Will Bush be rated one of the worst presidents?

[AK-74me]

That is from wikipedia. My guess is This_Person editted Franklin from being the 13th before PMing you.

Count on it.

 

[This_person]

That is from wikipedia. My guess is This_Person editted Franklin from being the 13th before PMing you.

I've been caught.

 

[Chainsaw Slayer]

I didn't know you can edit wickedpedia. I think I am going to go there and change it back.

 

[Gwydion]

I didn't know you can edit wicked pedia. I think I am going to go there and change it back.

While your at it, I hear that Mike Tyson and Abe Lincoln looked a lot alike. The pic of Abe they are using is terrible, why don't you just edit Tyson in instead?

 

[Chainsaw Slayer]

While your at it, I hear that Mike Tyson and Abe Lincoln looked a lot alike. The pic of Abe they are using is terrible, why don't you just edit Tyson in instead?

Good Idea. I think I am going to go on there tonight and changes all of the presidents pictures to photos of aliens.

 

[smdavis65]

I predict that history will be kind to George Bush, just as it's been kind to Abe Lincoln, who was extremely unpopular in his day.

The media is trying desperately to polish the turd, but Jimmy Carter is the worst President in my lifetime. I'd have to think a bit to give the all-time worst, but FDR is the first one that comes to mind.

I second that.

 

[thatguy]

Pointless question. They were an independant nation, as was the Confederate States.

the confederate states were not an indenpendant nation, that is the whole point.

Irag = soverign nation
Confederate states = PART OF THE UNITED STATES


but please go ahead and justify your position. i am sure it will be as interesting, and based in evidence or even folklore as your explaination of kains wife bwhahahahahaha

 

[Larry Gude]

...

the confederate states were not an indenpendant nation, that is the whole point. Yes, they were.

Irag = soverign nation
Confederate states = PART OF THE UNITED STATES


but please go ahead and justify your position. i am sure it will be as interesting, and based in evidence or even folklore as your explaination of kains wife bwhahahahahaha

This is not a question, it is a fact; the CSA was a separate nation.

 

[Tilted]

the confederate states were not an indenpendant nation, that is the whole point.

Irag = soverign nation
Confederate states = PART OF THE UNITED STATES


but please go ahead and justify your position. i am sure it will be as interesting, and based in evidence or even folklore as your explaination of kains wife bwhahahahahaha

I'm not going to waste a lot of time exploring the details of this situation, because football is coming on soon. However, suffice it to say that you are wrong about this. One of the things that made the United States different from most of the world at the time, was that inclusion within it was contractual in nature, and not imperialistic. It was voluntary, not compulsive.

The United States Constitution was a contract, freely entered into by several sovereign states. Inherent in that contract was the right to withdraw from the contract if any of the signatory parties felt that either it was no longer in their interests, or that the principles or provisions of the original contract were no longer in force. It was generally accepted and assumed, at the time, that the individual, sovereign states retained the right to secede. It was only that ability which prevented certain blocks, which would attain political supremacy, from taking a tyrannical tone toward the other states.

In fact, South Carolina had threatened to secede in the 1830's, in response to trade tariff laws which they felt would unfairly benefit the north, to the detriment of the south. In that case, the nation, embodied by the northern states, relented and changed the laws so that they were more acceptable to South Carolina. They felt that compromise was in order, because they recognized that the United States would be stronger if it kept its member states. The notion that the Union had the right to militarily hold on to South Carolina wasn't generally accepted.

So, when South Carolina said, 'Were out of here' - they were. They were no longer a member of the United States. They were a sovereign, foreign nation, just as surely as if they had never been a member of the Union. If we are to justify their invasion, it must be done in that context - the invasion of a foreign nation, not some inherent right to retain control of part of your own nation. That conversation is a completely different one, as indeed this conversation really requires a much deeper probing.

 

[This_person]

I'm not going to waste a lot of time exploring the details of this situation, because football is coming on soon. However, suffice it to say that you are wrong about this. One of the things that made the United States different from most of the world at the time, was that inclusion within it was contractual in nature, and not imperialistic. It was voluntary, not compulsive.

The United States Constitution was a contract, freely entered into by several sovereign states. Inherent in that contract was the right to withdraw from the contract if any of the signatory parties felt that either it was no longer in their interests, or that the principles or provisions of the original contract were no longer in force. It was generally accepted and assumed, at the time, that the individual, sovereign states retained the right to secede. It was only that ability which prevented certain blocks, which would attain political supremacy, from taking a tyrannical tone toward the other states.

In fact, South Carolina had threatened to secede in the 1830's, in response to trade tariff laws which they felt would unfairly benefit the north, to the detriment of the south. In that case, the nation, embodied by the northern states, relented and changed the laws so that they were more acceptable to South Carolina. They felt that compromise was in order, because they recognized that the United States would be stronger if it kept its member states. The notion that the Union had the right to militarily hold on to South Carolina wasn't generally accepted.

So, when South Carolina said, 'Were out of here' - they were. They were no longer a member of the United States. They were a sovereign, foreign nation, just as surely as if they had never been a member of the Union. If we are to justify their invasion, it must be done in that context - the invasion of a foreign nation, not some inherent right to retain control of part of your own nation. That conversation is a completely different one, as indeed this conversation really requires a much deeper probing.

to all of the above.

In addition, read here

 

[Pushrod]

Excellent and truthful post Tiltled! Unfortunately, it is not a truth that is taught in this country as States sovereignty and States rights are suppressed and done away with.

 

[thatguy]

I'm not going to waste a lot of time exploring the details of this situation, because football is coming on soon. However, suffice it to say that you are wrong about this. One of the things that made the United States different from most of the world at the time, was that inclusion within it was contractual in nature, and not imperialistic. It was voluntary, not compulsive.

The United States Constitution was a contract, freely entered into by several sovereign states. Inherent in that contract was the right to withdraw from the contract if any of the signatory parties felt that either it was no longer in their interests, or that the principles or provisions of the original contract were no longer in force. It was generally accepted and assumed, at the time, that the individual, sovereign states retained the right to secede. It was only that ability which prevented certain blocks, which would attain political supremacy, from taking a tyrannical tone toward the other states.

In fact, South Carolina had threatened to secede in the 1830's, in response to trade tariff laws which they felt would unfairly benefit the north, to the detriment of the south. In that case, the nation, embodied by the northern states, relented and changed the laws so that they were more acceptable to South Carolina. They felt that compromise was in order, because they recognized that the United States would be stronger if it kept its member states. The notion that the Union had the right to militarily hold on to South Carolina wasn't generally accepted.

So, when South Carolina said, 'Were out of here' - they were. They were no longer a member of the United States. They were a sovereign, foreign nation, just as surely as if they had never been a member of the Union. If we are to justify their invasion, it must be done in that context - the invasion of a foreign nation, not some inherent right to retain control of part of your own nation. That conversation is a completely different one, as indeed this conversation really requires a much deeper probing.

while your talk of what was "generally accepted" at the time is compelling, it isn't held up by the fact that South Carolina did not succed in the 1830s, and that no state has ever been allowed to suceed from the US.

Is there a "we can leave whenever we want" claus in the constitution that i am unaware of?


and TP, a confederate constitution means nothing. you could develop your own constitution and try to succed a la family guy, and it would be met with the about the same response as petoria

 

[vraiblonde]

while your talk of what was "generally accepted" at the time is compelling, it isn't held up by the fact that South Carolina did not succed in the 1830s, and that no state has ever been allowed to suceed from the US.

Is there a "we can leave whenever we want" claus in the constitution that i am unaware of?


and TP, a confederate constitution means nothing. you could develop your own constitution and try to succed a la family guy, and it would be met with the about the same response as petoria

Okay, well you are wrong. But feel free to look like a dolt by continuing to argue.

 

[Tilted]

while your talk of what was "generally accepted" at the time is compelling, it isn't held up by the fact that South Carolina did not succed in the 1830s, and that no state has ever been allowed to suceed from the US.

Is there a "we can leave whenever we want" claus in the constitution that i am unaware of?


and TP, a confederate constitution means nothing. you could develop your own constitution and try to succed a la family guy, and it would be met with the about the same response as petoria

If you want to focus the discussion on the legal aspects, that's fine. It's simple contract law. There is no provision within the contract that states that withdrawing from the contract is grounds for being militarily invaded. (Please don't try to argue Article 1, Section 9(2), that's off point on several levels.)

Entities have the right to withdraw from contracts without facing physical attack, or invasion. If another signatory party believes that their withdrawal is unjustified, per the terms of the contract, then they can pursue remedies to make themselves whole. However, they cannot attack the party that withdrew from the contract. Perhaps the Union could have made a compelling case that the Confederate States did not have the right to withdraw from the contract, and perhaps the Union was entitled to recover damages in some form. But, they did not have the right to engage the withdrawing party militarily.

All of that having been said, the Constitution does afford the states the right to secede. It can be found in the 10th Amendment (of the Bill of Rights):

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Simply put, that means that the states have the power to do anything that they aren't prohibited from doing by the Constitution, and that the federal government isn't empowered to do. Nobody had, to my knowledge and up to that time, interpreted any part of the Constitution as prohibiting a state from seceding. So, I ask you, which provision of the Constitution do you believe does so?

 

[thatguy]

Okay, well you are wrong. But feel free to look like a dolt by continuing to argue.

feel free to quote the claus in the constitution or list the states that have been allowed to suceed.....


or maybe just give the established process of succession. I mean there is a clear process through which states are entered into the union, there must be one for leaveing, right?

 

[Larry Gude]

...

If you want to focus the discussion on the legal aspects, that's fine. It's simple contract law. There is no provision within the contract that states that withdrawing from the contract is grounds for being militarily invaded. (Please don't try to argue Article 1, Section 9(2), that's off point on several levels.) The CSA initiated hostilities by attacking federal institutions in numerous states.

Entities have the right to withdraw from contracts without facing physical attack, or invasion. If another signatory party believes that their withdrawal is unjustified, per the terms of the contract, then they can pursue remedies to make themselves whole. However, they cannot attack the party that withdrew from the contract. Perhaps the Union could have made a compelling case that the Confederate States did not have the right to withdraw from the contract, and perhaps the Union was entitled to recover damages in some form. But, they did not have the right to engage the withdrawing party militarily. They did after federal institutions were attacked by the CSA

All of that having been said, the Constitution does afford the states the right to secede. It can be found in the 10th Amendment (of the Bill of Rights):



Simply put, that means that the states have the power to do anything that they aren't prohibited from doing by the Constitution, and that the federal government isn't empowered to do. Nobody had, to my knowledge and up to that time, interpreted any part of the Constitution as prohibiting a state from seceding. So, I ask you, which provision of the Constitution do you believe does so?

The CSA made a grave, fatal error in NOT finding a way to peacefully succeed, to buy assets, make some sort of deal. Bottom line, passions won the day, pro union Southerners got swamped in the process and the fire eaters got their war. Lincoln looked for a way to blame it on them to hold the union together and they gave it to him.

 

[thatguy]

If you want to focus the discussion on the legal aspects, that's fine. It's simple contract law. There is no provision within the contract that states that withdrawing from the contract is grounds for being militarily invaded. (Please don't try to argue Article 1, Section 9(2), that's off point on several levels.)

Entities have the right to withdraw from contracts without facing physical attack, or invasion. If another signatory party believes that their withdrawal is unjustified, per the terms of the contract, then they can pursue remedies to make themselves whole. However, they cannot attack the party that withdrew from the contract. Perhaps the Union could have made a compelling case that the Confederate States did not have the right to withdraw from the contract, and perhaps the Union was entitled to recover damages in some form. But, they did not have the right to engage the withdrawing party militarily.

All of that having been said, the Constitution does afford the states the right to secede. It can be found in the 10th Amendment (of the Bill of Rights):



Simply put, that means that the states have the power to do anything that they aren't prohibited from doing by the Constitution, and that the federal government isn't empowered to do. Nobody had, to my knowledge and up to that time, interpreted any part of the Constitution as prohibiting a state from seceding. So, I ask you, which provision of the Constitution do you believe does so?

I dont think that the 10th amendment talks to sucession at at.

 

[Larry Gude]

...

feel free to quote the claus in the constitution or list the states that have been allowed to suceed.....


or maybe just give the established process of succession. I mean there is a clear process through which states are entered into the union, there must be one for leaveing, right?

...if a state chooses to succeed, they can succeed through whatever process the given state decides is THEIR process. There is no federal coercion in joining the union, there is no coercion getting out. That's a basic principle of the union. Lincoln used the premise that the pro succession leaders of the South unlawfully took power, committed violence against the lawful federal authority and he simply acted to enforce the laws as they were, his duty.

There is NO doubt in mind had the South succeeded peacefully, then we would have peacefully become two nations. That they could have done it peacefully was probably impossible.

 

[itsbob]

OR, entered into an uneccessary war that killed tens of thousands of civilians, drove the american economy into the ground and made possible the rise of the hybrid

bwhahajajajajaja

It's only an uneccessary war after we learned the truth AFTER we invaded. With the information he had, and that Saddam confessed to, it was a VERY necessary war. Easy to play armchair quarterback after someone else has made the hard decisions.

HE drove the American economy in the ground? Can you show me where it's in the Presidents pervue to handle spending, and control the economy? Though that would fall flat in the laps of CONGRESS!!

 

[Tilted]

I dont think that the 10th amendment talks to sucession at at.

Even if it didn't, you are wrong on the basis of simple contract law.

However, the 10th Amendment absolutely does grant them the right of secession. Generally speaking, the Constitution doesn't specifically spell out the rights and powers of the states. It characterizes the powers of the federal government, and it restricts some powers of the states. Every other power is explicitly left to the states. This is a very simple concept, and one that is not in dispute.

You are simply wrong.

Did you find the provision of the Constitution that specifically prohibited the states from seceding? And which allowed for military invasion if they did?