Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
My last post to you, i will not further converse with a liar.
None are so blind as those who will not see. It seems to apply to you and mirrors. Let us know when you can handle honest disagreement.
Have fun with your policy.
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
For anybody reading this drivel who actually is interested in checks and balances. The most appropriate description of the relationship between the Legislative Branch and the Executive Branch is that the power to call up the Militia is expressly granted to Congress in the Consitution, a power Congress had chosen to delegate to the Executive Branch by statute. This delegation was specifically ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court.
Since you descibe it as drivel, you must find it not to be correct, yet your post contradicts nothing i posted, nor is there anything int i disgree with, i have in the past posted the history of the exception that congress allow POTUS to use the authoirity to call up the militia, imergencys so sudden that only POTUS by immediate action can respond, and require POTUS to call congress into sescion immediatly to explain himslef.
So its drivle you agree with, since your post meerly explain the same thing.
Since i like to pose questions to posters, and not those who refuse to answer them, heres yours"Supremacy clause" of U.S. Constitution Article VI, which states that:
"This Constitution… shall be the Supreme Law of the Land, and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the laws or constitutions of any state notwithstanding."
This "law" is binding on "the judges in every state - " and only the judges.
In contrast, the remainder of the Article omits all other officials from any such bond, using very different language in describing its relation to them; to wit:
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
Any person literate in language of law and logic - should be able to recognize that such explicitly omissive and separate treatment, translates to the fact that the Constitution does not claim any legal binding effect whatsoever, on anyone but state judges; rather, such language merely implies recognition of the Constitution by officials as a mere mutual good-faith agreement. It is simply absurd, after all, to claim that the phrase "state judges shall be bound by law, while all others shall be bound merely by a promise or agreement to support the law," somehow translates to the notion that "all officials are bound by law - " particularly when the final clause specifically precludes any religious test from implying the term "oath or affirmation" as binding via any common "higher law," such as an oath specifically to God, Allah or the Buddha - even allowing religions for which oath or affirmation has no higher context.
As such, the implication here is that the Constitution is a mere treaty between separate and sovereign nation-states - a treaty which state officials simply agree to "support," as opposed to being bound to obey such as a law, under penalty of such. Rather, this treaty is written as merely a bi-lateral agreement, with each side bound solely by its own conscience and good reputation - and as such, may be thus dispensed with entirely, if either side believes a breach of faith has been committed by the other.
Q explain why only the judges and not any citizens of states are bound by the suprmacy clause?.
__________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Since you descibe it as drivel, you must find it not to be correct, yet your post contradicts nothing i posted, nor is there anything int i disgree with, i have in the past posted the history of the exception that congress allow POTUS to use the authoirity to call up the militia, imergencys so sudden that only POTUS by immediate action can respond, and require POTUS to call congress into sescion immediatly to explain himslef.
So its drivle you agree with, since your post meerly explain the same thing.
As pointed out to you before, Congress was not in session when Lincoln had to act in response to the Confederate assault on US forces. At this point in mid-April the US Army has perhaps as many as 3,000 men East of the Mississippi River, scattered from Florida to Maine and various other places. About 8% of the entire Army is being interned in Texas, another 1,000 men, and the sole legal authority Lincoln has available to increase his forces is the Militia Act. He is absolutely acting within his authority when he makes the call.
Lincoln DID immediately call Congress into session (80 days exactly from when he called them). Given the size of the country, the difficulties of communication, and the need for a quorum, 80 days is a rapid timetable. This has been pointed out to you before this.
If you seriously wish to make this claim, you need to present some evidence that Lincoln could have called Congress back earlier and expected to achieve a quorum. You have made no attempt to do so -- simply making unsubstantiated claims. So do it now: tell us what you think was a reasonable date for him to expect to get Senators and Congressmen back from the West Coast, with some explanation of how you calculate the time.
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
I do comprehend the meaning. Trice tagged you, you should be eating a small dose of crow. Instead you call him a liar. I hope the man continues to point out inaccuracies where he sees them.
Rhett-oric... quite apt and I think more than a little accurate.
__________________ Few take the trouble to understand or to view the American scene with perspective. And we Americans love to find ourselves guilty of something. However, it is never I who am guilty, but those other Americans, the past or present government or the other political party. Americans almost never find other countries guilty. It is always ourselves or our fancied influence in other countries. Louis L'amour
Please see post 155 and get someone to expalin it to you, as you clearly have not comprehended its meaning.
Hanny, you said you weren't going to post any more messages to me, then you did. Your contradictory behavior has nothing to do with me, only yourself.
If you'd like to refrain from posting to me, do so. No skin off my nose. Feel free to keep silent.
However, that has no effect on my ability to post responses to you. If I see something I feel should be responded to, I will.
As I said, have fun with your policy.
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
Q explain why only the judges and not any citizens of states are bound by the suprmacy clause?.
=====
US Constitution
Article VI, Clause 2:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
=====
You chose to replace the part in blue italics with "..." for some reason. I am not sure why; perhaps you could explain it to us. At any rate, please note that it makes all US laws and treaties superior to any state law or constitution.
All US citizens are required to obey the law. This is reinforced for US and state officials by a personal oath as follows:
===== US Constitution
Article VI, Clause 3: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
=====
There are no exceptions. Your reading of the constitution is completely incorrect.
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
Last edited by trice; 06-23-2008 at 10:30 AM.
Reason: spelling
McCulloch v. Maryland clearly stands for the proposition that the Supremacy Clause applies to state action, not just to judges.
"The only remaining question is, whether the act of the state of Maryland, for taxing the bank thus incorporated, be repugnant to the constitution of the United States? ... There is another clause in the constitution, which has the effect of a prohibition on the exercise of their authority, in numerous cases. The 6th article of the constitution of the United States declares, that the laws made in pursuance of it, 'shall be the supreme law of the land, anything in the constitution, or laws of [17 U.S. 316, 361] any state to the contrary notwithstanding.' By this declaration, the states are prohibited from passing any acts which shall be repugnant to a law of the United States. ...
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
