| ||||
Civil War Interactive Discussion Board > Civil War Talk > Other Civil War Talk > The Declaration of Independence |
| ||||
Civil War Interactive Discussion Board > Civil War Talk > Other Civil War Talk > The Declaration of Independence |
| Moderated by: javal1 | Page:   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8   |
|
|||||||||||||
| The Declaration of Independence | Rate Topic |
| Author | Post |
|---|
| Posted: Fri Oct 10th, 2008 12:57 am |
|
41st Post |
|
HankC Member 
|
JDC Duncan wrote:
Someone should inform the Supreme Court to stop ruling in tax cases if they earlier declared them unconstitutional. Don't they read their own case law?  HankC
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| You have chosen to ignore JDC Duncan. click Here to view this post |
|---|
| Posted: Fri Oct 10th, 2008 01:48 pm |
|
43rd Post |
|
HankC Member
|
JDC Duncan wrote: ok, we may need another thread for this issue. Remember that the Supreme Court chooses its own cases. When they deny cert, in effect, the previous ruling is upheld. HankC
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| You have chosen to ignore JDC Duncan. click Here to view this post |
|---|
| Posted: Fri Oct 10th, 2008 04:36 pm |
|
45th Post |
|
HankC Member
|
JDC Duncan wrote: “the other issue is that the fed income tax revenue stream, in context of corporate, cap gains, gas tax, etc, is very small, almost not worth the effort to collect.” individual income and payroll taxes account for over 80% of federal receipts. “the revenue stream is directed towards interest on the national debt.” certainly part of it is, but the debt interest is less than 10% of outlays. “If the income tax was "abolished", it would have little noticible effect on the budget.” Personal income taxes provide 55% of the federal revenue stream. I'm all for arguing for low taxes, but not for bad arguments HankC
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| You have chosen to ignore JDC Duncan. click Here to view this post |
|---|
| Posted: Fri Oct 10th, 2008 08:15 pm |
|
47th Post |
|
HankC Member
|
laughing with you...
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Nov 19th, 2009 01:07 am |
|
48th Post |
|
ThomasWashington Banned
|
From the Declaration of Independence: "We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do." That means each state was a separate nation, contrary to the Union's claim; therefore each one had the right to secede, since that's one of the things that "free and independent states may of right do." I'd just like to know what the US government has to say for itself, after killing all those people in order to stop them from being free and independent states; this was just like any other ruthless nation taking over free countries and killing people. ole wrote: Both documents were written with a goal of government by the people. This was a first. All governments were, until that time, run by an aristocracy.(Skipping over the "democracies" of Greece and Rome.) Unless one can read plain English, as illustrated clearly above. And ignorance of the law is never an excuse for anyone to violate it-- especially the president. However, Lincoln clearly suspended habeas corpus in order for this reason-- i.e. that it was so plainly obvious that he was dead wrong about his claim, that the only way to pull it off was to censor the opposition. Don't know about the rest of you, but I'm rather glad about the way it turned out. So you're glad about leaders of your country who lied, suppressed free speech, and murdered hundreds of thousands in order to take over their free nations and turn them into third-world occupied regions. Last edited on Thu Nov 19th, 2009 02:32 am by ThomasWashington |
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Nov 19th, 2009 01:55 am |
|
49th Post |
|
19bama46 Member
|
Thomas Washington, Sir.. Thank you for reviving this thread.. I think it continues to be interesting and was delighted to see Ole's comment that you copied.. " Both documents were written with a goal of government by the people. This was a first. All governments were, until that time, run by an aristocracy.(Skipping over the "democracies" of Greece and Rome.) Ole, if I may, you stated that in 1860 the experiment was challenged and one side saw the DOI as a means of declaring itself a different nation while the other side thought the grand experiment would fail if a part could withdraw...paraphrased... Why would secession result in failure of the "Grand Experiment".. Would not the US have continued on, or would it have imploded over the loss of the southern brethren? Ed
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Nov 19th, 2009 02:34 am |
|
50th Post |
|
ThomasWashington Banned
|
HankC wrote: JDC Duncan wrote: According to Lincoln, the Supreme Court only had the power on rule on cases before it-- not the law.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Nov 19th, 2009 02:46 am |
|
51st Post |
|
19bama46 Member
|
The supreme court does not review laws for constitutionality, but when they accept a case, it is the law as it pertains to that case that they are reviewing. They will either affirm the law, (allow it to stand) or strike down the law (declare it unconstitutional) Last edited on Thu Nov 19th, 2009 02:47 am by 19bama46 |
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Nov 19th, 2009 04:30 am |
|
52nd Post |
|
ThomasWashington Banned
|
But Lincoln said that the Supreme Court couldn't even do that. To wit from his First Inaugural address:
In other words, Lincoln claimed that the Supreme Court had no power of juicial review over federal laws that came before it in cases. Now compare that, to his 1856 Fremont campaign speech:
Thus Lincoln not only denied the power of judicial review once he became president, but he held that view only when it proved convenient for him. Note that the above case was made on August 1, 1856-- shortly before the outcome of the Dred Scot case, which Lincoln felt sure would be decided in favor of the Free states. Then, after the Court ruled entirely with the slave states and slave-owners, Lincoln made the following speech: ...we have another nice little niche, which we may, ere long, see filled with another Supreme Court decision, declaring that the Constitution of the United States does not permit a State to exclude slavery from its limits. And this may especially be expected if the doctrine of "care not whether slavery be voted down or voted up," shall gain upon the public mind sufficiently to give promise that such a decision can be maintained when made. So there we have it: in 1856, when he thinks the Court will rule in his party's favor, he Lincoln says "The Supreme Court of the United States is the tribunal to decide the question of an unconstitutional act--" and challenges the other side to submit to its decision, calling them "disunionists" if they refuse. Then when the court rules against him and his party, in 1858 he says "we must work to overthrow that dynasty--" i.e. he refuses to submit to the Supreme Court... thus making him and the Republicans "disunionist" by his own definition. Then in 1861, President Lincoln says that the Supreme Court is simply "binding in any case upon the parties to a suit as to the object of that suit--" ONLY-- while claiming that it has NO power of judicial review over the underlying legislation! In short, Lincoln seems to be the father of the term, "the politics of convenience;" meanwhile the nickname "Honest Abe" appears to be born purely out of sarcasm. Last edited on Thu Nov 19th, 2009 04:41 am by ThomasWashington |
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Nov 19th, 2009 08:18 pm |
|
53rd Post |
|
HankC Member
|
Not sure where you read he 'refuses to submit to the Supreme Court'. Rather he is saying that since the Court must be obeyed, the Republicans must work to get their kind on the bench... HankC
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri Nov 20th, 2009 01:28 am |
|
54th Post |
|
ThomasWashington Banned
|
HankC wrote: Not sure where you read he 'refuses to submit to the Supreme Court'. Where does he say that? He certainly doesn't abide by his prior word that "we will submit to its decisions, and there will be an end the matter." Likewise, he said nothing about any "loophole" of gaining hegemony to stack the bench with puppet-activists-- and so he was completely dishonest, as he always was. Likewise, the INSTANT Lincoln became president, he unilaterally overturned 58 years of Supreme Court precedent regarding judicial review of federal law under Marbury v Madison, and claims federal law entirely they privy of the Congress and president, regarding both policy and habeas corpus; and with Congress conveniently absent, he essentially assumes the reins of supreme reign-- which is more than enough to wag the dog into full-scale war when Congress rejoins. Lincoln also deliberately refused to call Congress into Emergency-Session after the first secession, despite having more than 70 days to do so before his inauguration; this proves that he PLOTTED to usurp dictatorial power. Finally, the Republicans deliberately refused to respect Dred Scot in both the territories and the states, regardless of what the Supreme Court said-- or Lincoln promised-- thus making him the disunionist by his own definition.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri Nov 20th, 2009 03:17 pm |
|
55th Post |
|
HankC Member
|
Where do you get the idea that Lincoln could call Congress into session before he was inaugurated? HankC
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri Nov 20th, 2009 03:41 pm |
|
56th Post |
|
ThomasWashington Banned
|
The Constitution. As president-elect; Lincoln not only could call an emergency-session of Congress to convene on the day of his inauguration: but in fact he was REQUIRED to do so, if he intended to act in a manner requiring it. Congress had plenty of time after the first secession, to convene on March 4, 1861, but Lincoln never called them into session-- despite clear evidence that he had EVERY intention of acting as he did, as early as December 20 of 1860. Thus, he deliberately REFUSED to call Congress into emergency-session, so that he could seize full national power and become a bona fide despot-- just like happened with the Weimar government in 1933, which was expressly stated in Mein Kampf to be the example-precedent. Last edited on Fri Nov 20th, 2009 03:47 pm by ThomasWashington |
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri Nov 20th, 2009 03:47 pm |
|
57th Post |
|
HankC Member
|
In what way did 'Republicans refuse to respect Dred Scot'? You seem to confuse the words 'respect' and 'like'. A person can disklike a law without breaking it... HankC
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri Nov 20th, 2009 03:52 pm |
|
58th Post |
|
ThomasWashington Banned
|
HankC wrote: In what way did 'Republicans refuse to respect Dred Scot'? But they can't contructively VIOLATE the law without breaking it, either directly or through act of omission. They passed laws aganst slavery in the territories, blocked the admission of new states which wanted to be slave-states; and they refused to do anything about states that wouldn't allow slaves to pass through them, or gave sanctuary to slaves that escaped into them. That's ALL direct or constructive violation. The Republican party's purpose behind this, was solely to pander to abolition-groups in order to gain congressional hegemony, with which to impose illegal taxes on the southern states. Last edited on Fri Nov 20th, 2009 03:55 pm by ThomasWashington |
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri Nov 20th, 2009 03:53 pm |
|
59th Post |
|
19bama46 Member
|
ThomasWashington wrote: The Constitution. He WAS president-elect; therefore he not only could, but he was REQUIRED to do so, if he intended to act in a manner requiring it. UH... could you prehaps show us exactly where in the constitution you hae found this gem.... As president elect he had no power whatsoever to do anything other than to present himself to be sworn in.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri Nov 20th, 2009 03:56 pm |
|
60th Post |
|
ThomasWashington Banned
|
It's clearly implied in the power and duties of the president-elect-- as well as plain common-sense-- for the president-elect to give Congress advance notice to adequately respond to impending emergencies pertaining to their duties and functions in government, in response to his intended acts as president. Clearly, Lincoln did intend this, but didn't want Congress there when it happened; he wanted to unilaterally define national status, sovereignty, boundaries and authority; order invasions, suspend habeas corpus, effectively disband the Supreme Court, and otherwise seize national power, without any pesky Congressmen getting in his way-- at least until his plans were well under-way. General Jack Ripper, eat your heart out. Last edited on Fri Nov 20th, 2009 04:09 pm by ThomasWashington |
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Current time is 06:16 pm | Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 |
| Civil War Interactive Discussion Board > Civil War Talk > Other Civil War Talk > The Declaration of Independence | Top |
