Unconstitutional history

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm still an opponent of the Constitution.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you registered to vote? Did you have to take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States when you registered the way I had to when I registered to vote here in Florida? If so, you cannot legitimately be both a voter and an opponent of the Constitution.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. Pvn is not registered to vote.

2. When I registered to vote in Florida, I took no such oath. Has it changed in the last 15 years?

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If the federal government were ever to become the sole judge of the limits of its own powers through its own courts, then there would eventually be no limits to those powers and the Constitution would effectively become a dead letter.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are going to take advice on freedom and liberty from a rapist who owned his fellow human beings as slaves?

[/ QUOTE ]

Strawman. The quote didn't say anything about freedom and liberty. Stop trolling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Funny that OP probably takes his cues on civil rights from a man who was repeatedly unfaithful to his wife.

I despise this argument.. No man is perfect, why do people find it necessary to attack character, rather than ideas. I'm no GW fan, but I can honestly say, I've never resorted to the "cocaine" argument against him. I can argue against his ideas, and insult his intelligence, without taking personal shots at his past.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since when is a man’s personal behavior not illustrative of his character? Thomas Jefferson was a moral reprobate. Why should anyone take his advice on anything?

[/ QUOTE ]

From my point of view, your beliefs concerning the Constitution and the legitimacy of government make you much more of a moral reprobate than Jefferson, so why should I listen to anything you have to say?

[Taso]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm still an opponent of the Constitution.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you registered to vote? Did you have to take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States when you registered the way I had to when I registered to vote here in Florida? If so, you cannot legitimately be both a voter and an opponent of the Constitution.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. Pvn is not registered to vote.

2. When I registered to vote in Florida, I took no such oath. Has it changed in the last 15 years?

[/ QUOTE ]

NY doesn't have that "oath" either...

Anyways, I believe the real problem here is that OP is for some reason trying to mix two threads together, or trying to make a point about another thread in this thread.

Flaja, you raised a question here, what has the government done that is unconstitutional, and you've been given several specific instances that you aren't refuting.

It's sort of unclear as to what the purpose of this thread is. With your statement that appeared to be a "Challenge" to (for some reason libertarians) to name things that the government has done that are unconstitutional, it would seem you think nothing the government has done is unconstitutional? Clearly, as you have not refuted all the examples that have been posted, this is an incorrect statement, and the US government has done things that were unconstitutional.

Now, for some reason you're bringing up "original intent". You're in the wrong thread for that.

[flaja]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I hardly call having a different political opinion and trying to negotiate a truce "rebellion". Then again, I probably wouldn't call the secession itself a rebellion, but that is another story.

[/ QUOTE ]

Taking military action against the federal government is rebellion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Luckily, the South never did this. They completely peacefully formed their own country and then were invaded and conquered.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about Fort Marion, in Florida?

What about Fort Barrancas, in Florida?

What about Fort McRee, in Florida?

Florida is a special case. When the United States government acquired Florida from Spain, all property that did not have an existing private owner became the property of the United States government. Barrancas and McRee were both built after the U.S. acquisition; the land they were own may have been once privately owned or owned by the State of Florida. But Fort Marion was built in the early 18th century by Spain. The land it is own passed directly from the government of Spain to the government of the United States. When a confederate mob seized the fort in January 1861 they essentially stole U.S. property through the use of armed force.

[flaja]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Depends on your definition of unconstitutional. Do you mean when the executive branch dissobeys the rulings of the court, like when Lincoln suspended habeus corpus?

[/ QUOTE ]


Or Lincoln's undeclared invasion and conquest of a foreign country.

[/ QUOTE ]

The South was not a foreign country, although I wish it had been treated as such after it lost the rebellion.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. It was.

[/ QUOTE ]

Only in your delusional mind.

[flaja]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

How can a court ruling be unconstitutional since the Courts are responsible for interpreting the Constitution?

[/ QUOTE ]

So according to you the Courts can decree anything they like and it's perfectly legal?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but only as long as the American People have the option of overturning the Court by amending the Constitution.

[/ QUOTE ]

So they just need to decree that anyone who wants to amend the Constitution should be shot on site and they'll be set.

[/ QUOTE ]

What on earth are you babbling about?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
But yet the South wasn’t willing to extend this “freedom” to their slaves. What hypocrites you libertarians must be.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're moving the goalposts. The north wasn't in any hurry to do this, either, so this doesn't constitute any justification for invasion.

[ QUOTE ]
What about the repeated seizure on the part of the South of United States property, such as the Norfolk Navy Yard? Don't tell me that you are the one libertarian that is opposed to property rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about it? The South engaged in the same dispicable acts of eminent domain that the north did.

You're trying to make this to be about defending the south, when in actuallity it's about criticizing the north. By implying that doing the latter necessarily requires the former, your argument becomes a false dichotomy.

[flaja]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Taking military action against the federal government is rebellion.

[/ QUOTE ]

So citizens have no recourse when the federal government attacks them?

[/ QUOTE ]

In 1860 (and ever since) elections were held as scheduled, office holders left when their terms expired and the Courts were open for business.

So why did the South have to resort to armed rebellion?

[/ QUOTE ]

Freedom.

[/ QUOTE ]

But yet the South wasn’t willing to extend this “freedom” to their slaves. What hypocrites you libertarians must be.


[/ QUOTE ]

Not forcing other people to abide by our beliefs is very consistant with libertarianism. Where's the hypocrisy?

[/ QUOTE ]

You don’t see a huge problem with enslaving human beings? The American South was the greatest slavocracy ever known to human history. The South could hardly have been fighting on behalf of liberty and freedom.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your OP didn't say anything about that. I answered your OP, then you pull this bait-and-switch. That's goalpost shifting. It doesn't matter to me, since I don't really have a dog in the "original intent" fightp

[/ QUOTE ]

I’m merely pointing out how little understanding you libs have of original intent.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're doing a poor job of it.

As I previously said, I *don't care* about original intent. That's different than not understanding it.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm still an opponent of the Constitution.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you registered to vote?

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

[ QUOTE ]
Did you have to take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States when you registered the way I had to when I registered to vote here in Florida? If so, you cannot legitimately be both a voter and an opponent of the Constitution.

[/ QUOTE ]

The state I live in does not require such an oath.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Duh!! If you can avoid compliance with the supreme law of the land by seceding, then the supreme law is not supreme because it wouldn’t be binding on anyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

You didn't answer my question.

[/ QUOTE ]

I did answer your question. It's not my fault you are too addle-brained to understand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope, I asked you to show me what the "supreme law" says that prohibits secession. You haven't done that. A simple cite is all that is required.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
It's sort of unclear as to what the purpose of this thread is.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's perfectly clear. OP is trolling.