US Constitution

[Swamp Fox]

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.

 

[Swamp Fox]

Nothing to say, MM??

 

[Gunny]

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.

Dude, not to rain on your parade or nothing, but somebody ALREADY shot him.

 

[Paulie]

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.

Well, Lincoln was shot on sight, so problem solved I guess, no?

 

[Diuretic]

Shot indeed, but not after due process.

 

[Swamp Fox]

Dude, not to rain on your parade or nothing, but somebody ALREADY shot him.

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.

 

[Gunny]

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.

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.

 

[Swamp Fox]

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.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

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.

 

[Gunny]

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.

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.

 

[midcan5]

Please provide link to where this so called assertion took place.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Actually The Supreme Court ruled in 1869 that the rebelling States had no right to withdraw from the Union. But thanks for playing.

 

[M14 Shooter]

According to maineman, those who ignore or violate the US Constitution should be considered domestic enemies and should be shot on sight.

Only if they have a (R) next to their name.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

And by the way, Even IF South Carolina could leave the Union, they do not get to keep Federal property nor attack Federal troops defending it, THOSE are acts of WAR.

South Carolina Started the war. Before they wantonly fired on, killed and captured federal troops Lincoln took NO action against the leaving States, he did not even raise an army as the South was doing.

 

[BrianH]

Actually The Supreme Court ruled in 1869 that the rebelling States had no right to withdraw from the Union. But thanks for playing.

Only the states seceded in 1860-1861, before any such ruling was established. Not to mention the ruling had th weakest of arguments.

As far as agression of the South against the North....Harper's Ferry was an agression against the South by Northern Republicans during the Buchanan admin. The refusal of Federal troops to withdraw from South Carolina property was also an act of agression as well as the re-supply of federal troops at the fort...something Lincoln promised not to do after an armistice was signed by South Carolina and the U.S. Lincoln secretly broke the Armistice without Cabinet or Congressional approval by sending reinforcements and supplies to Fort Sumpter under the cloak of private vessels....after numerous acts of espionage. Not to mention failing to evacuate the premises after timely allowance of the Confederacy.

The states did not rebel. There was no rebellion. There was a secession. It's not even closely related. What were they rebelling against? Considering the 10th amend. gives them the right to exercise powers no prohibited to them by the Constitution. And because secession was not prohibted in the constituion, then the states could and did reserve the right.

 

[BrianH]

And by the way, Even IF South Carolina could leave the Union, they do not get to keep Federal property nor attack Federal troops defending it, THOSE are acts of WAR.

South Carolina Started the war. Before they wantonly fired on, killed and captured federal troops Lincoln took NO action against the leaving States, he did not even raise an army as the South was doing.

Wrong again....espionage and the breaking of an armistice are acts of war. Committed first by the Union. The Confederacy gave the Union numerous opportunities and alot of time to evacuate the Fort. The war of 1812 established the premise that another nation was not to occupy forts in another country if that country did not want them there. The Confederacy gave the Union numerous chances, but the Federal troops refused to leave South Carolina property.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Wrong again....espionage and the breaking of an armistice are acts of war. Committed first by the Union. The Confederacy gave the Union numerous opportunities and alot of time to evacuate the Fort. The war of 1812 established the premise that another nation was not to occupy forts in another country if that country did not want them there. The Confederacy gave the Union numerous chances, but the Federal troops refused to leave South Carolina property.

Once again for the slow, EVEN if the States could freely withdraw they did NOT have the right nor authority to sieze FEDERAL land, property or fire on Federal Troops. Check out the law, those forts were NOT South Carolina property or territory. They were Federal. Once land is ceded it is only regained IF the Federal Government agrees to give it back.

One can not be conducting espionage on their own Country and there was no armistice since the South was not recognized as a country.

But do keep trying. Further the States can not leave on their own. Proven in battle if not in written word. One could take another tact if one wanted, it is weak but no more so then the claim the Southern States were allowed to withdraw on their own.

The Constitution states the Federal Government is responsible to ensure a democratic Government exists in every State. The Southern States denied democracy to the slaves and to poor white trash. Thus their Governments were illegal and had no right to pass articles to leave the union to begin with.

But it is not needed the 1869 Supreme Court ( 0r 1868) decision settles the issue. No matter how much you or anyone finds it weak it is the LAW of the land until either Congress passes new laws or a Supreme Court rules otherwise.

Now if you want to talk about weak Supreme Court decisions look no farther than the Case that gave us legalized abortion. Or are you now going to argue we should ignore that ruling also?

 

[Larkinn]

Only the states seceded in 1860-1861, before any such ruling was established. Not to mention the ruling had th weakest of arguments.
.

Err actually this pretty much settles it. Nobody cares if you think the USSC decision is weak, its the law of the land.

The USSC was interpreting doctrines and documents that existed before the ruling. They didn't make new law to declare the secession illegal, they just interpreted pre-existing law.

So yeah...it was pretty much illegal.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The Constitution states the Federal Government is responsible to ensure a democratic Government exists in every State. The Southern States denied democracy to the slaves and to poor white trash. Thus their Governments were illegal and had no right to pass articles to leave the union to begin with.

The constitution requires that states create a republican from of government.
This doesnt translate to requiring that states let everyone vote.
And in any event, this requirement doesnt apply to states that are no longer part of the union, thereby eliminating it as a justification for war.

But it is not needed the 1869 Supreme Court ( 0r 1868) decision settles the issue.

Bad law is bad law. It should be opposed at every turn.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Err actually this pretty much settles it. Nobody cares if you think the USSC decision is weak, its the law of the land.

Like... Bush v Gore (2000).