Obama Bypasses Congress and Bans the Confederate Battle Flag

[Divine Wind]

Who hijacked my thread?

Where's the hijack? We're still discussing the powers of the Federal government versus the rights of American citizens and the States. The same issue that caused the secession and subsequent War of Northern Aggression.

 

[Vandalshandle]

I'm kind of aware of that, since my great grandfather fought for Tennessee, in the Civil War, and was captured twice, and escaped twice, and wounded at Franklinton.

Nevertheless, I am also aware of my status on a United States Citizen. I love my country, and those who would tear it apart are people who deserve no respect . So, now, we have defined each other.

Should I be a complete ignorant ass and post something written almost 30 years after the Civil War with a bunch of {sigh}s in it? I think not. Only a fucking political asshole would do such a thing.

I have a sworn duty to our Constitution. I, too, love my country. The difference between you and I is that I seek to maintain individual liberties where you seek to corral everyone "for their own good" and force them down a single road with the entire force of the Federal government.

Well, good luck with your agenda of allowing states to succeed from the union. That alone puts you into the "NUT" category.

 

[JQPublic1]

I'm kind of aware of that, since my great grandfather fought for Tennessee, in the Civil War, and was captured twice, and escaped twice, and wounded at Franklinton.

Nevertheless, I am also aware of my status on a United States Citizen. I love my country, and those who would tear it apart are people who deserve no respect . So, now, we have defined each other.

Should I be a complete ignorant ass and post something written almost 30 years after the Civil War with a bunch of {sigh}s in it? I think not. Only a fucking political asshole would do such a thing.

I have a sworn duty to our Constitution. I, too, love my country. The difference between you and I is that I seek to maintain individual liberties where you seek to corral everyone "for their own good" and force them down a single road with the entire force of the Federal government.

Four years after the Civil war ended the legal right to secede was addressed by the Supreme Court decision of Texas v. White. To the victors belongs the spoils. The Union's Supreme Court reached back into the past and pulled up the Articles of Confederation. The Court viewed that agreement as a contract without secession clauses or inferred rights to secede.

The Articles of Confederation emerged therein as a binding agreement, the tenets of which are to be discharged in perpetuity as the cohesive unifying the states. The court held that the Constitution did not permit states to unilaterally secede.


Given the retroactive nature of Texas v. White the Pledge of Allegiance,although written years later, embodies the spirit of that decision. The words of the pledge are tied, inextricably, to the Article of Confederation via the Supreme Court's Texas v. White decision. Vandalshandle was spot on!.

 

[Desperado]

Get real Obama by himself cannot ban a damn thing! He is not almighty, no matter what he says!

 

[Divine Wind]

Well, good luck with your agenda of allowing states to succeed from the union. That alone puts you into the "NUT" category.

I never said that, but I've come to have low expectations of you.

Notice how you skew left?

 

[Divine Wind]

Get real Obama by himself cannot ban a damn thing! He is not almighty, no matter what he says!

Disagreed slightly. He can act within his powers, but all of his actions can be reversed too.

 

[Divine Wind]

Four years after the Civil war ended the legal right to secede was addressed by the Supreme Court decision of Texas v. White. To the victors belongs the spoils. The Union's Supreme Court reached back into the past and pulled up the Articles of Confederation. The Court viewed that agreement as a contract without secession clauses or inferred rights to secede.

The Articles of Confederation emerged therein as a binding agreement, the tenets of which are to be discharged in perpetuity as the cohesive unifying the states. The court held that the Constitution did not permit states to unilaterally secede.


Given the retroactive nature of Texas v. White the Pledge of Allegiance,although written years later, embodies the spirit of that decision. The words of the pledge are tied, inextricably, to the Article of Confederation via the Supreme Court's Texas v. White decision. Vandalshandle was spot on!.

Retroactive history is, indeed, part of the spoils of war. Nonetheless, is was all done post-Civil War.

 

[JQPublic1]

Four years after the Civil war ended the legal right to secede was addressed by the Supreme Court decision of Texas v. White. To the victors belongs the spoils. The Union's Supreme Court reached back into the past and pulled up the Articles of Confederation. The Court viewed that agreement as a contract without secession clauses or inferred rights to secede.

The Articles of Confederation emerged therein as a binding agreement, the tenets of which are to be discharged in perpetuity as the cohesive unifying the states. The court held that the Constitution did not permit states to unilaterally secede.


Given the retroactive nature of Texas v. White the Pledge of Allegiance,although written years later, embodies the spirit of that decision. The words of the pledge are tied, inextricably, to the Article of Confederation via the Supreme Court's Texas v. White decision. Vandalshandle was spot on!.

Retroactive history is, indeed, part of the spoils of war. Nonetheless, is was all done post-Civil War.

The Articles of Confederation were signed and agreed to BEFORE the war. And there were no unilateral provisions for secession.

 

[Divine Wind]

The Articles of Confederation were signed and agreed to BEFORE the war. And there were no unilateral provisions for secession.

No need to be. You're forgetting the provisions of both 9th and 10th Amendments.

Additionally, the Declaration of Independence remains a part of those accords and agreements.

 

[JQPublic1]

The Articles of Confederation were signed and agreed to BEFORE the war. And there were no unilateral provisions for secession.

No need to be. You're forgetting the provisions of both 9th and 10th Amendments.

Additionally, the Declaration of Independence remains a part of those accords and agreements.

The Supreme Court was aware of the amendments and the Declaration of Independence when he Texas v. White decision was rendered,. None of those documents swayed them to opine differently or to deviate from the course they took . Are you second guessing them?

 

[Vandalshandle]

Somebody call Washington, and tell them to dust off the extra chair in the Supreme Court. Divine Wind is on his way to take his rightful place.....

 

[Flopper]

Are you referring to just slavery?

Not even. I'm referring to self-determination and the idea of keeping Federal government both weak and limited. Obviously times have changed, but there's still a valid reason to keep the Federal government in check and allow the states the near-autonomy they had prior to the Civil War.

Yeah, that lasted about as long as it took the ink to dry on the Constitution. From day one, it was inevitable that the power of the federal government would grow and grow and grow.

 

[Divine Wind]

The Supreme Court was aware of the amendments and the Declaration of Independence when he Texas v. White decision was rendered,. None of those documents swayed them to opine differently or to deviate from the course they took . Are you second guessing them?

Interesting. Were they also aware of it when they made the Dred Scott decision? It's your choice to have complete faith that every SCOTUS decision is correct, but, while it is the highest law in the land, it's not perfect. You should know better.

 

[Divine Wind]

Yeah, that lasted about as long as it took the ink to dry on the Constitution. From day one, it was inevitable that the power of the federal government would grow and grow and grow.

Disagreed. Sure, the battle between Federal dominance and State's rights was often fought in Congress, but it wasn't resolved until over 700,000 Americans had died....and, TBO, is still contentious. All the Civil War resolved was whether or not States could secede....retroactively, of course.

 

[Divine Wind]

Somebody call Washington, and tell them to dust off the extra chair in the Supreme Court. Divine Wind is on his way to take his rightful place.....

Someone call the Mayo Clinic and advise them we have another LWL born without a spine nor a brain.

 

[Syriusly]

Lincoln was President of the United States....the Constitution, written by the Founding Fathers gave him substantial power....and you are dead wrong about what the Founders wanted. The Founders had already started discussing that slavery was wrong....even though most of them owned slaves...


In his initial draft of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson condemned the injustice of the slave trade and, by implication, slavery, but he also blamed the presence of enslaved Africans in North America on avaricious British colonial policies. Jefferson thus acknowledged that slavery violated the natural rights of the enslaved, while at the same time he absolved Americans of any responsibility for owning slaves themselves. The Continental Congress apparently rejected the tortured logic of this passage by deleting it from the final document, but this decision also signaled the Founders’ commitment to subordinating the controversial issue of slavery to the larger goal of securing the unity and independence of the United States.

Nevertheless, the Founders, with the exception of those from South Carolina and Georgia, exhibited considerable aversion to slavery during the era of the Articles of Confederation (1781–89) by prohibiting the importation of foreign slaves to individual states and lending their support to a proposal by Jefferson to ban slavery in the Northwest Territory.
The Founding Fathers and Slavery | Founding Fathers

It is Anti-American to want to fly the Confederate flag. The Confederacy lost to the United States....why would anyone want to fly the flag of the losers?

It would be tantamount to some British people wanting to fly the American flag in some of their government buildings in England.....idiotic, at best.

Yes, the powers of government are delineated by the Constitution. That's its purpose. True the Founders were split on the slavery issue even though most of them had slaves, but that's not what I was writing about. I was referring to the fact that states had a right to secede per the Constitution since that power was not given to the Federal government until after the war.

There is nothing in the Constitution which provides for states being able to secede.

The writers put in the mechanism for how to change the Constitution, and for how new States could become part of the United States- but no mechanism for existing states to leave the Union.

 

[Syriusly]

Yeah, that lasted about as long as it took the ink to dry on the Constitution. From day one, it was inevitable that the power of the federal government would grow and grow and grow.

Disagreed. Sure, the battle between Federal dominance and State's rights was often fought in Congress, but it wasn't resolved until over 700,000 Americans had died....and, TBO, is still contentious. All the Civil War resolved was whether or not States could secede....retroactively, of course.

The Civil War also resolved the question of slavery in the United States.

Before the war, the question was whether or not slavery would continue to exist in the United States- and that was a huge division within the United States.

The Civil War resolved that question.

 

[Syriusly]

Racist and racism are 2 different things. Keep up son.

Correct. You're a racist. What's your point?

That white people lie and are the cause of racism.

This is why I lump you with Stevie the racist and Shootspeeder- you are as racist as they are.

Anyone can lie- of any race. But no race is more likely to- or not to lie.
And anyone of any race can be racist.

You are an example.

 

[Syriusly]

The Supreme Court was aware of the amendments and the Declaration of Independence when he Texas v. White decision was rendered,. None of those documents swayed them to opine differently or to deviate from the course they took . Are you second guessing them?

Interesting. Were they also aware of it when they made the Dred Scott decision? It's your choice to have complete faith that every SCOTUS decision is correct, but, while it is the highest law in the land, it's not perfect. You should know better.

Not every Supreme Court decision is 'correct' as in I agree with it- or that it passes the test of time- Dred Scott is a prime example of that.

But the decisions of the Supreme Court are legally binding of course- which is why we needed a Constitutional Amendment to reverse Dred Scott.

 

[Syriusly]

Are you referring to just slavery?

Not even. I'm referring to self-determination and the idea of keeping Federal government both weak and limited. Obviously times have changed, but there's still a valid reason to keep the Federal government in check and allow the states the near-autonomy they had prior to the Civil War.

Yeah, that lasted about as long as it took the ink to dry on the Constitution. From day one, it was inevitable that the power of the federal government would grow and grow and grow.

Hell just look at the differences between the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution.

Why would we want States to have near autonomy like they had before the Civil War?

Do we really want States to be able to ignore the Bill of Rights?

So California could choose to ban all private ownership of guns? So Texas could prevent African Americans from voting?