Do the Democrats have ANY credibility at all?

[Larry Gude]

Well...

Only because the North won.

..I sure don't know what the oath was for officers in those days but I guess it included some reference to preserve and defend the Constitution of the US.

I have a strong sentimental streak for the Confederacy, Robert E. Lee, Joe Johnston, the immense difference between them and the common factor that their men loved them both so much, and so on, but I am also Union to the core.

My dad set me straight when I asked what he thought many years ago and his big issue is how much the South got from the North, the military training, technology, trade and so forth, and that they turned their backs on all that basically over losing an election.

How un-American.

 

[Ken King]

Thanks Ken. I did a search but did not find that.

By the way, I don't think I ever said the South did not start the war. My premise was and is that the states that wanted or want to leave the Union had and have that right. I see nowhere where that right was ceded by the states. The South was wrong in firing the first shots.

And an oath at West Point does not effect the Constitution in any way.

Not according to the Supreme Court which in 1869 determined that the states do not and did not have a right to secede (Texas v. White, 74 US 700). The conclusion of that case was "In a 5-to-3 decision, the Court held that Texas did indeed have the right to bring suit and that individuals such as White had no claim to the bonds in question. The Court held that individual states could not unilaterally secede from the Union and that the acts of the insurgent Texas legislature--even if ratified by a majority of Texans--were "absolutely null." Even during the period of rebellion, however, the Court found that Texas continued to be a state."

 

[2ndAmendment]

Not according to the Supreme Court which in 1869 determined that the states do not and did not have a right to secede (Texas v. White, 74 US 700). The conclusion of that case was "In a 5-to-3 decision, the Court held that Texas did indeed have the right to bring suit and that individuals such as White had no claim to the bonds in question. The Court held that individual states could not unilaterally secede from the Union and that the acts of the insurgent Texas legislature--even if ratified by a majority of Texans--were "absolutely null." Even during the period of rebellion, however, the Court found that Texas continued to be a state."

Again, after the Civil War and the Constitution was trampled. There are lots of Supreme Court decisions which are in violation of the intent of the Constitution, but we are stuck with them. Sad our country has gotten here. We have lost the republic just as Ben Franklin feared we would.

“Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”

“A Republic, if you can keep it.”
ATTRIBUTION: The response is attributed to BENJAMIN FRANKLIN—at the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, when queried as he left Independence Hall on the final day of deliberation—in the notes of Dr. James McHenry, one of Maryland’s delegates to the Convention.

McHenry’s notes were first published in The American Historical Review, vol. 11, 1906, and the anecdote on p. 618 reads: “A lady asked Dr. Franklin Well Doctor what have we got a republic or a monarchy. A republic replied the Doctor if you can keep it.” When McHenry’s notes were included in The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, ed. Max Farrand, vol. 3, appendix A, p. 85 (1911, reprinted 1934), a footnote stated that the date this anecdote was written is uncertain.

 

[Ken King]

Again, after the Civil War and the Constitution was trampled. There are lots of Supreme Court decisions which are in violation of the intent of the Constitution, but we are stuck with them. Sad our country has gotten here. We have lost the republic just as Ben Franklin feared we would.

Well let’s see, when was it that anyone actually attempted to secede? And in this instance I see nowhere where the Congress has drafted legislation to say that the Supremes have it wrong as you claim.

To say that the states have a right to unilaterally depart the union when in fact there is no specific authority to do so is also trampling on the Constitution. But like the one-way street you don’t see it that way because it doesn’t fit your pre-conceived notions of how you think it should be. It has been judicially challenged and as such the highest court in our land says you are wrong. Not to mention that the accepted legal logic on the matter is that once the states agreed to and ratified the Constitution they became bound by a bond that is more then any contract or treaty. And, as with states admitted after the initial ratifications, approval must be obtained for entry or exit from the union from Congress.

 

[2ndAmendment]

Well let’s see, when was it that anyone actually attempted to secede? And in this instance I see nowhere where the Congress has drafted legislation to say that the Supremes have it wrong as you claim.

To say that the states have a right to unilaterally depart the union when in fact there is no specific authority to do so is also trampling on the Constitution. But like the one-way street you don’t see it that way because it doesn’t fit your pre-conceived notions of how you think it should be. It has been judicially challenged and as such the highest court in our land says you are wrong. Not to mention that the accepted legal logic on the matter is that once the states agreed to and ratified the Constitution they became bound by a bond that is more then any contract or treaty. And, as with states admitted after the initial ratifications, approval must be obtained for entry or exit from the union from Congress.

Fine. Have it your way. The whole discussion is moot anyway.

 

[Midnightrider]

Fine. Have it your way. The whole discussion is moot anyway.

its not moot, you are just wrong, as the courts have obviously decided.

(no insult intended)

 

[2ndAmendment]

its not moot, you are just wrong, as the courts have obviously decided.

(no insult intended)

Sure you intended to insult. That is your way. I expect derogatory remarks from you. No big deal. Status quo.

 

[Midnightrider]

i wouldn't expect you to get the sarcasm there, it was a play on your "no insult intended" remark earlier in the thread.

A good rule of thumb, if you have to say "not insult intended" you ARE insulting the party you are directing the remark towards. That was my point.

Believe me, i would have been much more over the top had i inteded to insult.