Another bureaucracy created by obama

[BigRob]

I think it lasted up until the civil war... Lincoln set a precedent that our constitution could be ignored under certain circumstances and politicians have ignored it more and more every election ever since.

If you are referring to Lincoln's suspension of Habeas Corpus, I believe the Constitution itself sets that precedent in Article I Section 9.

You might say, well the Supreme Court ruled that unconstitutional, however if we are going to follow a strict interpretation of the Constitution, I fail to see where the Supreme Court gets the authority of Judicial Review, so that ruling would be more or less irrelevant.

 

[Pandora]

I am sure Fox will tell you what to say soon enough , don't worry

Yep you are probably right, I will learn some really disturbing stuff about her and have questions and you will defend her no matter what,

Another typical day

 

[GenSeneca]

If you are referring to Lincoln's suspension of Habeas Corpus, I believe the Constitution itself sets that precedent in Article I Section 9.

Southern states began seceding from the union and forming the Confederate States of America. James Buchanan, although at the end of his term, was president at the time and he correctly pointed out that there was no constitutional justification for using the force of arms to compel a state to remain in the union or force them back into it.

The Battle of Fort Sumter is credited with being the start of the civil war. Fort Sumter was a union occupied fort in South Carolina, a state which had seceded from the union and joined the Confederacy. Union troops refused to leave Confederate territory despite being given warnings and a deadline to withdraw. When the deadline passed, the Confederacy took the fort but there wasn't a single death as a result of the battle.

Lincoln, newly elected President of the Union, used the battle of Fort Sumter as justification to do what his predecessor, Buchanan, knew was unconstitutional, Lincoln raised and army for the purpose of invading the southern states and forcing them back into the Union.

Much like George W. Bush declaring that he had to abandon free market principles in order to "save" the free market system, Lincoln abandoned the Unions Constitutional principles in order to "save" the Union.

As for the suspension of Habeus Corpus, such a declaration, reserved for rebellions within Union states, would only apply to the Union, not to the newly formed Confederate states. The Confederate states had already created their own government, had written their own constitution, and had formulated their own laws.

After seceding from the Union, the Confederacy became a distinctly separate nation, just as Canada is a distinctly separate nation from the United States, so were the Confederate States. Laws passed in the Union were not binding on the Confederate states any more than they would have been binding on the nation of Canada or other nations of the world.

Those who believe the ends justify the means will gladly overlook Lincoln's Constitutional transgressions but it nevertheless opened the door for future presidents to ignore the Constitution - so long as the "end" was seen as justification for the means.

Cue the drooling progbots who will now begin, fallaciously, attacking me as being pro-slavery for daring to speak the truth.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Southern states began seceding from the union and forming the Confederate States of America. James Buchanan, although at the end of his term, was president at the time and he correctly pointed out that there was no constitutional justification for using the force of arms to compel a state to remain in the union or force them back into it.

The Battle of Fort Sumter is credited with being the start of the civil war. Fort Sumter was a union occupied fort in South Carolina, a state which had seceded from the union and joined the Confederacy. Union troops refused to leave Confederate territory despite being given warnings and a deadline to withdraw. When the deadline passed, the Confederacy took the fort but there wasn't a single death as a result of the battle.

Lincoln, newly elected President of the Union, used the battle of Fort Sumter as justification to do what his predecessor, Buchanan, knew was unconstitutional, Lincoln raised and army for the purpose of invading the southern states and forcing them back into the Union.

Much like George W. Bush declaring that he had to abandon free market principles in order to "save" the free market system, Lincoln abandoned the Unions Constitutional principles in order to "save" the Union.

As for the suspension of Habeus Corpus, such a declaration, reserved for rebellions within Union states, would only apply to the Union, not to the newly formed Confederate states. The Confederate states had already created their own government, had written their own constitution, and had formulated their own laws.

After seceding from the Union, the Confederacy became a distinctly separate nation, just as Canada is a distinctly separate nation from the United States, so were the Confederate States. Laws passed in the Union were not binding on the Confederate states any more than they would have been binding on the nation of Canada or other nations of the world.

Those who believe the ends justify the means will gladly overlook Lincoln's Constitutional transgressions but it nevertheless opened the door for future presidents to ignore the Constitution - so long as the "end" was seen as justification for the means.

Cue the drooling progbots who will now begin, fallaciously, attacking me as being pro-slavery for daring to speak the truth.

So are you for the US not being 50 states then, do you think they should have been slowed to split off and be there own?

 

[GenSeneca]

So are you for the US not being 50 states then, do you think they should have been slowed to split off and be there own?

As I said, those who think the ends justify the means will not understand the point I'm making and will attempt to twist my words to mean something else entirely...

What's done is done... I do think we, as the United States, are better off for having ended slavery decades earlier than it would have otherwise ended and we are better off for having re-uniting the states (BTW there weren't 50 states when the civil war started) but that doesn't change the fact that Lincoln's actions in doing so were unconstitutional.

 

[BigRob]

Southern states began seceding from the union and forming the Confederate States of America. James Buchanan, although at the end of his term, was president at the time and he correctly pointed out that there was no constitutional justification for using the force of arms to compel a state to remain in the union or force them back into it.

Fair enough.

The Battle of Fort Sumter is credited with being the start of the civil war. Fort Sumter was a union occupied fort in South Carolina, a state which had seceded from the union and joined the Confederacy. Union troops refused to leave Confederate territory despite being given warnings and a deadline to withdraw. When the deadline passed, the Confederacy took the fort but there wasn't a single death as a result of the battle.

The South committed an act of war against the United States, and was therefore fully deserving of being retaliated against.

It does not matter if the United States refused to withdraw, they never recognized the succession, and therefore had no legal obligation to do so. Just because South Carolina did not like that does not mean that the United States cannot respond when attacked.

Lincoln, newly elected President of the Union, used the battle of Fort Sumter as justification to do what his predecessor, Buchanan, knew was unconstitutional, Lincoln raised and army for the purpose of invading the southern states and forcing them back into the Union.

Responding to an act of war is not unconstitutional.

Much like George W. Bush declaring that he had to abandon free market principles in order to "save" the free market system, Lincoln abandoned the Unions Constitutional principles in order to "save" the Union.

He invaded a hostile state (which was in an act of rebellion) after being attacked.

As for the suspension of Habeus Corpus, such a declaration, reserved for rebellions within Union states, would only apply to the Union, not to the newly formed Confederate states. The Confederate states had already created their own government, had written their own constitution, and had formulated their own laws.

No other nation recognized the Confederacy. You are not a country simply because you say you are.

After seceding from the Union, the Confederacy became a distinctly separate nation, just as Canada is a distinctly separate nation from the United States, so were the Confederate States. Laws passed in the Union were not binding on the Confederate states any more than they would have been binding on the nation of Canada or other nations of the world.

No they did not. That would have taken recognition from other world powers, and most likely recognition from the US too.

Those who believe the ends justify the means will gladly overlook Lincoln's Constitutional transgressions but it nevertheless opened the door for future presidents to ignore the Constitution - so long as the "end" was seen as justification for the means.

I don't see any of his actions as against the Constitution. Even if a state can legally succeed (which the Supreme Court ruled they cannot), that does not entitle them to commit an act of war and expect nothing to happen.

Cue the drooling progbots who will now begin, fallaciously, attacking me as being pro-slavery for daring to speak the truth.

How dare you be pro-slavery!

 

[pocketfullofshells]

As I said, those who think the ends justify the means will not understand the point I'm making and will attempt to twist my words to mean something else entirely...

What's done is done... I do think we, as the United States, are better off for having ended slavery decades earlier than it would have otherwise ended and we are better off for having re-uniting the states (BTW there weren't 50 states when the civil war started) but that doesn't change the fact that Lincoln's actions in doing so were unconstitutional.

what its a pretty clear question...you are saying what was done was against the constitution...while saying we need to follow exactly ( most agree, just don't agree on how its interrupted) So is it not logical to ask...do you agree with breaking it then? or do you think it would have been best to follow it, as you read it, and let them separate...I said nothing about Slavery...Heck if right now I could have those states be gone, I think I would be pretty happy right now...but then again who knows how alot of stuff would have happened....

 

[PLC1]

So when does that kick in?

As pocket pointed out, we have warrantless wiretaps, illegal searches and seizures etc. but it doesn't end there... We also have limits on free speech, free press, our right to bear arms, and violations of so many more rights that are supposed to be protected under the bill of rights...

When we, the people, get sick of what is happening and begin to pay the price of liberty: eternal vigilance.

Until then, we'll have warrantless wiretaps, illegals searches, limits on free speech and press, violations of rights, asset forfeiture, and a whole lot more, and it won't matter whether the POTUS has an R or a D after his name.

Maybe the tea partiers will turn things around ,but I'm not holding my breath.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

When we, the people, get sick of what is happening and begin to pay the price of liberty: eternal vigilance.

Until then, we'll have warrantless wiretaps, illegals searches, limits on free speech and press, violations of rights, asset forfeiture, and a whole lot more, and it won't matter whether the POTUS has an R or a D after his name.

Maybe the tea partiers will turn things around ,but I'm not holding my breath.

the tea party? you we are angry and ranting and full of conspiracy, but don't dare ask for a actual workable plan if we get elected? You can win a Election on lies smears and Playing on Fears...but you can't run a nation that way, plan a Budget, or make good policy that way...and so far the tea party, is a full of Bumper sticker candidates...I would be pretty scared for your health if you held your breath for them lol

 

[GenSeneca]

It does not matter if the United States refused to withdraw, they never recognized the succession, and therefore had no legal obligation to do so.

I suggest you check your history... The union did indeed recognize the secessions of several states prior to the war and they were cool with it. In fact, the Union was able to pass a great deal of legislation which had previously been blocked by the presence of southern representatives in Congress.

No other nation recognized the Confederacy. You are not a country simply because you say you are.

Sovereign State: A sovereign state is a state with a permanent population, a defined territory, a government and the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states.

That would have taken recognition from other world powers, and most likely recognition from the US too.

The Confederacy met the above criteria for being a sovereign state. It's only with the "Constitutive Theory" of statehood that you could claim the CSA was not a legitimate state.

I don't see any of his actions as against the Constitution.

I can see why. In your view, the southern states had no right to secede and the government they formed as a result was illegitimate.

Jefferson: "If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation...to a continuance in union... I have no hesitation in saying, 'let us separate.' "

Buchanan: "The fact is that our Union rests upon public opinion, and can never be cemented by the blood of its citizens shed in civil war. If it can not live in the affections of the people, it must one day perish. Congress possesses many means of preserving it by conciliation, but the sword was not placed in their hand to preserve it by force."

I hope you can understand my view that they did have the right to secede and the Confederacy they created was therefore legitimate.

We shouldn't have to agree in order to understand the others point of view.

Even if a state can legally succeed (which the Supreme Court ruled they cannot),

Texas vs. White 1869

That ruling was passed 4 years after the end of the Civil War.

that does not entitle them to commit an act of war and expect nothing to happen.

From the Confederacy's POV, it was the Union who was committing an act of war by illegally occupying a sovereign state.

How dare you be pro-slavery!

You're one of the few people I can amicably disagree with while being called a racist.

 

[GenSeneca]

what its a pretty clear question...you are saying what was done was against the constitution...while saying we need to follow exactly ( most agree, just don't agree on how its interrupted) So is it not logical to ask...do you agree with breaking it then? or do you think it would have been best to follow it, as you read it, and let them separate...

I don't know where you get your "interpretations" of the Constitution but I formed my understanding of it by reading what the people who founded this country and wrote the document actually said about it.

Do I agree with breaking it? No. Assuming the split was peaceful and both sides respected the others decision... Within a decade or so, the Union would have been prospering beyond their wildest dreams while the CSA was languishing in an attempt to hold on to the failed concept of slavery. It wouldn't have taken long before the CSA came begging to be re-admitted to the Union or simply failed as a state.

 

[GenSeneca]

You can win a Election on lies smears and Playing on Fears...but you can't run a nation that way, plan a Budget, or make good policy that way..

As is evidenced by the Obama administration.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

As is evidenced by the Obama administration.

Yes, the Muslim Terrorist supporter non american who wants to kill your grandparents and our troops when they come home....

Its him who ran on fear...

 

[pocketfullofshells]

I don't know where you get your "interpretations" of the Constitution but I formed my understanding of it by reading what the people who founded this country and wrote the document actually said about it.

Do I agree with breaking it? No. Assuming the split was peaceful and both sides respected the others decision... Within a decade or so, the Union would have been prospering beyond their wildest dreams while the CSA was languishing in an attempt to hold on to the failed concept of slavery. It wouldn't have taken long before the CSA came begging to be re-admitted to the Union or simply failed as a state.

Yes and those guys wrote it, with no intent of woman voting, or blacks as equals, or non land owners voting...so do you read it just like that as well? Or do you apply common sense and the fact its 2010 to you?

 

[CHAINSAW]

That is a stupid comment. We already have government agencies that are in place to enforce the rules & laws in current legislation. WE DO NOT NEED ANOTHER BUREAUCRACY!!!!!!

As if your "wonderful" Democrates are saints and as white as the driven snow, yeah, right!!!