...I just realized Lincoln was the Hitler of the 19th century.

[WillowTree]

the southern population shouldn't have waged war against their country.

and hitler didn't target anyone committing treason.

might be one of the more absurd analogies i've seen.

I guess this is the result of the education system in our country today. The south did not wage war against the north, they seceded from the north, then the north waged war to force them to back.

don't argue with "the lawyer" "Ivy League I think" she knows everything! Jeez.

 

[Kalam]

kalam, ive never seen you post before, i dont know why, maybe because i only show up on this site once or twice a month when i feel like makin an ass outa myself...

but with that said you seem like an educated dude, something rare in these parts, good stuff.

Thanks man, the feeling is mutual. You may not feel the same way if we ever argue religion or foreign policy, though.

listen, if you make sense and use logic, i respect differing views in debate. My whole reason for visiting sites like this is trying to learn something but it turns out I always feel like the one educating... anyway, its all good.

I can respect that.

 

[Liberty]

also, i'd like to point out that the supreme court's job is not to interpret the constitution. It is simply to know the constitution as written, and make rulings based on challenges and such from legislation that congress decides to pass. Interpreting has NOTHING to do with it. AT ALL.

 

[jillian]

also, i'd like to point out that the supreme court's job is not to interpret the constitution. It is simply to know the constitution as written, and make rulings based on challenges and such from legislation that congress decides to pass. Interpreting has NOTHING to do with it. AT ALL.

I love when people who know zip, zilch, nada about the constitution try to make up what they think it means.

but you know what, i think i'll trust my professors more as well as the judges i've appeared before.

you can keep pretending you know something about the constitution. someone who doesn't know anything might even believe you.

 

[Liberty]

also, i'd like to point out that the supreme court's job is not to interpret the constitution. It is simply to know the constitution as written, and make rulings based on challenges and such from legislation that congress decides to pass. Interpreting has NOTHING to do with it. AT ALL.

I love when people who know zip, zilch, nada about the constitution try to make up what they think it means.

but you know what, i think i'll trust my professors more as well as the judges i've appeared before.

you can keep pretending you know something about the constitution. someone who doesn't know anything might even believe you.

i can at least answer simple fucking questions and not ignore them, and back up my ideas and opinions. If I am PROVEN wrong, I will submit, but all you do is basically say "I disagree" WHICH IS NOT AN ARGUMENT. BREAK MY ARGUMENT.

 

[Kalam]

I think he harbored enmity against anyone that refused to pay its tribute to his government, and had no problem having them murdered.

If you say so.

Condoning the murder of innocent civilians on any level means you must harbor some amount of enmity against them.

Maybe, but I'm still not sure. To use a more modern example, I don't think that Madeleine Albright actually hated Iraqi children... she was just a callous asshole.

Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: "We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?"

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it."​

 

[Dr Grump]

also, i'd like to point out that the supreme court's job is not to interpret the constitution. It is simply to know the constitution as written, and make rulings based on challenges and such from legislation that congress decides to pass. Interpreting has NOTHING to do with it. AT ALL.

I love when people who know zip, zilch, nada about the constitution try to make up what they think it means.

but you know what, i think i'll trust my professors more as well as the judges i've appeared before.

you can keep pretending you know something about the constitution. someone who doesn't know anything might even believe you.

i can at least answer simple fucking questions and not ignore them, and back up my ideas and opinions. If I am PROVEN wrong, I will submit, but all you do is basically say "I disagree" WHICH IS NOT AN ARGUMENT. BREAK MY ARGUMENT.

Her argument would take all day to prepare....and if she wanted to put it in plain language for a simpleton like you to understand, probably three or four days....

 

[jillian]

also, i'd like to point out that the supreme court's job is not to interpret the constitution. It is simply to know the constitution as written, and make rulings based on challenges and such from legislation that congress decides to pass. Interpreting has NOTHING to do with it. AT ALL.

I love when people who know zip, zilch, nada about the constitution try to make up what they think it means.

but you know what, i think i'll trust my professors more as well as the judges i've appeared before.

you can keep pretending you know something about the constitution. someone who doesn't know anything might even believe you.

i can at least answer simple fucking questions and not ignore them, and back up my ideas and opinions. If I am PROVEN wrong, I will submit, but all you do is basically say "I disagree" WHICH IS NOT AN ARGUMENT. BREAK MY ARGUMENT.

i'm sorry... you don't think we're debating these issues, do you? i told you the court held they had no right to secede. they didn't have a right to secede and they still don't. whether you agree with that or not, there will NEVER be a court that says they have a right to secede.

no argument.

fahrshteit?

 

[Liberty]

I love when people who know zip, zilch, nada about the constitution try to make up what they think it means.

but you know what, i think i'll trust my professors more as well as the judges i've appeared before.

you can keep pretending you know something about the constitution. someone who doesn't know anything might even believe you.

i can at least answer simple fucking questions and not ignore them, and back up my ideas and opinions. If I am PROVEN wrong, I will submit, but all you do is basically say "I disagree" WHICH IS NOT AN ARGUMENT. BREAK MY ARGUMENT.

Her argument would take all day to prepare....and if she wanted to put it in plain language for a simpleton like you to understand, probably three or four days....

then i have NO CHOICE but to assume she is an idiot that is not worth a logical rational thinking man's time who is only trying to learn WHY someone thinks a certain way.

 

[Kalam]

if that were the case, the 9 justices would always agree, nutbar.

Oh, come on. We both know that you're familiar with concepts like loose and strict constructionalism, judicial activism and restraint, etc.

 

[Dr Grump]

i can at least answer simple fucking questions and not ignore them, and back up my ideas and opinions. If I am PROVEN wrong, I will submit, but all you do is basically say "I disagree" WHICH IS NOT AN ARGUMENT. BREAK MY ARGUMENT.

Her argument would take all day to prepare....and if she wanted to put it in plain language for a simpleton like you to understand, probably three or four days....

then i have NO CHOICE but to assume she is an idiot that is not worth a logical rational thinking man's time who is only trying to learn WHY someone thinks a certain way.

Are you a lawyer?

 

[AllieBaba]

They both committed ridiculous and pointless genocide...maybe no where near in similar methods or to the same ends, but they both killed a large enough amount of people that should taint their legacy as villainous in my opinion.

My brother in law has always said the same thing.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I love when people who know zip, zilch, nada about the constitution try to make up what they think it means.

but you know what, i think i'll trust my professors more as well as the judges i've appeared before.

you can keep pretending you know something about the constitution. someone who doesn't know anything might even believe you.

i can at least answer simple fucking questions and not ignore them, and back up my ideas and opinions. If I am PROVEN wrong, I will submit, but all you do is basically say "I disagree" WHICH IS NOT AN ARGUMENT. BREAK MY ARGUMENT.

i'm sorry... you don't think we're debating these issues, do you? i told you the court held they had no right to secede. they didn't have a right to secede and they still don't. whether you agree with that or not, there will NEVER be a court that says they have a right to secede.

no argument.

fahrshteit?

Where in the Constitution did the Court find the language that says the states have no right to secede?

 

[AllieBaba]

Her argument would take all day to prepare....and if she wanted to put it in plain language for a simpleton like you to understand, probably three or four days....

then i have NO CHOICE but to assume she is an idiot that is not worth a logical rational thinking man's time who is only trying to learn WHY someone thinks a certain way.

Are you a lawyer?

If everyone who was smarter than you were a lawyer, Grump, there would be a LOT of lawyers.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Her argument would take all day to prepare....and if she wanted to put it in plain language for a simpleton like you to understand, probably three or four days....

then i have NO CHOICE but to assume she is an idiot that is not worth a logical rational thinking man's time who is only trying to learn WHY someone thinks a certain way.

Are you a lawyer?

One doesn't need to be a lawyer to have an opinion.

 

[Liberty]

I love when people who know zip, zilch, nada about the constitution try to make up what they think it means.

but you know what, i think i'll trust my professors more as well as the judges i've appeared before.

you can keep pretending you know something about the constitution. someone who doesn't know anything might even believe you.

i can at least answer simple fucking questions and not ignore them, and back up my ideas and opinions. If I am PROVEN wrong, I will submit, but all you do is basically say "I disagree" WHICH IS NOT AN ARGUMENT. BREAK MY ARGUMENT.

i'm sorry... you don't think we're debating these issues, do you? i told you the court held they had no right to secede. they didn't have a right to secede and they still don't. whether you agree with that or not, there will NEVER be a court that says they have a right to secede.

no argument.

fahrshteit?

What court case? If you are so sure, why can't you present proof?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

i can at least answer simple fucking questions and not ignore them, and back up my ideas and opinions. If I am PROVEN wrong, I will submit, but all you do is basically say "I disagree" WHICH IS NOT AN ARGUMENT. BREAK MY ARGUMENT.

i'm sorry... you don't think we're debating these issues, do you? i told you the court held they had no right to secede. they didn't have a right to secede and they still don't. whether you agree with that or not, there will NEVER be a court that says they have a right to secede.

no argument.

fahrshteit?

What court case? If you are so sure, why can't you present proof?

She's referring to Texas v. White which was a Supreme Court case in which the Supreme Court tried to justify Lincoln's war by stating that there is no constitutional right to secession.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Is that your Islamic thinking in work? States have no ABILITY to secede from the Union. Once your in your in!

That is certainly true now, but was it true before the war?

The war didn't change the Constitution. So if it was true before the war it remains true now.

What the war did was settle the issue, even the Supreme Court recognizes that.

Another thing, technically it did change the Constitution. The 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments were a direct result of the Civil War.

Just saying.

 

[Liberty]

i'm sorry... you don't think we're debating these issues, do you? i told you the court held they had no right to secede. they didn't have a right to secede and they still don't. whether you agree with that or not, there will NEVER be a court that says they have a right to secede.

no argument.

fahrshteit?

What court case? If you are so sure, why can't you present proof?

She's referring to Texas v. White which was a Supreme Court case in which the Supreme Court tried to justify Lincoln's war by stating that there is no constitutional right to secession.

THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!! Now I can go read up on it!!! That's all I wanted haha.

 

[jillian]

i can at least answer simple fucking questions and not ignore them, and back up my ideas and opinions. If I am PROVEN wrong, I will submit, but all you do is basically say "I disagree" WHICH IS NOT AN ARGUMENT. BREAK MY ARGUMENT.

i'm sorry... you don't think we're debating these issues, do you? i told you the court held they had no right to secede. they didn't have a right to secede and they still don't. whether you agree with that or not, there will NEVER be a court that says they have a right to secede.

no argument.

fahrshteit?

What court case? If you are so sure, why can't you present proof?

Read. Secession was a nullity because it could not legally occur.

Texas v. White