Liberals hate freedom

Good Luck said:
Lincoln's intent - whether you agree with it or not - was to prevent the south from seceding, thus preserving the union. (Another aspect of Lincoln's strong federalist beliefs.) By his definition - which was later upheld by both SCOTUS and Congress - the declaration to secede was insurrection.

Anyway, you call his war "unconstitutional". You use the term out of ignorance of the facts. Ditto people calling Vietnam, Korea, and the current Iraq wars "unconstitutional"

I invite you to study the Prize Cases from the Civil War, in which SCOTUS made its first and most encompassing decision regarding the power of the president as Commander in Chief. No challenge since has made a significant change to the Prize Cases decision. It is why Korea and Vietnam were allowed to take place despite there being no War Powers Act. It is also why all sitting presidents since 1973 (of both parties) have claimed at one time or another that the WPA itself claims unconstitutional authority by congress over presidential powers as CinC.

http://www.answers.com/topic/prize-cases

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=67&invol=635
Click to expand...

Insurrection might have been interpreted that way, but I can't agree with that, considering that the South was not trying to overthrow the government of the North, it was trying to secede from it. The Constitution was ratified by the original 13 colonies, in other words it was agreed upon at that time, but each state reserves the right to secede as a sovereign entity. SCOTUS may not have interpreted it that way, but that's not the only time I've disagreed with them (Dred Scott, Plessy vs. Ferguson, Kelo, etc.).

Mind you, I strongly feel the North should have purchased all of the slaves in the South and set them free in the North, ending slavery as other nations have done.
 
froggie said:
I knew these guys would panic if a Democrat won. Obama now has all this Presidential power, granted by Bush and Cheney and they aren't liking it one little bit!

This wire tap is for you!
Click to expand...
You are assuming any of us liked BUSH fucking the 4th A. Dunno, maybe a few republican drones did, but most did not.

And it is equally humorous (or sad - take your pick) how the dems bring this up conveniently forget that Obama voted for extended FISA authority, after promising to vote against it. Not to mention the democrats had the majority at the time and could easily have defeated the bill without any chance of resurrection later. Guess they liked the idea of all that power, too, and pretty much knew (as did the rest of the nation that weren't hiding in the sand) they'd soon have the opportunity to use.

Hell yes I am afraid of the powers they have, due mostly to Bush fucking the BOR, but also due to Congress deciding to help.
 
Good Luck said:
You are assuming any of us liked BUSH fucking the 4th A. Dunno, maybe a few republican drones did, but most did not.

And it is equally humorous (or sad - take your pick) how the dems bring this up conveniently forget that Obama voted for extended FISA authority, after promising to vote against it. Not to mention the democrats had the majority at the time and could easily have defeated the bill without any chance of resurrection later. Guess they liked the idea of all that power, too, and pretty much knew (as did the rest of the nation that weren't hiding in the sand) they'd soon have the opportunity to use.

Hell yes I am afraid of the powers they have, due mostly to Bush fucking the BOR, but also due to Congress deciding to help.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Bush was not a conservative and Obama is going to want to carry out much of the same things, for the same reasons or others. It will be interesting pointing out the irony.
 
ironhead said:
Yeah, except Lincoln would not agree to Southern offers of compensation for Union property in the South. Lincoln's defiance essentially began the war. Moreover, Union blockades of Southern commercial ports ruined the South's economy - a sanction in effect, which is an act of war. The South responded with military action, but the North initiated the acrimony which lead to it.
Click to expand...

Rebellion IS NOT LEGAL. You can do it, but you better damn well be prepared to fight a war over it.
 
ironhead said:
What gives the Federal Government authority? The Constitution, or does it just have power in and of itself?
Click to expand...
The Constitution. So which article is it that says states can secede? Cause there is nothing that I can find that says parties to this agreement can leave at anytime. Contracts don't work that way unless they are written that way. And that is just for the sake of arguement that this is some sort of "contract".
 
ironhead said:
Insurrection might have been interpreted that way, but I can't agree with that, considering that the South was not trying to overthrow the government of the North, it was trying to secede from it. The Constitution was ratified by the original 13 colonies, in other words it was agreed upon at that time, but each state reserves the right to secede as a sovereign entity. SCOTUS may not have interpreted it that way, but that's not the only time I've disagreed with them (Dred Scott, Plessy vs. Ferguson, Kelo, etc.).

Mind you, I strongly feel the North should have purchased all of the slaves in the South and set them free in the North, ending slavery as other nations have done.
Click to expand...
Well, both SCOTUS and Congress saw it Lincoln's way. So I guess the history disagrees with you. Not to mention that MOST nations, then and today, would also consider seceding to be an act of insurrection.

And the South would never have allowed the North to end slavery by buying them all out. Most plantations of the time would simply have refused to sell, being dependent on the labor force slavery provided. That method only works after economic conditions have already made slavery obsolete. Those conditions were still a good 2-3 decades away in 1865 in the South. Not to mention the North PUSHING for economic conditions unfavorable to slavery was a primary cause in the call for secession.


Oh, and nowhere in the Constitution did it say the states have the authority to back out once they'd ratified. If that were even an unenumerated power, we would have long ago ceased to exist. The nation would have fractured further as precedent was set that if a state doesn't like things, they go their merry way. And like I said above, I doubt you'd have ANY nation agree, no matter HOW freedom loving, that secession is a state's right.

And what would have happened in WWII if North America was comprised of 10 or more bickering sovereign states instead of one very strong United States (plus Canada and Mexico)? Probably Japan would not have attacked at Pearl Harbor. But Nazi Germany would have had the power to win the Battle for Britain (since we had been sending them lots of help before we even entered the fray officially) and from there would have had just the one front against Russia to deal with and all of Europe to draw on while Japan attacked Russia from the other side.
 
Last edited:
Socrtease said:
The Constitution. So which article is it that says states can secede? Cause there is nothing that I can find that says parties to this agreement can leave at anytime. Contracts don't work that way unless they are written that way. And that is just for the sake of arguement that this is some sort of "contract".
Click to expand...

Contracts are to be considered binding in perpetuity?

The states ratified the Constitution, if they later determine that they do not want to be part of the Union anymore, then the state has the right to secede. Otherwise, all future generations are to be held to the decisions of their forbears, without any recourse other than Constitutional convention?

Mind you, I'm not advocating that seceding was a good idea.
 
ironhead said:
Contracts are to be considered binding in perpetuity?

The states ratified the Constitution, if they later determine that they do not want to be part of the Union anymore, then the state has the right to secede. Otherwise, all future generations are to be held to the decisions of their forbears, without any recourse other than Constitutional convention?

Mind you, I'm not advocating that seceding was a good idea.
Click to expand...
In a word, though you try to spin it to make it sound as negative as possible, yes.

It is binding in perpetuity. "Secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves AND OUR POSTERITY..." As in those who come after. Most laws are binding in perpetuity, unless they are written with a sunset clause. Technically most laws are a contract between the people and those they chose to represent them in writing those laws. And there is a reason the Constitution is called "The Law of the Land".

There are two possible recourses: get enough states to agree to a new constitutional convention, and then do not ratify, thereby going it alone at that time (Assuming enough states DO ratify it to supercede the old constitution). OR insurrection and secession. Like I said, allowing a state at any time the authority to just call it quits whenever they feel like it would have broken us up long ago. No nation can survive long with that kind of non-binding structure. May as well have stuck with the articles of confederation.
 
Last edited:
SmarterThanYou said:
Why liberals and socialists deny the constitution.

For decades the liberals and socialists of this great country have pursued the ultimate destruction of the US Consitution by judicial tyranny through installing unamerican totalitarian minded ideologists on the federal courts.

several cases in point to prove, beyond any shadow of a doubt, are the slaughterhouse cases, wickard v. fillburn, and US v. Miller. All of these cases bent their ears on forcing liberalization through federal law enforcement by expanding the commerce clause of the US Constitution to the extent that congress can legislate what you can and cannot grow on your own property for your own purposes.

Later 21st century cases expand the commerce clause powers of congress even further through cases such as gonzalez v. raich.

One case in particular stands out to show that liberals don't like the constitution is Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990) that totally obliterates the 4th amendment, by the United States Supreme Courts own admission, by deciding that the states interest in reducing drunk driving is greater than the 4th amendment protections guaranteed by the US Consitution EVEN THOUGH the sobriety checkpoints provided little proof that they made any dent or decrease in drunk driving throughout the US.

Liberals hate freedom and the US Constitution. Ban all Liberals.
Click to expand...

Oh yea.....conservatives just LOOOOVE freedom.....until someone actually practices it. Then there a freedom hating liberal.
 
Good Luck said:
In a word, though you try to spin it to make it sound as negative as possible, yes.

It is binding in perpetuity. "Secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves AND OUR POSTERITY..." As in those who come after. Most laws are binding in perpetuity, unless they are written with a sunset clause. Technically most laws are a contract between the people and those they chose to represent them in writing those laws. And there is a reason the Constitution is called "The Law of the Land".

There are two possible recourses: get enough states to agree to a new constitutional convention, and then do not ratify, thereby going it alone at that time (Assuming enough states DO ratify it to supercede the old constitution). OR insurrection and secession. Like I said, allowing a state at any time the authority to just call it quits whenever they feel like it would have broken us up long ago. No nation can survive long with that kind of non-binding structure. May as well have stuck with the articles of confederation.
Click to expand...

Texas vs. White may have legally settled the issue, but there were those at the time who most certainly did not agree. From what I have read, Texas vs. White is the primary precedent and most legal scholars seem to agree that an argument can be made that the Constitution itself is ambiguous about the right to secede. I will side with Lysander Spooner and the Declaration of Independence on the theoretical and moral argument that people (in this case, states) have the right to secede when they feel it is just or their government is tyrannical.

I am not making the case that the South was right to secede, as many simply wanted to maintain autonomy so that slavery could be continued, a practice I utterly abhor and believe to be anathema to any notion of liberty.
That said, I believe that any legitimate constitution is agreed upon by free peoples and can be rejected at a later date. If this is not so, then how can they be considered free and the law legitimate? What of the notion of a just government deriving its powers from the consent of the governed?
 
ironhead said:
Texas vs. White may have legally settled the issue, but there were those at the time who most certainly did not agree. From what I have read, Texas vs. White is the primary precedent and most legal scholars seem to agree that an argument can be made that the Constitution itself is ambiguous about the right to secede. I will side with Lysander Spooner and the Declaration of Independence on the theoretical and moral argument that people (in this case, states) have the right to secede when they feel it is just or their government is tyrannical.

I am not making the case that the South was right to secede, as many simply wanted to maintain autonomy so that slavery could be continued, a practice I utterly abhor and believe to be anathema to any notion of liberty.
That said, I believe that any legitimate constitution is agreed upon by free peoples and can be rejected at a later date. If this is not so, then how can they be considered free and the law legitimate? What of the notion of a just government deriving its powers from the consent of the governed?
Click to expand...

States can rebel, but it is illegal, and nothing requires the US government to condone a rebellion. That would be absurd.
 
There is no such thing as natural rights Ironhead. It is absolutely absurd for an atheist to find proof of liberty in "natural rights", because it's a concept as man-made as religion. If you want to condone your beliefs, use reason. It's stupid to appeal to "natural rights", because there's nothing natural about them.
 
Watermark said:
There is no such thing as natural rights Ironhead. It is absolutely absurd for an atheist to find proof of liberty in "natural rights", because it's a concept as man-made as religion. If you want to condone your beliefs, use reason. It's stupid to appeal to "natural rights", because there's nothing natural about them.
Click to expand...

fucktard. Natural rights exist simply because you're human.....

ok, they exist because WE'RE human. You don't have any because you're hellspawn.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
fucktard. Natural rights exist simply because you're human.....

ok, they exist because WE'RE human. You don't have any because you're hellspawn.
Click to expand...

WHY do they exist because you're human? What about the universe compels them to exist? Nothing. Nothing at all. There is no creator. Natural rights are man-made, and therefore, not natural.

It's an argument from nothing. Again, if you can't prove your points with logic, don't immediately invent a right, call it natural, and try to use that instead. Just go home.
 
Watermark said:
WHY do they exist because you're human? What about the universe compels them to exist? Nothing. Nothing at all. There is no creator. Natural rights are man-made, and therefore, not natural.
Click to expand...
Natural rights exist because you're human. A living being. Nothing more or less than a squirrel, a fish, or a crow. You live, so you have rights. Again, everyone but you because you suck.

Watermark said:
It's an argument from nothing. Again, if you can't prove your points with logic, don't immediately invent a right, call it natural, and try to use that instead. Just go home.
Click to expand...
I'm alive, I have rights. My dog is alive, she has rights. My rats live, they have rights. That is all the proof I need.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
Natural rights exist because you're human. A living being. Nothing more or less than a squirrel, a fish, or a crow. You live, so you have rights. Again, everyone but you because you suck.


I'm alive, I have rights. My dog is alive, she has rights. My rats live, they have rights. That is all the proof I need.
Click to expand...

This is not an argument. This is like talking to a religious person.

Natural rights don't exist. For anything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top