The South Rose Again
Psychic Democrat
Christofascist nutters, flunked, drowned in it's own vomit and has been
cremated during a book burning at a Teabagger Wingding in Nutterville,
Flarduh.
#1 Donkey
General William Tecumseh Sherman shure knew how to fuck up the fucking
southern inbreeds.
He is a true American hero.
Lookout
Robert E Lee and every scum bag who took up arms against the United
States should have been tried, and when found guilty, hung as
traitors.
WangoTango
mrLo...@yahoo.com says...
> Robert E Lee and every scum bag who took up arms against the United
> States should have been tried, and when found guilty, hung as
> traitors.
Where in the Constitution of the United States does it prohibit a state
from withdrawing from the union?
Not that I think the slave owning fucks were right about slavery, but
that doesn't change the Constitution.
Lamont Cranston
news:MPG.25b130c04...@news.east.earthlink.net
> In article <b0pek514lvggr28q2...@4ax.com>,
> mrLo...@yahoo.com says...
>> Robert E Lee and every scum bag who took up arms against the United
>> States should have been tried, and when found guilty, hung as
>> traitors.
>
> Where in the Constitution of the United States does it prohibit a
> state from withdrawing from the union?
Where in the Constitution of the United States does it allow a state to
unilaterally withdraw from the union?
RD (The Sandman)
$1...@news.datemas.de:
If it isn't prohibited, it is allowed.
--
Sleep well tonight,
RD (The Sandman)
Let's see if I have this healthcare thingy right. Congress is to pass
a plan written by a committee whose head has said he doesn't understand
it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it, signed by a president who
hasn't read it, with funding administered by a Treasury chief who didn't
pay his taxes because he didn't understand TurboTax, overseen by an obese
Surgeon General and financed by a country that's nearly broke.
What could possibly go wrong?
Lamont Cranston
news:Xns9CFA6C18C...@216.196.97.130
> "Lamont Cranston" <Lamont....@Shadows.com> wrote in
> news:hi7pvh$37m $1...@news.datemas.de:
>
>> "WangoTango" <Asga...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.25b130c04...@news.east.earthlink.net
>>> In article <b0pek514lvggr28q2...@4ax.com>,
>>> mrLo...@yahoo.com says...
>>>> Robert E Lee and every scum bag who took up arms against the United
>>>> States should have been tried, and when found guilty, hung as
>>>> traitors.
>>>
>>> Where in the Constitution of the United States does it prohibit a
>>> state from withdrawing from the union?
>>
>> Where in the Constitution of the United States does it allow a state
>> to unilaterally withdraw from the union?
>
> If it isn't prohibited, it is allowed.
Wrong, of course. The Supreme Court has ruled otherwise. Look up Texas
v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869) and get back to us.
Hint: look for this part:
6. When Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an
indissoluble relation. The union between Texas and the other States was
as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the
original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation,
except through revolution or through consent of the States.
7. Considered as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of
secession, adopted by the convention, and ratified by a majority of the
citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to
giveeffect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly
without operation in law. The State did not cease to be a State, nor her
citizens to be citizens of the Union.
WangoTango
says...
Um, if it doesn't SPECIFICALLY prohibit it, there is a little clause
stating that all un-enumerated powers are to be retained by the people
or the respective States.
Also, see the 9th Amendment.
WangoTango
says...
I SPECIFICALLY said, where in the CONSTITUTION does it prohibit a state
from with drawing from the union.
Even by the example given revolution was listed as a valid method of
withdrawal, therefore, the Confederates were within their right to rebel
and not acting traitorous.
Lamont Cranston
I SPECIFICALLY said, where in the CONSTITUTION does it allow a state to
withdraw from the union. The Constititution details the procedures for
entering the union, but is silent about a state withdrawing from it.
>
> Even by the example given revolution was listed as a valid method of
> withdrawal, therefore, the Confederates were within their right to
> rebel and not acting traitorous.
I don't disagree with you on this point.
WangoTango
says...
then there is no prohibition against it. That's how the document is set
up. It grants SPECIFIC powers and duties. Anything not specifically
stated is not within the federal governments domain. Lincoln and the
courts exceeded their powers by utilizing powers they were not granted
by the Constitution. They also did several other things that violated
the Constitution in the name of keeping the Union together.
>
> >
> > Even by the example given revolution was listed as a valid method of
> > withdrawal, therefore, the Confederates were within their right to
> > rebel and not acting traitorous.
>
> I don't disagree with you on this point.
Like I said, not that the end result wasn't a 'good' thing, the method
was a bit dodgey.
Lamont Cranston
The Supreme Court disagrees with you.
6. When Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an
indissoluble relation. The union between Texas and the other States
was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union
between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration
or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the
States.
> That's how the
> document is set up. It grants SPECIFIC powers and duties. Anything
> not specifically stated is not within the federal governments domain.
> Lincoln and the courts exceeded their powers by utilizing powers they
> were not granted by the Constitution. They also did several other
> things that violated the Constitution in the name of keeping the
> Union together.
The Supreme Court has ruled otherwise.
>
>>
>>>
DamOTclese
The U. S. Constitution is a document outlining restrictions on the fascist
State, it does not enumerate all acts that are permitted and not permitted.
The State of Texas is the only State in the Union which is legally entitled
to leave the Union, the charters of each State's admission in to the Union
preclude leaving once they're in, only Texas retained that right.
---
Does belief in astrology cause insanity? http://www.skeptictank.org/edm.htm
DamOTclese
>Wrong, of course. The Supreme Court has ruled otherwise. Look up Texas
>v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869) and get back to us.
>Hint: look for this part:
>6. When Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an
>indissoluble relation. The union between Texas and the other States was
>as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the
>original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation,
>except through revolution or through consent of the States.
The reason why the SC attempted to enact that illegal ruling was because
Texas *does* retain the right to leave the Union, a right that no other
State retained. Texas was a special case because it was admitted in to
the Union lacking a dictate of non-reniging, ergo the SC was asked to make
a ruling even though the SC judged wrongly.
WangoTango
the name of keeping the union together?
Are you suggesting that their ruling is based in Constitutional writing?
The we are back to the where SPECIFICALLY does the Constitution state
that a State can not withdraw from the Union?
>
> 6. When Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an
> indissoluble relation. The union between Texas and the other States
> was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union
> between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration
> or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the
> States.
See above, and read the post from DamOTclese
>
>
> > That's how the
> > document is set up. It grants SPECIFIC powers and duties. Anything
> > not specifically stated is not within the federal governments domain.
> > Lincoln and the courts exceeded their powers by utilizing powers they
> > were not granted by the Constitution. They also did several other
> > things that violated the Constitution in the name of keeping the
> > Union together.
>
> The Supreme Court has ruled otherwise.
See above......
Lookout
<Asga...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>In article <b0pek514lvggr28q2...@4ax.com>,
>mrLo...@yahoo.com says...
>> Robert E Lee and every scum bag who took up arms against the United
>> States should have been tried, and when found guilty, hung as
>> traitors.
>
>Where in the Constitution of the United States does it prohibit a state
>from withdrawing from the union?
That's got nothing to do with US citizens taking up arms against the
government. Try to keep it on topic, Sparky.
Lookout
Hey..keep it on topic. We're not talking about states rights, we're
talking about US citizens who took up arms against the government.
You're trying to change the topic because you know I'm right.
Jackass.
Gray Ghost
Apparently, you inbred baboon, you fail to grasp the beauty of the
Constitution. It is a limitation on the power of the federal government. If
it is not specifically allowed to the federal government in the Constitution
it remeains for the states and people to decide what they want.
Get it, baboon?
--
Al Gore didn't invent the internet, but he did invent Global Warming.
"Hide the Decline"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk
31,486 American scientists, including 9,029 with PhDs, don't agree the
science is settled.
http://www.petitionproject.org/
What it appears to be all about
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEZszGJHbK4&feature=video_response
Gray Ghost
@news.datemas.de:
Are you an autistic baboon, too? Repeating yourself doesn't make it true. it
does make you lokk more in need of caretaking, though. Perhaps some Kevorkian
style care.
>
> 6. When Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an
> indissoluble relation. The union between Texas and the other States
> was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union
> between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration
> or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the
> States.
>
>
>> That's how the
>> document is set up. It grants SPECIFIC powers and duties. Anything
>> not specifically stated is not within the federal governments domain.
>> Lincoln and the courts exceeded their powers by utilizing powers they
>> were not granted by the Constitution. They also did several other
>> things that violated the Constitution in the name of keeping the
>> Union together.
>
> The Supreme Court has ruled otherwise.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Even by the example given revolution was listed as a valid method of
>>>> withdrawal, therefore, the Confederates were within their right to
>>>> rebel and not acting traitorous.
>>>
>>> I don't disagree with you on this point.
>>
>> Like I said, not that the end result wasn't a 'good' thing, the method
>> was a bit dodgey.
>
--
WangoTango
mrLo...@yahoo.com says...
WangoTango
mrLo...@yahoo.com says...
Jackass.
RD (The Sandman)
news:MPG.25b13da19...@news.east.earthlink.net:
And several states agreed with you. They were South Carolina,
Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Geordia, Louisiana, Texas, Virginia, North
Carolina, Arkansas and Tennessee.
"A 2008 Zogby International poll revealed that 22% of Americans believe
that "any state or region has the right to peaceably secede and become an
independent republic."[29][30]
The United States Supreme Court ruled in Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700
(1869), that while the union was "perpetual" and that secession
ordinances were "absolutely null," membership nevertheless could be
revoked "through revolution, or through consent of the States."[31][32]
RD (The Sandman)
$1...@news.datemas.de:
The United States Supreme Court ruled in Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700
(1869), that while the union was "perpetual" and that secession
ordinances were "absolutely null," membership nevertheless could be
revoked "through revolution, or through consent of the States."[31][32]
Wiki
RD (The Sandman)
$1...@news.datemas.de:
Read the whole case. The Supremes also said:
"The United States Supreme Court ruled in Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700
(1869), that while the union was "perpetual" and that secession
ordinances were "absolutely null," membership nevertheless could be
revoked "through revolution, or through consent of the States."
Wiki
Lookout
<Asga...@mindspring.com> wrote:
And still WERE when they took up arms. The US never recognized the
states leaving which means they were still US citizens.
Care to try again?
Lookout
(Gray Ghost) wrote:
>"Lamont Cranston" <Lamont....@Shadows.com> wrote in news:hi7pvh$37m$1
>@news.datemas.de:
>
>> "WangoTango" <Asga...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.25b130c04...@news.east.earthlink.net
>>> In article <b0pek514lvggr28q2...@4ax.com>,
>>> mrLo...@yahoo.com says...
>>>> Robert E Lee and every scum bag who took up arms against the United
>>>> States should have been tried, and when found guilty, hung as
>>>> traitors.
>>>
>>> Where in the Constitution of the United States does it prohibit a
>>> state from withdrawing from the union?
>>
>> Where in the Constitution of the United States does it allow a state to
>> unilaterally withdraw from the union?
>>
>>
>>
>
>Apparently, you inbred baboon, you fail to grasp the beauty of the
>Constitution. It is a limitation on the power of the federal government. If
>it is not specifically allowed to the federal government in the Constitution
>it remeains for the states and people to decide what they want.
>
>Get it, baboon?
AHAHAHA You really think a state can do anything it want's that's not
specifically spelled out in the Constitution? Are you really that
ignorant?
A baboon is a genius compared to you.
Lookout
What kind of American are you when you want everyone who disagrees
with you dead?
You really are a loser.
Lookout
<Asga...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>In article <225fk5lbd48dlog0f...@4ax.com>,
>mrLo...@yahoo.com says...
>> On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 12:09:12 -0500, WangoTango
>> <Asga...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <b0pek514lvggr28q2...@4ax.com>,
>> >mrLo...@yahoo.com says...
>> >> Robert E Lee and every scum bag who took up arms against the United
>> >> States should have been tried, and when found guilty, hung as
>> >> traitors.
>> >
>> >Where in the Constitution of the United States does it prohibit a state
>> >from withdrawing from the union?
>>
>> That's got nothing to do with US citizens taking up arms against the
>> government. Try to keep it on topic, Sparky.
>> >
>> >Not that I think the slave owning fucks were right about slavery, but
>> >that doesn't change the Constitution.
>>
>Pay attention to the thread, there sparky....
That wasn't my post dumbass. Learn how to post.
Lookout
And it would take a 2/3 majority. Wouldn't have happened. And it
DIDN'T happen. The states were wrong. Period. They had no right what
so ever.
Lookout
RD (The Sandman)
news:77kfk555q8dq88o20...@4ax.com:
Per Texas v White, yes, they did. Or don't you think that the Civil War
was a revolution by the southern slave states?
RD (The Sandman)
news:hujfk59ea6hih8q11...@4ax.com:
Hell, if I was a citizen of Albania and defected to the US, do you think
I would still be considered a citizen of Albania if some bureacrat there
didn't recognize that I had left?
RD (The Sandman)
news:d1kfk5l5groham5j1...@4ax.com:
Amendment X
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.
Gray Ghost
I wonder if Lookout is as stupid as he pretends to be? He is clearly
ignorant, can stupidity be far behind?
RD (The Sandman)
news:Xns9CFB86B49B664We...@216.196.97.142:
Sometimes he shows that he thinks things through. Not often, I admit, as
he lean too much on pure vitriol rather than honest discussion. For that
reason, he keeps bouncing in and out of my Bozo Bin. At least he seems
to be smarter than TMT. ;)
Lookout
wrote:
And still waiting.
Each every AMERICAN who took up arms against the United States of
America during the Civil War should have been hanged. Period.
(and the would have limited the dumbass rednecks we have running
around now)
I guess you know when you got your ass kicked, huh?
Lookout
<rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
Through consent of the STATES. That's ALL the states and not just the
ones that want to secede.
Dumbass.
Lookout
We're not talking about Albania.
Lookout
And that's been proven null and void repeatedly. For instance look at
the drug laws....until Obama came into office federal drug laws were
in effect even in states like California where different laws were
voted on and passed by the legislature.
Lookout
(Gray Ghost) wrote:
And I just proved him wrong.
You? You're just a run of the mill idiot.
Lookout
Yet I've corrected you many times. How is that?
edi...@netpath.net
> Each every AMERICAN who took up arms against the United States of
> America during the Civil War should have been hanged. Period.
All that attempting that would have done is GUARANTEE that all
Southerners would have fought on as an Iraq-style leaderless-
resistance insurgency - because they'd have had no other chance at
survival.
And - as in Iraq - leaderless resistance would have proven far beyond
the regime's ability to suppress.
http://www.Internet-Gun-Show.com - your source for hard-to-find stuff!
RD (The Sandman)
news:vt3kk5hjs483ra7m7...@4ax.com:
Excuse me but where was Massachusetts vote on that secession? They did
secede....there was no vote by the northern states.
> Dumbass.
If you wish to debate or discuss, fine. If you wish to namecall, you
will have a quick trip back to the Bozo Bin. Your call.
RD (The Sandman)
news:k04kk5pi3q4klm2fb...@4ax.com:
We were talking about citizenship, mon ami.
RD (The Sandman)
news:j24kk5hgv1ai3h77f...@4ax.com:
> On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 11:28:25 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
> <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>Lookout <mrLo...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>news:d1kfk5l5groham5j1...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 15:00:54 -0600, grey_ghost471-
newsg...@yahoo.com
Because the federal government has been overstepping its bounds on the
Commerce Clause. The first time they ever got called on it was in Lopez
v US, 000 US U10287 - 1995....a case about gun possession in a school
zone. Additionally, take a look at the federal government's abuses under
RICO.
That is pure overstepping and not being called on it. It is not because
the 10A is null and void. It is still in effect and will be until
changed or removed under Article V.
RD (The Sandman)
news:q44kk5dcl45mdadaa...@4ax.com:
No, you didn't. You only claimed that, so far, it hasn't been used much
in cases against federal law. The 10A is still there and still carries
its weight.
RD (The Sandman)
news:264kk519qpmj8a4qj...@4ax.com:
Because you believe your own bullshit and don't pay any attention to the
truth. It's all in your mind, not in fact.
Lookout
<rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
And legally there MUST be. You completely missed my point.
>
>> Dumbass.
>
>If you wish to debate or discuss, fine. If you wish to namecall, you
>will have a quick trip back to the Bozo Bin. Your call.
Read better
Lookout
<rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
But NOT of a foreigner. Apples and oranges.
You're way off on this one.
Lookout
<rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
It's null and void for all intents and purposes.
Lookout
None at all.
Lookout
<rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
Because you believe your own bullshit.
There..do you feel better now?
WangoTango
> On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 16:43:26 -0500, WangoTango
> <Asga...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <107fk51o4cjqbftfj...@4ax.com>,
> >mrLo...@yahoo.com says...
> >> On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 13:04:09 -0500, WangoTango
> >> <Asga...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <hi7r6e$4ng$1...@news.datemas.de>, Lamont....@Shadows.com
> >> >says...
> >> >> news:Xns9CFA6C18C...@216.196.97.130
> >> >> > "Lamont Cranston" <Lamont....@Shadows.com> wrote in
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> "WangoTango" <Asga...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> >> >> >> news:MPG.25b130c04...@news.east.earthlink.net
> >> >> >>> In article <b0pek514lvggr28q2...@4ax.com>,
> >> >> >>> mrLo...@yahoo.com says...
> >> >> >>>> Robert E Lee and every scum bag who took up arms against the United
> >> >> >>>> States should have been tried, and when found guilty, hung as
> >> >> >>>> traitors.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> Where in the Constitution of the United States does it prohibit a
> >> >> >>> state from withdrawing from the union?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Where in the Constitution of the United States does it allow a state
> >> >> >> to unilaterally withdraw from the union?
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Wrong, of course. The Supreme Court has ruled otherwise. Look up Texas
> >> >> v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869) and get back to us.
> >> >>
> >> >> Hint: look for this part:
> >> >>
> >> >> 6. When Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an
> >> >> indissoluble relation. The union between Texas and the other States was
> >> >> as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the
> >> >> original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation,
> >> >> except through revolution or through consent of the States.
> >> >>
> >> >> 7. Considered as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of
> >> >> secession, adopted by the convention, and ratified by a majority of the
> >> >> citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to
> >> >> giveeffect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly
> >> >> without operation in law. The State did not cease to be a State, nor her
> >> >> citizens to be citizens of the Union.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >Ah, now you are side stepping the question.
> >> >
> >> >Even by the example given revolution was listed as a valid method of
> >> >withdrawal, therefore, the Confederates were within their right to rebel
> >> >and not acting traitorous.
> >>
> >> Hey..keep it on topic. We're not talking about states rights, we're
> >> talking about US citizens who took up arms against the government.
> >> You're trying to change the topic because you know I'm right.
> >> Jackass.
> >>
> >Well, how about those people were citizens of those states......
> >Jackass.
>
> And still WERE when they took up arms. The US never recognized the
> states leaving which means they were still US citizens.
>
> Care to try again?
>
table.
WangoTango
mrLo...@yahoo.com says...
I spent the weekend with my family squirrel hunting.
Maybe if you got a life......
RD (The Sandman)
news:rlhkk5lc934oie80i...@4ax.com:
Not before Texas v White and even in that case the USSC stated that "
membership nevertheless could be revoked "through revolution, or through
consent of the States."
>>> Dumbass.
>>
>>If you wish to debate or discuss, fine. If you wish to namecall, you
>>will have a quick trip back to the Bozo Bin. Your call.
>
> Read better
I read the namecall. Last chance.....
--
Sleep well tonight,
RD (The Sandman)
Let's see if I have this healthcare thingy right. Congress is to pass
a plan written by a committee whose head has said he doesn't understand
it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it or allowed bipartisan input,
signed by a president who hasn't read it or provided the public with the
C-Span overview of the plan or the process, with funding administered by
RD (The Sandman)
news:7v1nk5dpnnpo5h2fq...@4ax.com:
> On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 12:50:50 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
> Given the tone & tenor of most in this group I suspect you'll end up
> with a rather large Bozo Bin.
Yep......I have about 22 people in it. Most of them for posting junk
instead of discussion or debate or constant namecalling. Lookout is one
who goes in and out of the Bin. He often has good points but his name
calling and comments get very tiresome.
--
Sleep well tonight,
RD (The Sandman)
Let's see if I have this healthcare thingy right. Congress is to pass
a plan written by a committee whose head has said he doesn't understand
it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it or allowed bipartisan input,
signed by a president who hasn't read it or provided the public with the
C-Span overview of the plan or the process, with funding administered by
RD (The Sandman)
news:9nhkk5t6g9na3mqm2...@4ax.com:
Quite true, but the principle is the same. See Texas v White.
--
Sleep well tonight,
RD (The Sandman)
Let's see if I have this healthcare thingy right. Congress is to pass
a plan written by a committee whose head has said he doesn't understand
it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it or allowed bipartisan input,
signed by a president who hasn't read it or provided the public with the
C-Span overview of the plan or the process, with funding administered by
RD (The Sandman)
news:gi2nk5ls3k1lejoik...@4ax.com:
> On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 12:58:47 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
> <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
> <snip>
>
>>>>I wonder if Lookout is as stupid as he pretends to be? He is clearly
>>>>ignorant, can stupidity be far behind?
>>>
>>> And I just proved him wrong.
>>
>>No, you didn't. You only claimed that, so far, it hasn't been used
much
>>in cases against federal law. The 10A is still there and still carries
>>its weight.
>>
> While it is still there, as on the books, it is very rarely invoked as
> it should be.
Correct, however, as an amendment it still stands and will until removed
or changed via Article V.
> Now some States are attempting to let the Federal
> Government know that they haven't forgotten about it nor its
> provisions, very few have attempted to invoke it in any stance against
> the Feds. At a minimum California should have when the Feds over
> stepped their boundaries in their decision that California's Medical
> Marijuana Laws were null & void under the Commerce Clause.
Yep, typical overstepping. After a time the people get tired of it.
--
Sleep well tonight,
RD (The Sandman)
Let's see if I have this healthcare thingy right. Congress is to pass
a plan written by a committee whose head has said he doesn't understand
it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it or allowed bipartisan input,
signed by a president who hasn't read it or provided the public with the
C-Span overview of the plan or the process, with funding administered by
RD (The Sandman)
news:dqhkk5tti6er7gtaj...@4ax.com:
Mirror...mirror....on the wall. ;)
> There..do you feel better now?
>
--
Sleep well tonight,
RD (The Sandman)
Let's see if I have this healthcare thingy right. Congress is to pass
a plan written by a committee whose head has said he doesn't understand
it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it or allowed bipartisan input,
signed by a president who hasn't read it or provided the public with the
C-Span overview of the plan or the process, with funding administered by
RD (The Sandman)
news:bp2nk5lg8rbiputtt...@4ax.com:
> On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 12:59:44 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
> Well at least he is sincere, even if he is sincerely wrong.
He is consistent in that regard. ;)
--
Sleep well tonight,
RD (The Sandman)
Let's see if I have this healthcare thingy right. Congress is to pass
a plan written by a committee whose head has said he doesn't understand
it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it or allowed bipartisan input,
signed by a president who hasn't read it or provided the public with the
C-Span overview of the plan or the process, with funding administered by
Lookout
<Asga...@mindspring.com> wrote:
So you won't try again?
Ok, no problem. We understand
Lookout
<Asga...@mindspring.com> wrote:
Squirrel hunting? My, aren't we the big game hunter!
Lookout
wrote:
>On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 11:31:27 -0600, Lookout <mrLo...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 20:06:17 -0600, Lookout <mrLo...@yahoo.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 14:24:15 -0600, Lookout <mrLo...@yahoo.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 12:09:12 -0500, WangoTango
>>>><Asga...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In article <b0pek514lvggr28q2...@4ax.com>,
>>>>>mrLo...@yahoo.com says...
>>>>>> Robert E Lee and every scum bag who took up arms against the United
>>>>>> States should have been tried, and when found guilty, hung as
>>>>>> traitors.
>>>>>
>>>>>Where in the Constitution of the United States does it prohibit a state
>>>>>from withdrawing from the union?
>>>>
>>>>That's got nothing to do with US citizens taking up arms against the
>>>>government. Try to keep it on topic, Sparky.
>>>>>
>>>>>Not that I think the slave owning fucks were right about slavery, but
>>>>>that doesn't change the Constitution.
>>>
>>>Still waiting
>>
>>And still waiting.
>>Each every AMERICAN who took up arms against the United States of
>>America during the Civil War should have been hanged. Period.
>>
>Oh yeah that would have been a "great" idea. Kill off around half the
>population of the country at that time. The half that grew the large
>majority of food & primary source for most clothing of the time. Yeah
>that would have worked out real great Sparky and gone a long way to
>National Reconciliation, which was Lincoln's primary goal.
Legally and morally that's what should have happened.
But nice try.
>Besides it wasn't the people who took up arms that were primarily
>responsible, but the Political hacks who convinced them to do so.
Uhh..so the "I was ordered to kill" is good enough for you?
They were AMERICANS. They should have known better. But being dumbass
rednecks I guess I'm asking to much.
>>(and the would have limited the dumbass rednecks we have running
>>around now)
>>
>And what could we have done to simply get rid of the dumbasses such as
>yourself? Promote them?
Nope. Not a redneck and not from the South.
>>I guess you know when you got your ass kicked, huh?
>>
You lost each argument.
Lookout
wrote:
>On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 11:37:03 -0600, Lookout <mrLo...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 11:25:49 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
>><rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Lookout <mrLo...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>>news:hujfk59ea6hih8q11...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 16:43:26 -0500, WangoTango
>>>> <Asga...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In article <107fk51o4cjqbftfj...@4ax.com>,
>>>>>mrLo...@yahoo.com says...
>>>>>> On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 13:04:09 -0500, WangoTango
>>>>>> <Asga...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >In article <hi7r6e$4ng$1...@news.datemas.de>,
>>>>>> >Lamont....@Shadows.com says...
>>>>>> >> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in
>>>>>> >> message news:Xns9CFA6C18C...@216.196.97.130
>>>>>> >> > "Lamont Cranston" <Lamont....@Shadows.com> wrote in
>>>>>> >> > news:hi7pvh$37m $1...@news.datemas.de:
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >> >> "WangoTango" <Asga...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> >> >> news:MPG.25b130c04...@news.east.earthlink.net
>>>>>> >> >>> In article <b0pek514lvggr28q2...@4ax.com>,
>>>>>> >> >>> mrLo...@yahoo.com says...
>>>>>> >> >>>> Robert E Lee and every scum bag who took up arms against the
>>>>>> >> >>>> United States should have been tried, and when found guilty,
>>>>>> >> >>>> hung as traitors.
>>>>>> >> >>>
>>>>>> >> >>> Where in the Constitution of the United States does it
>>>>>> >> >>> prohibit a state from withdrawing from the union?
>>>>>> >> >>
>>>>>> >> >> Where in the Constitution of the United States does it allow a
>>>>>> >> >> state to unilaterally withdraw from the union?
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >> > If it isn't prohibited, it is allowed.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> Wrong, of course. The Supreme Court has ruled otherwise. Look
>>>>>> >> up Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869) and get back to us.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> Hint: look for this part:
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> 6. When Texas became one of the United States, she entered into
>>>>>> >> an indissoluble relation. The union between Texas and the other
>>>>>> >> States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the
>>>>>> >> union between the original States. There was no place for
>>>>>> >> reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or
>>>>>> >> through consent of the States.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> 7. Considered as transactions under the Constitution, the
>>>>>> >> ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention, and ratified
>>>>>> >> by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her
>>>>>> >> legislature intended to giveeffect to that ordinance, were
>>>>>> >> absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The
>>>>>> >> State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be
>>>>>> >> citizens of the Union.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >Ah, now you are side stepping the question.
>>>>>> >I SPECIFICALLY said, where in the CONSTITUTION does it prohibit a
>>>>>> >state from with drawing from the union.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >Even by the example given revolution was listed as a valid method
>>>>>> >of withdrawal, therefore, the Confederates were within their right
>>>>>> >to rebel and not acting traitorous.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hey..keep it on topic. We're not talking about states rights, we're
>>>>>> talking about US citizens who took up arms against the government.
>>>>>> You're trying to change the topic because you know I'm right.
>>>>>> Jackass.
>>>>>>
>>>>>Well, how about those people were citizens of those states......
>>>>>Jackass.
>>>>
>>>> And still WERE when they took up arms. The US never recognized the
>>>> states leaving which means they were still US citizens.
>>>>
>>>> Care to try again?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Hell, if I was a citizen of Albania and defected to the US, do you think
>>>I would still be considered a citizen of Albania if some bureacrat there
>>>didn't recognize that I had left?
>>
>>We're not talking about Albania.
>>
>No we're not, but that isn't a legitimate answer to the question.
No it's not. Albania is another country. Apples and oranges.
>
>When the U.S. as a country decided to succeed from the English Empire
>where not those people citizens of England? Had England prevailed
>should have everyone who took up arms against her been summarily
>executed? If so, why didn't the English routinely execute all
>prisoners that they captured during the Revolution.
Yes, they could have.
>Many of the Southern States saw their Succession as very similar to
>the Revolution for Independence. Matter of fact it was their
>Revolution for Independence from a greater whole which they felt did
>not see them as equals.
I agree.
Se we both agree that the Yanks who took up arms against the Brits AND
the Southerners who took up arms against the US could have been
executed under law.
Lookout
wrote:
>On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 15:31:28 -0600, Lookout <mrLo...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>If so, it is only because a Right not fought for is a Right willingly
>abdicated.
Nah. It just takes the right court challenge and a sympathetic court.
That hasn't happened yet.
> During the Civil War when it was attempted to be fought
>for the end result was so disastrous it has never been attempt again
>until just recently via some states reaffirmation that they have
>neither forgotten it exists or that they have abdicated their Rights &
>Powers under it.
Lookout
wrote:
>On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 12:58:47 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
><rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
><snip>
>
>>>>I wonder if Lookout is as stupid as he pretends to be? He is clearly
>>>>ignorant, can stupidity be far behind?
>>>
>>> And I just proved him wrong.
>>
>>No, you didn't. You only claimed that, so far, it hasn't been used much
>>in cases against federal law. The 10A is still there and still carries
>>its weight.
>>
>While it is still there, as on the books, it is very rarely invoked as
>it should be. Now some States are attempting to let the Federal
>Government know that they haven't forgotten about it nor its
>provisions, very few have attempted to invoke it in any stance against
>the Feds. At a minimum California should have when the Feds over
>stepped their boundaries in their decision that California's Medical
>Marijuana Laws were null & void under the Commerce Clause.
Agreed
Lookout
wrote:
>On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 12:59:44 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
><rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>Lookout <mrLo...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>news:264kk519qpmj8a4qj...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 12:26:56 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
>>> <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>grey_ghost47...@yahoo.com (Gray Ghost) wrote in
>>>>news:Xns9CFB86B49B664We...@216.196.97.142:
>>>>
>>>>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in
>>>>> news:Xns9CFB6A896...@216.196.97.130:
>>>>> I wonder if Lookout is as stupid as he pretends to be? He is clearly
>>>>> ignorant, can stupidity be far behind?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Sometimes he shows that he thinks things through. Not often, I admit,
>>>>as he lean too much on pure vitriol rather than honest discussion.
>>>>For that reason, he keeps bouncing in and out of my Bozo Bin. At
>>>>least he seems to be smarter than TMT. ;)
>>>
>>> Yet I've corrected you many times. How is that?
>>
>>
>>Because you believe your own bullshit and don't pay any attention to the
>>truth. It's all in your mind, not in fact.
>>
>Well at least he is sincere, even if he is sincerely wrong.
In law I'm right.
Or correct me if you can.
But you can't, can you? It was only the good will of the US Government
that stopped it.
Lookout
<rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
ALL the states. You keep leaving that out. Why?
>>>> Dumbass.
>>>
>>>If you wish to debate or discuss, fine. If you wish to namecall, you
>>>will have a quick trip back to the Bozo Bin. Your call.
>>
>> Read better
>
>I read the namecall. Last chance.....
Keep trying. But this time be more careful. ALL the states...not just
Lookout
<rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
Wrong. Albanians aren't US citizens so it can't be treason or traitor.
Apples and oranges.
You really need to start reading better. How many times do I have to
tell you this?
Lookout
<rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
You started it
>
>> There..do you feel better now?
>>
Sure do.
Now start reading better.
znuybv
> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 19:22:31 -0800 (PST), "#1 Donkey"
>
> <number_1_don...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jan 7, 11:19 am, "Psychic Democrat" <a...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >> Yep, the South rose again... to it's level of incompetence under Bush's
> >> Christofascist nutters, flunked, drowned in it's own vomit and has been
> >> cremated during a book burning at a Teabagger Wingding in Nutterville,
> >> Flarduh.
>
> >General William Tecumseh Sherman shure knew how to fuck up the fucking
> >southern inbreeds.
>
> >He is a true American hero.
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Tecumseh_Sherman
>
> Robert E Lee and every scum bag who took up arms against the United
> States should have been tried, and when found guilty, hung as
> traitors.
There would be a lot less Democrats.
Lookout
wrote:
The dems in 1860 are not the same dems as today.
#1 Donkey
Q: Do you know how a cracker momma from Georgia can tell if her
daughter is on her
period?
A: Cracker momma says that her sons dick is tasting a little funny.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=inbred
WangoTango
mrLo...@yahoo.com says...
> >
> >No, I'm sorry if you can't keep up with the conversation at the adult
> >table.
>
> So you won't try again?
> Ok, no problem. We understand
So, why don't you explain the Constitutionality of shooting the people
that took up arms against their government.
Be concise and make sure you stick to the letter of the Constitution of
the United States.
WangoTango
mrLo...@yahoo.com says...
> >Sorry, my life doesn't revolve around USENET.
> >I spent the weekend with my family squirrel hunting.
> >Maybe if you got a life......
>
> Squirrel hunting? My, aren't we the big game hunter!
I will bet you think that is some kind of slight.
I had a great time with the wife, son, daughter, and the dog.
I didn't spend one millisecond worrying about what you might think of
it.
WangoTango
smo...@board.net says...
> On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 16:28:42 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
> <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >Not before Texas v White and even in that case the USSC stated that "
> >membership nevertheless could be revoked "through revolution, or through
> >consent of the States."
>
> that nonsense, didn't he?
>
Yep, and it only took ignoring the Constitution, 619,000 dead from
battle and disease, and 4 years of fighting.
Stomped it flat.......
RD (The Sandman)
news:g0cnk599im3tlikj1...@4ax.com:
It's a quote from the case, Lookout. If I added those words it no longer
would be.
>>>>> Dumbass.
>>>>
>>>>If you wish to debate or discuss, fine. If you wish to namecall, you
>>>>will have a quick trip back to the Bozo Bin. Your call.
>>>
>>> Read better
>>
>>I read the namecall. Last chance.....
>
> Keep trying. But this time be more careful. ALL the states...not just
> the ones that want to secede.
If you wish to change the case cite to what you want it to say, then do
so. I won't and still put quotes around it.
--
Sleep well tonight, RD (The Sandman)
Let's see if I have this healthcare thingy right. Congress is to pass
a plan written by a committee whose head has said he doesn't understand
it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it or allowed bipartisan input,
signed by a president who hasn't read it or provided the public with the
C-Span overview of the plan or the process, with funding administered by
a Treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes because he didn't understand
TurboTax, overseen by an obese Surgeon General and financed by a country
that's nearly broke. What could possibly go wrong?
RD (The Sandman)
4ax.com:
> On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 16:28:42 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
> <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>Not before Texas v White and even in that case the USSC stated that "
>>membership nevertheless could be revoked "through revolution, or
through
>>consent of the States."
>
> Northern progressive/liberal republican Lincoln sure put a stop to
> that nonsense, didn't he?
>
I sorry, he was dead when that court case was settled.
--
Sleep well tonight, RD (The Sandman)
Let's see if I have this healthcare thingy right. Congress is to pass
a plan written by a committee whose head has said he doesn't understand
it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it or allowed bipartisan input,
signed by a president who hasn't read it or provided the public with the
C-Span overview of the plan or the process, with funding administered by
a Treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes because he didn't understand
TurboTax, overseen by an obese Surgeon General and financed by a country
WangoTango
smo...@board.net says...
> On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 12:00:06 -0500, WangoTango
> <Asga...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <9f1ok5p7igj4puvkl...@4ax.com>,
> >smo...@board.net says...
> >> On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 16:28:42 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
> >> <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Not before Texas v White and even in that case the USSC stated that "
> >> >membership nevertheless could be revoked "through revolution, or through
> >> >consent of the States."
> >>
> >> Northern progressive/liberal republican Lincoln sure put a stop to
> >> that nonsense, didn't he?
> >>
> >Yep, and it only took ignoring the Constitution,
>
> the constitution left it up to the states to piss on their word
> anytime they chose?
Sure, that's exactly what I mean, if by piss on you mean hold to.
The Constitution spells out very specific powers, it is isn't spelled
out then it isn't a power granted the feds.
>
> Or---perhaps that some other entity besides the USSC gets to interpret
> the constitution (Like Judge Roy Moor and tea-whackers)?
So, where in the Constitution of the United States does it give the
President the authority to suspend the writ of habeas corpus.
I think you somehow confuse what was done with what was ACTUALLY
Constitutional.
With Congress not in session until July, Lincoln assumed all powers not
delegated in the Constitution, including the power to suspend habeas
corpus. In 1861, Lincoln had already suspended civil law in territories
where resistance to the North's military power would be dangerous. In
1862, when copperhead democrats began criticizing Lincoln's violation of
the Constitution, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus throughout the nation
and had many copperhead democrats arrested under military authority
because he felt that the State Courts in the north west would not
convict war protesters such as the copperheads. He proclaimed that all
persons who discouraged enlistments or engaged in disloyal practices
would come under Martial Law.
Among the 13,000 people arrested under martial law was a Maryland
Secessionist, John Merryman. Immediately, Hon. Roger B. Taney, Chief
Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States issued a writ of
habeas corpus commanding the military to bring Merryman before him. The
military refused to follow the writ. Justice Taney, in Ex parte
MERRYMAN, then ruled the suspension of habeas corpus unconstitutional
because the writ could not be suspended without an Act of Congress.
President Lincoln and the military ignored Justice Taney's ruling.
Finally, in 1866, after the war, the Supreme Court officially restored
habeas corpus in Ex-parte Milligan, ruling that military trials in areas
where the civil courts were capable of functioning were illegal.
WangoTango
I forgot to attribute the info I posted to its' source, here the site I
pulled from :
znuybv
> On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 15:32:12 -0800 (PST), znuybv <tjwil...@yahoo.com>
Except for John Edwards.
RD (The Sandman)
4ax.com:
> On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 12:14:33 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
> <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>> Northern progressive/liberal republican Lincoln sure put a stop to
>>> that nonsense, didn't he?
>>>
>>
>>I sorry, he was dead when that court case was settled.
>
> Just like the "States rights" arguments
Depends on the argument. Some things are the powers of the states and
should be.
RD (The Sandman)
4ax.com:
> On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 14:15:10 -0500, WangoTango
> <Asga...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>> By "ignoring"--do mean the silly notion that the signators to ratify
>>> the constitution left it up to the states to piss on their word
>>> anytime they chose?
>>Sure, that's exactly what I mean, if by piss on you mean hold to.
>>The Constitution spells out very specific powers, it is isn't spelled
>>out then it isn't a power granted the feds.
>
> Ah, the old "strict" or "literal" constitutional "reading"?
>
> Doesn't seem to be working out that way since about 1798
>
And you feel that is a good thing?
WangoTango
smo...@board.net says...
> >> the constitution (Like Judge Roy Moor and tea-whackers)?
> >
> >So, where in the Constitution of the United States does it give the
> >President the authority to suspend the writ of habeas corpus.
> >I think you somehow confuse what was done with what was ACTUALLY
> >Constitutional.
>
> only a "literal" reading can be acceptable?
>
> Doesn't seem to be working out for you, does it?
>
Seems to be working out for me just right.
I mean when the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS agrees with me, what leg are
you standing on?
Lookout
It was war.
Lookout
<Asga...@mindspring.com> wrote:
All because some rednecks wanted slaves to do their work for them.
Silly, huh?
Lookout
>On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 12:00:06 -0500, WangoTango
><Asga...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <9f1ok5p7igj4puvkl...@4ax.com>,
>>smo...@board.net says...
>>> On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 16:28:42 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
>>> <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> >Not before Texas v White and even in that case the USSC stated that "
>>> >membership nevertheless could be revoked "through revolution, or through
>>> >consent of the States."
>>>
>>> Northern progressive/liberal republican Lincoln sure put a stop to
>>> that nonsense, didn't he?
>>>
>>Yep, and it only took ignoring the Constitution,
>
>By "ignoring"--do mean the silly notion that the signators to ratify
>the constitution left it up to the states to piss on their word
>anytime they chose?
>
>Or---perhaps that some other entity besides the USSC gets to interpret
>the constitution (Like Judge Roy Moor and tea-whackers)?
Notice how he's sliding away from the traitor discussion.
He know's he's wrong.
Lookout
<rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
It's understood to be all the states.