Sarah Palin Faces Conservative Backlash

[bigrebnc1775]

I too study the 19th century and have walked many of the battlefields from Gettysburg to Vicksburg. My brother is an American history teacher.

And racism IS racism...but it has degrees as does everything else...unless you want to say the KKKr who threw the bomb in that church, killing those three little girls is just as much a racist as the guy lets the word "******" out when he's mad at a black man.

BTW....if you are going to LIE, you might want to have something to back it up. I'm not defending Lincoln's racism...I even admit he was. But he certainly wasn't the racist that John C. Calhoun was.

Now...I notice you STILL spit on the glorious Union dead with your Nic...no amount of goal post moving and spinning on your part is hiding that.

Why do people call others a liar without proof? OK here's your chance you called me a liar, where's your proof?

However you are defending lincolns racism against Calhouns racsm. By saying there's different degree's of it.

Now...I notice you STILL spit on the glorious Union dead with your Nic...no amount of goal post moving and spinning on your part is hiding that.

You are right I go to Salisbury national cemetry to piss on the graves of the union soldiers buried there. They were here to kill Southerners on Southern soil. yankme go home. Ever five dollar bill I have I put a hole in the image of lincolns head.

I believe that you do. They were killing Traitors in defense of the United States. I suspect that you really don't get that concept.

No you do not get the concept. You were a traitor if you fought against your country. There country being their home state.

 

[LilOlLady]

Palin is like the old covenent in the OT. Slowing fading away never to be revived again. Like an old broken in shoe,comfortable by has to be thrown away eventually.

 

[kaz]

See Bill of Rights Articles 9 and 10 below:

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

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.

In short, the states all have the right to secede as there is no law of prohibition or procedure and it is therefore at their discretion to remain part of the union or to secede and the federal government has no authority to stop or prohibit that act.

Sorry, doesn't work. The Constitution specifies powers granted to the Federal government by the people. You are quoting two amendments that say anything not ceded to the Federal government remains with the people (10th) and anything not enumerated as a power ceded is as important as a right protected in the bill of rights (9th).

That says anything ELSE remains with the people, it doesn't say powers ceded to the Federal government can be revoked by the State. The States do by the 9th and 10th have far more autonomy then has been they have, but you didn't cite anything that gives the States power to revoke that which was ceded.

 

[bodecea]

Why do people call others a liar without proof? OK here's your chance you called me a liar, where's your proof?

However you are defending lincolns racism against Calhouns racsm. By saying there's different degree's of it.



You are right I go to Salisbury national cemetry to piss on the graves of the union soldiers buried there. They were here to kill Southerners on Southern soil. yankme go home. Ever five dollar bill I have I put a hole in the image of lincolns head.

I believe that you do. They were killing Traitors in defense of the United States. I suspect that you really don't get that concept.

No you do not get the concept. You were a traitor if you fought against your country. There country being their home state.

No, once we became the United States, a state was not and is not a country. You want to pretend so...as did the South (and learned as they tried to fight the war as so many different countries)...but we are not.

 

[Synthaholic]

Palin is like the old covenent in the OT. Slowing fading away never to be revived again. Like an old broken in shoe,comfortable by has to be thrown away eventually.

I was never once comfortable with her. Power, coupled with incompetence and extreme ideology, is a dangerous combination.

We had eight devastating years of that with Bush.

 

[Uncle Kenny]

Article and Section please.

See Bill of Rights Articles 9 and 10 below:

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

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.

In short, the states all have the right to secede as there is no law of prohibition or procedure and it is therefore at their discretion to remain part of the union or to secede and the federal government has no authority to stop or prohibit that act.

Nothing in there about the right to secede. Sorry.

Even John C. Calhoun, the Father of Nullification, backed down from secession when Jackson threatened SC with federal troops.

It's illegal and it was proven illegal with the blood of over 600,000 lives...most of them Loyal Americans, some traitors.

Actually the fact that the right to secede is not addressed at all, the 9th and 10th apply and do indeed ensure that sucession is a protected right, delegated to the states. I am not sure what level of denial is in play here, but that "traitor" rhetoric is just inflamitory crap. You know very well that in the 19th century state affiliation and loyalty far outwieghed national loyalties in both the north and south.

It was never "proven illegal" it was just superior military force that nullified it. Pure and simple, SC had a right to refuse the federal troops and to seperate, the union used force to re-incorporate and they did so by invasion. No southern state invaded the north until late in the war and only briefly, northern forces massacred southern civilians and cities.

If secession was actually illegal the northern forces who raped, pillaged and plundered their supposed countrymen were the traitors by definition. Some of them don't deserve the hero designation they are recieving, but that is a seperate point of debate.

 

[bodecea]

See Bill of Rights Articles 9 and 10 below:

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

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.

In short, the states all have the right to secede as there is no law of prohibition or procedure and it is therefore at their discretion to remain part of the union or to secede and the federal government has no authority to stop or prohibit that act.

Nothing in there about the right to secede. Sorry.

Even John C. Calhoun, the Father of Nullification, backed down from secession when Jackson threatened SC with federal troops.

It's illegal and it was proven illegal with the blood of over 600,000 lives...most of them Loyal Americans, some traitors.

Actually the fact that the right to secede is not addressed at all, the 9th and 10th apply and do indeed ensure that sucession is a protected right, delegated to the states. I am not sure what level of denial is in play here, but that "traitor" rhetoric is just inflamitory crap. You know very well that in the 19th century state affiliation and loyalty far outwieghed national loyalties in both the north and south.

It was never "proven illegal" it was just superior military force that nullified it. Pure and simple, SC had a right to refuse the federal troops and to seperate, the union used force to re-incorporate and they did so by invasion. No southern state invaded the north until late in the war and only briefly, northern forces massacred southern civilians and cities.

If secession was actually illegal the northern forces who raped, pillaged and plundered their supposed countrymen were the traitors by definition. Some of them don't deserve the hero designation they are recieving, but that is a seperate point of debate.

They do not...they say absolutely nothing about secession.

And I find it telling that you would think that those fighting to keep our Union are the traitors. Pretty much sets the tone for your purposes in posting such poor material.

 

[Uncle Kenny]

Nothing in there about the right to secede. Sorry.

Even John C. Calhoun, the Father of Nullification, backed down from secession when Jackson threatened SC with federal troops.

It's illegal and it was proven illegal with the blood of over 600,000 lives...most of them Loyal Americans, some traitors.

Actually the fact that the right to secede is not addressed at all, the 9th and 10th apply and do indeed ensure that sucession is a protected right, delegated to the states. I am not sure what level of denial is in play here, but that "traitor" rhetoric is just inflamitory crap. You know very well that in the 19th century state affiliation and loyalty far outwieghed national loyalties in both the north and south.

It was never "proven illegal" it was just superior military force that nullified it. Pure and simple, SC had a right to refuse the federal troops and to seperate, the union used force to re-incorporate and they did so by invasion. No southern state invaded the north until late in the war and only briefly, northern forces massacred southern civilians and cities.

If secession was actually illegal the northern forces who raped, pillaged and plundered their supposed countrymen were the traitors by definition. Some of them don't deserve the hero designation they are recieving, but that is a seperate point of debate.

They do not...they say absolutely nothing about secession.

And I find it telling that you would think that those fighting to keep our Union are the traitors. Pretty much sets the tone for your purposes in posting such poor material.

O.K., the 9th says that nothing not directly addressed in the Constitution can be denied as a right by implication and the tenth says anything not covered directly is the right of the states to determine. This inane assertion that it isn't specificly mentioned is actually the proof that it is legal in accordance with the Bill of Rights.

As to my purpose it is to solely correct the erronious assertions of people who obviously have never read the Bill of Rights or an unbias account of history.

 

[bodecea]

Actually the fact that the right to secede is not addressed at all, the 9th and 10th apply and do indeed ensure that sucession is a protected right, delegated to the states. I am not sure what level of denial is in play here, but that "traitor" rhetoric is just inflamitory crap. You know very well that in the 19th century state affiliation and loyalty far outwieghed national loyalties in both the north and south.

It was never "proven illegal" it was just superior military force that nullified it. Pure and simple, SC had a right to refuse the federal troops and to seperate, the union used force to re-incorporate and they did so by invasion. No southern state invaded the north until late in the war and only briefly, northern forces massacred southern civilians and cities.

If secession was actually illegal the northern forces who raped, pillaged and plundered their supposed countrymen were the traitors by definition. Some of them don't deserve the hero designation they are recieving, but that is a seperate point of debate.

They do not...they say absolutely nothing about secession.

And I find it telling that you would think that those fighting to keep our Union are the traitors. Pretty much sets the tone for your purposes in posting such poor material.

O.K., the 9th says that nothing not directly addressed in the Constitution can be denied as a right by implication and the tenth says anything not covered directly is the right of the states to determine. This inane assertion that it isn't specificly mentioned is actually the proof that it is legal in accordance with the Bill of Rights.

As to my purpose it is to solely correct the erronious assertions of people who obviously have never read the Bill of Rights or an unbias account of history.

Quitting the Union is not addressed AT all. Period.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I believe that you do. They were killing Traitors in defense of the United States. I suspect that you really don't get that concept.

No you do not get the concept. You were a traitor if you fought against your country. There country being their home state.

No, once we became the United States, a state was not and is not a country. You want to pretend so...as did the South (and learned as they tried to fight the war as so many different countries)...but we are not.

Which came first the states or the central government?

 

[Uncle Kenny]

They do not...they say absolutely nothing about secession.

And I find it telling that you would think that those fighting to keep our Union are the traitors. Pretty much sets the tone for your purposes in posting such poor material.

O.K., the 9th says that nothing not directly addressed in the Constitution can be denied as a right by implication and the tenth says anything not covered directly is the right of the states to determine. This inane assertion that it isn't specificly mentioned is actually the proof that it is legal in accordance with the Bill of Rights.

As to my purpose it is to solely correct the erronious assertions of people who obviously have never read the Bill of Rights or an unbias account of history.

Quitting the Union is not addressed AT all. Period.

Which is what makes it an unrestricted states' right. Period. Thank you for arguing my point for me, now actually read the Bill of Rights and posibly you will see how silly your original assertion is, based largely on your own statements about the Constitution.

 

[bodecea]

O.K., the 9th says that nothing not directly addressed in the Constitution can be denied as a right by implication and the tenth says anything not covered directly is the right of the states to determine. This inane assertion that it isn't specificly mentioned is actually the proof that it is legal in accordance with the Bill of Rights.

As to my purpose it is to solely correct the erronious assertions of people who obviously have never read the Bill of Rights or an unbias account of history.

Quitting the Union is not addressed AT all. Period.

Which is what makes it an unrestricted states' right. Period. Thank you for arguing my point for me, now actually read the Bill of Rights and posibly you will see how silly your original assertion is, based largely on your own statements about the Constitution.

That is not arguing your point for you at all...but you are welcome to find ANY Supreme Court decision using the 9th or 10th amendment to support the legality of secession. Thanks in Advance.

 

[bodecea]

No you do not get the concept. You were a traitor if you fought against your country. There country being their home state.

No, once we became the United States, a state was not and is not a country. You want to pretend so...as did the South (and learned as they tried to fight the war as so many different countries)...but we are not.

Which came first the states or the central government?

The colonies came first.

But, please continue showing us your disloyality to the United States and your loyality to the Country of (*snicker) North Carolina.

 

[Uncle Kenny]

Quitting the Union is not addressed AT all. Period.

Which is what makes it an unrestricted states' right. Period. Thank you for arguing my point for me, now actually read the Bill of Rights and posibly you will see how silly your original assertion is, based largely on your own statements about the Constitution.

That is not arguing your point for you at all...but you are welcome to find ANY Supreme Court decision using the 9th or 10th amendment to support the legality of secession. Thanks in Advance.

That isn't a point of court ruling, nor as often pointed out, is it a federal decision to rule on at all. If it isn't specificly ruled illegal by the Constitution, it's legality is based on state law. Again, you are trying to make an apple an orange. The Supreme Court would have no jurisdiction, according to the Bill of Rights over a state that seceded, which was their right as delegated by the 10 th Amendment. Therefore, I'm unclear as to how your question is relevant. How could the court rule on something that you have repeatedly admitted isn't specificly mentioned as a federal peragotive?

 

[bodecea]

Which is what makes it an unrestricted states' right. Period. Thank you for arguing my point for me, now actually read the Bill of Rights and posibly you will see how silly your original assertion is, based largely on your own statements about the Constitution.

That is not arguing your point for you at all...but you are welcome to find ANY Supreme Court decision using the 9th or 10th amendment to support the legality of secession. Thanks in Advance.

That isn't a point of court ruling, nor as often pointed out, is it a federal decision to rule on at all. If it isn't specificly ruled illegal by the Constitution, it's legality is based on state law. Again, you are trying to make an apple an orange. The Supreme Court would have no jurisdiction, according to the Bill of Rights over a state that seceded, which was their right as delegated by the 10 th Amendment. Therefore, I'm unclear as to how your question is relevant. How could the court rule on something that you have repeatedly admitted isn't specificly mentioned as a federal peragotive?

Hmmmm...I wonder why after 220 + years, several constitutional crisises with state vs federal and one very bloody civil war...we have no court documentation that secession is in any way legal.

Hmmmm............. and we have had no states SUCCESSFULLY secede from the U.S. in that same period of time.


Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....

 

[Uncle Kenny]

That is not arguing your point for you at all...but you are welcome to find ANY Supreme Court decision using the 9th or 10th amendment to support the legality of secession. Thanks in Advance.

That isn't a point of court ruling, nor as often pointed out, is it a federal decision to rule on at all. If it isn't specificly ruled illegal by the Constitution, it's legality is based on state law. Again, you are trying to make an apple an orange. The Supreme Court would have no jurisdiction, according to the Bill of Rights over a state that seceded, which was their right as delegated by the 10 th Amendment. Therefore, I'm unclear as to how your question is relevant. How could the court rule on something that you have repeatedly admitted isn't specificly mentioned as a federal peragotive?

Hmmmm...I wonder why after 220 + years, several constitutional crisises with state vs federal and one very bloody civil war...we have no court documentation that secession is in any way legal.

Hmmmm............. and we have had no states SUCCESSFULLY secede from the U.S. in that same period of time.


Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....

That isn't true. There were sucessful secessions, they were just reversed via invasion and conquest. Again, the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to rule on any state prior to the Civil War, so there can be no such ruling of consequence, even if it ruled in favor of SC.

State versus Federal requires that the issue be attached to a constitutional perogative for the Supremes to rule, what article would have applied to secession in the 19th century? Can't find one? That is because it doesn't exist.

Show me anything that would even imply that the Federal government has any jurisdiction on state secession, let alone the Supreme Court. Oh, and we won the war doesn't grant jurisdiction, it forcefully imposes it.

 

[kaz]

Show me anything that would even imply that the Federal government has any jurisdiction on state secession, let alone the Supreme Court.

The Constitution cedes certain powers to the Federal government. States should be autonomous by the 9th and 10th Amendments other then for those powers that were ceded. But to revoke ceding those powers would require a Constitutional Amendment.

So, the way a State can secede from the Union is with 2/3 vote in both houses and approval of 3/4 of the legislatures. It cannot just stop ceding powers in the Constitution any other way.

 

[Uncle Kenny]

Show me anything that would even imply that the Federal government has any jurisdiction on state secession, let alone the Supreme Court.

The Constitution cedes certain powers to the Federal government. States should be autonomous by the 9th and 10th Amendments other then for those powers that were ceded. But to revoke ceding those powers would require a Constitutional Amendment.

So, the way a State can secede from the Union is with 2/3 vote in both houses and approval of 3/4 of the legislatures. It cannot just stop ceding powers in the Constitution any other way.

Actually no contract or agreement including the Constitution requires them to stay part of the union at all. The Constitution doesn't require membership and it can't, so therefore no Amendment is required, simple decision of the state is all that would be required as there is no power for the federal government to prohibit secession, unless you can find one...

 

[bodecea]

Show me anything that would even imply that the Federal government has any jurisdiction on state secession, let alone the Supreme Court.

The Constitution cedes certain powers to the Federal government. States should be autonomous by the 9th and 10th Amendments other then for those powers that were ceded. But to revoke ceding those powers would require a Constitutional Amendment.

So, the way a State can secede from the Union is with 2/3 vote in both houses and approval of 3/4 of the legislatures. It cannot just stop ceding powers in the Constitution any other way.

Actually no contract or agreement including the Constitution requires them to stay part of the union at all. The Constitution doesn't require membership and it can't, so therefore no Amendment is required, simple decision of the state is all that would be required as there is no power for the federal government to prohibit secession, unless you can find one...

U.S. Constitution - Article 7 - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No, once we became the United States, a state was not and is not a country. You want to pretend so...as did the South (and learned as they tried to fight the war as so many different countries)...but we are not.

Which came first the states or the central government?

The colonies came first.

But, please continue showing us your disloyality to the United States and your loyality to the Country of (*snicker) North Carolina.

OH so you don't think a state was an individual country as the founders thought? Why would they think they needed to have and keep a state constitution, and a three governing body system?
So I ask again which came first the states or the central government? I want specifics

But, please continue showing us your disloyality to the United States and your loyality to the Country of (*snicker) North Carolina

My loyalty is not to the united states government, it's to the Constitution, because as we have seen America can and will change. The Constitution doesn't. If the United States follows the Constitution I will be a good citizen, but if it's moves away with the constraints of the Constitution I will be it's worst enemy.