused to accept it, writing, "I don't consider that I have done anything which should be the reason for any award, Congressional or otherwise."...
...Was good old Harry correct when he made the following observation, "My choice early in life was either to be a piano player in a potatohouse or a politician. And to tell the truth, there's hardly any difference. I, for one, believe the piano player job to be much more honorable than current politicians!"
-
It is the eternal struggle between these two principles -- right and wrong. They are the two principles that have stood face to face from the beginning of time and will ever continue to struggle. It is the same spirit that says, "You work and toil and earn bread, and I'll eat it." - Abraham Lincoln
-
It is the eternal struggle between these two principles -- right and wrong. They are the two principles that have stood face to face from the beginning of time and will ever continue to struggle. It is the same spirit that says, "You work and toil and earn bread, and I'll eat it." - Abraham Lincoln
The real irony is that you think you are saying something by quoting Lincoln, one of the worst presidents this nation has ever had.
-
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
-
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
The fact that those historical scholars put FDR in the top 5 speaks volume about their credibility, and as such, their list.
-
Yeah, what do a bunch of guys who've studied history and earned PHD's know anyway?
-
Yeah, what do a bunch of guys who've studied history and earned PHD's know anyway?
Apparently not much. If Widrow Wilson and FDR aren't at the bottom of the list, then that means those PHD's are worthless.
Err, I apologize. They have worth as kindling, not much else.
-
Until there's no bread for the peons. Then it's time to sharpen up these:
(http://blogs.trb.com/sports/football/jets/blog/guillotine.gif)
Oui, long live Empereur Napoleon!
The new is as bad as the old.
-
Yeah, what do a bunch of guys who've studied history and earned PHD's know anyway?
I learned some time ago that a PHD only means someone has put in the necessary effort to obtain it, jumping through many hoops set up by those that obtained there PHD earlier, and way too often not much else.............
Way too many times over the years too many of those with all the letters n such behind and before their names have PROVEN themselves to be very HUMAN, FALLIBLE, and WRONG FROM THE GETGO....
AND then there is all that common knowledge they hold soooo dear among themselves, that later proves to be sooooo WRONG..
AND sadly some are already BOUGHT and paid for..........
AND some get SOOOO puffed up with PRIDE over those little letters it's .........
Known one or two over the years.......
Might try lookin at ALL the information available and doing a little homework?
-
Seems to me the best or worst Presidents are pretty much chosen based on what is important to the individual.
Personally, I think Bush is the worst President that has ever been in office. That is based on my personal criteria.
As far as the Clintons go, they have not really tried to hide the fact they can get away with things. They say it with their actions and arrogance. Anyone that arrogant normally believes they are above the law as well as being above most people. Nothing personal Midnight, but you seem like an intelligent fellow who happens to be pretty arrogant as well. I can see you easily siding with the Clintons. Birds of a feather and all that rot. Again, nothing personal.
I can be arrogant and I know it. It is hard not to be sometimes when you have knowledge about things that people "claim" they want to fix with our world. I learned the hard way that knowledge is worthless in a society that puts more stock into some dumb bimbo's latest snatch shot than in improving the life of people on this planet.
Ego's and pettiness is what drives our society. Sad really. I often wonder how many others out there get shut down for trying to help improve things because of their station in society.
I digress, forgive me. People like the Clintons will always be able to get around the law. They own the law. They manipulate it and when they do not, someone else will do it for them as people of that stature cannot bear one of their own to be subject to the common law of mankind.
-
"MT and the rest of Hillary lovers"
grammar much?
-
"MT and the rest of Hillary lovers"
grammar much?
"Grammar much?"
You?
-
I learned some time ago that a PHD only means someone has put in the necessary effort to obtain it, jumping through many hoops set up by those that obtained there PHD earlier, and way too often not much else.............
Way too many times over the years too many of those with all the letters n such behind and before their names have PROVEN themselves to be very HUMAN, FALLIBLE, and WRONG FROM THE GETGO....
AND then there is all that common knowledge they hold soooo dear among themselves, that later proves to be sooooo WRONG..
AND sadly some are already BOUGHT and paid for..........
AND some get SOOOO puffed up with PRIDE over those little letters it's .........
Known one or two over the years.......
Might try lookin at ALL the information available and doing a little homework?
Or maybe they just know more than you.
The link I posted listed several surveys done over several decades using dozens if not hundreds of history professionals as subjects in each survey. I find it hard to believe that you and laser have the market cornered on historical knowledge of the Presidents through your "lookin".
-
And again, I find it hard to believe that you cannot simply acknowledge that FDR and Widrow Wilson screwed up this country in ways we have yet to recover from.
It's a simple thing. No mathematician gains credence until he knows how to add. No historian gains credibility until he realizes that Widrow Wilson and FDR were more damaging leaders than Musolini and Hitler (hitler's jew killing penchant aside).
-
"Grammar much?"
You?
I think you missed the point :lol
-
Or maybe they just know more than you.
The link I posted listed several surveys done over several decades using dozens if not hundreds of history professionals as subjects in each survey. I find it hard to believe that you and laser have the market cornered on historical knowledge of the Presidents through your "lookin".
Seen enough that I often QUESTION the PHD's claims!
Why don't you go examine CAREFULLY how a PHD is obtained and who gives it? Then think upon the FACTS of what you see?
IIRC the common HISTORY PHD CLAIMED that Custer and his troops were massacred as they so gallantly fought at the battle of the Little Bighorn for MANY years. In fact when I was going to school that was what we were taught, that was the common knowledge..........
BUT when ALL the information finally came out things became MUCH different!
Seems lots of people got caught with their hands in the cookie jar so to speak....
-
Even the Wall Street Journal ranked FDR and Wilson highly...untrustworthy liberal rag.
shamus
-
The real irony is that you think you are saying something by quoting Lincoln, one of the worst presidents this nation has ever had.
Because he saved the Union and abolished slavery?
ack-ack
-
Yeah, what do a bunch of guys who've studied history and earned PHD's know anyway?
Silly MT, if they disagree with Laser they obviously aren't credible. To disagree with Laser just means you're a Communist.
ack-ack
-
The real irony is that you think you are saying something by quoting Lincoln, one of the worst presidents this nation has ever had.
Worst? Without Lincoln we would be two nations and likely one of them rife with tyranny of the majority. You were taught in school that we are a democracy werent you? Im from the south and STILL think Lincoln was the greatest President the U.S. has ever had. The man was a genius far far beyond anyone contemporary to him. ONE year of formal education and look what the man achieved.
-
Ignoring for a moment that he abolished slavery (which I believe that any president at that time would have done), Lincoln would be viewed as a sub-rate president. He bumbled his way through the war. He got 600,000 americans killed. He likely had no right to start the war anyway.
This country is a union of states. The states stay only because they agree with the current laws. The entire diddlying foundation of this country is based on the fact that states may join and leave (not casually albeit) when they agree or disagree with what this country is doing.
Then you remember that Lincoln got 600,000 americans killed. He subverted American rights in war time. He instituted illegal income taxes, which later led to the 16th amendment.
Lincoln did nearly every single thing we as Americans hold as evil. But he freed Blacks, and killed 600,000 americans, so he must be one of the greatest presidents ever.
As for FDR and Wilson? I'll tell you something about them you don't know. Musolini, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Adolf Hitler had IDENTICAL SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC PLATFORMS (minus hitler's penchant for killing jews, like I've mentioned already). If you think that Hitler and Mussolini were evil men, then by default you think that Wilson and Roosevelt were evil men. And the converse is true. If Wilson and FDR were great men, then so were Mussolini and Hitler.
Plus the WSJ didn't rank them high. The results to their polls did.
The results to the polls show one of two things. First is that people, including these so called historians, have no clue as to what actually happened in History. The second, and more scary option, is that these Historians DO know these facts, and they DO agree with them.
For the sake of my sleep and sanity, I can't possibly think it's the second thing (though it may be true).
-
The real irony is that you think you are saying something by quoting Lincoln, one of the worst presidents this nation has ever had.
Actually the "irony" is you thinking GWB is a great President. :rofl
-
Actually the "irony" is you thinking GWB is a great President. :rofl
Please point to where I said that.
I'll wait.
-
whoops
-
I dont think Lincoln started the war. I dont know where you could have possibly gotten that! The nation was on the brink of war for years before Lincoln was ever in consideration for office (in fact Buchanon would be the worst President in history for avoiding the issue of war had not Carter been elected). Lincoln did the one thing all liberals hate; he defended the Constitution in its original form. Lincoln did throw a few newspaper reporters in jail for attempting insurrection which as President he had to do. I applaud the man for that. Recent Presidents should have done the same thing and even Pelosi should be in prison for attempting to subvert the Constitution (which she swore to uphold).
You do have some facts but your conclusions are twisted. I suspect a liberal influence from public schooling.
-
I dont think Lincoln started the war. I dont know where you could have possibly gotten that! The nation was on the brink of war for years before Lincoln was ever in consideration for office. Lincoln did the one thing all liberals hate; he defended the Constitution in its original form. Lincoln did throw a few newspaper reporters in jail for attempting insurrection which as President he had to do. I applaud the man for that. Resent Presidents should have done the same thing and even Pelosi should be in prison for attempting to subvert the Constitution (which she swore to uphold).
You do have some facts but your conclusions are twisted. I suspect a liberal influence from public schooling.
"beware the evil liberals with their agenda to subvert your edumacations!!!!" I don't know where your from but my teachers were anything but liberal. hateful maybe. liberal? no.
-
"beware the evil liberals with their agenda to subvert your edumacations!!!!" I don't know where your from but my teachers were anything but liberal. hateful maybe. liberal? no.
Anything that has anything to do with a public program that does not force Christian values has got to be full of Liberal Communists. Didn't you know that?
-
Im sorry I should have said 'liberal government schooling.' Your sarcasm is noted but the digression doesnt decrease the strength of my argument in the least.
-
I dont think Lincoln started the war. I dont know where you could have possibly gotten that! The nation was on the brink of war for years before Lincoln was ever in consideration for office (in fact Buchanon would be the worst President in history for avoiding the issue of war had not Carter been elected). Lincoln did the one thing all liberals hate; he defended the Constitution in its original form. Lincoln did throw a few newspaper reporters in jail for attempting insurrection which as President he had to do. I applaud the man for that. Recent Presidents should have done the same thing and even Pelosi should be in prison for attempting to subvert the Constitution (which she swore to uphold).
You do have some facts but your conclusions are twisted. I suspect a liberal influence from public schooling.
The nation was on the brink of division for years. But nothing mandated bloodshed. Lincoln did start the war. When the confederate states broke off, he could have left them to do whatever they want.
"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."
-
Because he saved the Union and abolished slavery?
ack-ack
He was a war criminal.
We've covered this material before, try to keep up :)
-
So... the nation would be better off split in two?
-
You ended your tirade by accusing liberal public schooling. I in fact attended public schooling and found it anything but liberal. Hence your argument is dubious in and of itself.
-
So... the nation would be better off split in two?
Perhaps not. However we are often guilty of refusing to study history. The original government the United States set up was a confederacy, which was mostly a total failure. The new confederacy was probably going to fail within 10 years of formation anyway.
However that does not mean we have a right to kill 250k(?) former americans to demand their obedience.
-
Obviously the liberal government schools you attended brainwashed you thoroughly.
The Constitution in Article 10 prohibits any state from entering into any confederation and (without going into painful detail) other such things as the rebellious states attempted. Lincoln understood this and upheld the oath of his office in calling up the army to retain the states within the Union. The blame falls upon the secessionists for any bloodshed that followed.
-
Obviously the liberal government schools you attended brainwashed you thoroughly.
The Constitution in Article 10 prohibits any state from entering into any confederation and (without going into painful detail) other such things as the rebellious states attempted. Lincoln understood this and upheld the oath of his office in calling up the army to retain the states within the Union. The blame falls upon the secessionists for any bloodshed that followed.
Probably you meant Article 1 section 10?
-
Obviously the liberal government schools you attended brainwashed you thoroughly.
The Constitution in Article 10 prohibits any state from entering into any confederation and (without going into painful detail) other such things as the rebellious states attempted. Lincoln understood this and upheld the oath of his office in calling up the army to retain the states within the Union. The blame falls upon the secessionists for any bloodshed that followed.
No state still in the Union may enter into a confederation. This is a clause of membership. To be a member of the United States, they need to abide by these rules.
But if they aren't in the union, they can do whatever they damn well please. I've already quoted this:
"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."
Government is made by the people who want it. If a geographical region doesn't agree with the Government to the point where they practically believe the opposite, why should they stick around and abide by the rules? The declaration, the foundation of why we form governments, clearly states that not only **CAN** they leave, but it is their duty to do so.
-
Ignoring for a moment that he abolished slavery (which I believe that any president at that time would have done), Lincoln would be viewed as a sub-rate president. He bumbled his way through the war. He got 600,000 americans killed. He likely had no right to start the war anyway.
The other candidate that was running against Lincoln was Douglas and he wasn't about to get rid of slavery, he was going to appease the South in order to gain their vote.
And he didn't start the war, the South were the ones to fire the first shot in the Civil War. Remember Fort Sumter?
ack-ack
-
Any candidate that was going to win. Pretty much any northerner fielded was going to win.
-
That is why you make your mistake. The Declaration is not the basis of our Government.
"'A house divided against itself cannot stand.'(Mark 3:25) I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved — I do not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other." - Abraham Lincoln
This from the one man who would later have the duty to maintain the union.
Abraham Lincoln was instrumental in the founding of the Republican Party. As such he was the natural choice to be that parties first President.
-
Lincoln's only challenge was Stephan Douglas for the presidency. Douglas supported a Union of half free states and half slave states. Douglas was also the architect of the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, which led to the bloodshed between the free state and slavery supporters during that time.
Douglas was also a slave owner, having a plantation in Mississippi and is famous for this quote.
"For one, I am opposed to negro citizenship in any and every form. I believe this government was made on the white basis. I believe it was made by white men for the benefit of white men and their posterity forever, and I am in favor of confining citizenship to white men, men of European birth and descent, instead of conferring it upon negroes, Indians and other inferior races." — Sen. Stephen Douglas, D-IL, 1858.
Now, do you really think that a man that campaigned on a platform of a Union made up of free and slave states would have abolished slavery upon election?
ack-ack
-
Obviously the liberal government schools you attended brainwashed you thoroughly.
The Constitution in Article 10 prohibits any state from entering into any confederation and (without going into painful detail) other such things as the rebellious states attempted. Lincoln understood this and upheld the oath of his office in calling up the army to retain the states within the Union. The blame falls upon the secessionists for any bloodshed that followed.
Obviously the conservative government schools you attended brainwashed you thoroughly. See what I did there?
-
That is why you make your mistake. The Declaration is not the basis of our Government.
"'A house divided against itself cannot stand.'(Mark 3:25) I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved — I do not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other." - Abraham Lincoln
This from the one man who would later have the duty to maintain the union.
Abraham Lincoln was instrumental in the founding of the Republican Party. As such he was the natural choice to be that parties first President.
Did you skip the Declaration month in history class?
The Declaration is why and how governments are formed. It talks about why we fought against Britain to start our own. It talks about why anybody would form their own government. It was why we thought we had the power to form the confederation, then the constitution.
Just because some ultra melon in a hat says he has the right to rejoin the union does not mean he does. I can say that I have the right to wonder over to your house and molest your dog. Saying that it is my duty doesn't give my silly statement more power. And just because I said it does not make it true.
-
Obviously the conservative government schools you attended brainwashed you thoroughly. See what I did there?
Yes. You presumed I attended government schools at all. I predate the current system dominated by the department of education (which should be abolished along with the IRS).
And just because I said it does not make it true.
That much you got right. The Declaration is not how governments are formed. The Declaration was a statement of separation from tyranical Britain. The Declaration was a document formally explaining why Congress had voted on July 2 to declare independence from Great Britain more than a year after the outbreak of the American Revolutionary War.
-
Ah, Lincoln. The Greatest of them all. Freer of slaves, defender of the union.
I posted this a while back. Imagine if tEh EEveE1 BOOOSH had done these things:
"Lincoln suspended Habeas corpus on April 27, 1861, had it overturned in US Circuit Court and told (later) Supreme Court Chief Justice Taney to jam it.
Oh yeah, he declared martial law as well, trying civilians in military courts; this included Congressmen opposing him. For example, Congressman Clement L. Vallandigham of Ohio, who was forcefully taken from his Dayton, Ohio home in the middle of the night by 67 armed federal soldiers, thrown into a military prison without due process, convicted by a military tribunal, and deported (to Canada).
Why did Vallandigham get arrested you ask?
Vallandigham was appalled and outraged at Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus and his arrest of thousands of Northern political opponents; the trial of civilians by military tribunals even though the civil courts were operating; arbitrary arrests without warrants or charges; military edicts that prohibited criticism of the Lincoln administration; the arrest of all of the editors of opposition newspapers in Ohio; and the mobbing and demolition of opposition newspapers by Republican Party activists or federal soldiers.
Vallandigham’s "act of treason" was to make a speech on the floor of the House of Representatives (which was repeated to his home constituents) in which he condemned the Lincoln administration’s "persistent infractions of the Constitution" and its "high-minded usurpations of power," which were designed as "a deliberate conspiracy to overthrow the present form of Federal-republican government, and to establish a strong centralized government in its stead." (See The Record of Hon. C. L. Vallandigham: Abolition, the Union, and the Civil War, Wiggins, MS: Crown Rights Publishers, 1998).
Starting a war without the consent of Congress, Vallandigham said, was the kind of dictatorial act "that would have cost any English sovereign his head at any time within the last two hundred years." Echoing Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, he railed against the quartering of soldiers in private homes without the consent of the owners; the subversion of the Maryland government by arresting some twenty legislators, the Mayor of Baltimore, and Congressman Henry May; censorship of the telegraph; and the confiscation of firearms from private citizens.
"
I guess all these things can be overlooked in Lincoln because... well, because the historians decided he was great.
I'd like to see the response of all you Lincoln defenders if Booosh suspended habeas for US citizens, told the SC to jam a ruling up their tailpipes and arrested a few Representatives, jailed them and exiled them to Canada. :lol
-
Perhaps the
THIRD FREAKING TIME
I quote the same passage from the declaration to prove you wrong. The previous two times when I quoted the exact same thing in this thread did little to assuage you from saying something stupid. I'm just really hopeful this time it might stick.
"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. You presumed I attended government schools at all. I predate the current system dominated by the department of education (which should be abolished along with the IRS).
That much you got right. The Declaration is not how governments are formed. The Declaration was a statement of separation from tyranical Britain. The Declaration was a document formally explaining why Congress had voted on July 2 to declare independence from Great Britain more than a year after the outbreak of the American Revolutionary War.
Obviously the schools you attended that predate the current system brainwashed you. There, happy? Just showing how pointless your argument was and you tried to just throw it back with no argument. So you get it in return. Like tennis!
Thwack!
-
As I said before the Declaration does not in itself establish government. Lincoln was duly elected and it was his duty to defend the Constitution that was the basis of this government. No one of the Confederacy was duly elected of the U.S. and the states in secession were attempting the establishment of a Confederacy.
I would LOVE it if Bush acted in the same manner.
-
chalenge.. apparently the first states did not get the same message that you got. There were several movements toward secession before the confederate one. there was never any question of the legality of it.. in fact.. one attempt came very close.
The states freely entered into the union and expected that they could secede at any time. Lincoln had a long held belief that secession was a bad, but not illegal, thing. He played fast and loose with the constitution and the amendments on an almost daily basis including some of the things toad has mentioned.
He was the first of the really bad presidents.
If the confederates had not fired on the fort... it would have forced Lincoln to commit even more grievous breeches of the constitution. He would have tho.
lazs
-
As I said before the Declaration does not in itself establish government. Lincoln was duly elected and it was his duty to defend the Constitution that was the basis of this government. No one of the Confederacy was duly elected of the U.S. and the states in secession were attempting the establishment of a Confederacy.
I would LOVE it if Bush acted in the same manner.
Listen, I know this will be hard for you. The constitution ONLY APPLIES to states in the Union. It does not apply to france. It does not apply to Romania. It applies to the United States.
Should those states leave that union, they are no longer in breach of contract for forming a confederacy. However, every state still in that union is not allowed to form a confederacy.
No where in the constitution does it say that secessionists should be hunted down. No where does it say that the United States should aggressively recruit foreign entities at the point of a gun. This is basically what you are saying. That it was Lincoln's duty to attack a foreign country and make it part of the united states.
-
Lincoln was duly elected and it was his duty to defend the Constitution that was the basis of this government.
Please quote the part of the Constitution that clearly says a State cannot withdraw from the Union. Your argument about joining a confederacy has already been shown as a red herring. The States withdrew from the union (secession) before they joined any confederacy.
This may be of some help to you in your search:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively
All you have to do now is find where the Constitution delegates to the Federal government the power to force a State to remain in the Union. Please let me know when you find it.
-
Well, if the basis for the Constitution is to form a more perfect union, it is necessarily a living document, or it could never adapt to try to achieve more perfection. It is also a contract and as such the breaking of that contract must be agreed upon by all of those involved.
-
Well, if the basis for the Constitution is to form a more perfect union, it is necessarily a living document, or it could never adapt to try to achieve more perfection. It is also a contract and as such the breaking of that contract must be agreed upon by all of those involved.
Of course it's a living document. The process whereby it may be changed is clearly defined. Reinterpretation by courts or the executive branch is not part of the process.
-
I don't think you can actually be "more perfect". You're either perfect, or you're imperfect. There's not really a gray area there.
-
It is also a contract and as such the breaking of that contract must be agreed upon by all of those involved.
The 10th Amendment contradicts your hypothesis MT.
Again, if you'll be kind enough to show me the part of the Constitution that expressely delegates to the Federal government the power to use military force to coerce a State to remain in the Union, I'd be most appreciative.
As Laser pointed out, the document declaring our Independence from Britain states that, "it is the Right of the People" to change or alter a government that does not suit them.
As we have seen, Rights are inherent and have no dependence on the Federal government. Rights cannot be granted; they pre-exist ANY form of government. It is the People that grant powers to their government. Government is subservient to the will of the People.
I know that's considered radical thinking now.... it was in Jefferson's time as well.
-
Laser I dont know where you get off thinking things are difficult for me just because I cant reach you.
In Article IV, Section 4 - The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
Lincoln saw this as his mandate to hold the states together in the Union as a Republic. The issue of the war was always about states rights and not slavery. States cease to be legal entities when they engage in illegal activities such as attempting to leave the Union firing on Union forces and such. It was always Lincolns will that held the Nation together and people of the time held Lincoln in high esteem or contempt depending upon their loyalties. Obviously I feel Lincoln was justified n his actions and you and a few others disagree. I will always believe you are wrong.
-
I am loth to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield, and patriot grave, to every living heart and hearthstone, all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature - Abraham Lincoln
-
In Article IV, Section 4 - The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
That says that IF A STATE IS IN THE UNION the Feds will guarantee a Republican form of government.
It says absolutely nothing about the Federal government having the power to use military force to coerce a State to REMAIN in the Union.
Again, inherent rights supercede all government dicta and regulation. You will recall that Rights are unalienable. Again, the powers (not the Rights) of ANY government derive from the people. The government has no power that the People have not expressly given it.
The People NEVER gave the Federal government the right to militarily coerce a State to remain in the Union.
-
Sometimes the world doesn't seem so dark to me. I'm glad that other people do understand this.
Chalenge, you keep quoting Lincoln like it means something. It does not. Of course he would say what he believes. He would say what he thinks is true. He wouldn't come out and openly state that he does not have the right to rejoin the union, then do it anyway.
-
OK, so your point is that Lincoln was a bad POTUS because he didn't follow the letter of the law regarding the constitution. I get it.
So what?
Buchanan never strayed from the constitution, was he the greatest? Is that the real measure of greatness in leadership?
Lincoln saved the union. He went so far as to appoint his enemies in cabinet posts so that he could get a diverse set of recommendations from them. He provided incredible leadership when our country needed it most. As far as sticking to the letter of the law... in hindsight I say so freakin what?
-
Jeebus CRIPES! The letter of the Constitution?
The LETTER?
He used it for toilet paper!
He was so far out of bounds, he wasn't on the same continent as the playing field.
If Ee3v33I111 BOOOSH had done have that stuff, all liberals would be dead by now, having expired from apoplexy.
-
lest it become the norm.
LMAO, where have you been, under a rock?
-
Jeebus CRIPES! The letter of the Constitution?
The LETTER?
He used it for toilet paper!
He was so far out of bounds, he wasn't on the same continent as the playing field.
If Ee3v33I111 BOOOSH had done have that stuff, all liberals would be dead by now, having expired from apoplexy.
speaking of apoplexy .. lol
-
Jeez, I have to wonder if you'd be so admiring of a President that 'saved' you from the right to speak your mind or that 'saved' you from the right from unreasonable searches and seizures.
Oh well... what's arresting and exiling a Representative just because he spoke against your policy. A mere trifle; pay it no mind.
And civilians tried before military courts? Well sure, it smacks of a military dictatorship but that's just because we don't understand how lovingly the courts tried them.
Then you've got FDR rounding up all the Japanese and imprisoning them for... being Japanese. We can certainly excuse that if we can excuse Lincoln.
We should just keep turning a blind eye to the usurpation of power by the Federal government as they whimsically deny the rights of ourselves and our fellow citizens.
I should become one with the Federal Borg I guess.
-
mt.. come on.. just a tiny bit of honesty on your part would be nice at this point.. I know toad.. I doubt he went apoplectic but.. I can imagine him almost choking with laughter at you using the term "letter of the constitution"
sooo.. try to be a tad honest here.. any president that mutilated the constitution as much as he did today.. you would be outraged.. and while we are being honest.. you have to admit that if it were a republican.. it would seem even more outrageous to you.
lazs
-
Which is why I mentioned hindsight in my post.
Maybe 150 years from now people will revere Bush II as the next Lincoln, but I doubt it.
-
LMAO, where have you been, under a rock?
This is what I said in it's entirety.
Corruption should be rooted out and punished severely lest it become the norm.
This is what should happen, at no point do I say or imply that corruption doesn't exist or that it isn't rampant in our government today. If corruption was rooted out and punished severely it wouldn't magically cease to exist but it wouldn't become the norm either.
I'm guessing you completely misread my original statement the first time around. ;)
-
Which is why I mentioned hindsight in my post.
Maybe 150 years from now people will revere Bush II as the next Lincoln, but I doubt it.
LOL! Maybe after the 2nd American Revolution to Restore the Constitution, in 150 years Bush might be as reviled as Lincoln.
But I doubt it. :D
-
snip
And he didn't start the war, the South were the ones to fire the first shot in the Civil War. Remember Fort Sumter?
ack-ack
He did start the war, by initiating hostile action at Fort Sumter.
South Carolina had withdrawn from the US, and asked the US to withdraw its forces from sovereign South Carolina soil. The US refused, declared its intention to maintain a military occupation of territory rightly belonging to South Carolina. South Carolina attempted to resolve the matter by negotiation up until the moment that the US sent more hostile forces to reinforce Fort Sumter, a de facto invasion by military force of South Carolina. South Carolina resorted to the use of force to defend its territory only at the last moment when the US invasion forces approached.
No southern state that seceded exhibited any intent to invade the north. Rather than attempt to resolve the dispute regarding secession peacefully through the Federal courts and/or diplomacy, Lincoln led the north in a war of aggression against the south.
Those are the bare facts, whether or not you choose to realize them.
-
sooo.. try to be a tad honest here.. any president that mutilated the constitution as much as he did today.. you would be outraged.. and while we are being honest.. you have to admit that if it were a republican.. it would seem even more outrageous to you.
lazs
There is a difference between what Lincoln was going through and what our current Village Idiot is going through. Last time I checked, we were not in the midst of a civil war.
ack-ack
-
There is a difference between what Lincoln was going through and what our current Village Idiot is going through. Last time I checked, we were not in the midst of a civil war.
ack-ack
Another difference is that Lincoln started a civil war.
-
Another difference is that Lincoln started a civil war.
He wuz a scruffy anemic lookin bastid, too. Prolly strung out on snuff 'r sumthin...
.... just sayin.
:)
-
Corruption should be rooted out and punished severely lest it become the norm.
Too late.
-
I believe the framers of the Constitution foresaw there would be times when rights should be denied even the citizens the Constitution protects. In the Constitution, the writ of Habeas Corpus is mentioned once. “The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.” (Art. 2 Sect. 9) The framers obviously condoned the suspension in periods of peril and Lincoln therefore followed the spirit of the Constitution the law and its original intent.
We can look further at each and every listed violation and you can list quite a number of them because this period in American history was very tumultuous and people throughout the country followed their beliefs without considering the legality or consequence. However I know Lincoln grieved deeply over every move in deep consideration of the citizens the states and leaders of the country. He did what he knew he must and did consider the law and followed the law closely. We are removed from that era by some 150 years and so I can understand that the details involved in that great conflict have been lost ignored and even rewritten to suit individual whims. There have been many writers over the span between then and now that have attempted to destroy the greatness that was our first martyr of the office of the Presidency. Today it has become accepted practice to criticize and smear people of character and attempt to bring them down verbally and in text. Lies have been told and the history rewritten to satisfy motives and agendas. All of these things cannot change the fact that Lincoln loved his country followed the letter of the law believed and upheld the Constitution and did so not lightly but with much grievance upon his heart. Lincoln no more wanted war than he wanted the Republic to fall. That you should believe otherwise and continue to respond as if Lincoln was some great violator of rights proves to me how far toward calamity this country has fallen from its founding fathers ideal.
I believe that had Lincoln survived office he would have soon after perished from the great weight his term had put upon him.
-
It says absolutely nothing about the Federal government having the power to use military force to coerce a State to REMAIN in the Union.
It doesnt have to Toad. What it does say in effect is that in extraordinary times the President (in the absence of a sitting Congress) can take upon himself such 'special' powers as are required to deal with whatever peril exists.
During the early stages of his term there were shootings and killings in the State of Maryland. Lincoln knew that if this sort of thing continued unabated that Maryland could very well secede. He acted quickly in the absence of Congress and Senate with the writ. Had Maryland fallen the very seat of Government would have been in enemy territory. You say this is illegal? Hardly. As I stated before this was covered in the Constitution and when Congress returned to session the writ was ratified. No illegality.
In the period before the return of Congress a Supreme Court judge insisted that this was a violation of the Constitution. There was no case before the court and the Justice was in fact acting out of sentiment for his home state. Lincoln ignored him. After all even though the Supreme Court has the duty to hand down decisions upon cases brought before it (even had this been a case) it is powerless to enforce its decisions. No illegality.
The South eventually invaded Maryland and played the state song as they marched about in the hope that they would appeal to a sense of secession. Their ploy failed in whole because of Lincolns action with the writ. An act for which Congress ratified the decision. No illegality.
Spies were about the country. They moved within the forces of our own government and military. It was impossible to determine who was friend and who was foe. Lincoln empowered the Pinkerton firm to act as a Secret Service under the Legislative Branch. This too could be seen as an excessive use of office and many voices were heard in argument against such an organization. Congress thought otherwise and granted funds as needed. No illegality.
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. People today refuse to use the term but treason it is especially in a time of war. That people had their rights stripped from them and that individuals were deported for treason should be no surprise. Today of course we allow treasonous actions (Jane Fonda Al Gore and John Kerry just to name a few). All three and Pelosi too should be locked away in a Fort McHenry-like place and it wouldnt be illegal.
(Fort McHenry held newspapermen Congressmen and even a Judge during the war; not to mention other people awaiting their execution).
-
Another difference is that Lincoln started a civil war.
This is utter nonsense.
-
It is not utter nonsense.
I can understand how difficult it is to accept any challenge to the comic book version of Lincoln that has been embedded for 150 years. People are repulsed at the idea he was not a god. Accepting the myth is a much easier path.
One by one, people on their own are discovering that he could not have cared less about slavery - he cared about his political future and was in favor of shipping slaves back to Africa. He did not care about upholding the Constitution, the document or the intent - he cared about expanding federal power. He did not care about the law, he wanted all opposition stifled, going so far as to have a newspaper editor exiled out of the country in a technique copied communists, fascists and 3rd-world dictators.
I noticed your distaste of criticism. Criticism and critical thinking are good, in my opinion. Uneven or poorly constructed criticism gets weeded out naturally, but truthful and honest criticism stops governments from propping up false idols for false worship. To hold back truthful criticism is treason.
-
In fact it should be favored and spurred on at every opportunity, lest government grow fat and ...
-
Too late.
It might be to late for it to not be the norm, but it is never to late to start rooting it out and punishing those who are guilty. Somehow I doubt that will happen though.
-
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.
-
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.
-
He went for the ninja edit looks like. :rofl
-
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
-
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."
-
I would be interested to learn where Chalenge went to school... what system produced this mind?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 (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
-
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. "