Lincoln as mass murderer?

[GenSeneca]

A just war? Now there is an oxymoron.

Is Self-Defense an oxymoron?

 

[BigRob]

Just to be clear, you're saying that if a state feels the FEDERAL government has overstepped it's bounds their only recourse is FEDERAL court. Do you not see the problem with this argument?

I see what you would argue is the problem...but legally, such a case has to be in federal court....

Do states have Rights? It would appear from your argument that states do NOT have Rights, only privileges subject to the whims of the federal government.

States do have rights...and when the federal government infringes on those rights, their recourse should come through the courts...after all, the US Constitution is a federal document (ie federal law), and therefore federal courts have jurisdiction.

And I do agree, the resolutions should be binding. The non-binding resolutions have the right spirit but lack the necessary balls to back it up.

In the absence of such binding resolutions, can you really argue that states have not "given consent" to be governed in a form?

 

[Gipper]

Is Self-Defense an oxymoron?

Apparently it is to morons.

If he were a Jew in Europe in WWII, he would've become pretty lamp shade.

 

[dogtowner]

This is one of the most absurd things I have ever read...Let's take a look at a real time line shall we?

Dec. 1860 - South Carolina convention passes ordinance of secession.
Dec. 1860 - South Carolina troops occupy Fort Moultrie and Castle Pinckney.
Dec. 1860 - South Carolina seizes the Charleston Arsenal.
Jan. 1861 - South Carolina seizes Fort Johnson, in Charleston Harbor.
Jan. 1861 - Shots fired at the Star of the West as it enters Charleston Port with supplies and reinforcements.
Feb. 1861 - Washington Peace conference held. Lincoln is present only at final day and offers to evacuate Fort Sumter if the Virginia secession convention adjourns.
April 1861 - Fort Sumter attacked.

So, according to you...South Carolina occupying forts, seizing weapons, and firing at relief ships... all before Lincoln even took office mind you... is irrelevant, and it was Lincoln who caused/started the war?

He took office in March, they were in negotiations on how to address forts and such and as you point out Lincoln sends reinforcements, a clear provocation. Even the union commander admitted this.

 

[GenSeneca]

I see what you would argue is the problem...but legally, such a case has to be in federal court....

Just one example; FDR threatened to stack the SP if they did not vote his actions as being constitutional. If the States are forced to put their Rights in the hands of a court system subject to coercion from the Executive branch, and must have permission from the federal government before their case can even be heard, yeah... I do see a serious risk in States placing their Rights in the hands of the federal court system.

States do have rights...and when the federal government infringes on those rights, their recourse should come through the courts...after all, the US Constitution is a federal document (ie federal law), and therefore federal courts have jurisdiction.

See above. In a situation where the SP is being coerced and/or the federal government refuses to allow the SP to hear the complaints of the State against the federal government, what recourse is left to the State?

I am not denying that as a federal document, complaints of the States do fall under the jurisdiction of the federal courts but when its the federal government violating the constitutional Rights of the States, and those violations are wrongly upheld in the SP as constitutional, the States need another avenue for redress of grievances.

In the absence of such binding resolutions, can you really argue that states have not "given consent" to be governed in a form?

You are arguing implied consent. That aside... You have argued States do not have the Right to withdraw consent outside of the federal court system, exactly what, in your opinion, would be the legal standing of a state unilaterally withdrawing consent through a binding resolution rather than through the federal court?

 

[BigRob]

He took office in March, they were in negotiations on how to address forts and such and as you point out Lincoln sends reinforcements, a clear provocation. Even the union commander admitted this.

Secession is not a provocation in your opinion? Seizing forts and weapons, and firing on ships is not a clear provocation?

 

[BigRob]

Just one example; FDR threatened to stack the SP if they did not vote his actions as being constitutional. If the States are forced to put their Rights in the hands of a court system subject to coercion from the Executive branch, and must have permission from the federal government before their case can even be heard, yeah... I do see a serious risk in States placing their Rights in the hands of the federal court system.

As opposed to what though? Putting their Rights in the hands of a state government that can just as easily be coerced? If we cannot trust the courts, who can we really trust?

See above. In a situation where the SP is being coerced and/or the federal government refuses to allow the SP to hear the complaints of the State against the federal government, what recourse is left to the State?

States will be able to sue the federal government. Just look at the healthcare issue..the fact that the government has to agree to be sued does not mean States won't be able to do it in my opinion.

I am not denying that as a federal document, complaints of the States do fall under the jurisdiction of the federal courts but when its the federal government violating the constitutional Rights of the States, and those violations are wrongly upheld in the SP as constitutional, the States need another avenue for redress of grievances.

That avenue for grievances can be found through the ability to amend the Constitution, or propose new legislation at the federal level via their representation in each particular federal body.

You are arguing implied consent. That aside... You have argued States do not have the Right to withdraw consent outside of the federal court system, exactly what, in your opinion, would be the legal standing of a state unilaterally withdrawing consent through a binding resolution rather than through the federal court?

I think it would come down to a case by case basis... I don't think you would be able to just fully withdraw consent, it would depend on each piece of legislation that the federal government passed, and then it would come down to the courts again making the determination if something is or is not constitutional.

Keep in mind that is just my opinion, and I could be wrong, so please feel free to correct me if I am.

 

[Apathy]

Apparently it is to morons.

If he were a Jew in Europe in WWII, he would've become pretty lamp shade.

Gipper your ignorance is leaking again.

 

[Apathy]

Is Self-Defense an oxymoron?

Self defense would imply an agressor and the agressor would be unjustified.

 

[dogtowner]

Secession is not a provocation in your opinion?

No and neither did most of the public as evidenced by countless newspaper reports.

Seizing forts and weapons, and firing on ships is not a clear provocation?

Forts are no longer located in the United States, how is it seizing ? The Confederacy was at work from the start to sort this out for obvious reasons. The ships carried reinforcements secretly dispatched by the commander in chief.

 

[Dr.Who]

I think that depends on what the federal law is, and how it has been crafted.

Then there is some time when you think the states can nullify a federal law or you would not have used the word "depends".

And if they can nullify some then perhaps others?

On what principle do we know which they can nullify and which they cannot? Their membership in the union very well might be one they can nullify.

But the way things are going if things get a lot worse the states will have no choice but to "alter" their relationship to the fed. Would it be through a peaceful legal process or through armed conflict? If the peaceful process were not an option then the stage would be set for what would have to be an armed conflict.

 

[Dr.Who]

Gipper your ignorance is leaking again.

That is verbal warfare.

 

[GenSeneca]

Self defense would imply an agressor and the agressor would be unjustified.

In which case the defender is fighting a justified war.

 

[GenSeneca]

But the way things are going if things get a lot worse the states will have no choice but to "alter" their relationship to the fed. Would it be through a peaceful legal process or through armed conflict? If the peaceful process were not an option then the stage would be set for what would have to be an armed conflict.

Big Rob, I have quoted the good Dr. but I am addressing my statements to both of you:

Armed conflict is a terrible last resort which is why I am more interested in discussing legal, peaceful measures for resolving conflicts between the states and federal government.

Considering the SP decision regarding the 2nd amendment as an individual right was a 5-4 decision (when it should have been 9-0) having faith in the SP to hold federal government within its constitutional boundaries and protect the individual rights of every American is almost foolhardy.

Also, its important to remember the SP was never meant to be viewed as the final arbiter of constitutionality, the founders said such a view would lead to an unelected dictatorship of black robes... Obviously that's paraphrased but true to the spirit if not the letter of their sentiments.

Now BigRob, lets say Texas grew a big beautiful pair of balls and the Texas legislature passed a binding resolution declaring they no longer recognized the authority of the federal government. Texas will once again recognize the authority of the federal government once federal power has been strictly limited to its constitutional limits as set forth by the enumerated powers. Texas is not threatening, or even suggesting, secession. Texas simply stops sending money to, and accepting money from, the federal government.

How would such an action be viewed? As rebellion? What recourse would the federal government have in dealing with this problem?

 

[BigRob]

No and neither did most of the public as evidenced by countless newspaper reports.


Forts are no longer located in the United States, how is it seizing ? The Confederacy was at work from the start to sort this out for obvious reasons. The ships carried reinforcements secretly dispatched by the commander in chief.

Illegally seceding does not make you an independent country... it makes you in a state of rebellion.