RetiredGySgt
Diamond Member
Usual response from a board Liberal.
US Constitution
- Thread starter Swamp Fox
- Start date
Usual response from a board Liberal.
- Banned
- #42
you insult me...I am going to tell you to go fuck yourself. it really is quite simple sarge.
I took an oath and I would follow it, perhaps you would abandon your post and run off to support your cult, but I would follow the orders of the president of the united states and the orders of the officers appointed over me, regardless of the political affiliation of the president.
RetiredGySgt
Diamond Member
Your oath is to the people ultimately not the current regime. So let me get this right... if a total corrupt evil Regime came to power while you were an active officer and the people rebelled, you would ignore your own morals and knowl;edge of right and wrong and obey orders to shoot American Citizens? Does that about sum up your position?
If it does you would in fact be violating your oath and would be obeying illegal orders. But thanks for playing.
William Joyce
Chemotherapy for PC
The Declaration of Independence trumps the Constitution.
RetiredGySgt
Diamond Member
There would have been no Court Case if the South won, BUT guess what? You did NOT WIN. Live with it. The Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitution does in fact prevent States from leaving the Union with OUT the permission of said Union.
The Supreme Court is the final arbitory on what the Constitution means or does not mean, until you manage to get another case before them and overturn the decision then the Constitution DOES INDEED prevent any State from leaving the Union.
RetiredGySgt
Diamond Member
But I thought you considered anyone who ignored the Constitution a domestic enemy? Since Lincoln ignored the Constitution during his entire presidency, doesn't that make him a domestic enemy by your own reasoning??
Lincoln did not ignore the Constitution, go peddle your lying ass some where else.
jillian
Princess
On what planet?
Swamp Fox
Active Member
- Apr 1, 2008
- 807
- 59
- 28
- Thread starter
- #52
RGS,
Just a little history here
ex parte Milligan
On September 15, 1863, Lincoln imposed Congressionally-authorized martial law. The authorizing act allowed the President to suspend habeas corpus throughout the entire United States. Lincoln imposed the suspension on "prisoners of war, spies, or aiders and abettors of the enemy," as well as on other classes of people, such as draft dodgers. The President's proclamation was challenged in ex parte Milligan (71 US 2 [1866]). The Supreme Court ruled that Lincoln's imposition of martial law (by way of suspension of habeas corpus) was unconstitutional.
In arguments before the Court, the counsel for the United States spoke to the question of "what is martial law?" "Martial law," it was argued, "is the will of the commanding officer of an armed force, or of a geographical military department, expressed in time of war within the limits of his military jurisdiction, as necessity demands and prudence dictates, restrained or enlarged by the orders of his military chief, or supreme executive ruler." In other words, martial law is imposed by a local commander on the region he controls, on an as-needed basis. Further, it was argued, "The officer executing martial law is at the same time supreme legislator, supreme judge, and supreme executive. As necessity makes his will the law, he only can define and declare it; and whether or not it is infringed, and of the extent of the infraction, he alone can judge; and his sole order punishes or acquits the alleged offender."
In this case, Lambden Milligan, for whom the case is named, was arrested in Indiana as a Confederate sympathizer. Indiana, like the rest of the United States, was part of a military district set up to help conduct the war. Milligan was tried by military commission and sentenced to die by hanging. After his conviction, Milligan petitioned the Circuit Court for habeas corpus, arguing that his arrest, trial, and conviction were all unconstitutional. What the Supreme Court had to decide, it said, was "Had [the military commission] the legal power and authority to try and punish [Milligan]?"
Resoundingly, the Court said no. The Court stated what is almost painfully obvious: "Martial law ... destroys every guarantee of the Constitution." The Court reminded the reader that such actions were taken by the King of Great Britain, which caused, in part, the Revolution. "Civil liberty and this kind of martial law cannot endure together; the antagonism is irreconcilable; and, in the conflict, one or the other must perish."
Did this mean that martial law could never be implemented? No, the Court said. The President can declare martial law when circumstances warrant it: When the civil authority cannot operate, then martial law is not only constitutional, but would be necessary: "If, in foreign invasion or civil war, the courts are actually closed, and it is impossible to administer criminal justice according to law, then, on the theatre of active military operations, where war really prevails, there is a necessity to furnish a substitute for the civil authority, thus overthrown, to preserve the safety of the army and society; and as no power is left but the military, it is allowed to govern by martial rule until the laws can have their free course. As necessity creates the rule, so it limits its duration; for, if this government is continued after the courts are reinstated, it is a gross usurpation of power. Martial rule can never exist where the courts are open, and in the proper and unobstructed exercise of their jurisdiction. It is also confined to the locality of actual war."
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_mlaw.html
Swamp Fox
Active Member
- Apr 1, 2008
- 807
- 59
- 28
- Thread starter
- #53
RGS,
There's also this
More violations of the Constitution probably occurred during Abraham Lincoln’s four years as president than during any other cohesively defined era in American history. Many have pointed out that Lincoln suspended habeas corpus to jail war protesters, shut down hundreds of newspapers that disagreed with his war, established a draft for the first time in American history (except in the seceded South, which had a draft a year earlier), instituted restrictions on firearms, and sent troops to violently suppress the New York draft riot. He also used the war to push through the "American System," a program of de facto nationalization of the transportation industry via massive subsidies to corporations that would agree to build "internal improvements" – railroads, waterways, and canals. The victory of the Union in 1865 not only established that, contrary to popular political theory in the antebellum era, the federal government was completely supreme over the states; it also established that a president could do literally anything he could get away with, no matter how many liberties were suspended, innocents jailed, and people killed in the process.
It is, in fact, almost silly even to refer to "Constitutional rights" during the Lincoln Administration. Even historians who obsessively admire the sixteenth president sometimes admit that his regime was dictatorial (though, of course, they regard him as having been a benign despot). During the War Between the States, the Bill of Rights wasnÂ’t eroded or compromised; it was ignored completely. But though the Bill of Rights gained strength immediately after the Lincoln Administration, it remains useful to examine where and how it has taken a comparable beating in the many years since then.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/gregory1.html
There's also this
More violations of the Constitution probably occurred during Abraham Lincoln’s four years as president than during any other cohesively defined era in American history. Many have pointed out that Lincoln suspended habeas corpus to jail war protesters, shut down hundreds of newspapers that disagreed with his war, established a draft for the first time in American history (except in the seceded South, which had a draft a year earlier), instituted restrictions on firearms, and sent troops to violently suppress the New York draft riot. He also used the war to push through the "American System," a program of de facto nationalization of the transportation industry via massive subsidies to corporations that would agree to build "internal improvements" – railroads, waterways, and canals. The victory of the Union in 1865 not only established that, contrary to popular political theory in the antebellum era, the federal government was completely supreme over the states; it also established that a president could do literally anything he could get away with, no matter how many liberties were suspended, innocents jailed, and people killed in the process.
It is, in fact, almost silly even to refer to "Constitutional rights" during the Lincoln Administration. Even historians who obsessively admire the sixteenth president sometimes admit that his regime was dictatorial (though, of course, they regard him as having been a benign despot). During the War Between the States, the Bill of Rights wasnÂ’t eroded or compromised; it was ignored completely. But though the Bill of Rights gained strength immediately after the Lincoln Administration, it remains useful to examine where and how it has taken a comparable beating in the many years since then.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/gregory1.html
Umm, no. It was ALWAYS the law of the land. The USSC doesn't MAKE law they INTERPRET Law. Therefore it was always the law of the land, the USSC just explicitly said it then.
No...you are pretty much wrong. You don't get to just secede and say "naah, now I'm my own country".
Gunny
Gold Member
You're twisting the argument. I did NOT say that it is not law.
I said prior to the US Civil War, it was not law.
The facts have nothing to do with what I do or do not like, so you should present them in proper context with the argument and not concern yourself with my likes and dislikes.
What the Supreme Court decided in 1869 is irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not secession was legal in 1861.
Nope, it was still law then. As I've said, ad nauseum, the USSC doesn't make law, it interprets law. It didn't say "well we think it should be illegal, therefore it is". They looked at pre-existing documents (documents which existed before 1861) and said that those documents say that secession is illegal.
Did the documents exist before? Yes. It was always illegal.
The Supreme Court did not rule this until 1869. Had they ruled in 1859, then you could say that the South committed illegal activity. It is not suprising that a government consisting of a majority of Northerners, would condemn the actions of the SOuth. You mind as well put a black man on trial with an all white Jury. It became law of the Land after 1869, but up until that ruling, there was no ruling. And even after 1869, there was still no provision in the COnstitution that forbade the secession of states.
What's unconstitutional, is the fact that it is not found in the Constitution in place in 1861 when the states left the said Union.
"A state can not leave the Union without the consent of said Union."
That's like saying that tomorrow, the internet is illegal and that everyone that had used the internet before hand was guilty of a crime.
THere was no law forbading the states to secede. There was no law forbading slavery.
Amendment 10 says it all.
No...you are pretty much wrong. You don't get to just secede and say "naah, now I'm my own country".
It was ok for Texas to do that when it seceded from Mexico. IT was also alright for the colonies to secede from England in the American Revolution. So because the war was actually won, it's justified? I see how this works.
According to the Native Americans, it wasn't ok to just come over and say, "nah...this is my country, not yours."
The secession was not illegal, nor was slavery at the time.
- Banned
- #60
my oath was to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic, to bear true faith and allegiance to the same, and to obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
You apparently were crossing your fingers when you raised YOUR hand.
and there is nothing "playing" about it.
Similar threads
