Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, as another example, IF I work on my car in my driveway, how does that hurt YOU? Yet, someone will make a rule that you can't work on your car in your own driveway, or that you can't have a car on blocks, or that you can't paint your house lime green and purple.
Sure, it makes your house look ugly, but that's YOUR choice, your neighbors shouldn't be able to tell you that you can't do it.
Actually, if you move into a neighborhood controlled by an HOA with those rules, you signed the contract, you knew the law going in (or would have if you read the contract before signing it), and that was your CHOICE. I have no pity for people who do not read the contract before signing. If you were my neighbor, I wouldn't care if you painted it lime green and purple, that's your property. If you weren't in an HOA-controlled neighborhood, most people would not care and I'm willing to venture a guess that most of your neighbors would thank you for the new neighborhood landmark (One of the families in my old neighborhood painted their house teal and neon pink and hung their laundry from the tree in the front yard- nobody ever complained about it. The only reason that HOA's are allowed to get away with their behavior and their stepford-type restrictions is because some people WANT it and they have people sign a LEGAL contract. If you don't like that kind of restriction, then DON'T MOVE THERE! If you didn't read the contract, it is not the fault of the HOA.
Lincoln ruined the intent when he went to war against the Confederates...since they felt abused by the federal government, and wished to withdraw from it.
This is not actually true. When the South decided to form a confederacy (clearly not having learned that confederacies do not work for the reasons listed above), they committed treason against the United States. Treason, incidentally, is the ONLY crime defined in the constitution. Therefore, Lincoln was entitled to EXECUTE the laws of the constitution- as is defined to be his job per Article II of the constitution. The president is to enforce the law of the land...and seeing as how the south committed the ONLY crime defined in the constitution, Lincoln would have been seen as a weak, incapable president.
And I wouldn't...but other laws out there I don't feel are decent laws. Sometimes the law is WRONG, and that can be seen in any book about "stupid laws".
This is not actually true. When the South decided to form a confederacy (clearly not having learned that confederacies do not work for the reasons listed above), they committed treason against the United States. Treason, incidentally, is the ONLY crime defined in the constitution. Therefore, Lincoln was entitled to EXECUTE the laws of the constitution- as is defined to be his job per Article II of the constitution. The president is to enforce the law of the land...and seeing as how the south committed the ONLY crime defined in the constitution, Lincoln would have been seen as a weak, incapable president.
BS!!! Lincoln went against the Constitution and the south did not commit treason at all.
And I wouldn't...but other laws out there I don't feel are decent laws. Sometimes the law is WRONG, and that can be seen in any book about "stupid laws".
Many of which have been repealed at the request of the voters, and none were enforced. These so called "blue book laws" (things such as the banning of plowing your peanut field with an elephant, or the banning of carrying ice cream in your pockets after 6pm) have been off the books for years and serve as nothing more than a note that some of our congress people in our state legislatures have a strange sense of humor.
This is not actually true. When the South decided to form a confederacy (clearly not having learned that confederacies do not work for the reasons listed above), they committed treason against the United States. Treason, incidentally, is the ONLY crime defined in the constitution. Therefore, Lincoln was entitled to EXECUTE the laws of the constitution- as is defined to be his job per Article II of the constitution. The president is to enforce the law of the land...and seeing as how the south committed the ONLY crime defined in the constitution, Lincoln would have been seen as a weak, incapable president.
It was not treason to withdraw from a contract that was not in their best interests.
BS!!! Lincoln went against the Constitution and the south did not commit treason at all.
Per Section 3 of Article III of the U.S. Constitution:
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort". General Lee, in leading the war against the Union, was actually indicted in a federal court in Virginia for treason; many people are unaware of this as it is not mentioned in high school history texts owing to the fact that part of Lee's surrender occurred on several conditions, one of which was that he was pardoned by the government. Because of the pardon, Lee was never tried for treason, although the indictment was never dropped and was simply "forgotten". Officially, Lee did receive a pardon, although it was not in his lifetime.
Per Section 2 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution:
"The president shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States and of the MIlitia of the several States"
This power, combined with Congress declaring war on the Confederacy, allowed Lincoln to execute the laws and duties as prescribed in the Constitution.
It was not treason to withdraw from a contract that was not in their best interests.
It was treason per the constitution (see above post). The south stated that they were forming a new nation as a return to the founders' pure intent- another misunderstanding since the founders rewrote the Constitution, taking it from an Confederacy to a Federal system. Because the U.S. Constitution was ratified by the states per the confederacy system (they needed 9 of the 13 votes in order for it to become law), it stands to reason that the South had some colonies that agreed to be governed by the system put into place by the constitution. The primary reason the south withdrew was for economical reasons, rather than because of the rules set forth in the constitution. The constitution had clauses that were set up to protect the south, however, it was the greed of the plantation owners that caused the civil war. And interestingly enough, going back to the original topic, after slavery was abolished, it was those same plantation owners that set up literacy tests for voters, something that has long been ruled as unfair and unconstitutional.
Lincoln fired on the Confederates after they asked Union troops to withdraw from THEIR forts. South Carolina.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
(One of the families in my old neighborhood painted their house teal and neon pink and hung their laundry from the tree in the front yard- nobody ever complained about it. The only reason that HOA's are allowed to get away with their behavior and their stepford-type restrictions is because some people WANT it and they have people sign a LEGAL contract. If you don't like that kind of restriction, then DON'T MOVE THERE! If you didn't read the contract, it is not the fault of the HOA.
