US Constitution

Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by Swamp Fox, Apr 13, 2008.

  1. Swamp Fox
    Offline

    Swamp Fox Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Messages:
    807
    Thanks Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +59
    According to maineman, those who ignore or violate the US Constitution should be considered domestic enemies and should be shot on sight. Yet we have a holiday dedicated to the one person who violated more parts of the US Constitution than any other person in history, Abraham Lincoln.

    So, under maineman's logic, Lincoln should not be a respected President, but a domestic enemy and we should dig his corpse up so we could hang him.
     
  2. Swamp Fox
    Offline

    Swamp Fox Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Messages:
    807
    Thanks Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +59
    Nothing to say, MM?? :eusa_think:
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,753
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,770
    Dude, not to rain on your parade or nothing, but somebody ALREADY shot him.:eusa_think:
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 4
  4. Paulie
    Offline

    Paulie Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2007
    Messages:
    31,527
    Thanks Received:
    4,848
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +15,357
    Well, Lincoln was shot on sight, so problem solved I guess, no?
     
  5. Diuretic
    Offline

    Diuretic Permanently confused

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2006
    Messages:
    12,653
    Thanks Received:
    1,397
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    South Australia est 1836
    Ratings:
    +1,397
    Shot indeed, but not after due process.
     
  6. Swamp Fox
    Offline

    Swamp Fox Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Messages:
    807
    Thanks Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +59
    maineman would probably want to dig him up and shoot him again. The point being, we as a nation revere a man who totally trashed the Constitution.
     
  7. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,753
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,770
    However, he is revered for something he never did. He is revered for fighting a war to end slavery which we know just isn't true. It's revisionist history. It's pretty clearly established among those that bother to do any kind of research beyond the 4th grade library book that there was no legal basis for his invasion of the South.

    Be that as it may, I am not inclined to agree with the opinion that "anyone who violates the Consitution should be shot." First, partisan definitions of what is and is not a violation of the Constitution usually are quite a twist.

    If that's the case, since the Constitution clearly states that conducting foreign policy is the President's job and the legal precedent states that Congress should NOT attempt to interfere, then Nancy Pelosi should be hauled out back and shot, along with Dennis Hastert. Then we can start on anyone still alive that took a drink during Prohibition.

    It just depends on who is doing the arguing and what the agenda is, and what is and/or is not a violation.
     
  8. Swamp Fox
    Offline

    Swamp Fox Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Messages:
    807
    Thanks Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +59
    I'm not on board with the shooting everyone either. Just trying to point out to a certain delusional individual on the board how hypocritical his position is.

    That's why he's stayed a 10000000000000 miles away from this thread.
     
  9. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,520
    Thanks Received:
    5,898
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,931
    Horse shit. First off Lincoln did NOT raise an army UNTIL South Carolina ATTACKED Federal Troops ON FEDERAL PROPERTY. Second it is NOT CLEAR he had no right to "invade" the South. In fact it is established he had every right to enforce the will of the legit Government on the Rebelling States. The only revision going on here is your attempt to pretend other wise.

    The South forced a war and suffered the consequences of their action. Lincoln had the right and power to suspend the Constitution during an open rebellion and the actions he took that went to far were reversed by the Courts as is required. Further all his actions ended when the war and reconstruction ended.

    This is an ignorant thread.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  10. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,753
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,770
    You would be incorrect and there is another thread in the History forum discussing this very issue. That Lincoln had ANY authority to hold states within the Union by force is not backed by any legislation. You're just another one of those "Federal authority was supreme" believes and such was NOT the case, nor does any law support any such notion.

    South Carolina demanded the US remove it's garrison from South Carolina property. The US refused. South Carolina removed them by force. Kinda like if you come sit in my front yard and don't leave when I tell you.

    Further, the US invaded the South, not the other way around, so that the South forced a war is factually incorrect.

    Please feel free to show me where the President of the US is authorized by law to suspend any or all parts of the US Constitution to conduct a war.

    And no, the courts didn't reverse anything. From the Civil War to now, the Federal government has usurped any powers it felt it wanted from the states at its whim.

    That in no way reflects the original laws of this nation nor the intents of its founders and most certainly is not a conservative belief.
     

Share This Page