View single post by ThomasWashington
 Posted: Sat Nov 21st, 2009 02:14 am
 PM  Quote  Reply  Full Topic 
ThomasWashington
Banned
 

Joined: Wed Nov 18th, 2009
Location:  
Posts: 30
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

To answer your questions:

The Constitution was neither a suicide-pact, nor a "For Dummies" book; rather, it was a document of few and enumerated powers, not prohibitions on power-- see Amendents IX and X. Contrary to Lincoln's claim, the Federal government was empowered do to only that which the Constitution delegated to it-- NOT anything and everything other than what the Constitution expressly said it couldn't do.

Likewise, the federal government was not the judge of its own powers, but rather the People of each state were left ultimately to determine whether a federal law passed Constitutional muster, or otherwise was acceptable. The Constitution did not form or continue a single nation formed out of the states, but on the contrary each state was always a separate soveregn nation, and the Constitution only formed a federal republic of voluntary concessions and rules among them.

Lincoln clearly intended to force the same issue into his own hands, which Jackson had left to Congress, by simply overtepping Congress entirely, via acting in their absence and declaring it an "emergency" BECAUSE they were absent-- but not calling Congress into emergency-session. That's an unconstitutional usurpation of congressional powers right there, since they were only absent BECAUSE he didn't act as his intentions required, by calling Congress into emergency-session.
Again, that's an overthrow of the Constitution by constructive omission. He simply sat on his hands until his inauguration, and took congressional powers into his own hands, suspending habeas corpus, engaging in war and disempowring the judicial branch-- in essence making himself supreme imperial dictator; and of course his party backed him up, just like the Nazis backed Hitler, or the communist backed Stalin.

In contrast, Buchanan neither exercised any powers requiring congressional attendance during their absence, nor had ever intended to do so-- unlike Lincoln; likewise, only CONGRESS can suspend habeas corpus-- not the president-- and only during war or rebellion: but secession is neither, and thus the Constitution provides NO power to enforce laws against an entire state, nor relinquished the sovereignty of such.

In Germany, Hitler used the "Emergency Powers" doctrine of the Weimar government to seize power by declaring an emergency; in contrast, Lincoln did it by simply declaring NOTHING, and leaving Congress in recess when their presence was required in resoponse to his intended actions. Thus he clearly acted wth omissive intent to assume office with no word to Congress, despite an obvious duty to inform them that their presence was required by law.

Lincoln's actions therefore committed a federal coup d'etat to usurp imperial power over a federal republic of sovereign states, through partisan seizure of tripartite authority and totalitarian supression of the truth.



That's quite a stretch.  Where did you divine this Republican strategy?

Start with the Georgia Articles of Secession; then verify it... for a few years.

Even if your suppositions were accurate (which tit is not)

Interesting how you jump to a conclusion based on zero information, but continue to ask the question.
 

 why would such taxes be illegal?



The Constitution provides Congress with the power to levy taxes only for the common defense and the general welfare-- NOT for the redistribution of wealth from one state to another, or for protectionism of special interests against foregn competition.

The taxes passed by the North, clearly exceeded those enumerated terms-- amounting to theft by state-proxy in order to re-distribute wealth from the Southern states to the Northern ones. The Republican aim against slavery was likewse simply to acquire congressional hegemony in order continue their campaign of organized graft and rent-seeking, thus forcing the Southern minority-states to pay not only far more than their fair share, but for purposes that went far beyond either general welfare or common defense, right to corporate welfare and subsidized handouts.


What taxes were levied on a only state or sectional basis? 

Tariffs on imports that were purchased almost exclusively by the South, as well as protectionist tariffs on commercial goods manufactured exclusively in the North. Both of these types of taxes clearly exceeded the federal powers delegated by the Constitution, and deliberately strove to take advantage of superior numbers-- and to GAIN superior numbers-- in order to tax the South dry in a clear scheme of wealth-redistribution from southern to northern states via trade-restrictions and subsidies.

That's far worse than the "taxation without reprsentation" scenario which caused the states to leave England in the first place.

Last edited on Sat Nov 21st, 2009 10:27 am by ThomasWashington

 Close Window